Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
But would anyone throw out anything you’d worked on? Or stop using it?
I get what you’re saying and I agree in part, but can you commit to never rewatching a Weinstein Company film? Is everything someone did tainted to an unsalvagable level?
I think Kane gets a big pass, from men and women, because of what you said: there’s plenty of evidence that suggests he didn’t do it. Did he? Maybe, but we can’t know, so is it everyone’s responsibility to treat him and his legacy as if he is guilty?
I think we can get carried away with doing what we think is the right thing, and while I totally support your decision to lend zero support to any of these individuals, I don’t see anything insidious, ignorant, or disgusting about those who do.
Though, I think sport itself has a fairly big problem, especially football. The fact that criminals can still play while a guy like CC sits without a contract is pretty disgusting. I don’t have a horse in the race, but if the decision is to reject players who are distractions, then you would think criminals wouldn’t ever find work again.
|
I guess I'd say about the machine bit - nobody would know they were using my work - that's the Kane deniability.
Would I watch another Weinstein movie? I'm sure I would, though I certainly wouldn't pay money to go see one. I wouldn't put a poster for one up in my home, I wouldn't wear a t-shirt with a catch phrase from the film, there's a lot I wouldn't do. More than anything, I wouldn't be able to watch any such film without the knowledge of Harvey tainting my experience.
It'll be interesting to see how I react to the next Tarantino movie, given he's admitted to knowing the whole time. Probably puts a dent in my Django 2 hopes. My initial response is, I've given QT quite enough money for one lifetime. We'll see if I'm a hypocrite