I've learned the hard way to seperate the person from the art. I can still watch the Cosby Show, and enjoy it, while hoping he rots in jail.
Same here. I reserve the right to jam out to Beat It. But it's undeniable the horrible stuff he did
I'm the opposite. I just can't do it.
Stopped watching Louis CK's stuff, can't bring myself to watch the Cosby Show anymore, and will probably never listen to another MJ track on purpose.
It's tainted. Any joy, inspiration, or nostalgia is ruined. I just automatically think of the pain that a lot of people still experience and I get heavily uncomfortable.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Yamer For This Useful Post:
Stopped watching Louis CK's stuff, can't bring myself to watch the Cosby Show anymore, and will probably never listen to another MJ track on purpose.
It's tainted. Any joy, inspiration, or nostalgia is ruined. I just automatically think of the pain that a lot of people still experience and I get heavily uncomfortable.
I know it's hypocritical, but for me it depends on the medium. I can't watch CK's stuff anymore either. Ditto for Spacey, Woody Allen, etc. With music, I tend to be able to separate a little bit more. That said, I think this stuff might push me over the edge with MJ. There really aren't built-in cultural/era excuses like there are with Bowie, Zeppelin, etc.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
I don't care about celebrities as humans so I have no problem separating their work from their actions as people.
Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, MJ. All terrible humans and I wish them nothing but the absolute worst in their personal lives. But I can watch Midnight in Paris, The Pianist and listen to Thriller all day long and not give the persons behind the music/movies a second thought.
Maybe it would be different if I idolized them as humans and looked up to them for personal inspiration or their humanitarian efforts.
Bill Cosby has always been a hack so I'm indifferent.
Louis CK, meh, hate to say it but I definitely fall into the group of being so desensitized from all of the horrible accusations against pretty much every celebrity that his crimes pale in comparison and it hasn't changed my view towards him as an entertainer or as a person, no matter how wrong or hypocritical as that might be.
Bowie, Zeppelin et al fall into the times are different category. For the same reason Thomas Jefferson owning slaves doesn't trump my admiration for his contributions to modern democracy, I can hardly blame Bowie, Plant or Page for doing what was, at the time, totally acceptable. Plus they're really goddamn good. If it was some craptacular artist like Van Morrison I'd probably be in favor of banning their stuff from the radio and putting them in jail for the rest of their lives.
Last edited by Cecil Terwilliger; 03-05-2019 at 03:43 PM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
Given what we know about his childhood, the abuse he suffered at the hands of his father and the fact he basically entered a state of arrested development AND the fact that the people around him protected him, over and over again and he was never told to stop, how much of this tragedy should lay at the feet of those around him?
A lot.
There are two stages of culpability.
The first is his family, especially has father, for exploiting him as a child. Take a precocious child, raise him in a strict religion, literally beat him into becoming a top performer, and take him on tour into all sorts of unsavoury environments (including sharing hotel rooms with much older brothers while they romp with groupies). Make him the centre of attention for thousands of adoring fans. Spoil him with money and everything it can buy, while making it clear to this child that he's the meal ticket for the entire family, and they all rely on his ability to charm an audience on stage. Hand him off to ghastly divas like Diana Ross as mother figures. Then mock and torment him about his looks in adolescence as his child star cuteness fades. It would be a miracle if someone raised in that environment didn't turn out messed up.
Then there are the people in his camp who looked the other way and covered up Jackson's predation of children once his derangement was manifest. This is a higher order of guilt. They knew what he had become. And the serial nature of his abuse make it even worse, as stopping Jackson as the outset would have saved other children..
Show business must be the most difficult environment to diagnose, let alone address, mental illness. So many of the artists involved are narcissistic and unstable to begin with, while most everyone else around them are greedy parasites.
And to think there are still parents grooming their young children to be the next stars. It's despicable.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Maybe it would be different if I idolized them as humans and looked up to them for personal inspiration or their humanitarian efforts.
I'm the same way. My default assumption with famous musicians, actors, etc. who have won out over thousands of rivals to reach the summit of their fields is that they're not good human beings. They weren't good human beings as they clambered up the greasy pole, and they likely only got worse once fortune and celebrity afforded them the opportunity to indulge their basest appetites.
Of course sexual assault and the abuse of children are beyond the pale even for celebrities. But I found once I dismissed any expectations of the people creating art being admirable (or even decent) human beings, I can enjoy those works without really thinking about the people behind them.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 03-05-2019 at 04:21 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Not liking Louis CK is a weird one in all this. Like, his behaviour adds authenticity to the content of his bits IMO. Finding out he likes to jerk off while talking to chicks on the phone only made him funnier. Unpopular opinion, but there it is.
I don't think I have the stomach to watch this MJ thing, although it is interesting. I'll keep reading your guys' takes on it for now.
I'm the same way. My default assumption with famous musicians, actors, etc. who have won out over thousands of rivals to reach the summit of their fields is that they're not good human beings. They weren't good human beings as they clambered up the greasy pole, and they likely only got worse once fortune and celebrity afforded them the opportunity to indulge their basest appetites.
Of course sexual assault and the abuse of children are beyond the pale even for celebrities. But I found once I dismissed any expectations of the people creating art being admirable (or even decent) human beings, I can enjoy those works without really thinking about the people behind them.
Jackson is different to me because of his mannerisms even in his "art". Simulated masturbatory crotch grabbing, air humping, high pitched grunts and squeals. All that stuff is used in his music and dancing and when you add the pedo stuff, I don't see how anyone can listen to or watch him without being disgusted. What is really portraying with those mannerisms?
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
Not liking Louis CK is a weird one in all this. Like, his behaviour adds authenticity to the content of his bits IMO. Finding out he likes to jerk off while talking to chicks on the phone only made him funnier. Unpopular opinion, but there it is.
Yeah, using a position of power in the industry to sexually harass women is hilarious
I stopped watching Louis just because I thought he wasn't as funny after his divorce. But I think what sliver is saying is when someone asked "wow can you believe Louis did that stuff?" My reaction was "yeah. Yeah I can see that. That makes sense to me"
The Following User Says Thank You to btimbit For This Useful Post:
Not liking Louis CK is a weird one in all this. Like, his behaviour adds authenticity to the content of his bits IMO. Finding out he likes to jerk off while talking to chicks on the phone only made him funnier. Unpopular opinion, but there it is.
I don't think I have the stomach to watch this MJ thing, although it is interesting. I'll keep reading your guys' takes on it for now.
It was actually just a wee bit more than whacking off over the phone.
The level of the want and willingness to look past what Louis did is fascinating. All the same context of power exertion, extortion, sexual abuse...but because there was no traditional penetrative rape or molestation it's more easily dismissed.
I'm saying this as someone that is guilty of it too, but every time I see him on screen I am uncomfortable. Him traumatizing other human beings through the power he held does not make him funnier to me. It makes me sad because I admired and identified with his self-deprecating humour and observations, and that's lost to me because I can no longer separate the truth from the satire.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Yamer For This Useful Post:
I watched part one and as a documentary, I found it very flawed, slow, and repetitive. A good doc should give two sides of a story so the viewer can form an opinion. Without any evidence presented whatsoever, nor any defense heard from Jackson's side, we are left with 2 hours of interviews from alleged victims and several scenes of overhead drone footage of Neverland.
Maybe part 2 will bring something else to the table but so far I don't see what the value in watching this is. It alternated between boring and disturbingly graphic, all for a story that doesn't try to dig further than what the accusers told them.
Finally got a hold of Oprah's "After Neverland" where she interviews the 2 men, so it is available out there in the ether or at least on HBO, Crave perhaps.
“I know people all over the world are going to be in an uproar and debating whether or not Michael Jackson did these things and whether these two men are lying or not lying. But for me, this moment transcends Michael Jackson,” Winfrey said. “It is much bigger than any one person. This is a moment in time that allows us to see this societal corruption. It’s like a scourge on humanity. . . . If it gets you, our audience, to see how it happens, then some good would have come of it.”
I watched part one and as a documentary, I found it very flawed, slow, and repetitive. A good doc should give two sides of a story so the viewer can form an opinion. Without any evidence presented whatsoever, nor any defense heard from Jackson's side, we are left with 2 hours of interviews from alleged victims and several scenes of overhead drone footage of Neverland.
Maybe part 2 will bring something else to the table but so far I don't see what the value in watching this is. It alternated between boring and disturbingly graphic, all for a story that doesn't try to dig further than what the accusers told them.
You're thinking of non-partisan journalism, not documentary film making.
And personally I thought the pacing and build were very well done. The film wasn't meant to be about the trials and MJ's guilt/innocence. It is about the victims and the impact of their stories. They were the evidence.
I found it painful, but incredibly impactful.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Yamer For This Useful Post:
It was actually just a wee bit more than whacking off over the phone.
The level of the want and willingness to look past what Louis did is fascinating. All the same context of power exertion, extortion, sexual abuse...but because there was no traditional penetrative rape or molestation it's more easily dismissed.
I'm saying this as someone that is guilty of it too, but every time I see him on screen I am uncomfortable. Him traumatizing other human beings through the power he held does not make him funnier to me. It makes me sad because I admired and identified with his self-deprecating humour and observations, and that's lost to me because I can no longer separate the truth from the satire.
Uh, yeah. It fataing should be more easily dismissed since there was no penetrative rape or molestation. I find it fascinating in the era of #metoo how people can't differentiate between the degrees of abuse/victimization and respond accordingly. It's a scale. Louis CK's I don't find that bothersome and I don't think the victims were that victimized. There are lessons to be learned from it, though, but I do think the abuse is consistent with how he presented himself in his material. A lot of his bits are about him being a bit sexually deviant. Same with his stories in interviews like on Stern. I'm not even a mega fan or anything and I'm not doing any sort of mental gymnastics here. I've read what he did, and I'm like, meh, a bit offside, but not abhorrent.
It seems to me that if you're embedded in Hollywood, as a celebrity would be, that you would also know a lot of the unsavory details of a lot of people also embedded in Hollywood. It seemed like a lot of people knew about Harvey Weinstein's "behavior", the same can be said about Bill Cosby with Hannibal Burress talking about it in his stand up routine years ago. I feel that people in Hollywood know that Michael was a monster, and someone like Oprah giving these two men a stage lends me to believe that she, someone who I feel is deeply embedded in Hollywood, knows as well.
Uh, yeah. It fataing should be more easily dismissed since there was no penetrative rape or molestation. I find it fascinating in the era of #metoo how people can't differentiate between the degrees of abuse/victimization and respond accordingly. It's a scale. Louis CK's I don't find that bothersome and I don't think the victims were that victimized. There are lessons to be learned from it, though, but I do think the abuse is consistent with how he presented himself in his material. A lot of his bits are about him being a bit sexually deviant. Same with his stories in interviews like on Stern. I'm not even a mega fan or anything and I'm not doing any sort of mental gymnastics here. I've read what he did, and I'm like, meh, a bit offside, but not abhorrent.
Isn't that all really determined solely by the victim?
For instance, some may agree with you, but I find it disturbing and arrogant to say "(as someone not involved in the incident) I don't think the victims were that victimized", therefore he should get a pass. Do you think the victims give a rat's ass about some external socio-cultural scale? Should they? Because that's where focus should be in these situations: the victims. Perhaps even moreso since Louis didn't deny any of it.
Or because he talked about it in his act it's in line with his character: to be a creepy abuser. A lot of comedians and entertainers say some truly outrageous things, often to entertain. But as Jim Jefferies said, "There's what I think, and what I think is funny to say." Louis CK blurred that line, and it's more upsetting to me than it is entertaining. If Jefferies actually treated women the way he talks about in his act I certainly wouldn't find him funnier for it. In fact I would stop consuming his art. And I consider myself a huge Jim Jefferies fan.
I guess we still have a long way to go.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
Last edited by Yamer; 03-06-2019 at 12:19 PM.
Reason: Corrected quote
Isn't that all really determined solely by the victim?
For instance, some may agree with you, but I find it disturbing and arrogant to say "(as someone not involved in the incident) I don't think the victims were that victimized", therefore he should get a pass. Do you think the victims give a rat's ass about some external socio-cultural scale? Should they? Because that's where focus should be in these situations: the victims. Perhaps even moreso since Louis didn't deny any of it.
Or because he talked about it in his act it's in line with his character: to be a creepy abuser. A lot of comedians and entertainers say some truly outrageous things, often to entertain. But as Jim Jefferies said, "There's what I think is funny, and what I think is funny to say." Louis CK blurred that line, and it's more upsetting to me than it is entertaining. If Jefferies actually treated women the way he talks about in his act I certainly wouldn't find him funnier for it. In fact I would stop consuming his art. And I consider myself a huge Jim Jefferies fan.
I guess we still have a long way to go.
No, I don't think it's up to the sole discretion of a victim in any circumstance to define the level of victimization. That is something we need to determine as a collective. If you cut me off in traffic, I can't go ballistic because I feel I've been deeply wronged. That would be an inappropriate reaction on my part. It's like the backlash against Aziz Ansari's accuser. She had a bad date, but tried to #metoo Ansari over it.
