The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Sailer in Taki's: "The Overlord of Oscar Bait"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From my new column in Taki’s Magazine:

The Overlord of Oscar Bait
by Steve Sailer
October 18, 2017

Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein was a celebrated figure during the (perhaps now finally concluded) Bill and Hillary Era. In particular, he was the central string-puller of the insufferable orgy of virtue-signaling that the Academy Awards have become.

The annual Oscar season is the Olympics of self-satisfied displays of moral superiority. And no one ever played the Oscar campaign game better than Weinstein, whose companies have had their fingers on 341 Academy Award nominations.

Harvey issued a statement last January when his company’s movie Lion received a Best Picture nod:

“‘Lion’ is the company’s 26th Best Picture Nomination in 28 years, and it is just as exciting as the first. I couldn’t be more proud of the entire team. The most important part of this is the effect that ‘Lion’ is having on social issues around the world. Its themes of diversity, love, and unity are very special to me on a personal level. UNICEF said it best — ‘Lion’ is an anthem of hope, love and acceptance.’ That means more to me than anything.”

Despite all his successes in the virtue business, Harvey, like Bill and Hill (for whom he bundled so many contributions), is not a virtuous individual.

Read the whole thing there.

 
• Tags: Movies 
Hide 203 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. MEH 0910 says:

    Imagine if The Simpsons had been a live-action sitcom.

    Imagine if The Simpsons had been a live-action cartoon.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0701245/quotes/qt1464597

    Homer: Is this episode going on the air live ?

    June Bellamy: No Homer, very few cartoons are broadcast live. It’s a terrible strain on the animator’s wrist.

    Read More
    • LOL: Dave Pinsen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/sailer-in-takis-the-overlord-of-oscar-bait/#comment-2047525
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Despite Schweinstein’s adeptness at pushing his product and ensuring it won the prizes, he isn’t a wealthy man by media standards. His wealth has been estimated at $320-400 m. Yet people like Berlusconi , Murdoch et al are multi-billionaires. Even a mediocre TV personality like Oprah Winfrey is a billionairess.
    Unless you have an outstanding product,if you are going to get the rest of the media to give you favourable press, you’ve got to buy a large part of it, like Murdoch, or you’ve got to bribe on a large scale. Likewise, if you’ve got to hide serious criminality.
    Whilst he may have been fingered by a business rival, it may just be that he didn’t have enough liquidity to handle all the claims at one time.
    It’s a billionaire’s world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Weinstein wasn't among the richest, but he was invaluable because Hollywood, which mostly makes junk, craves respectability as an industry that also makes art, socially conscious films, and supports talent.
    So, Weinstein had a very important role in the industry that can't be measured by dollars alone. He played the quasi-rabbinical role to counter-balance the merchant roles played by others. His movies earned less but they garnered more awards and therefore respect.

    Because most personal, arty, foreign, or indie movies make very little, it's not easy for serious or ambitious actors to land worthy roles. So, someone like Weinstein has been invaluable to many directors and actors/actresses. Their movies may make less money but get more respect, esp with Oscar nominations. (Oscar-baiting is very important since the film industry is willing to lose money on more arty stuff ONLY IF they bring some Oscar buzz and respectability to the industry.)

    Weinstein had a dogged niche in the system, but I think his greatest triumph was his undoing in the long run. Tarantino. Before Quentin came along(esp with PULP), Miramax banked mostly on foreign imports or smaller movies with more serious themes. They made modest profits or lost money but got Oscar buzz. But PULP was a huge hit and changed the landscape of indie cinema. Prior to PULP, art-houses in around where I lived regularly showed new films. But PULP took over some art-house screens for a long time and wouldn't budge. It was a hybrid monster of indie and Hollywood.
    And this blew up Weinstein's ego sky high, and he couldn't go back to his more modest role. He had to sticking his fingers into everything.
    , @Jack D
    First of all, $300 million ain't chopped liver (although by the time he is through with all this, he's not going to be worth that much). For a boy from Queens, he was doing OK up to now.

    2nd the Weinstein niche was "classy" movies that would appeal to Oscar voters and not movies with cartoon heroes that appeal to 15 year old boys. The big money is Hollywood is made from the latter - not just the ticket sales but all sorts of product tie-ins. No one wants a Shakespeare in Love lunchbox.
    , @Neoconned
    Very interesting perspective
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Steve,
    There are more fields out there that need scrutiny:

    Should we consider banning Senate pages (currently 30 of them, average age 16) until they are 18?

    I think we should.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. jim jones says:

    We could just ban women from all movies

    Read More
    • LOL: BB753
    • Replies: @Weltanschauung
    In Shakespeare's time, women were in fact banned from the stage.
    , @Anon
    Like classic Shakespearean theater?
    , @Kylie
    "We could just ban women from all movies"

    Certainly most westerns and war movies would be better if the inevitably annoying female characters were eliminated.

    Just one example. Poor Joanne Dru as Tess Millay ruined Red River. I don't see why her character was needed. Montgomery Clift provided enough of the feminine element that she could have been jettisoned.

    Or did you mean ban women from acting in and watching movies?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. “… (perhaps now finally concluded) Bill and Hillary Era.”

    We still have the Sword of Damocles in the form of demon-spawn Chelsea and her offspring hanging over us. Do you think we’d get rid of the Clintons so easily?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thea
    No worries, her mom made sure whites will never hold power in the DNC again
    , @advancedatheist
    Let's just hope that Chelsea doesn't go into exile and run across some dragon eggs.
    , @Olorin
    You mean the Hubbells.

    ;D
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. DCThrowback says: • Website

    “loss leader” your readers in w/ the Harvey takes & J-Pod shivs then give us the hard sell on banning child actors.

    low pressure sales for a high iq readership 101!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    Yes, that is what he did. And while he makes some points, the argument is a failure until such time as he goes into detail about the large number of former child actors who have had major issues, as well as delving into all the underage sex in Hollywood.

    And then it needs to be tied into a bow that highlights the fact that is a new version of the abuse of serfs, this time by a Jewish dominated industry that serves no necessary purpose to the society: abuse on a scale of depravity that far exceeds that of the Russian abuse of serfs and enters into the realm of the Turkic abuse of Christian serfs and slaves.

    And then we can wonder if that is part of why so many Jews not just adore all Sunni Moslems who are not Palestinian.
    , @Pat Boyle
    I need someone to explain to me what was Weinstein's talent. In all the media frenzy about Handsome Harvey I can't remember reading anything simply explaining why he was so good at whatever it was that he did. I'm a little fuzzy on just what it was that he did.

    It is fairly easy to understand what an actor does. We have been told that Hollywood can make almost anyone into a star - but that can't be true. For example years ago Universal (I think) had made a big push to make Guy Stockwell a major star. He was introduced and featured in picture after picture. But he never seemed to gain traction. His brother Dean Stockwell without the benefit of such focused promotion managed to be a star at every period of his life. That never made much sense to me. But it did demonstrate that at least part of the magic that movie star's brought to the screen wasn't really available to the studio bosses.

    I can also understand what a director does. Everyone understood Alfred Hitchcock's contribution just as everyone recognizes that Spielberg has a way with telling a story on film. In the old, old days when producers were the kings of the lot - not the directors, we had some idea about producers too.

    But what the hell did Harvey do? Except hit on the young women? We are told that Trump is a great negotiator - a guy who can sense advantage and weakness around the conference table. Is that what Weinstein did? Or did he have a canny sense of what was a commercially valuable story? Did he - unlike all others in Hollywood spot the script that would be next year's Oscar winner? Did he have some magic insight into what would be a hit?

    If Weinstein didn't have some super valuable talent like that, why would anyone put up with him?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Hollywood isn’t of the slightest interest to me. (I don’t recall ever hearing the name Harvey Weinstein before this unsurprising scandal hit a week or two ago.) So at the risk of having missed a dot, the article comes across as mishmash, tacking onto this month’s Outrage of the Year a whimsy about pedo-proofing mass entertainment with synthetic children. And yes, I saw the buried disclaimer, but casual readers may be left with the misimpression that Mr. Weinstein has been accused of preying upon little kids. Again, I may be missing something, as the author or others can now point out.

    I am a big fan of Mr. Sailer and several others published here. It’s good that he has another forum for tacky stuff.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    I assume Steve has some sort of arrangement with Taki where he has to deliver a column to them on deadline (whereas here he posts as the spirit moves him). Writing on deadline is much harder than it looks. Sometimes your mind comes up blank but you have to write SOMETHING no matter what. Sometimes you are supposed to write about Harvey Weinstein but thoughts on CGI child actors emerge on the page instead.
    , @Broski
    Sailer publishes in Taki's on Wednesdays. Sometimes it's his best stuff that he's been pondering for a while, and sometimes it's current events. Often the articles are movie reviews.

    As you can see from the relative number of comments, Taki's draws more traffic than this site, so a lot of Sailer's great material goes up there.

    Also, while it may not seem significant to you, drawing attention to the existing layers of the Hollywood sex-abuse onion would be of great service to society. If, as has long been rumored, there are pedophile rings at the highest levels of Hollywood operating nearly openly, that would be an important thing for society to know.

    PS Why are my comments taking two days to post? I don't think I've had one rejected in months.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Jake says:
    @DCThrowback
    "loss leader" your readers in w/ the Harvey takes & J-Pod shivs then give us the hard sell on banning child actors.

    low pressure sales for a high iq readership 101!

    Yes, that is what he did. And while he makes some points, the argument is a failure until such time as he goes into detail about the large number of former child actors who have had major issues, as well as delving into all the underage sex in Hollywood.

    And then it needs to be tied into a bow that highlights the fact that is a new version of the abuse of serfs, this time by a Jewish dominated industry that serves no necessary purpose to the society: abuse on a scale of depravity that far exceeds that of the Russian abuse of serfs and enters into the realm of the Turkic abuse of Christian serfs and slaves.

    And then we can wonder if that is part of why so many Jews not just adore all Sunni Moslems who are not Palestinian.

    Read More
    • Agree: DCThrowback
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Here’s the Weinstein limerick I posted Sunday on Takimag:

    What they say about me, Harvey Weinstein?
    Science fiction that’s worthy of Heinlein!
    Those Hollywood shrews
    Must really hate Jews,
    And to figure that out don’t take Einstein.

    A commenter pointed out that the rhyme doesn’t work if the name is pronounced Wein-steen. I could plead poetic license, or that there’s no logical reason for the name to be pronounced Wein-steen. Instead, I plead that mispronouncing a person’s name is a time-honored way of showing contempt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    But there are so many good rhymes with "-steen". Surely you could do another one.
    , @AndrewR
    Are you really mispronouncing a foreign name when you pronounce it with closer fidelity to the native pronunciation than the person who actually has the name chooses to pronounce it? Of course in German it would be "Vine-Shtine" but "Wine-Stine" is better than nothing.

    I had a boss with the surname Ricci who pronounced it "Ricky." It pained me to pronounce it so abominably instead of saying "ree-chee" but he was the boss lol.

    , @Frederick Frank-in-STEEN
    It's pronounced HOR-vey Wee-in-STEEN
    , @Father O'Hara
    Hmmm...One of the "actresses" speaks:
    I hate your guts Mr. Weinstein
    Your behavior is that of a swine
    You pulled down your pants
    Assaulted my plants
    And all I got was one f@cking line!!
    , @The Alarmist

    "I could plead poetic license ...."
     
    This is how the decline of societies starts.
    , @a reader
    It's pronounced Weensteen, just like [Albert] Eensteen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. MKP says:

    I can’t think of a single major news story I’ve enjoyed as much in my adult life. Not even Trump’s successive slayings of the open-borders GOP elite and the Hillary machine.

    The Weinstein story has everything – Hollywood degeneracy and perversion … ample documented connections to lib-prog politicians, now scrambling in embarassment … champions of Girl Power philosophy trying to explain how they operated a harassment and molestation assembly line for decades … virtue-signaling SJW artists being forced to answer for their personal behavior. And as this article shows, nobody ties it all together like Sailer.

    Light ‘em up, Steve-o.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    It's interesting that someone like Weinstein, who has the mentality of Ron Jeremy and his not-so-reputable industry, got to be the Patron of the Arts in Hollywood.

    BOOGIE NIGHTS crossed with MASTERPIECE THEATER.

    Pimp and Pomp.

    A movie idea. Some sleazy guy hopes to work in the porn industry but stumbles into art and makes a funny go at it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. CAL2 says:

    I think the cost is still too expensive to plug in kids using CGI except for more expensive films.

    I can’t think of much to do other than ban their use outright. Why Disney and Nickelodeon haven’t been investigated by this point is baffling. They turn out train wrecks on a consistent basis. The parents of the kids don’t seem willing or able to keep a reign on things. Instead they are often willing participants.

    One thing I would do is ban anyone under 18 from participating in any promotional events, or having any online accounts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @27 year old

    One thing I would do is ban anyone under 18 from having any online accounts.
     
    Absolutely not. The Internet is why we have Generation Zyklon right now, the most right-wing White cohort.

    Maybe in the future when we control "mainstream" media and education, but at the present that would be shooting ourselves in the foot bigly.
    , @snorlax

    One thing I would do is ban anyone under 18 from ... having any online accounts.
     
    Porn sites are required by a 90’s-era act of Congress to only allow over-18s to view their content.

    This works. I didn’t watch any internet porn at all during my teenage years!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. I want to thank the members of the Alt-Right Academy of Internet Wags for awarding me the “Best Comedic Follow-up To Steve Sailer’s Late Unpleasantness With Podhoretz And Tangentially Harvey Weinstein Award” — also known as the “Poddy.”

    To refresh our memory I will reprint, as it were, my winning comment from September 2, 2017:

    Steve Sailer’s unpleasant electronic encounter with Neo-Con John Podhoretz is funny and serious at the same time. It is funny because of the nastiness of Podhoretz. Mel Gibson should make a movie called “The Nastiness Of The Podhoretz.” Willem Dafoe could gain weight and wear a fake nose to play John Podhoretz.

    I want to thank everyone who made this award possible, including Ron Unz, the inventors of the internet, Willem Dafoe, Kiara Robles — the Berkeley Free Speech lady warrior who introduced me to the phrase “Jungle Asian” and the English/Irish beauty Elizabeth Hurley who supported Brexit with patriotic passion.

    Thank You!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Someone asked “link, please” about loss-of-life among child actors on iSteve’s Taki Magazine article.

    I thought the Twilight Zone Movie accident was widely known

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_Zone_accident

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    There may be reasons for restricting child actors (I think the implicit message of Steve's column is that they are subject to sexual molestation although Weinstein seemed to restrict himself to women over 18) but it's not a particularly dangerous profession.
    , @Lugash
    I'd never heard about the kids being killed, just Morrow.

    In the past, CGI human depictions have often fallen into the “uncanny valley,” but skills are rapidly improving. Martin Scorsese is currently shooting a gangster film, The Irishman, for release in 2019. He intends to use CGI to “de-age” his cast of over-the-hill legends—Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci (coming out of retirement), Al Pacino, and Harvey Keitel—so they can play younger versions of themselves.
     
    Jennifer Connolly and Ewan McGregor were digitally de-aged in an scene of American Pastoral. She also had her voice altered to make it sound younger.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Robert Blake was a star of Our Gang shorts in the 1940s and he turned out fine.

    And then there was Our Gang’s star, Carl “Alfalfa” Switzer, by all accounts an unpleasant person, who was shot to death at age 32 in a dispute over $50.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Switzer

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The number of youths who had turns as regular characters in Our Gang shorts is as long as your arm. It would be a project to trace the biography of all of them.

    I seem to recall that 30-odd years ago there was such a book published on a modest subset of them. One of the principles had gone to work in roughneck jobs in the oil industry. He was still doing that sort of work ca. 1983 and often took posts abroad. The book included a photo of him taken at his worksite. He was a very ugly man in late middle age, but earning an honest living in a demanding trade.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Art Deco says:

    I suspect you’d discover that a comfortable majority of child actors quit acting at a certain age and settle into an obscure adult life. A scatter cannot manage the letdown. (One I can recall is the child actor who played Danny Thomas’ son on Make Room for Daddy, who Thomas thought was an exceptional talent. He died a suicide in early middle age).

    There may be some incremental damage from working in the film industry at a young age, but I’d wager the stronger vectors would be (1) people attracted to and able to build a career in entertainment tend to be damaged in various ways and (2) people hired as child actors are the children of entertainers (i.e. the damaged) or are the children of damaged people outside the entertainment business (because non-damaged people would be wary of allowing their young in the business). You mention Robert Blake (ne Michael Gubitosi). His parents were entertainers (and, if Blake is to be believed, perfectly horrid in domestic circumstances).

    One thing that would interest me would be a comparison of American performers with the rest of the Anglophone world. One doesn’t get the impression that Britain’s acting fraternity is so thick with incompetent human beings. Is it just LA?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hapalong Cassidy
    There have been a lot of child actors that have gone on to obscure normal lives, but they seem to be mostly one-offs from movies, like the boy who played Danny in "The Shining" and the girl who played Newt in "Aliens". I think they're both schoolteachers now.
    , @GregMan
    "One doesn’t get the impression that Britain’s acting fraternity is so thick with incompetent human beings."

    Jimmy Saville.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Hollywood is a perverted freak-show and they seem to want to make everyone else perverted freaks. So one concern I have with replacing child actors with technological work-arounds is that it will weaken the prohibitions on depicting acts of violence against and sex with children.

    The studios can slap the disclaimer “No children were hurt or molested in the making of this film.” at the end of every picture. No more worries about bad publicity from the potential damaging effects on actual child actors during the filming such horrors.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "The studios can slap the disclaimer “No children were hurt or molested in the making of this film.” at the end of every picture."

    A couple of years ago I walked past the little office building where the American Humane Association runs their business certifying the disclaimer on movies that no animals were harmed. It's a modest sized business that makes some money, so it seems like a viable model for other reforms.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Art Deco says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    Robert Blake was a star of Our Gang shorts in the 1940s and he turned out fine.

    And then there was Our Gang's star, Carl "Alfalfa" Switzer, by all accounts an unpleasant person, who was shot to death at age 32 in a dispute over $50.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Switzer

    The number of youths who had turns as regular characters in Our Gang shorts is as long as your arm. It would be a project to trace the biography of all of them.

    I seem to recall that 30-odd years ago there was such a book published on a modest subset of them. One of the principles had gone to work in roughneck jobs in the oil industry. He was still doing that sort of work ca. 1983 and often took posts abroad. The book included a photo of him taken at his worksite. He was a very ugly man in late middle age, but earning an honest living in a demanding trade.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Art Deco says:

    I doubt it had much with you being an outsider criticising Weinstein. Podhoretz just despises you personally and looks for any opportunity to say so. He doesn’t pick his opportunities well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    No, pretty sure it's just straight up hate borne out of envy.

    If he despises Steve he overestimates himself to an obscene degree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Jack D says:

    You seem to go off on a tangent with the child actor thing.

    In any case, in most cultures and times in history, working life began far earlier than age 18. You could make a plausible case for not permitting pre-teens but under proper conditions, teenagers are able to work and should not be infantilized. We do this too much already.

    Shirley Temple, BTW, seemed to have a reasonably successful life post-Hollywood but a lot of child stars are bitter, usually because their parents/managers have stolen all their money and they end up with nothing to show for all their youthful work.

    Child actors tend to be short and round faced so that they can play roles younger than their actual age which is a cute look for a kid but does not make for great looking adults. So very often they are discarded by Hollywood like used props once they hit puberty. A few stars made the transition but many don’t. Going from being highly sought after and fawned over to being rejected is not good for your self-esteem.

    The plight of Rusty Hamer, who (implausibly) played Danny Thomas’s son on his sitcom Make Room for Daddy is all too typical (from the wiki):

    In the 1970s, Hamer moved to southwestern Louisiana where he worked on an off-shore oil rig for Exxon and delivered newspapers. In 1976, he relocated to DeRidder, Louisiana and lived with his elder brother John. John Hamer had moved to the area and opened a cafe where, in his final years, Hamer occasionally worked as a short order cook.

    On the night of January 18, 1990, John Hamer found his brother’s body in his trailer home in DeRidder, Louisiana. Hamer had shot himself in the head with a .357 Magnum revolver.
    John Hamer later said he believed that his brother had remained bitter over his inability to transition into acting as an adult.

    Going from well known TV star to a distinguished career delivery newspapers and living in a trailer is quite a letdown.

    Read More
    • Replies: @sayless
    Shirley Temple said of her acting career as a little girl that it felt as if it had happened to someone else.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    a cute look for a kid but does not make for great looking adults

    On Game of Thrones, the actors playing Bran and Arya Stark became noticeably less attractive as they aged. Fortunately they're still suitable for the characters they play.

    Jerry Mathers of Leave It to Beaver fame grew into quite an odd-looking adult.
    , @Art Deco
    In any case, in most cultures and times in history, working life began far earlier than age 18. You could make a plausible case for not permitting pre-teens but under proper conditions, teenagers are able to work and should not be infantilized. We do this too much already.

    They were employed in farming or in the trades. One of my great-great grandfathers started work at age 12. He was a farmer's son apprenticed to a turner. No crazy in that.
    , @Anon
    It could be worse.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0JXPVm_Ohg
    , @Forbes

    teenagers are able to work and should not be infantilized. We do this too much already.
     
    Permanent adolescence seems a way of life in our society. Campus safe-spaces for snowflakes seriously delays assuming any adult-like responsibilities to face the world as it exists--not as one would prefer it be. Twenty-somethings still living at home doesn't improve personal maturity. The laundry list of coddling youthful behavior is long.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Anon87 says:

    Track down the documentary An Open Secret. Then as a chaser watch the bizarre pilot Chad’s World. The pedo Hollywood crisis is coming.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Je Suis Charlie Martel
    An Open Secret was all over Twitter the last few days so I watched it. It is pretty disturbing, especially Chad's World!
    They seem to dodge the JQ (it was made by Jews) and insist earnestly that this predation on boys by men has nothing to do with homosexuality...
    Another interesting tidbit is early internet investing: how much of the dotcom bubble was related to pedo-rings that rewarded investors with access to boys acting in internet "TV shows" and didn't really have a viable product?
    , @Anon87
    Ann Coulter just tweeted about this an hour ago. Watch it and cringe.
    , @DCThrowback
    Ann Coulter just tweated it out today.
    , @BB753
    Why, Bryan Singer has been part of that pedo scene for over two decades! He's right there in that documentary. I wonder how he's managed to stay out of jail so far.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Barnard says:

    One of the twin boys from Everybody Loves Raymond committed suicide at 19. Although his twin brother and older sister who were also on the show seemed to have turned out alright. The sister is still acting. As I remember, the kids were not featured in the show, I doubt most people would have recognized them after it ended.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawyer_Sweeten

    Jodie Sweetin from Full House, who would have been much more recognizable, has been divorced three times and was hooked on meth and abused other drugs for awhile.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. The casting couch is even more brutal and destructive for men.

    The men I know or knew in the modeling or acting biz are all either HIV positive or dead. You could say they were enthusiastic participants in the gay orgy/party scene, but that scene was and is the casting couch for actors. Don’t play and you’re out.

    Weinstein gave us what we want in the only way possible. The movie biz grew up, developed and prospered because of the way Weinstein did biz, not in spite of it.

    We’ve discovered in the digital age that just about anybody can play and record rock and roll. Same is true of acting. It’s not a difficult skill and anybody can learn it. Before digital tech, recording and distribution were prohibitively expensive. Now, both are cheap.

    What really separates out actors and actresses is physical beauty and fuckability. Weinstein was test driving the merchandise to see if it was up to snuff. He was doing that for us. And we bought it big time. Because it is human nature to want what Weinstein was selling. He’s an Ashkenazi Jew with a stratospheric IQ, right? He had the intelligence to understand how to get directly from A to B.

    Bitching and cause mongering will not change this. There will simply be a new Weinstein who is even more clever at giving us what we want while mouthing the most stale and cliched political orthodoxies.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Chrisnonymous
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    He was doing that for us. And we bought it big time. Because it is human nature to want what Weinstein was selling.
     
    Speak for yourself, dude. I abandoned Hollywood a long time ago, ages before I even knew who Harvey Weinstein was, just like I abandoned professional sports years before the kneeling. I know when I'm being fed garbage and I don't participate.
    , @Opinionator
    Weinstein gave us what we want in the only way possible. The movie biz grew up, developed and prospered because of the way Weinstein did biz, not in spite of it.

    What do we want and what did he give us?
    , @Anon
    The men I know or knew in the modeling or acting biz are all either HIV positive or dead. You could say they were enthusiastic participants in the gay orgy/party scene, but that scene was and is the casting couch for actors. Don’t play and you’re out.

    Maybe these people are so PC-moralistic because their lives so degrading and trashy. They need some flag to wave to feel righteous and redeemed in a world where they must be whores and treat others like whores. But since they can't bite the hand that feeds them, their anger must be directed as other APPROVED targets... like Trump. So, all the anger one has about Jewish or homo bosses are directed at another figure of authority, one that doesn't control their lives. Look at Jennifer Lawrence, Ashley Judd, and Emma Watson firing all their guns at Trump when, in fact, they were used like meat by men like Weinstein.

    What really separates out actors and actresses is physical beauty and fuckability. Weinstein was test driving the merchandise to see if it was up to snuff.

    In that case, prostitutes would make the best actresses. Not so.
    , @RH
    If you believe that acting is "not a difficult skill and anybody can learn it", you will believe anything.
    , @Rod1963
    No, Holywood isn't giving us what we want. Basically they making garbage movies that are loaded with PC/MC and aimed at 15 year olds or worse so saturated with mindless violence and depravity it makes you want to take a show after watching their fare.
    , @Dave Pinsen

    Same is true of acting. It’s not a difficult skill and anybody can learn it.
     
    This isn't really true. An actor gave me a counter-example once.

    Back in the '80s there was a former Aussie Rules football player known as Jacko who was briefly famous. He appeared in the battery commercial below. Per the actor I knew, an American TV network sought to capitalize on his fame by building a sitcom around him. Didn't work because Jacko couldn't act, not even as a fictionalized version of himself, despite working with acting coaches.

    https://youtu.be/-2RSu9Gw61U
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. sayless says:
    @Jack D
    You seem to go off on a tangent with the child actor thing.

    In any case, in most cultures and times in history, working life began far earlier than age 18. You could make a plausible case for not permitting pre-teens but under proper conditions, teenagers are able to work and should not be infantilized. We do this too much already.

    Shirley Temple, BTW, seemed to have a reasonably successful life post-Hollywood but a lot of child stars are bitter, usually because their parents/managers have stolen all their money and they end up with nothing to show for all their youthful work.

    Child actors tend to be short and round faced so that they can play roles younger than their actual age which is a cute look for a kid but does not make for great looking adults. So very often they are discarded by Hollywood like used props once they hit puberty. A few stars made the transition but many don't. Going from being highly sought after and fawned over to being rejected is not good for your self-esteem.

    The plight of Rusty Hamer, who (implausibly) played Danny Thomas's son on his sitcom Make Room for Daddy is all too typical (from the wiki):

    In the 1970s, Hamer moved to southwestern Louisiana where he worked on an off-shore oil rig for Exxon and delivered newspapers. In 1976, he relocated to DeRidder, Louisiana and lived with his elder brother John. John Hamer had moved to the area and opened a cafe where, in his final years, Hamer occasionally worked as a short order cook.

    On the night of January 18, 1990, John Hamer found his brother's body in his trailer home in DeRidder, Louisiana. Hamer had shot himself in the head with a .357 Magnum revolver.
    John Hamer later said he believed that his brother had remained bitter over his inability to transition into acting as an adult.

    Going from well known TV star to a distinguished career delivery newspapers and living in a trailer is quite a letdown.

    Shirley Temple said of her acting career as a little girl that it felt as if it had happened to someone else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    That's what my sister said about high school: "It happened so long ago it seems like it happened to somebody else"; I hadn't thought of it that way before that, but that does seem about right. I do wonder how many late-middle-aged adults have the same feeling.
    , @27 year old
    Exactly what a lot of legitimate rape victims say about their experience.
    , @Anon
    The problem with cinema is it preserves the childhood image forever.
    Prior to cinema, if a kid worked in the theater, he would eventually grow up, and people would see him as an adult, period. Some might remember his child role, but it'd be a fuzzy memory.
    But cinema preserves one's childhood persona in pristine condition, and that frozen image always competes with the real ever-changing person. The woman in SUNSET BOULEVARD wouldn't be so kooky if not for the fact that she tirelessly commemorates and competes with the image of her youth on the big screen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Art Deco
    I suspect you'd discover that a comfortable majority of child actors quit acting at a certain age and settle into an obscure adult life. A scatter cannot manage the letdown. (One I can recall is the child actor who played Danny Thomas' son on Make Room for Daddy, who Thomas thought was an exceptional talent. He died a suicide in early middle age).

    There may be some incremental damage from working in the film industry at a young age, but I'd wager the stronger vectors would be (1) people attracted to and able to build a career in entertainment tend to be damaged in various ways and (2) people hired as child actors are the children of entertainers (i.e. the damaged) or are the children of damaged people outside the entertainment business (because non-damaged people would be wary of allowing their young in the business). You mention Robert Blake (ne Michael Gubitosi). His parents were entertainers (and, if Blake is to be believed, perfectly horrid in domestic circumstances).

    One thing that would interest me would be a comparison of American performers with the rest of the Anglophone world. One doesn't get the impression that Britain's acting fraternity is so thick with incompetent human beings. Is it just LA?

    There have been a lot of child actors that have gone on to obscure normal lives, but they seem to be mostly one-offs from movies, like the boy who played Danny in “The Shining” and the girl who played Newt in “Aliens”. I think they’re both schoolteachers now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    http://qcreport.blogspot.com/

    The lapsed actress Quinn Cummings (who acted between the ages of 8 and 24) offered a a take a couple of years ago on the business as she understood it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Jack D
    You seem to go off on a tangent with the child actor thing.

    In any case, in most cultures and times in history, working life began far earlier than age 18. You could make a plausible case for not permitting pre-teens but under proper conditions, teenagers are able to work and should not be infantilized. We do this too much already.

    Shirley Temple, BTW, seemed to have a reasonably successful life post-Hollywood but a lot of child stars are bitter, usually because their parents/managers have stolen all their money and they end up with nothing to show for all their youthful work.

    Child actors tend to be short and round faced so that they can play roles younger than their actual age which is a cute look for a kid but does not make for great looking adults. So very often they are discarded by Hollywood like used props once they hit puberty. A few stars made the transition but many don't. Going from being highly sought after and fawned over to being rejected is not good for your self-esteem.

    The plight of Rusty Hamer, who (implausibly) played Danny Thomas's son on his sitcom Make Room for Daddy is all too typical (from the wiki):

    In the 1970s, Hamer moved to southwestern Louisiana where he worked on an off-shore oil rig for Exxon and delivered newspapers. In 1976, he relocated to DeRidder, Louisiana and lived with his elder brother John. John Hamer had moved to the area and opened a cafe where, in his final years, Hamer occasionally worked as a short order cook.

    On the night of January 18, 1990, John Hamer found his brother's body in his trailer home in DeRidder, Louisiana. Hamer had shot himself in the head with a .357 Magnum revolver.
    John Hamer later said he believed that his brother had remained bitter over his inability to transition into acting as an adult.

    Going from well known TV star to a distinguished career delivery newspapers and living in a trailer is quite a letdown.

    a cute look for a kid but does not make for great looking adults

    On Game of Thrones, the actors playing Bran and Arya Stark became noticeably less attractive as they aged. Fortunately they’re still suitable for the characters they play.

    Jerry Mathers of Leave It to Beaver fame grew into quite an odd-looking adult.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    This really shows how much of Hollywood is about physical appearance rather than skills - it's more like modeling than golf. Someone like Rusty Hamer, who had considerable acting skills and experience (had put in the proverbial 10,000 hours) had to discard that completely and flip hamburgers because he didn't have the "look" that casting agents wanted once he became an adult. OTOH, there have been many fashion models that have transitioned to screen careers despite having no acting skills.

    Keep this in mind when Hollywood actors give you their opinions on any subject or make fun of models as being empty headed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Imagine if The Simpsons had been a live-action sitcom. During the Bartmania craze of 1990–91, the little boy who played Bart would have been world-famous. Today, though, he’d be a weird-looking guy pushing 40.

    The Simpsons kind of ran with this idea in season 11 with the classic “Behind The Laughter” episode. One of the top episodes of the whole series and the best meta-episode of any TV show ever.

    They didn’t quite get out to Bart as a grown man though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. Zippy says:

    I never understood precisely why your retweet of that joke was supposed to be so despicable. Is it because you were being anti-semitic? Sexist? What? Did he ever elaborate?

    Also, if we’re playing the “look how the child actor turned out” game, Jake Lloyd and Edward Furlong (Star Wars prequel and Terminator 2) have had troubles, but Ron Howard has rather famously gone on to being a very successful director/mogul. Clint less so, but he gets to be a funny looking guy in Ron’s movies. Molly Ringwald wasn’t precisely a child actor, but she seems to be pretty well adjusted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    It's worth noting that Ron Howard chose to raise his four kids in Old Money Connecticut rather than in Brentwood.

    And Jason Bateman is doing very well in his late 40s (after having pretty much disappeared for 10 or 15 years due to various problems).

    Anyway, I'd like to see somebody study this question more rigorously.

    , @Romanian
    I had not idea I had seen Ron Howard in Happy Days. All I know about him is that he is a director with a beautiful daughter (Bryce Dallas Howard).
    , @Prof. Woland
    Because of the time value of money equation, you would think that someone that young earning even a modest amount of money would be able to put some of it away and let it compound. Presumably, they are living rent free with their parents and really don't need to live like a rock star. A couple of extra decades and the real value of their money has doubled or quadrupled over what the average person does.

    Early in my career, I worked with a company that managed the MLB pension fund. Many of those guys had a similar issues, particularly back in the day when they really did not get paid very much. All of them worked in the off season but their baseball careers interfered with a regular job and many died broke. I am not sure what they do now but the sports franchises could easily put together a fraction of what the players earn into a defined benefit plan which would pay out at 55 or 60 or some such. put it somewhere they cannot touch and pay it out in an annuity so they cannot spend through it and at least they would all have some modest stipend when they are through working at a regular job. Because they are making so much money in their early years the plans could all be front loaded and then left to grow for a while.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Art Deco says:
    @sayless
    Shirley Temple said of her acting career as a little girl that it felt as if it had happened to someone else.

    That’s what my sister said about high school: “It happened so long ago it seems like it happened to somebody else”; I hadn’t thought of it that way before that, but that does seem about right. I do wonder how many late-middle-aged adults have the same feeling.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. That article was a rare disappointment. The extension and protection of childhood is one of our signs of societal decline. Lots of people throughout history started their careers as children. Child acting is not like having children toiling all day in a factory, and preventing child abuse by banning all child acting is overkill.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. Svigor says:

    Its themes of diversity, love, and unity

    The rantings of a madman. A recipe for chaos and genocide. Contradiction as religion (fur de goyim).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. @Shouting Thomas
    The casting couch is even more brutal and destructive for men.

    The men I know or knew in the modeling or acting biz are all either HIV positive or dead. You could say they were enthusiastic participants in the gay orgy/party scene, but that scene was and is the casting couch for actors. Don’t play and you’re out.

    Weinstein gave us what we want in the only way possible. The movie biz grew up, developed and prospered because of the way Weinstein did biz, not in spite of it.

    We’ve discovered in the digital age that just about anybody can play and record rock and roll. Same is true of acting. It’s not a difficult skill and anybody can learn it. Before digital tech, recording and distribution were prohibitively expensive. Now, both are cheap.

    What really separates out actors and actresses is physical beauty and fuckability. Weinstein was test driving the merchandise to see if it was up to snuff. He was doing that for us. And we bought it big time. Because it is human nature to want what Weinstein was selling. He’s an Ashkenazi Jew with a stratospheric IQ, right? He had the intelligence to understand how to get directly from A to B.

    Bitching and cause mongering will not change this. There will simply be a new Weinstein who is even more clever at giving us what we want while mouthing the most stale and cliched political orthodoxies.

    He was doing that for us. And we bought it big time. Because it is human nature to want what Weinstein was selling.

    Speak for yourself, dude. I abandoned Hollywood a long time ago, ages before I even knew who Harvey Weinstein was, just like I abandoned professional sports years before the kneeling. I know when I’m being fed garbage and I don’t participate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Thea says:
    @The Alarmist

    "... (perhaps now finally concluded) Bill and Hillary Era."
     
    We still have the Sword of Damocles in the form of demon-spawn Chelsea and her offspring hanging over us. Do you think we'd get rid of the Clintons so easily?

    No worries, her mom made sure whites will never hold power in the DNC again

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    She might be like Franklin Roosevelt jr. representing a white liberal area in Congress.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. There you go again actually caring about real people, Mr. Sailer. Do you have no shame?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. @the one they call Desanex
    Here’s the Weinstein limerick I posted Sunday on Takimag:


    What they say about me, Harvey Weinstein?
    Science fiction that’s worthy of Heinlein!
    Those Hollywood shrews
    Must really hate Jews,
    And to figure that out don’t take Einstein.

     

    A commenter pointed out that the rhyme doesn’t work if the name is pronounced Wein-steen. I could plead poetic license, or that there’s no logical reason for the name to be pronounced Wein-steen. Instead, I plead that mispronouncing a person’s name is a time-honored way of showing contempt.

    But there are so many good rhymes with “-steen”. Surely you could do another one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    Franken-Steen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. I think a logistical problem for the CGI plan is that child actors as a group extend far beyond child stars. Think of your five or ten favorite movies – they may not be built around child stars, but probably most of them have a child appear in a speaking role at some point. (Or you can just go down the AFI list – Kane as a child and then later on Kane’s son, Don Vito’s grandson who witnesses his death, Bonnie Blue Butler, etc.)

    I assume most of these lesser child actors go on to live normal lives (with exceptions – as noted above, a casual viewer would be barely even aware that the Barones had children, so rarely were they featured, so Sawyer Sweeten may well have had other demons).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Replicants have 4 yr lifespans.


    Maybe kids should be given 4 yr work-spans and NO MORE.

    The 4 yrs can be continuous or spread out but the rule is 4 yrs and no more.

    4 yr terms for presidents seem to have worked out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Art Deco says:
    @Hapalong Cassidy
    There have been a lot of child actors that have gone on to obscure normal lives, but they seem to be mostly one-offs from movies, like the boy who played Danny in "The Shining" and the girl who played Newt in "Aliens". I think they're both schoolteachers now.

    http://qcreport.blogspot.com/

    The lapsed actress Quinn Cummings (who acted between the ages of 8 and 24) offered a a take a couple of years ago on the business as she understood it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Art Deco says:
    @Jack D
    You seem to go off on a tangent with the child actor thing.

    In any case, in most cultures and times in history, working life began far earlier than age 18. You could make a plausible case for not permitting pre-teens but under proper conditions, teenagers are able to work and should not be infantilized. We do this too much already.

    Shirley Temple, BTW, seemed to have a reasonably successful life post-Hollywood but a lot of child stars are bitter, usually because their parents/managers have stolen all their money and they end up with nothing to show for all their youthful work.

    Child actors tend to be short and round faced so that they can play roles younger than their actual age which is a cute look for a kid but does not make for great looking adults. So very often they are discarded by Hollywood like used props once they hit puberty. A few stars made the transition but many don't. Going from being highly sought after and fawned over to being rejected is not good for your self-esteem.

    The plight of Rusty Hamer, who (implausibly) played Danny Thomas's son on his sitcom Make Room for Daddy is all too typical (from the wiki):

    In the 1970s, Hamer moved to southwestern Louisiana where he worked on an off-shore oil rig for Exxon and delivered newspapers. In 1976, he relocated to DeRidder, Louisiana and lived with his elder brother John. John Hamer had moved to the area and opened a cafe where, in his final years, Hamer occasionally worked as a short order cook.

    On the night of January 18, 1990, John Hamer found his brother's body in his trailer home in DeRidder, Louisiana. Hamer had shot himself in the head with a .357 Magnum revolver.
    John Hamer later said he believed that his brother had remained bitter over his inability to transition into acting as an adult.

    Going from well known TV star to a distinguished career delivery newspapers and living in a trailer is quite a letdown.

    In any case, in most cultures and times in history, working life began far earlier than age 18. You could make a plausible case for not permitting pre-teens but under proper conditions, teenagers are able to work and should not be infantilized. We do this too much already.

    They were employed in farming or in the trades. One of my great-great grandfathers started work at age 12. He was a farmer’s son apprenticed to a turner. No crazy in that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Once when I was in France I read an op-ed in one of the big newspapers. The title was

    "Juvenile delinquency began in 1960"

    That was the year the National Education Department scrapped the apprentice at 14 system if kids and parents choose. The Ed department decided everyone had to go to 4 year high school. The author tracked the rise of juvenile crime since the kids who would have been just fine in the old half day school
    half day minimum wage apprentice job.were herded into the high schools.

    In the old system the kids went to the apprenticeship in the morning, school in the afternoon and were paid a small wage. Usually they gave some to Mom as a contribution to the household and used the rest for busfare, work expenses and spending money. AND these were real apprenticeships where they came out with a mechanic or junior accountant or bank clerk or hairdresser certificate and could go right to work. And the bank clerk apprentices in both Germany and France rose to managers and executives as part of continual on the job training European companies have.


    One thing about the article. It never mentioned that the rise in juvenile crime was solely caused by the blacks and browns in the projects. The article laid out a good case for the apprentice system but he totally failed to state that the real reason for juvenile crime was all the blacks and browns in the projects.

    The White French kids, as Whites do, adjusted to the change and just went through the 4 year high school without being all traumatized into crime. But the blacks and browns mostly dropped out of school and into crime.


    The problem with kids going to work at 14 or 16 is that it just creates more workers which lowers wages.
    It was the Unions and Worker's Movements that pressured for compulsory high school. They didn't want to compete for jobs with more and more workers. And heavily involved in compulsory high school were teachers and school administrators. The more kids in school, the more jobs and more opportunity for advancement.

    That is why the teachers and school administrators are pushing immigration as much as the farmers and the rest of the food industry. They need more and more kids to fill the classrooms. And of course the minority women, especially the blacks get all the plum headquarters jobs while the White women are dealing with the black and brown thugs every day in the classrooms.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @sayless
    Shirley Temple said of her acting career as a little girl that it felt as if it had happened to someone else.

    Exactly what a lot of legitimate rape victims say about their experience.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Svigor says:

    I can’t think of a single major news story I’ve enjoyed as much in my adult life. Not even Trump’s successive slayings of the open-borders GOP elite and the Hillary machine.

    Yeah the Weinstein thing is begging for a Days of Christmas song. “On the first day of Christmas, Big Media gave to me…a scandal about Har-vey.”

    “Fiiive, squirming Jeeeewwwws!”

    The Weinstein story has everything – Hollywood degeneracy and perversion … ample documented connections to lib-prog politicians, now scrambling in embarassment … champions of Girl Power philosophy trying to explain how they operated a harassment and molestation assembly line for decades … virtue-signaling SJW artists being forced to answer for their personal behavior. And as this article shows, nobody ties it all together like Sailer.

    Light ‘em up, Steve-o.

    Don’t forget all the squirming over the fact that Hollywood is a Jewish-run industry, so if you look a bit too eager to criticize…

    Sort of like how there’s all this talk about the pedos in Hollywood, but unfortunately, they’re gay pedos, so one must be cautious not to seem too eager to criticize…

    Someone asked “link, please” about loss-of-life among child actors on iSteve’s Taki Magazine article.

    Wasn’t the “They’re Back!” girl from Poltergeist, along with a man, killed on set by a helicopter’s blades crashing on them?

    Harry, that’s funny. I never watched much “Our Gang,” but always thought Alfalfa gave off heavy asshole vibes.

    What really separates out actors and actresses is physical beauty and fuckability.

    I think what really distinguishes them, as Art Deco mentioned above, is their need to wade through the Hollywood cesspool. There are loads of beautiful people who would much rather do something else (though of course, there are loads of not-so-beautiful people who’d love to make it in showbiz).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Prof. Woland

    Sort of like how there’s all this talk about the pedos in Hollywood, but unfortunately, they’re gay pedos, so one must be cautious not to seem too eager to criticize…
     
    If a similar skeleton comes out about Hollywood and underage boys, it is important the the media not take the bait like they did with the Catholic Church and call it pedophilia rather than what it really is, gay men pursuing underage boys. But to do that we need to write the narrative now so when it comes out the alt-right nails it right out of the proverbial gate. That is what the MSM is doing right now, writing the counter-narrative. We need to teach them a lesson in kind. Speaking of gates we can call it Gay-Wood or Gay-Gate. Whatever it is, this time there will be no hiding in the closet.
    , @Chris Mallory

    Wasn’t the “They’re Back!” girl from Poltergeist, along with a man, killed on set by a helicopter’s blades crashing on them?
     
    Heather O'Rourke died of cardiac arrest and septic shock while undergoing surgery for a blocked bowel.


    Vic Morrow and two Asian children were killed by a helicopter accident on the set of the Twilight Zone movie.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Pat Boyle says:
    @DCThrowback
    "loss leader" your readers in w/ the Harvey takes & J-Pod shivs then give us the hard sell on banning child actors.

    low pressure sales for a high iq readership 101!

    I need someone to explain to me what was Weinstein’s talent. In all the media frenzy about Handsome Harvey I can’t remember reading anything simply explaining why he was so good at whatever it was that he did. I’m a little fuzzy on just what it was that he did.

    It is fairly easy to understand what an actor does. We have been told that Hollywood can make almost anyone into a star – but that can’t be true. For example years ago Universal (I think) had made a big push to make Guy Stockwell a major star. He was introduced and featured in picture after picture. But he never seemed to gain traction. His brother Dean Stockwell without the benefit of such focused promotion managed to be a star at every period of his life. That never made much sense to me. But it did demonstrate that at least part of the magic that movie star’s brought to the screen wasn’t really available to the studio bosses.

    I can also understand what a director does. Everyone understood Alfred Hitchcock’s contribution just as everyone recognizes that Spielberg has a way with telling a story on film. In the old, old days when producers were the kings of the lot – not the directors, we had some idea about producers too.

    But what the hell did Harvey do? Except hit on the young women? We are told that Trump is a great negotiator – a guy who can sense advantage and weakness around the conference table. Is that what Weinstein did? Or did he have a canny sense of what was a commercially valuable story? Did he – unlike all others in Hollywood spot the script that would be next year’s Oscar winner? Did he have some magic insight into what would be a hit?

    If Weinstein didn’t have some super valuable talent like that, why would anyone put up with him?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Forbes
    He green-lighted (financed) projects that became Oscar nominees on a regular basis. You could say he had an eye for the art of story-telling on screen. He made shit happen, that's why people put up with him.
    , @Jack D
    There is a popular school of film criticism that pronounces the director to be the artistic genius but in fact the director is just another hired hand responsible for one small aspect of the film. The director might be the captain of the ship but the ship didn't build itself - by the time the captain comes on board, someone has designed the ship, obtained financing for the ship, had the ship built, etc. and then the captain just sails it out of port. Without the producer, the director would have nothing to sail. The producer is the one who has to put all of the pieces of the puzzle together - finding a script, getting finance, hiring a director and so on. When a film wins an Oscar for Best Picture, they hand the Oscar to the producer for a good reason.
    , @DCThrowback
    Jack D's thorough boat metaphor/comment pretty much covers it, but two small notes:

    1/ Harvey and his brother Bob got their start in Buffalo, NY (as "Harvey and Corky") as concert/event promoters

    2/ Harvey handled the prestige work; Bob handled Dimension Films ("Scream" enterprise, "Scary Movie enterprise). Bob made the money, Harvey handled the egos/prestive works.

    The two brothers' relationship is reportedly love/hate at best; if an "inside man" delivered this story on a platter to the New York Times' Megan Twohey, I'll bet you a coke it was Bob.
    , @bartok

    Did he - unlike all others in Hollywood spot the script that would be next year's Oscar winner?
     
    Yes. Then he made sure it won the Oscar by campaigning for it shamelessly and expertly.

    From the point of view of his favored, discovered directors and actors, he was the generous king of the indie/prestige niche:
    http://deadline.com/2017/10/scott-rosenberg-harvey-weinstein-miramax-beautiful-girls-guilt-over-sexual-assault-allegations-1202189525/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @CAL2
    I think the cost is still too expensive to plug in kids using CGI except for more expensive films.

    I can't think of much to do other than ban their use outright. Why Disney and Nickelodeon haven't been investigated by this point is baffling. They turn out train wrecks on a consistent basis. The parents of the kids don't seem willing or able to keep a reign on things. Instead they are often willing participants.

    One thing I would do is ban anyone under 18 from participating in any promotional events, or having any online accounts.

    One thing I would do is ban anyone under 18 from having any online accounts.

    Absolutely not. The Internet is why we have Generation Zyklon right now, the most right-wing White cohort.

    Maybe in the future when we control “mainstream” media and education, but at the present that would be shooting ourselves in the foot bigly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CAL2
    It would help if you quoted me properly.

    One thing I would do is ban anyone under 18 from participating in any promotional events, or having any online accounts.
     
    I was talking about kids in the movie/entertainment industry.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Tiny Duck says:

    At least progressives call out and police there own.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/harvey-weinstein-oreilly-ailes.html?action=click&contentCollection=Media&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

    When Bill Oriley and Drumpf commit sexual assault conservatives make excuses

    Spare me your outrage. If you support the Predator in Chief rapist racist in office then you are no better than him

    Read More
    • Replies: @fish

    Oh Tinys….why you never takes mys calls any mo?


    - Leonard Pitts
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    How about Replicant kids?

    Seriously, while professional child actors isn’t a good idea, there should be a process of hiring children when necessary for specific roles. Not full-time, only when necessary.

    But a bigger danger is not child actors as there aren’t that many of them. The real problem is that Hollywood and Music industry make filth and funnel that trash into every household through TV, stereo, and esp internet. Most of these demented kids — politically, culturally, sexually, or behaviorally — are the product of 2PC-parenting. Pop Culture that encourages escapist dementia and Political Correctness that encourages self-righteous hysteria.

    A lot of children are doing just as bad as child actors because they are exposed to the same kind of cultural derangement and sickness via the virtual world of video-games moronic pop music, homomania, negro worship, and pornification of mainstream culture that seeps down to children.

    Imagine a child of single mother growing up with ‘twerking’ as approved dance form. ‘Hollywood’ has entered the house.

    Read More
    • Agree: BB753
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. @Shouting Thomas
    The casting couch is even more brutal and destructive for men.

    The men I know or knew in the modeling or acting biz are all either HIV positive or dead. You could say they were enthusiastic participants in the gay orgy/party scene, but that scene was and is the casting couch for actors. Don’t play and you’re out.

    Weinstein gave us what we want in the only way possible. The movie biz grew up, developed and prospered because of the way Weinstein did biz, not in spite of it.

    We’ve discovered in the digital age that just about anybody can play and record rock and roll. Same is true of acting. It’s not a difficult skill and anybody can learn it. Before digital tech, recording and distribution were prohibitively expensive. Now, both are cheap.

    What really separates out actors and actresses is physical beauty and fuckability. Weinstein was test driving the merchandise to see if it was up to snuff. He was doing that for us. And we bought it big time. Because it is human nature to want what Weinstein was selling. He’s an Ashkenazi Jew with a stratospheric IQ, right? He had the intelligence to understand how to get directly from A to B.

    Bitching and cause mongering will not change this. There will simply be a new Weinstein who is even more clever at giving us what we want while mouthing the most stale and cliched political orthodoxies.

    Weinstein gave us what we want in the only way possible. The movie biz grew up, developed and prospered because of the way Weinstein did biz, not in spite of it.

    What do we want and what did he give us?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    My guess is that if the directors rather than the producers held more power, there be more movies like Dunkirk.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @jim jones
    We could just ban women from all movies

    In Shakespeare’s time, women were in fact banned from the stage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    In "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead," the Travelling Players who pass through Elsinore are, the times being what they are, not above pimping out the youngest boy in the troupe.

    In "Hamlet," Hamlet denounces at considerable length the recent fashion in England for troupes of child actors putting on grown-up plays. In the 1590s, apparently, audiences went nuts over Bugsy Malone-style plays featuring child actors as grown up characters. This drove Shakespeare nuts. However, Hamlet's extended diatribe making fun of this fad is usually the first thing cut from that very long play.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Jack D says:
    @Inquiring Mind
    Someone asked "link, please" about loss-of-life among child actors on iSteve's Taki Magazine article.

    I thought the Twilight Zone Movie accident was widely known

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_Zone_accident

    There may be reasons for restricting child actors (I think the implicit message of Steve’s column is that they are subject to sexual molestation although Weinstein seemed to restrict himself to women over 18) but it’s not a particularly dangerous profession.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    but it’s not a particularly dangerous profession.

    It depends on how one defines danger. Sure, it's not dangerous like growing up in black parts of Baltimore or St. Louis. Or like growing up in some rust belt town taken over by meth dealers.

    But it is a very corrupting place. But then, with electronica hooking everyone up to Vice industries, can anyone get away from Hollywood influence? So many young girls grow up following the Kartrashians.
    And even elite colleges teach kids to believe in 50 genders.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Verymuchalive
    Despite Schweinstein's adeptness at pushing his product and ensuring it won the prizes, he isn't a wealthy man by media standards. His wealth has been estimated at $320-400 m. Yet people like Berlusconi , Murdoch et al are multi-billionaires. Even a mediocre TV personality like Oprah Winfrey is a billionairess.
    Unless you have an outstanding product,if you are going to get the rest of the media to give you favourable press, you've got to buy a large part of it, like Murdoch, or you've got to bribe on a large scale. Likewise, if you've got to hide serious criminality.
    Whilst he may have been fingered by a business rival, it may just be that he didn't have enough liquidity to handle all the claims at one time.
    It's a billionaire's world.

    Weinstein wasn’t among the richest, but he was invaluable because Hollywood, which mostly makes junk, craves respectability as an industry that also makes art, socially conscious films, and supports talent.
    So, Weinstein had a very important role in the industry that can’t be measured by dollars alone. He played the quasi-rabbinical role to counter-balance the merchant roles played by others. His movies earned less but they garnered more awards and therefore respect.

    Because most personal, arty, foreign, or indie movies make very little, it’s not easy for serious or ambitious actors to land worthy roles. So, someone like Weinstein has been invaluable to many directors and actors/actresses. Their movies may make less money but get more respect, esp with Oscar nominations. (Oscar-baiting is very important since the film industry is willing to lose money on more arty stuff ONLY IF they bring some Oscar buzz and respectability to the industry.)

    Weinstein had a dogged niche in the system, but I think his greatest triumph was his undoing in the long run. Tarantino. Before Quentin came along(esp with PULP), Miramax banked mostly on foreign imports or smaller movies with more serious themes. They made modest profits or lost money but got Oscar buzz. But PULP was a huge hit and changed the landscape of indie cinema. Prior to PULP, art-houses in around where I lived regularly showed new films. But PULP took over some art-house screens for a long time and wouldn’t budge. It was a hybrid monster of indie and Hollywood.
    And this blew up Weinstein’s ego sky high, and he couldn’t go back to his more modest role. He had to sticking his fingers into everything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @jim jones
    We could just ban women from all movies

    Like classic Shakespearean theater?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @MKP
    I can't think of a single major news story I've enjoyed as much in my adult life. Not even Trump's successive slayings of the open-borders GOP elite and the Hillary machine.

    The Weinstein story has everything - Hollywood degeneracy and perversion ... ample documented connections to lib-prog politicians, now scrambling in embarassment ... champions of Girl Power philosophy trying to explain how they operated a harassment and molestation assembly line for decades ... virtue-signaling SJW artists being forced to answer for their personal behavior. And as this article shows, nobody ties it all together like Sailer.

    Light 'em up, Steve-o.

    It’s interesting that someone like Weinstein, who has the mentality of Ron Jeremy and his not-so-reputable industry, got to be the Patron of the Arts in Hollywood.

    BOOGIE NIGHTS crossed with MASTERPIECE THEATER.

    Pimp and Pomp.

    A movie idea. Some sleazy guy hopes to work in the porn industry but stumbles into art and makes a funny go at it.

    Read More
    • LOL: ATX Hipster
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Sandmich says:

    I’m still stuck on the fact that JPod goes to the ramparts to defend Weinstein by smearing Mr. Sailer, and then like a week later Weinstein is being flame broiled for the slime ball that he is.

    Then there was that whole “Trump” thing where large parts of his speeches and talking points seemed to be cribbed from Mr. Sailer’s site.

    And then there’s the columnists of various stripes who “write around” Mr. Sailer as they know they’ll get intellectually stomped otherwise.

    I’m thinking this Mr. Sailer character has a lot more power than he lets one, though I’m sure he’d like to trade some of it in for money.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. @Anon87
    Track down the documentary An Open Secret. Then as a chaser watch the bizarre pilot Chad's World. The pedo Hollywood crisis is coming.

    An Open Secret was all over Twitter the last few days so I watched it. It is pretty disturbing, especially Chad’s World!
    They seem to dodge the JQ (it was made by Jews) and insist earnestly that this predation on boys by men has nothing to do with homosexuality…
    Another interesting tidbit is early internet investing: how much of the dotcom bubble was related to pedo-rings that rewarded investors with access to boys acting in internet “TV shows” and didn’t really have a viable product?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Jack D
    You seem to go off on a tangent with the child actor thing.

    In any case, in most cultures and times in history, working life began far earlier than age 18. You could make a plausible case for not permitting pre-teens but under proper conditions, teenagers are able to work and should not be infantilized. We do this too much already.

    Shirley Temple, BTW, seemed to have a reasonably successful life post-Hollywood but a lot of child stars are bitter, usually because their parents/managers have stolen all their money and they end up with nothing to show for all their youthful work.

    Child actors tend to be short and round faced so that they can play roles younger than their actual age which is a cute look for a kid but does not make for great looking adults. So very often they are discarded by Hollywood like used props once they hit puberty. A few stars made the transition but many don't. Going from being highly sought after and fawned over to being rejected is not good for your self-esteem.

    The plight of Rusty Hamer, who (implausibly) played Danny Thomas's son on his sitcom Make Room for Daddy is all too typical (from the wiki):

    In the 1970s, Hamer moved to southwestern Louisiana where he worked on an off-shore oil rig for Exxon and delivered newspapers. In 1976, he relocated to DeRidder, Louisiana and lived with his elder brother John. John Hamer had moved to the area and opened a cafe where, in his final years, Hamer occasionally worked as a short order cook.

    On the night of January 18, 1990, John Hamer found his brother's body in his trailer home in DeRidder, Louisiana. Hamer had shot himself in the head with a .357 Magnum revolver.
    John Hamer later said he believed that his brother had remained bitter over his inability to transition into acting as an adult.

    Going from well known TV star to a distinguished career delivery newspapers and living in a trailer is quite a letdown.

    It could be worse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Shouting Thomas
    The casting couch is even more brutal and destructive for men.

    The men I know or knew in the modeling or acting biz are all either HIV positive or dead. You could say they were enthusiastic participants in the gay orgy/party scene, but that scene was and is the casting couch for actors. Don’t play and you’re out.

    Weinstein gave us what we want in the only way possible. The movie biz grew up, developed and prospered because of the way Weinstein did biz, not in spite of it.

    We’ve discovered in the digital age that just about anybody can play and record rock and roll. Same is true of acting. It’s not a difficult skill and anybody can learn it. Before digital tech, recording and distribution were prohibitively expensive. Now, both are cheap.

    What really separates out actors and actresses is physical beauty and fuckability. Weinstein was test driving the merchandise to see if it was up to snuff. He was doing that for us. And we bought it big time. Because it is human nature to want what Weinstein was selling. He’s an Ashkenazi Jew with a stratospheric IQ, right? He had the intelligence to understand how to get directly from A to B.

    Bitching and cause mongering will not change this. There will simply be a new Weinstein who is even more clever at giving us what we want while mouthing the most stale and cliched political orthodoxies.

    The men I know or knew in the modeling or acting biz are all either HIV positive or dead. You could say they were enthusiastic participants in the gay orgy/party scene, but that scene was and is the casting couch for actors. Don’t play and you’re out.

    Maybe these people are so PC-moralistic because their lives so degrading and trashy. They need some flag to wave to feel righteous and redeemed in a world where they must be whores and treat others like whores. But since they can’t bite the hand that feeds them, their anger must be directed as other APPROVED targets… like Trump. So, all the anger one has about Jewish or homo bosses are directed at another figure of authority, one that doesn’t control their lives. Look at Jennifer Lawrence, Ashley Judd, and Emma Watson firing all their guns at Trump when, in fact, they were used like meat by men like Weinstein.

    What really separates out actors and actresses is physical beauty and fuckability. Weinstein was test driving the merchandise to see if it was up to snuff.

    In that case, prostitutes would make the best actresses. Not so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief

    prostitutes would make the best actresses. Not so.
     
    If I take away your superlative, there'd be left that prostitutes are actresses. And that seems quite plausible. They even act in quite some ways...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @sayless
    Shirley Temple said of her acting career as a little girl that it felt as if it had happened to someone else.

    The problem with cinema is it preserves the childhood image forever.
    Prior to cinema, if a kid worked in the theater, he would eventually grow up, and people would see him as an adult, period. Some might remember his child role, but it’d be a fuzzy memory.
    But cinema preserves one’s childhood persona in pristine condition, and that frozen image always competes with the real ever-changing person. The woman in SUNSET BOULEVARD wouldn’t be so kooky if not for the fact that she tirelessly commemorates and competes with the image of her youth on the big screen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Well said.

    Interestingly, Gloria Swanson had done a good job moving on with her life after her Hollywood career dried up in the early 1930s. She moved to NYC and became a top radio serial actress and enjoyed a variety of entrepreneurial ventures that made her additional money. Thirty years after making Sunset Boulevard she took an active role in the 1980 Reagan campaign as chairwoman of the senior citizen get out the vote drive.

    It's time for a feminist Republican gentile revisionist version of Sunset Boulevard.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Jack D says:
    @Verymuchalive
    Despite Schweinstein's adeptness at pushing his product and ensuring it won the prizes, he isn't a wealthy man by media standards. His wealth has been estimated at $320-400 m. Yet people like Berlusconi , Murdoch et al are multi-billionaires. Even a mediocre TV personality like Oprah Winfrey is a billionairess.
    Unless you have an outstanding product,if you are going to get the rest of the media to give you favourable press, you've got to buy a large part of it, like Murdoch, or you've got to bribe on a large scale. Likewise, if you've got to hide serious criminality.
    Whilst he may have been fingered by a business rival, it may just be that he didn't have enough liquidity to handle all the claims at one time.
    It's a billionaire's world.

    First of all, $300 million ain’t chopped liver (although by the time he is through with all this, he’s not going to be worth that much). For a boy from Queens, he was doing OK up to now.

    2nd the Weinstein niche was “classy” movies that would appeal to Oscar voters and not movies with cartoon heroes that appeal to 15 year old boys. The big money is Hollywood is made from the latter – not just the ticket sales but all sorts of product tie-ins. No one wants a Shakespeare in Love lunchbox.

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    OTOH the really big bucks are made with costume-drama chick flicks like Titanic or Gone With the Wind.

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

    (No Weinstein films on the list, however).
    , @Opinionator
    Where, in your opinion, did Weinstein excel in terms of talent and skill?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Jack D says:
    @anonymous
    Hollywood isn't of the slightest interest to me. (I don't recall ever hearing the name Harvey Weinstein before this unsurprising scandal hit a week or two ago.) So at the risk of having missed a dot, the article comes across as mishmash, tacking onto this month's Outrage of the Year a whimsy about pedo-proofing mass entertainment with synthetic children. And yes, I saw the buried disclaimer, but casual readers may be left with the misimpression that Mr. Weinstein has been accused of preying upon little kids. Again, I may be missing something, as the author or others can now point out.

    I am a big fan of Mr. Sailer and several others published here. It's good that he has another forum for tacky stuff.

    I assume Steve has some sort of arrangement with Taki where he has to deliver a column to them on deadline (whereas here he posts as the spirit moves him). Writing on deadline is much harder than it looks. Sometimes your mind comes up blank but you have to write SOMETHING no matter what. Sometimes you are supposed to write about Harvey Weinstein but thoughts on CGI child actors emerge on the page instead.

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    He probably had an unfinished column about child actors to which he added the Weinstein angle because it’s in the news. Anyway, even if it’s a bit of a clickbait lede, he makes some very good points as usual, with the caveat that CGI-deaging-to-childhood is a bit sci-fi at the moment. (Making short adults look convincingly like children with makeup and/or CGI motion capture would be within current technological capabilities, but very expensive).

    More realistically, I think there needs to be much stricter regulation and (literal) oversight of child actors and performers, and as much as it would damage those industries an outright ban is at least worth considering. We need a stricter regime to protect the adult actors from all the pervert bigwigs, too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Jack D says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    a cute look for a kid but does not make for great looking adults

    On Game of Thrones, the actors playing Bran and Arya Stark became noticeably less attractive as they aged. Fortunately they're still suitable for the characters they play.

    Jerry Mathers of Leave It to Beaver fame grew into quite an odd-looking adult.

    This really shows how much of Hollywood is about physical appearance rather than skills – it’s more like modeling than golf. Someone like Rusty Hamer, who had considerable acting skills and experience (had put in the proverbial 10,000 hours) had to discard that completely and flip hamburgers because he didn’t have the “look” that casting agents wanted once he became an adult. OTOH, there have been many fashion models that have transitioned to screen careers despite having no acting skills.

    Keep this in mind when Hollywood actors give you their opinions on any subject or make fun of models as being empty headed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    He didn't have to flip hamburgers. From 1964 until his death, he never learned a distinct trade. Some part of this was being sidetracked looking after his senile mother (who died about a year after he did). He never married and had no children. He had the biography of a man who'd been hopeless for a long time.
    , @Alden
    There are only a few actresses who are more than 6 out of 10. Sharon Stone, Nicole Kidman, Michelle Pfieffer were goddesses in their time. Courtney Cox and that other one with black hair I think Posey Parker are beautiful. So is the one who played Pheobe on Friends. So is Katherine Zeta Jones.

    Those are the only actresses I can think of off hand who are 10 out of 10. And they are getting old. I have a friend who was an actress until she was about 35 and realizing she was going nowhere got a regular job. She is getting old but when she was young she was like a twin sister of Courtney Cox, perfect features, big eyes, fair skin and dark brown hair to show off the perfect face. She also had the perfect actress body, slim and small bones but curves at bust and hips. But she got nowhere. She is a beauty but I see average attractive women in all the big parts. And with all the make up and lighting and complicated camera shots they still look very average. They do have big eyes though which is necessary.

    I'm sick of drudge. It's been nothing but Weinstein for days. It is such a common place part of the entertainment industry I don't know why all the fuss. I mean, it's nice that the brothel that is Hollywood is being exposed once again, Weinstein must have done something for the media to go against him

    It might be the years of resentment by other producers because of his bribes, extortion and threats to get those Oscars.

    Speaking of, I've only seen part of one in my life. It was spring of my first year of college. Everyone was going to the lounge to watch the Oscars. I watched for about half and then got so bored I went back to my room and read a book. BOOOOORRRRRRRRING.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. e says:

    It’s supposed to be an open secret in Hollywood that Kirk Douglas raped a very young Natalie Wood.
    His own autobiography reveals him as an asshole, although most assholes are not rapists, of course.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. @The Alarmist

    "... (perhaps now finally concluded) Bill and Hillary Era."
     
    We still have the Sword of Damocles in the form of demon-spawn Chelsea and her offspring hanging over us. Do you think we'd get rid of the Clintons so easily?

    Let’s just hope that Chelsea doesn’t go into exile and run across some dragon eggs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Forbes says:
    @Jack D
    You seem to go off on a tangent with the child actor thing.

    In any case, in most cultures and times in history, working life began far earlier than age 18. You could make a plausible case for not permitting pre-teens but under proper conditions, teenagers are able to work and should not be infantilized. We do this too much already.

    Shirley Temple, BTW, seemed to have a reasonably successful life post-Hollywood but a lot of child stars are bitter, usually because their parents/managers have stolen all their money and they end up with nothing to show for all their youthful work.

    Child actors tend to be short and round faced so that they can play roles younger than their actual age which is a cute look for a kid but does not make for great looking adults. So very often they are discarded by Hollywood like used props once they hit puberty. A few stars made the transition but many don't. Going from being highly sought after and fawned over to being rejected is not good for your self-esteem.

    The plight of Rusty Hamer, who (implausibly) played Danny Thomas's son on his sitcom Make Room for Daddy is all too typical (from the wiki):

    In the 1970s, Hamer moved to southwestern Louisiana where he worked on an off-shore oil rig for Exxon and delivered newspapers. In 1976, he relocated to DeRidder, Louisiana and lived with his elder brother John. John Hamer had moved to the area and opened a cafe where, in his final years, Hamer occasionally worked as a short order cook.

    On the night of January 18, 1990, John Hamer found his brother's body in his trailer home in DeRidder, Louisiana. Hamer had shot himself in the head with a .357 Magnum revolver.
    John Hamer later said he believed that his brother had remained bitter over his inability to transition into acting as an adult.

    Going from well known TV star to a distinguished career delivery newspapers and living in a trailer is quite a letdown.

    teenagers are able to work and should not be infantilized. We do this too much already.

    Permanent adolescence seems a way of life in our society. Campus safe-spaces for snowflakes seriously delays assuming any adult-like responsibilities to face the world as it exists–not as one would prefer it be. Twenty-somethings still living at home doesn’t improve personal maturity. The laundry list of coddling youthful behavior is long.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. GregMan says:
    @Art Deco
    I suspect you'd discover that a comfortable majority of child actors quit acting at a certain age and settle into an obscure adult life. A scatter cannot manage the letdown. (One I can recall is the child actor who played Danny Thomas' son on Make Room for Daddy, who Thomas thought was an exceptional talent. He died a suicide in early middle age).

    There may be some incremental damage from working in the film industry at a young age, but I'd wager the stronger vectors would be (1) people attracted to and able to build a career in entertainment tend to be damaged in various ways and (2) people hired as child actors are the children of entertainers (i.e. the damaged) or are the children of damaged people outside the entertainment business (because non-damaged people would be wary of allowing their young in the business). You mention Robert Blake (ne Michael Gubitosi). His parents were entertainers (and, if Blake is to be believed, perfectly horrid in domestic circumstances).

    One thing that would interest me would be a comparison of American performers with the rest of the Anglophone world. One doesn't get the impression that Britain's acting fraternity is so thick with incompetent human beings. Is it just LA?

    “One doesn’t get the impression that Britain’s acting fraternity is so thick with incompetent human beings.”

    Jimmy Saville.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    OK. The thing is, Savile wasn't an actor. You could call him an MC, a presenter, an announcer, or a 'personality'. He was a very peculiar figure (lame track suits, long white hair, cigars, and a funny yodeling noise he would make) and it's difficult to see how he could have had a career at all on British television. He was a physically repulsive version of Dick Clark.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. AndrewR says:
    @the one they call Desanex
    Here’s the Weinstein limerick I posted Sunday on Takimag:


    What they say about me, Harvey Weinstein?
    Science fiction that’s worthy of Heinlein!
    Those Hollywood shrews
    Must really hate Jews,
    And to figure that out don’t take Einstein.

     

    A commenter pointed out that the rhyme doesn’t work if the name is pronounced Wein-steen. I could plead poetic license, or that there’s no logical reason for the name to be pronounced Wein-steen. Instead, I plead that mispronouncing a person’s name is a time-honored way of showing contempt.

    Are you really mispronouncing a foreign name when you pronounce it with closer fidelity to the native pronunciation than the person who actually has the name chooses to pronounce it? Of course in German it would be “Vine-Shtine” but “Wine-Stine” is better than nothing.

    I had a boss with the surname Ricci who pronounced it “Ricky.” It pained me to pronounce it so abominably instead of saying “ree-chee” but he was the boss lol.

    Read More
    • Replies: @the one they call Desanex
    He should’ve changed the spelling, too. Maybe Rickey, like Branch Rickey.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Forbes says:
    @Pat Boyle
    I need someone to explain to me what was Weinstein's talent. In all the media frenzy about Handsome Harvey I can't remember reading anything simply explaining why he was so good at whatever it was that he did. I'm a little fuzzy on just what it was that he did.

    It is fairly easy to understand what an actor does. We have been told that Hollywood can make almost anyone into a star - but that can't be true. For example years ago Universal (I think) had made a big push to make Guy Stockwell a major star. He was introduced and featured in picture after picture. But he never seemed to gain traction. His brother Dean Stockwell without the benefit of such focused promotion managed to be a star at every period of his life. That never made much sense to me. But it did demonstrate that at least part of the magic that movie star's brought to the screen wasn't really available to the studio bosses.

    I can also understand what a director does. Everyone understood Alfred Hitchcock's contribution just as everyone recognizes that Spielberg has a way with telling a story on film. In the old, old days when producers were the kings of the lot - not the directors, we had some idea about producers too.

    But what the hell did Harvey do? Except hit on the young women? We are told that Trump is a great negotiator - a guy who can sense advantage and weakness around the conference table. Is that what Weinstein did? Or did he have a canny sense of what was a commercially valuable story? Did he - unlike all others in Hollywood spot the script that would be next year's Oscar winner? Did he have some magic insight into what would be a hit?

    If Weinstein didn't have some super valuable talent like that, why would anyone put up with him?

    He green-lighted (financed) projects that became Oscar nominees on a regular basis. You could say he had an eye for the art of story-telling on screen. He made shit happen, that’s why people put up with him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Jack D
    There may be reasons for restricting child actors (I think the implicit message of Steve's column is that they are subject to sexual molestation although Weinstein seemed to restrict himself to women over 18) but it's not a particularly dangerous profession.

    but it’s not a particularly dangerous profession.

    It depends on how one defines danger. Sure, it’s not dangerous like growing up in black parts of Baltimore or St. Louis. Or like growing up in some rust belt town taken over by meth dealers.

    But it is a very corrupting place. But then, with electronica hooking everyone up to Vice industries, can anyone get away from Hollywood influence? So many young girls grow up following the Kartrashians.
    And even elite colleges teach kids to believe in 50 genders.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @James Kabala
    I think a logistical problem for the CGI plan is that child actors as a group extend far beyond child stars. Think of your five or ten favorite movies - they may not be built around child stars, but probably most of them have a child appear in a speaking role at some point. (Or you can just go down the AFI list - Kane as a child and then later on Kane's son, Don Vito's grandson who witnesses his death, Bonnie Blue Butler, etc.)

    I assume most of these lesser child actors go on to live normal lives (with exceptions - as noted above, a casual viewer would be barely even aware that the Barones had children, so rarely were they featured, so Sawyer Sweeten may well have had other demons).

    Replicants have 4 yr lifespans.

    Maybe kids should be given 4 yr work-spans and NO MORE.

    The 4 yrs can be continuous or spread out but the rule is 4 yrs and no more.

    4 yr terms for presidents seem to have worked out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ATX Hipster
    Four years is a long time for a kid to be surrounded by wealthy and connected pedophiles.


    I like Steve's idea, although it seems like making adults look like children would be asking a lot more of the technology than making adults look like younger adults.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Jack D says:
    @Pat Boyle
    I need someone to explain to me what was Weinstein's talent. In all the media frenzy about Handsome Harvey I can't remember reading anything simply explaining why he was so good at whatever it was that he did. I'm a little fuzzy on just what it was that he did.

    It is fairly easy to understand what an actor does. We have been told that Hollywood can make almost anyone into a star - but that can't be true. For example years ago Universal (I think) had made a big push to make Guy Stockwell a major star. He was introduced and featured in picture after picture. But he never seemed to gain traction. His brother Dean Stockwell without the benefit of such focused promotion managed to be a star at every period of his life. That never made much sense to me. But it did demonstrate that at least part of the magic that movie star's brought to the screen wasn't really available to the studio bosses.

    I can also understand what a director does. Everyone understood Alfred Hitchcock's contribution just as everyone recognizes that Spielberg has a way with telling a story on film. In the old, old days when producers were the kings of the lot - not the directors, we had some idea about producers too.

    But what the hell did Harvey do? Except hit on the young women? We are told that Trump is a great negotiator - a guy who can sense advantage and weakness around the conference table. Is that what Weinstein did? Or did he have a canny sense of what was a commercially valuable story? Did he - unlike all others in Hollywood spot the script that would be next year's Oscar winner? Did he have some magic insight into what would be a hit?

    If Weinstein didn't have some super valuable talent like that, why would anyone put up with him?

    There is a popular school of film criticism that pronounces the director to be the artistic genius but in fact the director is just another hired hand responsible for one small aspect of the film. The director might be the captain of the ship but the ship didn’t build itself – by the time the captain comes on board, someone has designed the ship, obtained financing for the ship, had the ship built, etc. and then the captain just sails it out of port. Without the producer, the director would have nothing to sail. The producer is the one who has to put all of the pieces of the puzzle together – finding a script, getting finance, hiring a director and so on. When a film wins an Oscar for Best Picture, they hand the Oscar to the producer for a good reason.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    You're absolutely right. The producer even has to find the money to start. They often use their own money and it can be a disaster if the film does'nt get made. Making a film is a horrendous job that stretches for years. They deserve the money they make.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Alden says:
    @Art Deco
    In any case, in most cultures and times in history, working life began far earlier than age 18. You could make a plausible case for not permitting pre-teens but under proper conditions, teenagers are able to work and should not be infantilized. We do this too much already.

    They were employed in farming or in the trades. One of my great-great grandfathers started work at age 12. He was a farmer's son apprenticed to a turner. No crazy in that.

    Once when I was in France I read an op-ed in one of the big newspapers. The title was

    “Juvenile delinquency began in 1960″

    That was the year the National Education Department scrapped the apprentice at 14 system if kids and parents choose. The Ed department decided everyone had to go to 4 year high school. The author tracked the rise of juvenile crime since the kids who would have been just fine in the old half day school
    half day minimum wage apprentice job.were herded into the high schools.

    In the old system the kids went to the apprenticeship in the morning, school in the afternoon and were paid a small wage. Usually they gave some to Mom as a contribution to the household and used the rest for busfare, work expenses and spending money. AND these were real apprenticeships where they came out with a mechanic or junior accountant or bank clerk or hairdresser certificate and could go right to work. And the bank clerk apprentices in both Germany and France rose to managers and executives as part of continual on the job training European companies have.

    One thing about the article. It never mentioned that the rise in juvenile crime was solely caused by the blacks and browns in the projects. The article laid out a good case for the apprentice system but he totally failed to state that the real reason for juvenile crime was all the blacks and browns in the projects.

    The White French kids, as Whites do, adjusted to the change and just went through the 4 year high school without being all traumatized into crime. But the blacks and browns mostly dropped out of school and into crime.

    The problem with kids going to work at 14 or 16 is that it just creates more workers which lowers wages.
    It was the Unions and Worker’s Movements that pressured for compulsory high school. They didn’t want to compete for jobs with more and more workers. And heavily involved in compulsory high school were teachers and school administrators. The more kids in school, the more jobs and more opportunity for advancement.

    That is why the teachers and school administrators are pushing immigration as much as the farmers and the rest of the food industry. They need more and more kids to fill the classrooms. And of course the minority women, especially the blacks get all the plum headquarters jobs while the White women are dealing with the black and brown thugs every day in the classrooms.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. RH says:
    @Shouting Thomas
    The casting couch is even more brutal and destructive for men.

    The men I know or knew in the modeling or acting biz are all either HIV positive or dead. You could say they were enthusiastic participants in the gay orgy/party scene, but that scene was and is the casting couch for actors. Don’t play and you’re out.

    Weinstein gave us what we want in the only way possible. The movie biz grew up, developed and prospered because of the way Weinstein did biz, not in spite of it.

    We’ve discovered in the digital age that just about anybody can play and record rock and roll. Same is true of acting. It’s not a difficult skill and anybody can learn it. Before digital tech, recording and distribution were prohibitively expensive. Now, both are cheap.

    What really separates out actors and actresses is physical beauty and fuckability. Weinstein was test driving the merchandise to see if it was up to snuff. He was doing that for us. And we bought it big time. Because it is human nature to want what Weinstein was selling. He’s an Ashkenazi Jew with a stratospheric IQ, right? He had the intelligence to understand how to get directly from A to B.

    Bitching and cause mongering will not change this. There will simply be a new Weinstein who is even more clever at giving us what we want while mouthing the most stale and cliched political orthodoxies.

    If you believe that acting is “not a difficult skill and anybody can learn it”, you will believe anything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Yes and no; both you and he are right.

    There are indeed far more people capable of writing and performing decent, even excellent, rock ‘n’ roll than was realised in the days of more barriers to entry. However, a trip to any coffee-house for open-mic night will reassure you there are still immeasurably more hacks.

    A big part of what separate the two types is work-ethic. Writing jokes, songs, playing an instrument well, and acting all certainly involve a certain predisposition or penchant (perhaps even genetic; many successful performing artists had parents who did similar work; e.g., a famous musician whose mom taught piano or whose dad led a choir at the church, etc.). However, one must hone that skill. Writing a spectacular novel usually required writing, revising, discarding, and having rejected mountains of crappy novels (or drafts thereof). Gene Simmons famously would lock himself in the closet he used to practice and force himself to write at least one song before leaving. He did this every day! Steve Vai practiced (and may still, knowing him) eight hourse each day to become what he became. (Neil Peart famously took drumming leassons in the nineties because he was dissatisifed with himself and he felt he was stagnant!)

    Most performers and composers lack this drive and discipline. Thus, even if they hit it big once or twice, they don’t last. They become one hit wonders or flashes in the pan who were the It Girl for a year and then fade into obscurity.

    So, it is easier than many realise to be passable at music, acting, etc. But it remains difficult to be outstanding and enduring. Baseline, passable acting of the kind seen by, say, Ben Affleck or Sarah Michell Gellar and that of those who are naturally charimatic and effectively play themselves over and over (Tom Cruise, Humphrey Bogart, Dwayne Johnson, etc.) is indeed not so hard, but the kinds of immersive, transformative, compelling work done by people like Daniel Day Lewis, Johnny Depp, Anthony Hopkins, etc. requires the kind of work put in by the musicians I mentioned earlier.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Art Deco says:
    @Jack D
    This really shows how much of Hollywood is about physical appearance rather than skills - it's more like modeling than golf. Someone like Rusty Hamer, who had considerable acting skills and experience (had put in the proverbial 10,000 hours) had to discard that completely and flip hamburgers because he didn't have the "look" that casting agents wanted once he became an adult. OTOH, there have been many fashion models that have transitioned to screen careers despite having no acting skills.

    Keep this in mind when Hollywood actors give you their opinions on any subject or make fun of models as being empty headed.

    He didn’t have to flip hamburgers. From 1964 until his death, he never learned a distinct trade. Some part of this was being sidetracked looking after his senile mother (who died about a year after he did). He never married and had no children. He had the biography of a man who’d been hopeless for a long time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    What distinct trade could he have (or should he have ) learned?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. 1/ Can you sexually harass or assault an AI robot? They’re coming. Suppose someone could create a CGI character that could have its own thoughts?

    2/ Ron Howard seems to have done very well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Barnard
    Ron Howard also let his daughter enter show business, but not until she was older and didn't raise his kids in L.A.

    I wonder what the divorce rate is for parents of child actors/ pop music performers? My guess is it would be astronomically high.
    , @Neoconned
    In the last little Weinstein thread from the other day I made the point these actresses are probably finished after this outside the z list film circuit because no producer or company will touch them w a 20 foot pole because of insurance and litigation reasons. No one wants liability over this.

    Look what happened.....one of the most successful companies in Hollywood self immolated in a matter of weeks
    ...

    Think about it....if you run a production company or are a shareholder or bondholder there of.....I mean would you work w these women? They're radioactive at this point....

    It's like killing your own king....what rival govt would touch such insurrectionists?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Alden says:
    @Jack D
    There is a popular school of film criticism that pronounces the director to be the artistic genius but in fact the director is just another hired hand responsible for one small aspect of the film. The director might be the captain of the ship but the ship didn't build itself - by the time the captain comes on board, someone has designed the ship, obtained financing for the ship, had the ship built, etc. and then the captain just sails it out of port. Without the producer, the director would have nothing to sail. The producer is the one who has to put all of the pieces of the puzzle together - finding a script, getting finance, hiring a director and so on. When a film wins an Oscar for Best Picture, they hand the Oscar to the producer for a good reason.

    You’re absolutely right. The producer even has to find the money to start. They often use their own money and it can be a disaster if the film does’nt get made. Making a film is a horrendous job that stretches for years. They deserve the money they make.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Barnard says:
    @anony-mouse
    1/ Can you sexually harass or assault an AI robot? They're coming. Suppose someone could create a CGI character that could have its own thoughts?

    2/ Ron Howard seems to have done very well.

    Ron Howard also let his daughter enter show business, but not until she was older and didn’t raise his kids in L.A.

    I wonder what the divorce rate is for parents of child actors/ pop music performers? My guess is it would be astronomically high.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I wouldn't be surprised if being a child of a broken family makes you, on the whole, better at acting, at displaying your wounded feelings.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. snorlax says:
    @Jack D
    First of all, $300 million ain't chopped liver (although by the time he is through with all this, he's not going to be worth that much). For a boy from Queens, he was doing OK up to now.

    2nd the Weinstein niche was "classy" movies that would appeal to Oscar voters and not movies with cartoon heroes that appeal to 15 year old boys. The big money is Hollywood is made from the latter - not just the ticket sales but all sorts of product tie-ins. No one wants a Shakespeare in Love lunchbox.

    OTOH the really big bucks are made with costume-drama chick flicks like Titanic or Gone With the Wind.

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

    (No Weinstein films on the list, however).

    Read More
    • Replies: @S. Anonyia
    True- and yet Hollywood has all but abandoned making these sort of movies in the past decade.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Broski says:

    Steve is certainly extracting much (well-deserved) schadenfreude from Podhoretz The Lesser’s incontinence. Given how much abuse Steve suffers from the “conservative” media’s in-clique Mean Girls, it seems appropriate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. Anon87 says:
    @Anon87
    Track down the documentary An Open Secret. Then as a chaser watch the bizarre pilot Chad's World. The pedo Hollywood crisis is coming.

    Ann Coulter just tweeted about this an hour ago. Watch it and cringe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Olorin says:
    @The Alarmist

    "... (perhaps now finally concluded) Bill and Hillary Era."
     
    We still have the Sword of Damocles in the form of demon-spawn Chelsea and her offspring hanging over us. Do you think we'd get rid of the Clintons so easily?

    You mean the Hubbells.

    ;D

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Neoconned says:
    @Verymuchalive
    Despite Schweinstein's adeptness at pushing his product and ensuring it won the prizes, he isn't a wealthy man by media standards. His wealth has been estimated at $320-400 m. Yet people like Berlusconi , Murdoch et al are multi-billionaires. Even a mediocre TV personality like Oprah Winfrey is a billionairess.
    Unless you have an outstanding product,if you are going to get the rest of the media to give you favourable press, you've got to buy a large part of it, like Murdoch, or you've got to bribe on a large scale. Likewise, if you've got to hide serious criminality.
    Whilst he may have been fingered by a business rival, it may just be that he didn't have enough liquidity to handle all the claims at one time.
    It's a billionaire's world.

    Very interesting perspective

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. snorlax says:
    @Jack D
    I assume Steve has some sort of arrangement with Taki where he has to deliver a column to them on deadline (whereas here he posts as the spirit moves him). Writing on deadline is much harder than it looks. Sometimes your mind comes up blank but you have to write SOMETHING no matter what. Sometimes you are supposed to write about Harvey Weinstein but thoughts on CGI child actors emerge on the page instead.

    He probably had an unfinished column about child actors to which he added the Weinstein angle because it’s in the news. Anyway, even if it’s a bit of a clickbait lede, he makes some very good points as usual, with the caveat that CGI-deaging-to-childhood is a bit sci-fi at the moment. (Making short adults look convincingly like children with makeup and/or CGI motion capture would be within current technological capabilities, but very expensive).

    More realistically, I think there needs to be much stricter regulation and (literal) oversight of child actors and performers, and as much as it would damage those industries an outright ban is at least worth considering. We need a stricter regime to protect the adult actors from all the pervert bigwigs, too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Prof. Woland

    (Making short adults look convincingly like children with makeup and/or CGI motion capture would be within current technological capabilities, but very expensive).

     

    I think that is what they do with Chimpanzees now. Gone are the days when a midget would put on a one piece latex space suit and look like Yoda or ET. I can remember going to Disneyland about 15 years ago as an adult. The last time I had been there was when I was a child. It gave me a much different perspective. I can remember going on the jungle cruise and the guide was ridiculing / laughing at the latex alligator with a defective motor. I used to think it was real.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Pat Casey says:

    On October 20, 1947, the notorious Red Scare kicks into high gear in Washington, as a Congressional committee begins investigating Communist influence in one of the world’s richest and most glamorous communities: Hollywood.

    If I was a member of congress, I would honor the seventieth anniversary of HUAC vs Hollywood by going after the biz for something the first amendment definitely doesn’t protect. Are you or have you ever been a sexual predator?

    One reason we know we can’t trust the media to get to the scope and scale of the issue is because people like Tina Brown have told us how mixed up with it they are. I’ve seen a lot of beautiful and obscure women on TV telling anecdotes about what they know without naming names. If I was a congressman I would call em up.

    Too bad Trump can’t really tweet that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  80. I hereby accuse Blythe Danner of using the Good Jew / Bad Jew routine in her New York Times letter to the editor response to an opinion piece about Hollywood tarts and Harvey Weinstein written by Maureen Dowd. I have never seen such villainy and vanity as displayed by proud mamma Danner. How about a kind word for Sybil Danning; she would never write such fluff as Danner has.

    As much as I appreciated and admired Danner’s work on episodic television in the late 1970s and early 1980s, I find it impossible to defend Danner against the charge that she is exploiting the Weinstein issue to heap praise upon both her daughter, Gwyneth Paltrow, and her husband, Bruce Paltrow.

    Danner is juxtaposing the Good Jew, Bruce Paltrow against the Bad Jew, Harvey Weinstein. Will we let her get away with it? Will sometimes red-haired Maureen Dowd send some rhetorical return fire to Danner? Who knows?

    Blythe Danner says her daughter is a wonderful saint and her husband won a so-called “diversity” award. Danner never mentioned, and I won’t read her letter again to check, that Dowd told a story about Hollywood Jews sexually invading the space of both Shirley Temple and her mother. At the same time in different locations. Hollywood Jews have been playing the Harvey Weinstein game for a long damn time.

    Blythe Danner boasts about her hubby and daughter:

    Gwyneth did not “put aside her qualms to become ‘the first lady of Miramax’ ” back then, as Ms. Dowd would have it. She continued to hold her own and insist that Mr. Weinstein treat her with respect. She had learned from her father, the producer and director Bruce Paltrow, how to stand up for herself. Bruce received the first Diversity Award from the Directors Guild for helping women and minorities in our business. His daughter wasn’t the only woman he taught to fight for herself.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/17/opinion/blythe-danner-martha-plimpton-harvey-weinstein.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  81. @Art Deco
    He didn't have to flip hamburgers. From 1964 until his death, he never learned a distinct trade. Some part of this was being sidetracked looking after his senile mother (who died about a year after he did). He never married and had no children. He had the biography of a man who'd been hopeless for a long time.

    What distinct trade could he have (or should he have ) learned?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    He worked on oil rigs and dabbled at short-order cooking. You get to a certain age, and you look around as to what fits for you. It might have been building trades, bookkeeping, sales, low-grade medical trades (respiratory therapy, pharmacy tech), long-haul truck driving, security services. If not that, land an institutional job with good benefits (where there might or might not be some training opportunities).

    It's not very clear from the obituaries how long he and his brother looked after their mother at home, it may have been nearly 15 years. That'll put some things on hold. The thing is, it appears from the obituaries he was nearly 30 when that problem surfaced. He'd have had 12 years of fitful employment (between some residual work in acting prior to 1972).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. snorlax says:
    @CAL2
    I think the cost is still too expensive to plug in kids using CGI except for more expensive films.

    I can't think of much to do other than ban their use outright. Why Disney and Nickelodeon haven't been investigated by this point is baffling. They turn out train wrecks on a consistent basis. The parents of the kids don't seem willing or able to keep a reign on things. Instead they are often willing participants.

    One thing I would do is ban anyone under 18 from participating in any promotional events, or having any online accounts.

    One thing I would do is ban anyone under 18 from … having any online accounts.

    Porn sites are required by a 90’s-era act of Congress to only allow over-18s to view their content.

    This works. I didn’t watch any internet porn at all during my teenage years!

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    It was magazines in my day ... Nope, never saw any before 18.
    , @CAL2
    Sure they might end up with some accounts with friends. But there's no way they are going to create a professional account that has hoards of fans on it without generating notice and getting shut down.

    One problem with child actors is they end up in a bubble of fame. Not allowing them promotional events, etc. might help to cut down on that bubble some. Sure they do a TV show. But they aren't going out to events getting their egos stroked by thousands of adoring fans.
    , @ATX Hipster
    I wonder if we'll ever see porn sites using facial recognition software to ensure viewers are over eighteen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Lugash says:
    @Inquiring Mind
    Someone asked "link, please" about loss-of-life among child actors on iSteve's Taki Magazine article.

    I thought the Twilight Zone Movie accident was widely known

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_Zone_accident

    I’d never heard about the kids being killed, just Morrow.

    In the past, CGI human depictions have often fallen into the “uncanny valley,” but skills are rapidly improving. Martin Scorsese is currently shooting a gangster film, The Irishman, for release in 2019. He intends to use CGI to “de-age” his cast of over-the-hill legends—Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci (coming out of retirement), Al Pacino, and Harvey Keitel—so they can play younger versions of themselves.

    Jennifer Connolly and Ewan McGregor were digitally de-aged in an scene of American Pastoral. She also had her voice altered to make it sound younger.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Jack D
    First of all, $300 million ain't chopped liver (although by the time he is through with all this, he's not going to be worth that much). For a boy from Queens, he was doing OK up to now.

    2nd the Weinstein niche was "classy" movies that would appeal to Oscar voters and not movies with cartoon heroes that appeal to 15 year old boys. The big money is Hollywood is made from the latter - not just the ticket sales but all sorts of product tie-ins. No one wants a Shakespeare in Love lunchbox.

    Where, in your opinion, did Weinstein excel in terms of talent and skill?

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    Like Steve said, he had a good nose for successful Oscar bait.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Broski says:
    @anonymous
    Hollywood isn't of the slightest interest to me. (I don't recall ever hearing the name Harvey Weinstein before this unsurprising scandal hit a week or two ago.) So at the risk of having missed a dot, the article comes across as mishmash, tacking onto this month's Outrage of the Year a whimsy about pedo-proofing mass entertainment with synthetic children. And yes, I saw the buried disclaimer, but casual readers may be left with the misimpression that Mr. Weinstein has been accused of preying upon little kids. Again, I may be missing something, as the author or others can now point out.

    I am a big fan of Mr. Sailer and several others published here. It's good that he has another forum for tacky stuff.

    Sailer publishes in Taki’s on Wednesdays. Sometimes it’s his best stuff that he’s been pondering for a while, and sometimes it’s current events. Often the articles are movie reviews.

    As you can see from the relative number of comments, Taki’s draws more traffic than this site, so a lot of Sailer’s great material goes up there.

    Also, while it may not seem significant to you, drawing attention to the existing layers of the Hollywood sex-abuse onion would be of great service to society. If, as has long been rumored, there are pedophile rings at the highest levels of Hollywood operating nearly openly, that would be an important thing for society to know.

    PS Why are my comments taking two days to post? I don’t think I’ve had one rejected in months.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Taki’s draws more traffic

    Not necessarily.

    , @Paul Yarbles

    PS Why are my comments taking two days to post? I don’t think I’ve had one rejected in months.
     
    Same here. Is it a glitch in the Unz system or is Steve dropping the ball?

    I don't think I've ever posted anything offensive. Granted, my posts may not be the most interesting or perceptive, but still I try to stay on topic and it would be nice to see them before the thread dies as I sometimes get replies that are of interest.

    , @Anon
    Taki’s draws more traffic


    But Tati got the Trafic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Neoconned says:
    @anony-mouse
    1/ Can you sexually harass or assault an AI robot? They're coming. Suppose someone could create a CGI character that could have its own thoughts?

    2/ Ron Howard seems to have done very well.

    In the last little Weinstein thread from the other day I made the point these actresses are probably finished after this outside the z list film circuit because no producer or company will touch them w a 20 foot pole because of insurance and litigation reasons. No one wants liability over this.

    Look what happened…..one of the most successful companies in Hollywood self immolated in a matter of weeks

    Think about it….if you run a production company or are a shareholder or bondholder there of…..I mean would you work w these women? They’re radioactive at this point….

    It’s like killing your own king….what rival govt would touch such insurrectionists?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Broski
    Sailer publishes in Taki's on Wednesdays. Sometimes it's his best stuff that he's been pondering for a while, and sometimes it's current events. Often the articles are movie reviews.

    As you can see from the relative number of comments, Taki's draws more traffic than this site, so a lot of Sailer's great material goes up there.

    Also, while it may not seem significant to you, drawing attention to the existing layers of the Hollywood sex-abuse onion would be of great service to society. If, as has long been rumored, there are pedophile rings at the highest levels of Hollywood operating nearly openly, that would be an important thing for society to know.

    PS Why are my comments taking two days to post? I don't think I've had one rejected in months.

    Taki’s draws more traffic

    Not necessarily.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Barnard
    Ron Howard also let his daughter enter show business, but not until she was older and didn't raise his kids in L.A.

    I wonder what the divorce rate is for parents of child actors/ pop music performers? My guess is it would be astronomically high.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if being a child of a broken family makes you, on the whole, better at acting, at displaying your wounded feelings.

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    See also how many presidents had screwed-up and/or extremely atypical childhoods.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. snorlax says:
    @Opinionator
    Where, in your opinion, did Weinstein excel in terms of talent and skill?

    Like Steve said, he had a good nose for successful Oscar bait.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. snorlax says:
    @Steve Sailer
    I wouldn't be surprised if being a child of a broken family makes you, on the whole, better at acting, at displaying your wounded feelings.

    See also how many presidents had screwed-up and/or extremely atypical childhoods.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Kylie says:
    @jim jones
    We could just ban women from all movies

    “We could just ban women from all movies”

    Certainly most westerns and war movies would be better if the inevitably annoying female characters were eliminated.

    Just one example. Poor Joanne Dru as Tess Millay ruined Red River. I don’t see why her character was needed. Montgomery Clift provided enough of the feminine element that she could have been jettisoned.

    Or did you mean ban women from acting in and watching movies?

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax

    Certainly most westerns and war movies would be better if the inevitably annoying female characters were eliminated.
     
    I don’t watch many old westerns or war movies but I imagine the plot-extraneous actresses contributed in ways perhaps underappreciated by most female viewers. :)

    Plus the types who see homoeroticism in everything would have a field day (and a genuine point for once).

    I remember seeing a preview for that Baywatch movie that flopped a few months ago; the director or at least whoever edited the trailer was clearly gay. Nothing but scenes of The Rock and Zac Efron engaging in shirtless antics surrounded by buff, chest-waxed extras. Why would you let a gay guy direct a Baywatch movie?* That would be like Pamela Anderson letting a straight guy do her hair.

    *And then not even make an effort to work with what they had; I’m no genius producer, but if I’d taken over the project too late to fire the director, I’d have retitled it Men of Baywatch and explicitly marketed it to women, in the vein of Magic Mike. No charge, Hollywood.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Anon
    The problem with cinema is it preserves the childhood image forever.
    Prior to cinema, if a kid worked in the theater, he would eventually grow up, and people would see him as an adult, period. Some might remember his child role, but it'd be a fuzzy memory.
    But cinema preserves one's childhood persona in pristine condition, and that frozen image always competes with the real ever-changing person. The woman in SUNSET BOULEVARD wouldn't be so kooky if not for the fact that she tirelessly commemorates and competes with the image of her youth on the big screen.

    Well said.

    Interestingly, Gloria Swanson had done a good job moving on with her life after her Hollywood career dried up in the early 1930s. She moved to NYC and became a top radio serial actress and enjoyed a variety of entrepreneurial ventures that made her additional money. Thirty years after making Sunset Boulevard she took an active role in the 1980 Reagan campaign as chairwoman of the senior citizen get out the vote drive.

    It’s time for a feminist Republican gentile revisionist version of Sunset Boulevard.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    It’s time for a feminist Republican gentile revisionist version of Sunset Boulevard.

    I think the new BLADE RUNNER is the masculinist replicant(if not revisionist) version of SUNSET BOULEVARD(and others).

    Spoilers.

    Consider the scene where Deckard(Ford) is stalking K(Gosling) in the lounge with virtual images of Elvis and Sinatra, which is odder still since the original BLADE RUNNER takes place long after those two giants of music died. But they are always 'alive' because their images have been preserved on film and video(now transferred to digital format that can be transformed into who-knows-what in the future). If the original film was more about the physical replication of life, the new one seems to be just as concerned about the virtual replication of life. Instead of creating a robot version of Elvis, he can be created into something like a hologram, like K's 'laser' girlfriend, mostly a software program(that however still relies on minimum of software).
    Of course, the irony of that scene with Elvis and Sinatra(as virtual figures eternally pristine on the digital-state) is the dynamics sort of applies to BLADE RUNNER itself. The original can still be seen in its original version as if printed yesterday. Indeed, with new technology, the film got ever fresher. Scott did a Final Cut that looked better than ever, and it looks fabulous on LCD screens. (And maybe a 3D virtual version will be made later for fans to enter.) So, the new BLADE RUNNER not only follows but exists parallel with the original BLADE RUNNER. We are told that much of the records and files from the previous era are lost forever, but Wallace corp can conjure and recreate Rachel anew. It's like she will never age. This is in stark contrast to Deckard who has aged(like Norma Desmond). It's a kind of LOGAN'S RUN moment. In LR, there are only young and healthy people who are 'sent to heaven' at age 30. The idea of old age is a lost concept since no one is allowed to grow old. So, it's a marvel when the couple make the escape and meet an old person at the end. Our pop culture has no use for the old and caters to the young. And yet, precisely for that reason, there may be value in actual oldness as something organic, real, and natural. So, even though Ford is much aged and withered, he is a most welcome presence when he finally makes the entrance. In a world of replicants and virtuals, he is real. He aged like a human should. And yet, it's also tragic since the love of his life will always remain young(in his mind) and same while he grows older. Worse, even though he wants to keep memory of Rachel as his, it can be recreated a million times by Wallace corp... just like David discovers he is part of a 'he' and is dime-a-dozen in A.I.

    I think part of the appeal of the new STAR WARS movie was the re-appearance of the old characters. It was like a reunion. And young millennials, so accustomed to youth culture, felt a sense of 'family' with old characters who visibly aged(unlike the new hollywood idea of the perpetual youth-looking actor like Tom Cruise or Leonard DiCaprio). And the newer one will have Mark Hamill reprising his role after a long long spell. And TRON LEGACY's success owed as much to the human touch of reuniting with the lost aged father as with special effects. Age lent a regal element to an otherwise high-tech cutting-edge youth-oriented spectacle. It added the elder Vito Corleone touch.

    So, one part of our culture is to keep everything fresh and 'new'. Yet, because the sheer artificiality of this prevailing norm, it is oddly refreshing to see something aged. It is a sign of life as actual process, a part of cycle of birth and death. It has the same appeal that old Maude did to the young Harold. And John Wayne's rapport with the young girl in TRUE GRIT.

    https://youtu.be/QVGOUxQrISc?t=53s

    And this speaks to the theme of the original where replicants, having no memory, long for some kind of backstory, even if imagined.



    Replicants are fully conscious but their frame of reference is very narrow since they only have 4 yr life spans. In a way, modern life is like that. We are told to forget about roots, history, identity. Just think of the here-and-now, the latest fashions and trends. So, if homomania is all the rage, it's all that matters. It's difficult to imagine how humanity couldn't see the wonder of 'gay marriage' for 1000s of yrs. ONLY THE NOW is correct. Pull down any monuments that don't conform to the here and now. Every four years mean a new Year Zero, and the latest fads and fashions are all that matter. And so many fall for this... and yet, their lives feel empty because the deeper meaning of life can only be attained and preserved through a sense of history and heritage. I mean what are Jews if their minds were wiped of Jewish history and heritage and only thought in terms of here-and-now? Today's Americans are so amnesiac. Or PC fills them with such loathing of white past that they don't dare revisit it except to throw eggs at it.
    And the new BLADE RUNNER only comes to life by reconnecting with the old original story and with Harrison Ford who lives in a kind of red-dusty world surrounded by Clockwork Orange milk-bar statues(that also serves as a nostalgic nod to Kubrick). Before that, it was like 2 hrs of aimless meandering of some replicant without much to do. In the original movie, Deckard has a history, which is why the cop says, "I need the old blade runner." Here, it's given that K is a replicant, so there is no history. And unlike Rachel, he knows his memory is fake. So, he's just stuck in the present and we with him.

    The Christological allusions in the film serve as both contrary and complementary to the problems of this horrible future California. Christianity is about history and roots on some level. After all, there is a long rich history of Christendom and its triumphs and tragedies. Many books have been written on that. And yet, the core theme of Christianity is to reject blood, soil, memory, and roots in favor of the Eternal Moment. A German can give up German identity, forgo marriage and family, neglect his history and heritage, and yet, he will be saved and redeemed in the eyes of God IF he gives his soul to Jesus. So, there is a kind of irony in the 'miracle' hope of the replicants. They crave meaning, a sense of community, a dream of their own history as yet-to-be-written. But a miracle is a moment in time made eternal. It has no history. After all, every person is part of a long chain of life through eons of evolution. In contrast, a miracle is something that happens seemingly out of nowhere. Every Jew is a part of a long line of Jewish blood. But Christianity says Jesus is a miracle, a Man created by the God's divine touch out of the blue. In that sense, Jesus is and isn't Jewish. He was born of a Jewish mother's womb in the physical sense, but He is really the creation of God than of the bloodline of Jews.

    But aside the silliness, this bit of 'miracle' nonsense totally undermines the meaning and tragic beauty of the original. (Btw, if Rachel did give a 'miracle' birth, who would be god in this equation? Tyrell surely since he must have designed an android that could conceive life. Since this 'miracle' is the result of a sinister reptilian tycoon, how miraculous is it?) For starters, there was NO INDICATION whatsoever in the original that replicants could have children. Now, if New Replicants made by Wallace corp were designed to have kids, that'd be different story. So, this notion of Rachel bearing a child is too 'out of the left field' and incompatible with the BR universe.
    I suppose one could argue that Tyrell was so invested in making androids lifelike that he actually ended up creating something far more remarkable than he'd imagined. After all, scientists are sometimes surprised by phenomena they didn't intend in their creations. In that case, the 'miracle' wouldn't really be a miracle but an accident overlooked by Tyrell who, in making androids so humanlike, ended up equipping some of them with biological potential for giving birth. But if so, why did it ONLY happen with Rachel? Also, with all the Tarkovskean imagery, we are led into a spiritual kind of mindset. But in the end, there are no miracles in Tarkovsky's world. There are only delusions, dreams, and visions. Not the same thing as miracle. In SOLARIS, the strange planet has a mysterious but real power to replicate figures and objects in the mind. In STALKER, there is a material explanation for everything the Stalker expounds spiritually. And in THE SACRIFICE, we enter the mental state of a man going crazy and saintly at the same time. Tarkovksy doesn't say the world is filled with miracles. Rather, he suggests a properly contemplative outlook can make us aware of the miraculous nature of so much around us. But the new BLADE RUNNER is far more literal in its concept of the 'miracle'. We are shown Rachel's remains as if they're sacred relics and made to think, gee, maybe a kind of impossible 'miracle' did happen between Deckard and Rachel.
    But what kind of cockamamie nonsense is that? Worst of all, it robs the original of its tragic beauty. The original movie was not about miracle and redemption but about luck and fortune in chance moments. A sense of epiphany yet all too fleeting and ephemeral, like traces of fragrance. And there is no escape. In the end, search as he might, Roy Batty cannot escape his doomed fate. He has seen so much, far more than any human on earth. He had semi-godlike power and has a longing for immortality as all gods do. But he can't override the programming. After 4 yrs, his cord is cut and he must face the music... or silence. And yet, he died beautifully, and that moment will haunt Deckard forever. A light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. Some might say it's a miracle that Rachel lives. But then, it could be she was made later than other replicants, and she will also expire when the 4 yrs are up. There are two endings to the movie, one more upbeat than the other, but both are sad. In the one where Deckard and Rachel drive away, they are happy and safe for the moment, but there's no guarantee what will happen. In the Final Cut, it ends them with them on the run. So, there is in BLADE RUNNER the sense that even the most beautiful thing, esp the most beautiful thing, is doomed to fade. Permanence is an illusion. And Tyrell corp made replicants this way. More human than human, approaching the godly in either intelligence or beauty or strength. And no matter how amazing the new model, it will be replaced by yet newer models by the laws of commerce that renders everything dispensable and to be extinguished when the time is up. So, there is no escape for Deckard in the end. Either Deckard and Rachel will be captured or killed, or he will save Rachel but she will go kaput soon enough, and he will only have the memory of her. Now, it's possible that Tyrell esp made Rachel to live beyond 4 yrs. 10 yrs? 20 yrs? 100 yrs? But that's too much speculation. If for a long time, she will outlive Deckard who will grow old, and she will be left alone. So, BLADE RUNNER can only end tragically. There is no way out.

    Now, even as the new movie has tragic overtones, it turns all new-age flaky with the 'miracle' crap, and it has something like a happy ending. As depressing as it is, BLADE RUNNER only makes emotional sense as tragedy. With Rachel, Deckard had a love that should have lasted forever but couldn't. And that woulda been that. But to cook up some notion that the two had a kid together and that Deckard is 'spiritually' united with Rachel through the kid is just goo-goo stuff. Do we want to connect the dark ending of the Final Cut with the nursery-vibes of the ending of the new movie where Deckard says hi to his girl? Gimme a break.
    This is like the mess at the end of TWILIGHT. The only way that story makes sense is to end as tragedy. Edward and Bella love one another but live in two different worlds. If Bella remains human, she will die and Edward will forever be sad thinking of her. If Bella turns vampire, she will outlast all the people she loves. But TWILIGHT has the even the father becoming instantly cool with whatever strange thing that happened with his daughter. And there is no mention of Bella's mom after the transformation. And to make it even sillier, Bella, like Rachel, has a miracle baby before she turns vampire. Supposedly the ghostly sperm from Edward's ice cold penis fertilized the egg... It's just totally ridiculous.. though very well-done by Bill Condon.

    The 'miracle' bit is a sign of cultural sickness and not an isolated event in movies. Because religion is dead or because pop culture has become the new religion, the 'artists' and fans are infusing the works with a kind of quasi-spirituality. It's like what John Simon warned of EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. But that was nothing compared to the ludicrousness of PHANTOM MENACE where we learn that Kid Vader was born of a virgin mother. I mean...
    Can you imagine Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers discovering they were miraculously born of a 'virgin mother'? Lang's METROPOLIS warned of how science and technology can create false idols and gods. And with recent sci-fi films, we are really getting there. Kubrick got away with it in 2001 because it was such an astounding work and left it up to us to interpret. As for Tarkovsky, he made what might be called anti-scifi. STALKER is bleak, and the element of faith is up to each person. It cannot be ascertained by what is out there. It's a matter of what's inside one's own soul. And the original BLADE RUNNER was also pessimistic about technology as replacement for humanity.

    But now, we get a string of sci-fi that pretend to be the beginning of a new faith. Not just New Hope but New Religion. And we get this in fantasy too. It was interesting to turn Vampires into a saintly clan. Still, they were vampires and felt the burden of guilt. But as the story progresses, everything just becomes so hunky dory and Bella becomes a guilt-less happy vampire goddess and even has a miracle child.

    And what the hell was INTERSTELLAR, a bloated choral symphony about 'corn is good'. It could have been a nice action sci-fi but tries to be like the founding of a new faith.

    And there is the overly serious BATMAN series by Nolan. What should be fun comic book hero movie tries to be a bona fide work of Western Myth. And this bug caught onto other franchises as well. I never much cared for 007 but Connery was cool and the series has its thrilling sensational moments. But SKYFALL tries to be Art Bond. I lasted about 15 min. If I want that, I'll just see TINKER TAILER SOLDIER SPY.

    Why is Pop trying to be Art? Why is sci-fi trying to be religion? Miracle Birth? A quasi-spiritual brotherhood of the replicants?

    This miracle bit worked in TRON LEGACY because the concept is true to human psychology. There is the rational logical side(left side of brain) and the irrational, emotional, and creative side(right side of the brain). In the sequel, we learn how Flynn tried to be a total master of logic and math in mapping out the cyber world. He'd neglected his other side, but something unexpectedly flowed from that region and took his self-awareness to another level. So, even though it is miraculous, it can be explained in psychological terms. But the virgin birth of Kid Vader in PHANTOM MENACE is totally at odds with how the STAR WARS universe works. Yes, there is this mysterious thing called Force, but it's not a world of miracles. It was just a case of Lucas getting so carried away with his work that he decided to throw New Testament into the mix. As for Stephanie Meyer, I don't think she can tell Mormonism apart from Pop Culture anymore, but then, Mormonism itself is a PT Barnum-ish re-imagining of the Bible.

    The whole point of BLADE RUNNER is about existentially arriving at one's personal truth in a world without certainty or reassurance. That is its poetry and its pain. In the end, it is up to Deckard what he is and what Rachel means to him. He knows and we know that she is a corporate product. And as he looks at the paper origami, he could be one too. So, even the 'personal' and 'private' could be corporate and generic. And yet, Deckard still clings to the meaning and love between him and Rachel.. even against all odds. This is akin to the ending of SILENCE where the fallen priest, upon dying in a foreign land where Christianity has been utterly vanquished, still holds within his folded hands a crucifix. In the end, it's not about what the world thinks, but what HE thinks(still) in the depths of his heart. It's both sad and illuminating. Sad because he has utterly failed and even publicly renounced God, but also moving because at a deeper personal level, he holds steadfast to the faith.
    In some ways, BLADE RUNNER's world is even more bleak. After all, even without Christianity, Japan is a land of spirituality of Buddhism and Shinto. People believe in the sacred. But BLADE RUNNER world is utterly degraded and fallen where no one believes or trusts anyone or anything. So, Deckard's feelings for Rachel, as strong and beautiful as they are, can only be a fleeting moment, like the memory of Batty as he finally dies. They may light up the individual 'soul' but they are nothing but fireflies in time. Once extinguished, gone forever and no one will ever know or care that there was a Rachel and Deckard and how he felt about her.

    So, for the remake to turn their story into the basis of a new faith.. It is so wrong. So, Rachel turned out to be madonna and Deckard was Joseph.. or Joe? That robs BLADE RUNNER of its poignancy. It's all the sadder because replicants will be utterly forgotten(retired not only physically but historically, as if they'd never existed) despite the epic dimension of their ventures. It's like Roy Batty has some of the most magnificent images stored in his head, but they will all fade away. And the ONLY person with an inkling of Batty's short-lived grandeur will be Deckard. By keeping Deckard alive, Batty lives just a little bit more as a memory in Deckard who've witnessed the noble as well as dark side of Batty. But then, when Deckard dies, the last vestiges of evidence that Batty ever existed will be gone as well. So, BLADE RUNNER are about these beautiful fires that must sadly burn out and disappear forever. When this idea is taken by the new movie and turned into a promise of a Forest Fire that will redeem the world... that turns poetry into dogma.

    As for the movie as entertainment, Gosling is a good actor but isn't given much to do except look pretty like Tippi Hedren. Also, there is no sense of fun, with the cast of originals now in retirement home. Olmos was a fun character, real cool cat in the original. His cameo doesn't even give us the accent. Ford had charm and a smirk in the original. Gosling has just one expression, and the emotional scenes just aren't convincing because BLADE RUNNER universe was not designed to carry such emotions. For a while, we are led to believe K is the lost son of Deckard, and it's almost like the Steve Jobs story. But it gets even more ludicrous when we learn that the real kid is some funny looking millennial girl who toys with a camera. Now, if Rachel and Deckard are both very attractive people, why is their kid a pillsbury dough girl? What a bummer. Nothing about her seems special. Jared Leto comes across as overly eerie and creepy, but the character grows on you because the eccentricity is held so steady. What initially looks like posture takes on the semblance of possession. He becomes truly diabolical and frightening. Much else of the movie is cold and stalinist. The police captain seems made of concrete, inside and out, like the brutalist building. Even the replicants had personality in the original. Leon was a goofy bully, Pris a playful tease, and Zhora a dashing killer babe. In the new movie, everyone has a very narrow range of expression and emotions(like the characters in TWO JAKES, the dull and overlong sequel to CHINATOWN). They seem to have no purpose in life beyond service. It is however a nice touch that the assassin female replicant has also been programmed to shed a sentimental tear despite her cold commitment to Wallace's orders. Besides that, the only other poetic touch in the movie is the brilliant scene where the hooker's body syncs with the movements of the 'girlfriend'. The fragile moment where the merging of the two alternate back and forth between blur and clarity is the high point of the movie.

    As for the Hans Zimmer's music, is that a bullhorn or a soundtrack? In the IMAX showing, the seats were literally shaking, and if I hadn't brought my ear plugs, I would have suffered hearing damage for sure.

    One problem with Villeneau is he was too reverential not only to the original but other great classics of cinema. As such, there are moments when it looks like an overly serious version of BRAZIL which is little more than endless movie references. On the one hand, Villeneau is obviously paying homage to the greats that came before him. But it also seems a bit pretentious, as if to declare that he his the heir to Tarkovsky, Scott, Welles, Hitchcock. Tarkovsky-ism just don't belong there. While BLADE RUNNER is a slow for a Hollywood movie, it's a difference of slowness than Tarkovsky's. Tarkovksy's slowness was to induce a contemplative and meditative mood. It was to dissolve and meld our sense of time and place with a spiritual and mysterious force. In contrast, Scott's stillness and slowness were to sharpen and fine-tune our sense of the moment. Tarkovsky's vision was about the dissolution of earth, body, time, and space into a unity known only to God. It's about liquid. Scott, having honed his skills in advertising, worked like a jeweler cutting diamond to find that perfect eternity in the moment. It's cyrstalline. So, mixing Tarkosky and Scott's vision in the new work makes no sense.

    Villeneau is humble or arrogant enough to allude to #1 and #2 on the Sight and Sound Greatest Films list. The furnace scene works(likely a nod to Rosebud) pretty well, but Rachel as Vertigo-inspired double is too much.

    Overall, the movie suffers from the same problems as Pink Floyd albums after Rogers Waters left. Waters became the heart-and-soul of Pink Floyd, and without him, something crucial was missing. Sure, the album without him has same grand symphonic effects and visionary vibe, but it's like a mansion without people and furniture in it. Indeed, to compensate for lack of Waters, MOMENTARY LAPSE OF REASON and DIVISION BELL are in some ways bigger and louder. But they ring hollow. Likewise, the new one is to the original film what Wallace Corp is to Tyrell. Much bigger but emptier, esp as the running time drags on and makes us acutely aware of so little that is happening original, or interesting. It's just gigantism or gargantuanism, like Albert Speer at his worst. Speer was an able architect but sometimes he just fell back on scale, like the ridiculous mega-dome in the plan of city Germania. It's like Hans Zimmer's music is like the shell of Wagner without the soul.

    There are undoubtedly some great things in the movie but ultimately it's terrible, not unlike HEAVEN'S GATE and LOLA MONTEZ that, despite their cinematic wonders, aren't wired properly. It's like a mansion with all sorts of fancy lighting fixtures but where most of the light remain off because the wires have been messed up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Olorin says:

    Robert Blake’s an interesting example.

    He claimed his parents abused him. His alcoholic dad was a suicide at a rather early age. His parents sold him first to vaudeville (age 3) then to Hollywood (age 5). RB himself was a volatile kid and a runaway, though seems eventually to have managed a modicum of balance before the paternity matter, etc.

    That’s the missing link here. Not what Hollywood will to do children, but what their own families will.

    First by breeding them with a mashup of disheveled genes, next creating for their children disheveled families and societies, and codes of behavior resulting from those. Then by offering their kids up for exploitation.

    People have been selling their kids to the Moloch of the entertainment industry as long as it has existed.

    This is a moral and genetic sickness…but it is also a coherent population phenomenon. Hollywood has been exploiting and monetarizing outside-the-Hajnal-Line tendencies for its entire existence. Its ichor is narcissism, histrionics, minstrelsy, envy, resentment, and greed for shekels.

    But this would have no traction without the feedstock of parents living through their children. Enslaving the little ones to their own egos. Replacing family with corporation. Replacing love with monetarized attention.

    As for Hollywood’s character (so to speak), how could it be otherwise, emerging from early 20th century immigration patterns and the people those introduced into the republic, with their innate behavior patterns?

    No wonder its mythmaking/propaganda has been at war with orderly, law-abiding, morally and socially traditional middle Americans.

    Banning child actors isn’t going to change these genetic facts of nature.

    This is why orderly, law-abiding, morally and socially traditional middle Americans of better stock need to ignore the infotainment industry in all its forms and get back to more productive uses of our personal and family time and resources.

    Stop worshipping at that temple. Reclaim the children from it. Give them something better to think about, starting with their own ancestors’ and families’ stories. And get them the hell outside to play. Mens sana in corpore sano.

    In closing, a couple items:

    http://www.therichest.com/expensive-lifestyle/entertainment/10-parents-who-exploited-their-children-to-fame/

    http://www.thepress.purdue.edu/titles/shtetl-stardom-jews-and-hollywood

    http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/242464/was-hollywood-too-jewish-jack-warner-biography

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  94. DCThrowback says: • Website
    @Anon87
    Track down the documentary An Open Secret. Then as a chaser watch the bizarre pilot Chad's World. The pedo Hollywood crisis is coming.

    Ann Coulter just tweated it out today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Weltanschauung
    In Shakespeare's time, women were in fact banned from the stage.

    In “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead,” the Travelling Players who pass through Elsinore are, the times being what they are, not above pimping out the youngest boy in the troupe.

    In “Hamlet,” Hamlet denounces at considerable length the recent fashion in England for troupes of child actors putting on grown-up plays. In the 1590s, apparently, audiences went nuts over Bugsy Malone-style plays featuring child actors as grown up characters. This drove Shakespeare nuts. However, Hamlet’s extended diatribe making fun of this fad is usually the first thing cut from that very long play.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    Shakespeare's original line was:

    "The first thing we do, let's kill all the editors."

    After an editor got through with it:

    "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
    , @Jack D
    There are a lot of inside theater jokes in Hamlet, especially in the scene where the acting troupe shows up. Polionius hilariously announces all the genres the actors are capable of playing:

    tragedy, comedy, history, pastoral, pastoral-comical, historical-pastoral, tragical-historical, tragical-comical-historical-pastoral

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Maureen Dowd writes about Hollywood Jews sexually invading the space of SHIRLEY TEMPLE.

    Hollywood Jew Sickos Sexually Invading the space of Shirley Temple. Maureen Dowd has some balls to slip this into the New York Times Sulzberger slop rag.

    Dowd writes:

    In her autobiography, “Child Star,” Shirley Temple described going with her mother to see her new bosses at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer after leaving Fox.

    Louis B. Mayer spirited away Gertrude Temple. The curly-haired superstar — hailed by F.D.R. for helping America get through the Depression — was taken to the office of Arthur Freed, an associate producer on “The Wizard of Oz.”

    After telling her that she would have to get rid of her baby fat, Freed abruptly stood up and pulled out his penis. The 11-year-old had never even seen one before. She gave a nervous laugh, which offended the producer.

    “Get out!” he shouted.

    When she rejoined her mother, an affronted Gertrude told Shirley that she had had to back out of Mayer’s office when he lunged at her.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  97. @snorlax

    One thing I would do is ban anyone under 18 from ... having any online accounts.
     
    Porn sites are required by a 90’s-era act of Congress to only allow over-18s to view their content.

    This works. I didn’t watch any internet porn at all during my teenage years!

    It was magazines in my day … Nope, never saw any before 18.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. CAL2 says:
    @27 year old

    One thing I would do is ban anyone under 18 from having any online accounts.
     
    Absolutely not. The Internet is why we have Generation Zyklon right now, the most right-wing White cohort.

    Maybe in the future when we control "mainstream" media and education, but at the present that would be shooting ourselves in the foot bigly.

    It would help if you quoted me properly.

    One thing I would do is ban anyone under 18 from participating in any promotional events, or having any online accounts.

    I was talking about kids in the movie/entertainment industry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @27 year old
    Ok I missed the point. You mean ban any actor/actress under 18 from online accounts. That's an interesting idea, probably wouldn't work though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Opinionator
    Weinstein gave us what we want in the only way possible. The movie biz grew up, developed and prospered because of the way Weinstein did biz, not in spite of it.

    What do we want and what did he give us?

    My guess is that if the directors rather than the producers held more power, there be more movies like Dunkirk.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Steve Sailer
    In "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead," the Travelling Players who pass through Elsinore are, the times being what they are, not above pimping out the youngest boy in the troupe.

    In "Hamlet," Hamlet denounces at considerable length the recent fashion in England for troupes of child actors putting on grown-up plays. In the 1590s, apparently, audiences went nuts over Bugsy Malone-style plays featuring child actors as grown up characters. This drove Shakespeare nuts. However, Hamlet's extended diatribe making fun of this fad is usually the first thing cut from that very long play.

    Shakespeare’s original line was:

    “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the editors.”

    After an editor got through with it:

    “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. DCThrowback says: • Website
    @Pat Boyle
    I need someone to explain to me what was Weinstein's talent. In all the media frenzy about Handsome Harvey I can't remember reading anything simply explaining why he was so good at whatever it was that he did. I'm a little fuzzy on just what it was that he did.

    It is fairly easy to understand what an actor does. We have been told that Hollywood can make almost anyone into a star - but that can't be true. For example years ago Universal (I think) had made a big push to make Guy Stockwell a major star. He was introduced and featured in picture after picture. But he never seemed to gain traction. His brother Dean Stockwell without the benefit of such focused promotion managed to be a star at every period of his life. That never made much sense to me. But it did demonstrate that at least part of the magic that movie star's brought to the screen wasn't really available to the studio bosses.

    I can also understand what a director does. Everyone understood Alfred Hitchcock's contribution just as everyone recognizes that Spielberg has a way with telling a story on film. In the old, old days when producers were the kings of the lot - not the directors, we had some idea about producers too.

    But what the hell did Harvey do? Except hit on the young women? We are told that Trump is a great negotiator - a guy who can sense advantage and weakness around the conference table. Is that what Weinstein did? Or did he have a canny sense of what was a commercially valuable story? Did he - unlike all others in Hollywood spot the script that would be next year's Oscar winner? Did he have some magic insight into what would be a hit?

    If Weinstein didn't have some super valuable talent like that, why would anyone put up with him?

    Jack D’s thorough boat metaphor/comment pretty much covers it, but two small notes:

    1/ Harvey and his brother Bob got their start in Buffalo, NY (as “Harvey and Corky”) as concert/event promoters

    2/ Harvey handled the prestige work; Bob handled Dimension Films (“Scream” enterprise, “Scary Movie enterprise). Bob made the money, Harvey handled the egos/prestive works.

    The two brothers’ relationship is reportedly love/hate at best; if an “inside man” delivered this story on a platter to the New York Times’ Megan Twohey, I’ll bet you a coke it was Bob.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Zippy
    I never understood precisely why your retweet of that joke was supposed to be so despicable. Is it because you were being anti-semitic? Sexist? What? Did he ever elaborate?

    Also, if we're playing the "look how the child actor turned out" game, Jake Lloyd and Edward Furlong (Star Wars prequel and Terminator 2) have had troubles, but Ron Howard has rather famously gone on to being a very successful director/mogul. Clint less so, but he gets to be a funny looking guy in Ron's movies. Molly Ringwald wasn't precisely a child actor, but she seems to be pretty well adjusted.

    It’s worth noting that Ron Howard chose to raise his four kids in Old Money Connecticut rather than in Brentwood.

    And Jason Bateman is doing very well in his late 40s (after having pretty much disappeared for 10 or 15 years due to various problems).

    Anyway, I’d like to see somebody study this question more rigorously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    And Jason Bateman is doing very well in his late 40s (after having pretty much disappeared for 10 or 15 years due to various problems).

    IMDB shows a period of low activity as an actor in 1993-94 and again in 1999-2002 and again in 2007 (though he was a major character in a feature film that year). He did some work as a producer and director in 1999-2002. The only year (since 1980) in which he has no screen credit is 1993.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Broski
    Sailer publishes in Taki's on Wednesdays. Sometimes it's his best stuff that he's been pondering for a while, and sometimes it's current events. Often the articles are movie reviews.

    As you can see from the relative number of comments, Taki's draws more traffic than this site, so a lot of Sailer's great material goes up there.

    Also, while it may not seem significant to you, drawing attention to the existing layers of the Hollywood sex-abuse onion would be of great service to society. If, as has long been rumored, there are pedophile rings at the highest levels of Hollywood operating nearly openly, that would be an important thing for society to know.

    PS Why are my comments taking two days to post? I don't think I've had one rejected in months.

    PS Why are my comments taking two days to post? I don’t think I’ve had one rejected in months.

    Same here. Is it a glitch in the Unz system or is Steve dropping the ball?

    I don’t think I’ve ever posted anything offensive. Granted, my posts may not be the most interesting or perceptive, but still I try to stay on topic and it would be nice to see them before the thread dies as I sometimes get replies that are of interest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @the one they call Desanex
    Here’s the Weinstein limerick I posted Sunday on Takimag:


    What they say about me, Harvey Weinstein?
    Science fiction that’s worthy of Heinlein!
    Those Hollywood shrews
    Must really hate Jews,
    And to figure that out don’t take Einstein.

     

    A commenter pointed out that the rhyme doesn’t work if the name is pronounced Wein-steen. I could plead poetic license, or that there’s no logical reason for the name to be pronounced Wein-steen. Instead, I plead that mispronouncing a person’s name is a time-honored way of showing contempt.

    It’s pronounced HOR-vey Wee-in-STEEN

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Paul Yarbles
    Hollywood is a perverted freak-show and they seem to want to make everyone else perverted freaks. So one concern I have with replacing child actors with technological work-arounds is that it will weaken the prohibitions on depicting acts of violence against and sex with children.

    The studios can slap the disclaimer "No children were hurt or molested in the making of this film." at the end of every picture. No more worries about bad publicity from the potential damaging effects on actual child actors during the filming such horrors.

    “The studios can slap the disclaimer “No children were hurt or molested in the making of this film.” at the end of every picture.”

    A couple of years ago I walked past the little office building where the American Humane Association runs their business certifying the disclaimer on movies that no animals were harmed. It’s a modest sized business that makes some money, so it seems like a viable model for other reforms.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Broski
    Sailer publishes in Taki's on Wednesdays. Sometimes it's his best stuff that he's been pondering for a while, and sometimes it's current events. Often the articles are movie reviews.

    As you can see from the relative number of comments, Taki's draws more traffic than this site, so a lot of Sailer's great material goes up there.

    Also, while it may not seem significant to you, drawing attention to the existing layers of the Hollywood sex-abuse onion would be of great service to society. If, as has long been rumored, there are pedophile rings at the highest levels of Hollywood operating nearly openly, that would be an important thing for society to know.

    PS Why are my comments taking two days to post? I don't think I've had one rejected in months.

    Taki’s draws more traffic

    But Tati got the Trafic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. CAL2 says:
    @snorlax

    One thing I would do is ban anyone under 18 from ... having any online accounts.
     
    Porn sites are required by a 90’s-era act of Congress to only allow over-18s to view their content.

    This works. I didn’t watch any internet porn at all during my teenage years!

    Sure they might end up with some accounts with friends. But there’s no way they are going to create a professional account that has hoards of fans on it without generating notice and getting shut down.

    One problem with child actors is they end up in a bubble of fame. Not allowing them promotional events, etc. might help to cut down on that bubble some. Sure they do a TV show. But they aren’t going out to events getting their egos stroked by thousands of adoring fans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @Chrisnonymous
    But there are so many good rhymes with "-steen". Surely you could do another one.

    Franken-Steen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @AndrewR
    Are you really mispronouncing a foreign name when you pronounce it with closer fidelity to the native pronunciation than the person who actually has the name chooses to pronounce it? Of course in German it would be "Vine-Shtine" but "Wine-Stine" is better than nothing.

    I had a boss with the surname Ricci who pronounced it "Ricky." It pained me to pronounce it so abominably instead of saying "ree-chee" but he was the boss lol.

    He should’ve changed the spelling, too. Maybe Rickey, like Branch Rickey.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. snorlax says:
    @Kylie
    "We could just ban women from all movies"

    Certainly most westerns and war movies would be better if the inevitably annoying female characters were eliminated.

    Just one example. Poor Joanne Dru as Tess Millay ruined Red River. I don't see why her character was needed. Montgomery Clift provided enough of the feminine element that she could have been jettisoned.

    Or did you mean ban women from acting in and watching movies?

    Certainly most westerns and war movies would be better if the inevitably annoying female characters were eliminated.

    I don’t watch many old westerns or war movies but I imagine the plot-extraneous actresses contributed in ways perhaps underappreciated by most female viewers. :)

    Plus the types who see homoeroticism in everything would have a field day (and a genuine point for once).

    I remember seeing a preview for that Baywatch movie that flopped a few months ago; the director or at least whoever edited the trailer was clearly gay. Nothing but scenes of The Rock and Zac Efron engaging in shirtless antics surrounded by buff, chest-waxed extras. Why would you let a gay guy direct a Baywatch movie?* That would be like Pamela Anderson letting a straight guy do her hair.

    *And then not even make an effort to work with what they had; I’m no genius producer, but if I’d taken over the project too late to fire the director, I’d have retitled it Men of Baywatch and explicitly marketed it to women, in the vein of Magic Mike. No charge, Hollywood.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @Svigor

    I can’t think of a single major news story I’ve enjoyed as much in my adult life. Not even Trump’s successive slayings of the open-borders GOP elite and the Hillary machine.
     
    Yeah the Weinstein thing is begging for a Days of Christmas song. "On the first day of Christmas, Big Media gave to me...a scandal about Har-vey."

    "Fiiive, squirming Jeeeewwwws!"

    The Weinstein story has everything – Hollywood degeneracy and perversion … ample documented connections to lib-prog politicians, now scrambling in embarassment … champions of Girl Power philosophy trying to explain how they operated a harassment and molestation assembly line for decades … virtue-signaling SJW artists being forced to answer for their personal behavior. And as this article shows, nobody ties it all together like Sailer.

    Light ‘em up, Steve-o.
     
    Don't forget all the squirming over the fact that Hollywood is a Jewish-run industry, so if you look a bit too eager to criticize...

    Sort of like how there's all this talk about the pedos in Hollywood, but unfortunately, they're gay pedos, so one must be cautious not to seem too eager to criticize...

    Someone asked “link, please” about loss-of-life among child actors on iSteve’s Taki Magazine article.
     
    Wasn't the "They're Back!" girl from Poltergeist, along with a man, killed on set by a helicopter's blades crashing on them?

    Harry, that's funny. I never watched much "Our Gang," but always thought Alfalfa gave off heavy asshole vibes.

    What really separates out actors and actresses is physical beauty and fuckability.
     
    I think what really distinguishes them, as Art Deco mentioned above, is their need to wade through the Hollywood cesspool. There are loads of beautiful people who would much rather do something else (though of course, there are loads of not-so-beautiful people who'd love to make it in showbiz).

    Sort of like how there’s all this talk about the pedos in Hollywood, but unfortunately, they’re gay pedos, so one must be cautious not to seem too eager to criticize…

    If a similar skeleton comes out about Hollywood and underage boys, it is important the the media not take the bait like they did with the Catholic Church and call it pedophilia rather than what it really is, gay men pursuing underage boys. But to do that we need to write the narrative now so when it comes out the alt-right nails it right out of the proverbial gate. That is what the MSM is doing right now, writing the counter-narrative. We need to teach them a lesson in kind. Speaking of gates we can call it Gay-Wood or Gay-Gate. Whatever it is, this time there will be no hiding in the closet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @snorlax

    One thing I would do is ban anyone under 18 from ... having any online accounts.
     
    Porn sites are required by a 90’s-era act of Congress to only allow over-18s to view their content.

    This works. I didn’t watch any internet porn at all during my teenage years!

    I wonder if we’ll ever see porn sites using facial recognition software to ensure viewers are over eighteen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    That would be awful for the child refugee industry!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Anon
    Replicants have 4 yr lifespans.


    Maybe kids should be given 4 yr work-spans and NO MORE.

    The 4 yrs can be continuous or spread out but the rule is 4 yrs and no more.

    4 yr terms for presidents seem to have worked out.

    Four years is a long time for a kid to be surrounded by wealthy and connected pedophiles.

    I like Steve’s idea, although it seems like making adults look like children would be asking a lot more of the technology than making adults look like younger adults.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. fish says:
    @Tiny Duck
    At least progressives call out and police there own.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/harvey-weinstein-oreilly-ailes.html?action=click&contentCollection=Media&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

    When Bill Oriley and Drumpf commit sexual assault conservatives make excuses

    Spare me your outrage. If you support the Predator in Chief rapist racist in office then you are no better than him

    Oh Tinys….why you never takes mys calls any mo?

    - Leonard Pitts

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Rod1963 says:
    @Shouting Thomas
    The casting couch is even more brutal and destructive for men.

    The men I know or knew in the modeling or acting biz are all either HIV positive or dead. You could say they were enthusiastic participants in the gay orgy/party scene, but that scene was and is the casting couch for actors. Don’t play and you’re out.

    Weinstein gave us what we want in the only way possible. The movie biz grew up, developed and prospered because of the way Weinstein did biz, not in spite of it.

    We’ve discovered in the digital age that just about anybody can play and record rock and roll. Same is true of acting. It’s not a difficult skill and anybody can learn it. Before digital tech, recording and distribution were prohibitively expensive. Now, both are cheap.

    What really separates out actors and actresses is physical beauty and fuckability. Weinstein was test driving the merchandise to see if it was up to snuff. He was doing that for us. And we bought it big time. Because it is human nature to want what Weinstein was selling. He’s an Ashkenazi Jew with a stratospheric IQ, right? He had the intelligence to understand how to get directly from A to B.

    Bitching and cause mongering will not change this. There will simply be a new Weinstein who is even more clever at giving us what we want while mouthing the most stale and cliched political orthodoxies.

    No, Holywood isn’t giving us what we want. Basically they making garbage movies that are loaded with PC/MC and aimed at 15 year olds or worse so saturated with mindless violence and depravity it makes you want to take a show after watching their fare.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Svigor says:

    Jack, film is a collaborative process, so there is never any real way to tell where, say, the director ends, and the cinematographer begins, or where the cinematographer ends, and the camera operator begins, etc.

    And there’s even the question of where “begin” begins, and “end” ends; how much of Kubrick’s famed visual perfectionism is him having the actual knowledged needed, and how much of it is simply him knowing what he wants to see, and insisting on the crew working on it until he likes it? How much of his team’s work can a director actually do? Does he just have a sense of what his people can deliver, or does he actually know their jobs?

    No analogy is perfect, but ship’s captain drifts off course because the finished film is the ship. Getting the ship built is down to a lot of people, but consensus seems to be that the director is the person most responsible for what the finished ship looks like.

    The producer may budget a ship, conceive of and design it, hire the team to build it, and buy the equipment and materials needed for its production, but he doesn’t remotely deliver a built ship for the captain to sail away in.

    Really, I think the public attaches more importance and rigidity to the various roles than the people making the movies do, at least in the work sense. It’s probably nearly as fluid as the business structure (each film being it’s own company), varying between projects and teams. Does anyone really think any of the top directors have no more influence over pre-production than any given director? That it would be any different, even if the top directors didn’t get producer credit?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "And there’s even the question of where “begin” begins, and “end” ends; how much of Kubrick’s famed visual perfectionism is him having the actual knowledged needed, and how much of it is simply him knowing what he wants to see, and insisting on the crew working on it until he likes it? How much of his team’s work can a director actually do? Does he just have a sense of what his people can deliver, or does he actually know their jobs?"

    This, by the way, is similar to Robert Trent Jones Sr.'s criticism of Jack Nicklaus as a golf course architect: that Nicklaus lacked the kind of visual imagination to fully foresee what golf holes would look like in 3-d. But, on the other hand, Nicklaus was a great golf course architecture critic of what he could see. So, RTJ implied, Nicklaus would give vague orders to his staff to push dirt around, and then tell them it was all wrong when they thought they had it done. So Nicklaus would end up building an outstanding golf course, but it usually cost the client a bundle due to all the reworking Nicklaus required.

    I presume that at the highest levels of artistic accomplishment, they guy in charge tends to both be a visionary and a tyrant at demanding his staff start over again. Sometimes it's because the staff didn't live up to his original vision of what he wanted to see, sometimes it's because his original vision was lousy, but the Kubrick-level guy pushes through complaints from his staff and eventually gets something new done, whether by original vision or by trial and error.

    , @AnotherGuessModel
    The director's cut of a movie is often markedly different than the official version released by the movie studio(s), where executive producers and other suits hold more sway.
    , @Mr. Anon

    And there’s even the question of where “begin” begins, and “end” ends; how much of Kubrick’s famed visual perfectionism is him having the actual knowledged needed, and how much of it is simply him knowing what he wants to see, and insisting on the crew working on it until he likes it?
     
    In Kubricks' case it was actual knowledge. While making Spartacus, the cinematographer complained that Kubrick essentially took over the job himself, leaving him with nothing to do. Kubrick never took credit for it, and the dunsel cinematographer won an oscar for Kubricks' work. Kubrick was also a nut about lighting and lots of other technical details. While Spielberg delegates more than Kubrick did, he still also has a pretty comprehensive view of the technical arts of movie-making.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Svigor says:

    IMO movies are made in post-production. PP may not be as important (in the broad sense), or creative, or challenging, but that is literally where the movie gets built; editors have chunks of video and audio, and a script, and they assemble that into a movie.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  118. Danindc says:

    Is your idea that Andy Serkis should play all children’s roles? He better steel himself for whole lotta molestin!!

    Read More
    • LOL: BB753
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  119. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    OT: Big plague outbreak in Madagascar of the worst kind. It’s pneumoniac plague, which spreads through coughing or sneezing, has an incubation time of just a few hours, and kills you within a day. It’s the type that killed a lot of people in Europe and China back in the Middle Ages. Some guy who had it traveled 500 miles on a bus, gave it to almost everyone on the bus, and as these passengers disembarked at various stops, they in turn spread it to city after city throughout Madagascar. I cannot imagine what that sort of plague would do today in India, China, or overpopulated cities in Africa filled with poor people such as those in South Africa or Egypt. There comes a point in which the math of the plague makes it spread faster than antibiotics can be manufactured to keep up with it.

    Good argument for closing borders to immigrants and keeping them that way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D

    Good argument for closing borders to immigrants and keeping them that way.
     
    Not really. To be really effective you would have to close the borders completely.

    The antibiotics used to treat plague are cheap and produced by the ton - streptomycin, tetracycline, etc. There is excess capacity because they used to put this stuff in animal feed (chickens gain more weight when they are given antibiotics). I can only imagine how much the Chinese produce - megatons. You can break a plague epidemic by putting everyone on antibiotics for a week so no one can spread the infection anymore. Even in a 3rd world place, Black Death type epidemics are impossible nowadays as long as there is at least a rudimentary public health system. The plague in Madagascar is not going to sweep thru their whole population. The scare scenarios that you see in science fiction movies never happen in real life. You get local outbreaks and they fizzle.

    A plague vaccine is possible but no pharma company wants to spend the money on it when they can develop high $ drugs for 1st world diseases instead.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Svigor says:

    Steve’s made the military-movie biz analogy before. The director is the field officer who executes the battle plan. Sure, some general back at HQ recruited, trained, equipped, and cared for the unit, even devised their battle plan, but it’s the field officer who leads them in battle and wins the glory. I suppose it makes sense the director gets the glory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The producer is FDR vs. the general is Patton, or Truman vs. MacArthur.
    , @Anon
    And there’s even the question of where “begin” begins, and “end” ends; how much of Kubrick’s famed visual perfectionism is him having the actual knowledged needed, and how much of it is simply him knowing what he wants to see, and insisting on the crew working on it until he likes it?

    His body of works speaks for itself. He worked with different people but almost always created and presented something special.

    Now, if Kubrick made only one or two great works with a certain crew and a bunch of lousy ones with other collaborators, one might indeed wonder how much Kubrick had to with the successes.

    But he made one great one after another.

    In contrast, Ridley Scott's record is all over the place. He made one truly great movie, some good ones, some okay ones, and some really bad ones. Who know what exactly went right or wrong?

    Based on Frederic Raphael's memoir of collaboration on EYED WIDE SHUT, Kubrick was tireless(and even relentless at times) in proposing ideas, provoking feedback, teasing out new permutations, and etc. The style was like Peter Sellers act in LOLITA. Nudging gently but insistently, making move after move like in chess. And he appreciated people who could play along in this game than just took orders.
    Because he needed to play this mind game, he hired people who were very intelligent, erudite, literary, professional, and/or highly innovative in their own way. He liked to bounce the ball around, like Jack in THE SHINING, but with other interesting minds.

    I don't think he had it all mapped out in the beginning. Rather, he had a powerful vision or some obsessive idea. And then he tried to examine it from many angles, and to do this, he needed others to pick up what he'd missed. It's like someone on the sideline in a game will see things the players don't see. A ceaseless talker, he explained what he was looking for and wanted his collaborators to be similarly intrigued and offer their own proposals.

    He insisted on doing things his way, but his 'tyranny' was far subtler than that of, say, Von Stroheim or Preminger who liked to scream at people until their faces turned blue. Instead of beating a dead horse, he looked for the accu-pressure points in his collaborators whom he also regarded as competitors.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @the one they call Desanex
    Here’s the Weinstein limerick I posted Sunday on Takimag:


    What they say about me, Harvey Weinstein?
    Science fiction that’s worthy of Heinlein!
    Those Hollywood shrews
    Must really hate Jews,
    And to figure that out don’t take Einstein.

     

    A commenter pointed out that the rhyme doesn’t work if the name is pronounced Wein-steen. I could plead poetic license, or that there’s no logical reason for the name to be pronounced Wein-steen. Instead, I plead that mispronouncing a person’s name is a time-honored way of showing contempt.

    Hmmm…One of the “actresses” speaks:
    I hate your guts Mr. Weinstein
    Your behavior is that of a swine
    You pulled down your pants
    Assaulted my plants
    And all I got was one f@cking line!!

    Read More
    • LOL: Harry Baldwin
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Svigor
    Steve's made the military-movie biz analogy before. The director is the field officer who executes the battle plan. Sure, some general back at HQ recruited, trained, equipped, and cared for the unit, even devised their battle plan, but it's the field officer who leads them in battle and wins the glory. I suppose it makes sense the director gets the glory.

    The producer is FDR vs. the general is Patton, or Truman vs. MacArthur.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @snorlax
    He probably had an unfinished column about child actors to which he added the Weinstein angle because it’s in the news. Anyway, even if it’s a bit of a clickbait lede, he makes some very good points as usual, with the caveat that CGI-deaging-to-childhood is a bit sci-fi at the moment. (Making short adults look convincingly like children with makeup and/or CGI motion capture would be within current technological capabilities, but very expensive).

    More realistically, I think there needs to be much stricter regulation and (literal) oversight of child actors and performers, and as much as it would damage those industries an outright ban is at least worth considering. We need a stricter regime to protect the adult actors from all the pervert bigwigs, too.

    (Making short adults look convincingly like children with makeup and/or CGI motion capture would be within current technological capabilities, but very expensive).

    I think that is what they do with Chimpanzees now. Gone are the days when a midget would put on a one piece latex space suit and look like Yoda or ET. I can remember going to Disneyland about 15 years ago as an adult. The last time I had been there was when I was a child. It gave me a much different perspective. I can remember going on the jungle cruise and the guide was ridiculing / laughing at the latex alligator with a defective motor. I used to think it was real.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @the one they call Desanex
    Here’s the Weinstein limerick I posted Sunday on Takimag:


    What they say about me, Harvey Weinstein?
    Science fiction that’s worthy of Heinlein!
    Those Hollywood shrews
    Must really hate Jews,
    And to figure that out don’t take Einstein.

     

    A commenter pointed out that the rhyme doesn’t work if the name is pronounced Wein-steen. I could plead poetic license, or that there’s no logical reason for the name to be pronounced Wein-steen. Instead, I plead that mispronouncing a person’s name is a time-honored way of showing contempt.

    “I could plead poetic license ….”

    This is how the decline of societies starts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Svigor

    I can’t think of a single major news story I’ve enjoyed as much in my adult life. Not even Trump’s successive slayings of the open-borders GOP elite and the Hillary machine.
     
    Yeah the Weinstein thing is begging for a Days of Christmas song. "On the first day of Christmas, Big Media gave to me...a scandal about Har-vey."

    "Fiiive, squirming Jeeeewwwws!"

    The Weinstein story has everything – Hollywood degeneracy and perversion … ample documented connections to lib-prog politicians, now scrambling in embarassment … champions of Girl Power philosophy trying to explain how they operated a harassment and molestation assembly line for decades … virtue-signaling SJW artists being forced to answer for their personal behavior. And as this article shows, nobody ties it all together like Sailer.

    Light ‘em up, Steve-o.
     
    Don't forget all the squirming over the fact that Hollywood is a Jewish-run industry, so if you look a bit too eager to criticize...

    Sort of like how there's all this talk about the pedos in Hollywood, but unfortunately, they're gay pedos, so one must be cautious not to seem too eager to criticize...

    Someone asked “link, please” about loss-of-life among child actors on iSteve’s Taki Magazine article.
     
    Wasn't the "They're Back!" girl from Poltergeist, along with a man, killed on set by a helicopter's blades crashing on them?

    Harry, that's funny. I never watched much "Our Gang," but always thought Alfalfa gave off heavy asshole vibes.

    What really separates out actors and actresses is physical beauty and fuckability.
     
    I think what really distinguishes them, as Art Deco mentioned above, is their need to wade through the Hollywood cesspool. There are loads of beautiful people who would much rather do something else (though of course, there are loads of not-so-beautiful people who'd love to make it in showbiz).

    Wasn’t the “They’re Back!” girl from Poltergeist, along with a man, killed on set by a helicopter’s blades crashing on them?

    Heather O’Rourke died of cardiac arrest and septic shock while undergoing surgery for a blocked bowel.

    Vic Morrow and two Asian children were killed by a helicopter accident on the set of the Twilight Zone movie.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Danindc
    Vic Morrow also disowned his daughter Jennifer Jason Leigh after she appeared topless in Fast Times at Ridgemont High.
    , @Anonymous
    I keep confusing Vic Morrow with Vic Tayback.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Svigor
    Jack, film is a collaborative process, so there is never any real way to tell where, say, the director ends, and the cinematographer begins, or where the cinematographer ends, and the camera operator begins, etc.

    And there's even the question of where "begin" begins, and "end" ends; how much of Kubrick's famed visual perfectionism is him having the actual knowledged needed, and how much of it is simply him knowing what he wants to see, and insisting on the crew working on it until he likes it? How much of his team's work can a director actually do? Does he just have a sense of what his people can deliver, or does he actually know their jobs?

    No analogy is perfect, but ship's captain drifts off course because the finished film is the ship. Getting the ship built is down to a lot of people, but consensus seems to be that the director is the person most responsible for what the finished ship looks like.

    The producer may budget a ship, conceive of and design it, hire the team to build it, and buy the equipment and materials needed for its production, but he doesn't remotely deliver a built ship for the captain to sail away in.

    Really, I think the public attaches more importance and rigidity to the various roles than the people making the movies do, at least in the work sense. It's probably nearly as fluid as the business structure (each film being it's own company), varying between projects and teams. Does anyone really think any of the top directors have no more influence over pre-production than any given director? That it would be any different, even if the top directors didn't get producer credit?

    “And there’s even the question of where “begin” begins, and “end” ends; how much of Kubrick’s famed visual perfectionism is him having the actual knowledged needed, and how much of it is simply him knowing what he wants to see, and insisting on the crew working on it until he likes it? How much of his team’s work can a director actually do? Does he just have a sense of what his people can deliver, or does he actually know their jobs?”

    This, by the way, is similar to Robert Trent Jones Sr.’s criticism of Jack Nicklaus as a golf course architect: that Nicklaus lacked the kind of visual imagination to fully foresee what golf holes would look like in 3-d. But, on the other hand, Nicklaus was a great golf course architecture critic of what he could see. So, RTJ implied, Nicklaus would give vague orders to his staff to push dirt around, and then tell them it was all wrong when they thought they had it done. So Nicklaus would end up building an outstanding golf course, but it usually cost the client a bundle due to all the reworking Nicklaus required.

    I presume that at the highest levels of artistic accomplishment, they guy in charge tends to both be a visionary and a tyrant at demanding his staff start over again. Sometimes it’s because the staff didn’t live up to his original vision of what he wanted to see, sometimes it’s because his original vision was lousy, but the Kubrick-level guy pushes through complaints from his staff and eventually gets something new done, whether by original vision or by trial and error.

    Read More
    • Replies: @G Pinfold
    I see what you did there... another improbable segue to golf architecture. Outa nowhere!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Art Deco says:
    @GregMan
    "One doesn’t get the impression that Britain’s acting fraternity is so thick with incompetent human beings."

    Jimmy Saville.

    OK. The thing is, Savile wasn’t an actor. You could call him an MC, a presenter, an announcer, or a ‘personality’. He was a very peculiar figure (lame track suits, long white hair, cigars, and a funny yodeling noise he would make) and it’s difficult to see how he could have had a career at all on British television. He was a physically repulsive version of Dick Clark.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @CAL2
    It would help if you quoted me properly.

    One thing I would do is ban anyone under 18 from participating in any promotional events, or having any online accounts.
     
    I was talking about kids in the movie/entertainment industry.

    Ok I missed the point. You mean ban any actor/actress under 18 from online accounts. That’s an interesting idea, probably wouldn’t work though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. bartok says:
    @Pat Boyle
    I need someone to explain to me what was Weinstein's talent. In all the media frenzy about Handsome Harvey I can't remember reading anything simply explaining why he was so good at whatever it was that he did. I'm a little fuzzy on just what it was that he did.

    It is fairly easy to understand what an actor does. We have been told that Hollywood can make almost anyone into a star - but that can't be true. For example years ago Universal (I think) had made a big push to make Guy Stockwell a major star. He was introduced and featured in picture after picture. But he never seemed to gain traction. His brother Dean Stockwell without the benefit of such focused promotion managed to be a star at every period of his life. That never made much sense to me. But it did demonstrate that at least part of the magic that movie star's brought to the screen wasn't really available to the studio bosses.

    I can also understand what a director does. Everyone understood Alfred Hitchcock's contribution just as everyone recognizes that Spielberg has a way with telling a story on film. In the old, old days when producers were the kings of the lot - not the directors, we had some idea about producers too.

    But what the hell did Harvey do? Except hit on the young women? We are told that Trump is a great negotiator - a guy who can sense advantage and weakness around the conference table. Is that what Weinstein did? Or did he have a canny sense of what was a commercially valuable story? Did he - unlike all others in Hollywood spot the script that would be next year's Oscar winner? Did he have some magic insight into what would be a hit?

    If Weinstein didn't have some super valuable talent like that, why would anyone put up with him?

    Did he – unlike all others in Hollywood spot the script that would be next year’s Oscar winner?

    Yes. Then he made sure it won the Oscar by campaigning for it shamelessly and expertly.

    From the point of view of his favored, discovered directors and actors, he was the generous king of the indie/prestige niche:

    http://deadline.com/2017/10/scott-rosenberg-harvey-weinstein-miramax-beautiful-girls-guilt-over-sexual-assault-allegations-1202189525/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Art Deco says:
    @Opinionator
    What distinct trade could he have (or should he have ) learned?

    He worked on oil rigs and dabbled at short-order cooking. You get to a certain age, and you look around as to what fits for you. It might have been building trades, bookkeeping, sales, low-grade medical trades (respiratory therapy, pharmacy tech), long-haul truck driving, security services. If not that, land an institutional job with good benefits (where there might or might not be some training opportunities).

    It’s not very clear from the obituaries how long he and his brother looked after their mother at home, it may have been nearly 15 years. That’ll put some things on hold. The thing is, it appears from the obituaries he was nearly 30 when that problem surfaced. He’d have had 12 years of fitful employment (between some residual work in acting prior to 1972).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Art Deco
    I doubt it had much with you being an outsider criticising Weinstein. Podhoretz just despises you personally and looks for any opportunity to say so. He doesn't pick his opportunities well.

    No, pretty sure it’s just straight up hate borne out of envy.

    If he despises Steve he overestimates himself to an obscene degree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Romanian says: • Website
    @Zippy
    I never understood precisely why your retweet of that joke was supposed to be so despicable. Is it because you were being anti-semitic? Sexist? What? Did he ever elaborate?

    Also, if we're playing the "look how the child actor turned out" game, Jake Lloyd and Edward Furlong (Star Wars prequel and Terminator 2) have had troubles, but Ron Howard has rather famously gone on to being a very successful director/mogul. Clint less so, but he gets to be a funny looking guy in Ron's movies. Molly Ringwald wasn't precisely a child actor, but she seems to be pretty well adjusted.

    I had not idea I had seen Ron Howard in Happy Days. All I know about him is that he is a director with a beautiful daughter (Bryce Dallas Howard).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Over the period running from 1960 to 1980, he had a part in a weekly television series about 3/4 of the time plus a lot of one-offs. He had some film roles too, the most notable in 1962 (The Music Man) and 1973 (American Graffiti). No one has that much exposure today as TV is so niched.
    , @ScarletNumber
    Ron was an adult when Happy Days premiered. He was a child actor in The Andy Griffith Show.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Romanian says: • Website
    @ATX Hipster
    I wonder if we'll ever see porn sites using facial recognition software to ensure viewers are over eighteen.

    That would be awful for the child refugee industry!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Art Deco says:
    @Steve Sailer
    It's worth noting that Ron Howard chose to raise his four kids in Old Money Connecticut rather than in Brentwood.

    And Jason Bateman is doing very well in his late 40s (after having pretty much disappeared for 10 or 15 years due to various problems).

    Anyway, I'd like to see somebody study this question more rigorously.

    And Jason Bateman is doing very well in his late 40s (after having pretty much disappeared for 10 or 15 years due to various problems).

    IMDB shows a period of low activity as an actor in 1993-94 and again in 1999-2002 and again in 2007 (though he was a major character in a feature film that year). He did some work as a producer and director in 1999-2002. The only year (since 1980) in which he has no screen credit is 1993.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    I caught a snippet of an interview with Keifer Sutherland on some television in a waiting room recently. He was explaining that he keeps a ranch and other such enterprises going to remain occupied with varied interests and not obsess too much or depend too much upon acting. He explained it is very important to keep grounded and not accept work during the inevitable lulls in one’s career because taking the wrong rôles will destroy one’s career; I believe his words were that which work you reject is more important to your career and indeed your personal well-being than which work you accept. His acceptance of the fact that not every actor can be a superstar, and that any career will involve natural peaks and valleys seemed wise. For instance, the superhero craze recently had probably meant more work for buff, chiseled, young, hunky, all-American looking guys like Hemsworth, Chris Evans, etc. than usual. During a certain period in the seventies and eighties there was a lot more call for rougher, tough-guy looking leading men (Charles Bronson, Burt Reynolds, Clint Eastwood). One has to roll with such trends and not freak out as they change one’s popularity and demand. Likewise think of the kinds of markets which made stars of Jane Russell and Mariyln Monroe v. those which favoured Twiggy and Goldie Hawn....

    Thus, I agree that most acting is more about apprarances than talent, but even with that in mind, just what appearances are in demand fluctuates and matters a lot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Art Deco says:
    @Romanian
    I had not idea I had seen Ron Howard in Happy Days. All I know about him is that he is a director with a beautiful daughter (Bryce Dallas Howard).

    Over the period running from 1960 to 1980, he had a part in a weekly television series about 3/4 of the time plus a lot of one-offs. He had some film roles too, the most notable in 1962 (The Music Man) and 1973 (American Graffiti). No one has that much exposure today as TV is so niched.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. I have heard of Scorsese’s project for the first time via Steve’s article. What terminology will be used for such techniques?
    Age-brushing? Age-washing? Ah, I hear de-ageing is the word of choice.
    I think it’s ridiculous. Either find adequate roles for the guys or ditch the crap. Jane Fonda made a film at 77. I have seen a German actor on the stage in his 90s. Of course, the Fonda movie was not a remake of Barbarella, but about ageing.
    I am not going to watch that silly quartet of digital touchups – not even if directed by Scorsese. That’s a job Steve will have to do for me.

    Here is an imaginary movie scene for you: Yearning man watches a woman with her toddler in a big electronics store in a mall. She looks through some CDs or maybe tries to decide on the right ink cartridge to buy and doesn’t look down at the little one at all. Meanwhile the kid sits on the floor, tries to raise himself up, falls down, gets on his knee and attempts to stand only to collapse once more. He makes another effort and fails again. In other words: He is busy learning to walk. The onlooker marvels at the fact that your life can be so rich in such moments that you don’t have to savor every single one of them, that, indeed, you have to ignore the majority of them to make life work – yours and your offspring’s as well.

    O.k., that was stolen from a short story.

    The first movie I saw as a kid was Rossellini’s “Ladri di biciclette”. (Enzo Staiola, who played the boy, became a math teacher.) I was about five then, I think. Such stories don’t get made on computers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  137. Danindc says:
    @Chris Mallory

    Wasn’t the “They’re Back!” girl from Poltergeist, along with a man, killed on set by a helicopter’s blades crashing on them?
     
    Heather O'Rourke died of cardiac arrest and septic shock while undergoing surgery for a blocked bowel.


    Vic Morrow and two Asian children were killed by a helicopter accident on the set of the Twilight Zone movie.

    Vic Morrow also disowned his daughter Jennifer Jason Leigh after she appeared topless in Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Vic Morrow died before Fast Times was released.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Svigor
    Jack, film is a collaborative process, so there is never any real way to tell where, say, the director ends, and the cinematographer begins, or where the cinematographer ends, and the camera operator begins, etc.

    And there's even the question of where "begin" begins, and "end" ends; how much of Kubrick's famed visual perfectionism is him having the actual knowledged needed, and how much of it is simply him knowing what he wants to see, and insisting on the crew working on it until he likes it? How much of his team's work can a director actually do? Does he just have a sense of what his people can deliver, or does he actually know their jobs?

    No analogy is perfect, but ship's captain drifts off course because the finished film is the ship. Getting the ship built is down to a lot of people, but consensus seems to be that the director is the person most responsible for what the finished ship looks like.

    The producer may budget a ship, conceive of and design it, hire the team to build it, and buy the equipment and materials needed for its production, but he doesn't remotely deliver a built ship for the captain to sail away in.

    Really, I think the public attaches more importance and rigidity to the various roles than the people making the movies do, at least in the work sense. It's probably nearly as fluid as the business structure (each film being it's own company), varying between projects and teams. Does anyone really think any of the top directors have no more influence over pre-production than any given director? That it would be any different, even if the top directors didn't get producer credit?

    The director’s cut of a movie is often markedly different than the official version released by the movie studio(s), where executive producers and other suits hold more sway.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @RH
    If you believe that acting is "not a difficult skill and anybody can learn it", you will believe anything.

    Yes and no; both you and he are right.

    There are indeed far more people capable of writing and performing decent, even excellent, rock ‘n’ roll than was realised in the days of more barriers to entry. However, a trip to any coffee-house for open-mic night will reassure you there are still immeasurably more hacks.

    A big part of what separate the two types is work-ethic. Writing jokes, songs, playing an instrument well, and acting all certainly involve a certain predisposition or penchant (perhaps even genetic; many successful performing artists had parents who did similar work; e.g., a famous musician whose mom taught piano or whose dad led a choir at the church, etc.). However, one must hone that skill. Writing a spectacular novel usually required writing, revising, discarding, and having rejected mountains of crappy novels (or drafts thereof). Gene Simmons famously would lock himself in the closet he used to practice and force himself to write at least one song before leaving. He did this every day! Steve Vai practiced (and may still, knowing him) eight hourse each day to become what he became. (Neil Peart famously took drumming leassons in the nineties because he was dissatisifed with himself and he felt he was stagnant!)

    Most performers and composers lack this drive and discipline. Thus, even if they hit it big once or twice, they don’t last. They become one hit wonders or flashes in the pan who were the It Girl for a year and then fade into obscurity.

    So, it is easier than many realise to be passable at music, acting, etc. But it remains difficult to be outstanding and enduring. Baseline, passable acting of the kind seen by, say, Ben Affleck or Sarah Michell Gellar and that of those who are naturally charimatic and effectively play themselves over and over (Tom Cruise, Humphrey Bogart, Dwayne Johnson, etc.) is indeed not so hard, but the kinds of immersive, transformative, compelling work done by people like Daniel Day Lewis, Johnny Depp, Anthony Hopkins, etc. requires the kind of work put in by the musicians I mentioned earlier.

    Read More
    • Agree: Bernardista
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Correction: “Ladri di Biciclette” was directed by de Sica.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  141. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Svigor
    Steve's made the military-movie biz analogy before. The director is the field officer who executes the battle plan. Sure, some general back at HQ recruited, trained, equipped, and cared for the unit, even devised their battle plan, but it's the field officer who leads them in battle and wins the glory. I suppose it makes sense the director gets the glory.

    And there’s even the question of where “begin” begins, and “end” ends; how much of Kubrick’s famed visual perfectionism is him having the actual knowledged needed, and how much of it is simply him knowing what he wants to see, and insisting on the crew working on it until he likes it?

    His body of works speaks for itself. He worked with different people but almost always created and presented something special.

    Now, if Kubrick made only one or two great works with a certain crew and a bunch of lousy ones with other collaborators, one might indeed wonder how much Kubrick had to with the successes.

    But he made one great one after another.

    In contrast, Ridley Scott’s record is all over the place. He made one truly great movie, some good ones, some okay ones, and some really bad ones. Who know what exactly went right or wrong?

    Based on Frederic Raphael’s memoir of collaboration on EYED WIDE SHUT, Kubrick was tireless(and even relentless at times) in proposing ideas, provoking feedback, teasing out new permutations, and etc. The style was like Peter Sellers act in LOLITA. Nudging gently but insistently, making move after move like in chess. And he appreciated people who could play along in this game than just took orders.
    Because he needed to play this mind game, he hired people who were very intelligent, erudite, literary, professional, and/or highly innovative in their own way. He liked to bounce the ball around, like Jack in THE SHINING, but with other interesting minds.

    I don’t think he had it all mapped out in the beginning. Rather, he had a powerful vision or some obsessive idea. And then he tried to examine it from many angles, and to do this, he needed others to pick up what he’d missed. It’s like someone on the sideline in a game will see things the players don’t see. A ceaseless talker, he explained what he was looking for and wanted his collaborators to be similarly intrigued and offer their own proposals.

    He insisted on doing things his way, but his ‘tyranny’ was far subtler than that of, say, Von Stroheim or Preminger who liked to scream at people until their faces turned blue. Instead of beating a dead horse, he looked for the accu-pressure points in his collaborators whom he also regarded as competitors.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    But what would, say, Spielberg's career look like if he worked on only a handful of movies for four years each? Heck, what would Soderbergh's career look like if he took four times as long on each movie? For example, Nolan slowed down his movie every two year pace a little recently and came up with Dunkirk after 32 months. If Nolan were on a 48 month schedule his career record might look like Kubrick's.

    Really, how many masterpieces did Kubrick make? Four? Dr. Strangelove, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, and The Shining? With Paths of Glory(?), Spartacus, Barry Lyndon, and Full Metal Jacket being one notch below, and Eyes Wide Shut a dud?

    Four is a lot, especially because they are in dissimilar genres and because they were highly innovative.

    And Kubrick-style striving after making each work a unique masterpiece has high risks. Paleo Retiree blogged about his theory that Leonard Bernstein got blocked by his felt need to top "West Side Story."

    Kubrick largely pulled off his ambitious plans, but other guys have stumbled into similar career-level achievements by doing a lot of work (e.g., Verdi), some of which is good, others of which turns out to be great. There's something a little adolescent about Kubrick's career path. It strikes me as like a comic book fan's theory of how to be a genius. In Kubrick's case, however, it worked.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @snorlax
    OTOH the really big bucks are made with costume-drama chick flicks like Titanic or Gone With the Wind.

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

    (No Weinstein films on the list, however).

    True- and yet Hollywood has all but abandoned making these sort of movies in the past decade.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Art Deco
    And Jason Bateman is doing very well in his late 40s (after having pretty much disappeared for 10 or 15 years due to various problems).

    IMDB shows a period of low activity as an actor in 1993-94 and again in 1999-2002 and again in 2007 (though he was a major character in a feature film that year). He did some work as a producer and director in 1999-2002. The only year (since 1980) in which he has no screen credit is 1993.

    I caught a snippet of an interview with Keifer Sutherland on some television in a waiting room recently. He was explaining that he keeps a ranch and other such enterprises going to remain occupied with varied interests and not obsess too much or depend too much upon acting. He explained it is very important to keep grounded and not accept work during the inevitable lulls in one’s career because taking the wrong rôles will destroy one’s career; I believe his words were that which work you reject is more important to your career and indeed your personal well-being than which work you accept. His acceptance of the fact that not every actor can be a superstar, and that any career will involve natural peaks and valleys seemed wise. For instance, the superhero craze recently had probably meant more work for buff, chiseled, young, hunky, all-American looking guys like Hemsworth, Chris Evans, etc. than usual. During a certain period in the seventies and eighties there was a lot more call for rougher, tough-guy looking leading men (Charles Bronson, Burt Reynolds, Clint Eastwood). One has to roll with such trends and not freak out as they change one’s popularity and demand. Likewise think of the kinds of markets which made stars of Jane Russell and Mariyln Monroe v. those which favoured Twiggy and Goldie Hawn….

    Thus, I agree that most acting is more about apprarances than talent, but even with that in mind, just what appearances are in demand fluctuates and matters a lot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    Check this one out about Keifer Sutherland getting ripped on a cattle deal for almost a million He has a Montana ranch
    http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/kiefer-sutherland-star-24-loses-900k-cattle-selling/story?id=9674796
    , @AnotherGuessModel
    If an actor has the privilege of choice, choosing good projects is a real talent in and of itself.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Keifer Sutherland has had a pretty great career considering he's not really a leading man type. 24 must have been quite a cash cow for him. I thought it was odd that they didn't cast his father as his father on the show though. Maybe Donald wanted too much money?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Art Deco says:
    @Danindc
    Vic Morrow also disowned his daughter Jennifer Jason Leigh after she appeared topless in Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

    Vic Morrow died before Fast Times was released.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    By three weeks, so I'm sure it wasn't a secret. Having said that, I never heard of Morrow disowning her. As an aside, John Landis should have done some time for killing Morrow and those 2 kids.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Anon
    And there’s even the question of where “begin” begins, and “end” ends; how much of Kubrick’s famed visual perfectionism is him having the actual knowledged needed, and how much of it is simply him knowing what he wants to see, and insisting on the crew working on it until he likes it?

    His body of works speaks for itself. He worked with different people but almost always created and presented something special.

    Now, if Kubrick made only one or two great works with a certain crew and a bunch of lousy ones with other collaborators, one might indeed wonder how much Kubrick had to with the successes.

    But he made one great one after another.

    In contrast, Ridley Scott's record is all over the place. He made one truly great movie, some good ones, some okay ones, and some really bad ones. Who know what exactly went right or wrong?

    Based on Frederic Raphael's memoir of collaboration on EYED WIDE SHUT, Kubrick was tireless(and even relentless at times) in proposing ideas, provoking feedback, teasing out new permutations, and etc. The style was like Peter Sellers act in LOLITA. Nudging gently but insistently, making move after move like in chess. And he appreciated people who could play along in this game than just took orders.
    Because he needed to play this mind game, he hired people who were very intelligent, erudite, literary, professional, and/or highly innovative in their own way. He liked to bounce the ball around, like Jack in THE SHINING, but with other interesting minds.

    I don't think he had it all mapped out in the beginning. Rather, he had a powerful vision or some obsessive idea. And then he tried to examine it from many angles, and to do this, he needed others to pick up what he'd missed. It's like someone on the sideline in a game will see things the players don't see. A ceaseless talker, he explained what he was looking for and wanted his collaborators to be similarly intrigued and offer their own proposals.

    He insisted on doing things his way, but his 'tyranny' was far subtler than that of, say, Von Stroheim or Preminger who liked to scream at people until their faces turned blue. Instead of beating a dead horse, he looked for the accu-pressure points in his collaborators whom he also regarded as competitors.

    But what would, say, Spielberg’s career look like if he worked on only a handful of movies for four years each? Heck, what would Soderbergh’s career look like if he took four times as long on each movie? For example, Nolan slowed down his movie every two year pace a little recently and came up with Dunkirk after 32 months. If Nolan were on a 48 month schedule his career record might look like Kubrick’s.

    Really, how many masterpieces did Kubrick make? Four? Dr. Strangelove, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, and The Shining? With Paths of Glory(?), Spartacus, Barry Lyndon, and Full Metal Jacket being one notch below, and Eyes Wide Shut a dud?

    Four is a lot, especially because they are in dissimilar genres and because they were highly innovative.

    And Kubrick-style striving after making each work a unique masterpiece has high risks. Paleo Retiree blogged about his theory that Leonard Bernstein got blocked by his felt need to top “West Side Story.”

    Kubrick largely pulled off his ambitious plans, but other guys have stumbled into similar career-level achievements by doing a lot of work (e.g., Verdi), some of which is good, others of which turns out to be great. There’s something a little adolescent about Kubrick’s career path. It strikes me as like a comic book fan’s theory of how to be a genius. In Kubrick’s case, however, it worked.

    Read More
    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    There is something to be said for the 'just get it done and hope for the best' model of artistic production.

    When you compare 19th-century novelists such as Dickens and Dostoyevsky (who often wrote fast in installments to deadlines) with some 20th- and 21st-century 'literary' novelists who obsessed for years or even decades over just a few works, it's hard to say the latter approach typically results in quality of work that exceeds the former.

    Writing/film-making/whatever that's picked over and redone to excess is in danger of going stale.
    , @Anon
    But what would, say, Spielberg’s career look like if he worked on only a handful of movies for four years each? Heck, what would Soderbergh’s career look like if he took four times as long on each movie?

    People just work differently, and Spielberg's movies would likely have suffered if he'd spent too much time on them.
    I think he did spend considerable time and energy on CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, a movie he was most proud of until maybe SCHINDLER. One thing for sure, he was never a think or philosophical type. So more time spent on projects would have been just a waste. Obviously intelligent and brilliant as a film-maker, he simply didn't have the sensibility of an intellectual. He played pinball, not chess.

    When Kubrick thought of UFO or extraterrestrials, the question was, 'what may they teach us?'
    When Spielberg thought of the same, the question was 'how would they freak us out?'

    Spielberg was almost mostly a crowd-pleaser, so most of his films were half-complete when the project began. Spielberg knew the formula like the back of his hand, and he approached cinema as much as a moviegoer as movie maker. So, as long as he surrounded himself with professionals who also got the formula, they were all set to go. I mean John Williams understood Spielberg better than Spielberg understood himself.
    In contrast, Kubrick mapped out every inch because he was interested in the minutest detail and meaning. If Kubrick were Indiana Jones, his main interest would have been archaeology. If Spielberg were Indy, he would have been in for the adventure.

    So, it's apples and oranges. Beatles wrote some great songs, but would they have done better if they were given 4 yrs to write something like 'Ticket to Ride' ? No, the Beatles thrived on energy and spontaneity. And Spielberg was in his element on the hubbub of the movie set. It was action that made him feel alive and creative.

    Take a movie like BRIDGE OF SPIES. Spielberg saw it as a suspense drama set in the Cold War and was content to fall back on Capra-isms and conventions from other spy thrillers. The movie is very good for what it is but not much more. It looks very good and moves smoothly but looks rather familiar. If Spielberg had been given 10 yrs to make the film, he would just have grown bored because he wasn't curious in the way that Kubrick was.

    In contrast, Kubrick's demands were far more eccentric and multi-faceted, and they required time. It's like sodapop vs time. No sense in letting sodapop age for 5 yrs.

    As for Soderbergh, he thinks he's a thinker. Generally, he's been a decent Hollywood film-maker and somewhat interesting 'auteur' of independent films.

    He made some half-decent movies, but other Hollywood directors have done better, and other art-directors have been far more interesting. I think Hollywood likes to keep around as a kind of hybrid of entertainer and aesthete. I can appreciate his attempt at something different with movies like CHE -- and it sure beats HAYNE'S dreadful I'M NOT THERE -- , but there is too much of the SWPL hipster about him. It's Starbucks Art.

    That said, I thought he finally delivered a near-perfect movie with THE INFORMANT. Like DAMSELS IN DISTRESS, it is a gem, perfectly cut with masterly balance of every genre. The material is so twisted that it could easily have slipped into satiric comedy or dark drama but is something much finer and nimbler It's like heist where the crook leaves no fingerprints, no footprints, doesn't trip the alarm, and even keeps the pigeon away.

    At his worst, he sees movie-making as hipster exercise. It wouldn't be so bad if he found something worth being experimental about, but he wastes time on stuff like HAYWIRE that I turned off after about 15 min it was so dumb.

    Also, for a thinking-man's film-maker, he is not above cheapshots, like in CONTAGION which now seems utterly forgettable.

    And for an original artist, why did he remake a British TV show, esp has he hardly improved on it? TRAFFIC.

    Really, how many masterpieces did Kubrick make?

    That's subjective. According to Stanley Kauffmann, Kubrick made one sure masterpiece with DR. STRANGELOVE. Kauffmann preferred 2001 the novel and had no feeling for BARRY LYNDON. Most critic were mixed or hostile to THE SHINING.

    Personally, I think everything he did beginning with THE KILLING is a masterpiece except for SPARTACUS that was largely under Douglas' control. Others may disagree, but even detractors of, say, EYES WIDE SHUT, FULL METAL JACKET, and THE SHINING will have to admit they feature awesome mastery and prowess even if the elements don't quite gel together. I never cared for the ending of THE SHINING myself.

    Kubrick largely pulled off his ambitious plans, but other guys have stumbled into similar career-level achievements by doing a lot of work (e.g., Verdi), some of which is good, others of which turns out to be great. There’s something a little adolescent about Kubrick’s career path

    Music is different. Verdi could sit and write music as he wished. As for the details of the productions, I don't know how much he was involved. But many opera composers just wrote the music and left the productions to others. If Kubrick were only a screen-writer, he could have worked like Verdi. But cinema is a total art that combines so much. Also, Kubrick had a total vision of things, so everything had to conform to his big idea.
    In this, he was closer to Wagner who also took a totalist approach to art and had detailed ideas about everything from libretto to production. Wagner even went so far as build a new whole theater designed specifically to stage his operas. Of course, it cost Ludwig II dearly, but Bayreuth still stands. Beethoven also only composed only nine symphonies(though to be sure, tons of other stuff), but each symphony had to be 'perfect'.
    I think exploratory and visionary artists will always take more time.

    Some artists are more comfortable with treading established conventions, and some make great music in that vein. Since they are less ambitious as explorers, the creative process comes easier to them. It's like walking a familiar path on a hiking trail. In contrast, those who seek out unexplored territory will come upon more obstacles. When Brian Wilson was just writing surf songs, he knew the formula down pat. But as he began to experiment, he found both more satisfaction and more troubles... until SMILE project overwhelmed him.
    Verdi was a great artist but not very different from what other Italian opera composers were doing. Even if Verdi had never existed, Italian opera would pretty much be what it is. But take out Wagner and the German opera and opera itself -- and all of music culture -- would be different. He reached further.

    I don't think Kubrick was as obsessed about 'genius' as some may suspect. I think he felt he had nothing to prove. He took his genius for granted. The question wasn't proving his genius but using it to make something fascinating, provocative, and worthy. The reason why he needed so much time was he aimed for both experimentation and completion. A director like Godard cared mainly for experimentation and in 1965 made three films. He didn't care that his movies seemed half-completed or open-ended. If anything, that was part of the method: to leave it up to the viewers to fill in their own ideas. In contrast, a film-maker who aims for the masterful finished touch doesn't have to worry about experimentation. Just hire the professionals and rely on time-tested conventions, and make something like the usual Oscar winner for Best Picture.
    But to make a film that is both innovative and 'classic' in completion, that is a tall order. And Beethoven aimed for it in his symphonies and Kubrick in his films. 2001 is amazing as a work that was so new yet so classic. It is so audacious but also confident and sure of its vision. (Coppola maintained the balance for about one full hour in APOCALYPSE NOW before getting hopelessly lost.)

    Bernstein was a different animal than Kubrick. While WEST SIDE STORY is am amazing piece of music, it is kitsch. And it really broke no new ground in musical theater. It's superior schmaltz. Yes, I like 'Maria' and 'Tonight' and all that. But it's not exactly Mahler or Shostakovich... and not ever Gershwin. I think Bernstein's problem was he was never sure what he was about: high art or middlebrow art. An elitist or populist. He tried to have it both ways.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    In that Spielberg documentary I mentioned elsewhere, Spielberg says having the same crew for decades has helped him make so many movies. IIRC, his "newest" major crew member was his cinematographer, Janusz Kamiński, who he's worked with since Schindler's List, in the early 1990s.

    Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut were handicapped a bit by his refusal to leave England to shoot them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Clyde says:
    @Autochthon
    I caught a snippet of an interview with Keifer Sutherland on some television in a waiting room recently. He was explaining that he keeps a ranch and other such enterprises going to remain occupied with varied interests and not obsess too much or depend too much upon acting. He explained it is very important to keep grounded and not accept work during the inevitable lulls in one’s career because taking the wrong rôles will destroy one’s career; I believe his words were that which work you reject is more important to your career and indeed your personal well-being than which work you accept. His acceptance of the fact that not every actor can be a superstar, and that any career will involve natural peaks and valleys seemed wise. For instance, the superhero craze recently had probably meant more work for buff, chiseled, young, hunky, all-American looking guys like Hemsworth, Chris Evans, etc. than usual. During a certain period in the seventies and eighties there was a lot more call for rougher, tough-guy looking leading men (Charles Bronson, Burt Reynolds, Clint Eastwood). One has to roll with such trends and not freak out as they change one’s popularity and demand. Likewise think of the kinds of markets which made stars of Jane Russell and Mariyln Monroe v. those which favoured Twiggy and Goldie Hawn....

    Thus, I agree that most acting is more about apprarances than talent, but even with that in mind, just what appearances are in demand fluctuates and matters a lot.

    Check this one out about Keifer Sutherland getting ripped on a cattle deal for almost a million He has a Montana ranch

    http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/kiefer-sutherland-star-24-loses-900k-cattle-selling/story?id=9674796

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @Autochthon
    I caught a snippet of an interview with Keifer Sutherland on some television in a waiting room recently. He was explaining that he keeps a ranch and other such enterprises going to remain occupied with varied interests and not obsess too much or depend too much upon acting. He explained it is very important to keep grounded and not accept work during the inevitable lulls in one’s career because taking the wrong rôles will destroy one’s career; I believe his words were that which work you reject is more important to your career and indeed your personal well-being than which work you accept. His acceptance of the fact that not every actor can be a superstar, and that any career will involve natural peaks and valleys seemed wise. For instance, the superhero craze recently had probably meant more work for buff, chiseled, young, hunky, all-American looking guys like Hemsworth, Chris Evans, etc. than usual. During a certain period in the seventies and eighties there was a lot more call for rougher, tough-guy looking leading men (Charles Bronson, Burt Reynolds, Clint Eastwood). One has to roll with such trends and not freak out as they change one’s popularity and demand. Likewise think of the kinds of markets which made stars of Jane Russell and Mariyln Monroe v. those which favoured Twiggy and Goldie Hawn....

    Thus, I agree that most acting is more about apprarances than talent, but even with that in mind, just what appearances are in demand fluctuates and matters a lot.

    If an actor has the privilege of choice, choosing good projects is a real talent in and of itself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. utu says:

    Chief deputy US Marshal ‘had sex with multiple women in his office in exchange for prime parking spots outside his office’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4986958/Chief-deputy-Marshal-offered-parking-spots-sex.html#ixzz4vu1Jqgo0

    Should we be surprise that women do it and it is expected from them to do it for film roles and movie careers if they do it for parking spots?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  149. Someone mentioned Disney and Nickolodeon as fertile ground for the next cases. Dan Schneider and his foot fetish (as well as raping Jamie Lynn Spears) is so obvious in retrospect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  150. Svigor says:

    The director’s cut of a movie is often markedly different than the official version released by the movie studio(s), where executive producers and other suits hold more sway.

    True, and score one for the suits (though I would no more call an editor a suit than a director), because I rarely prefer the director’s cut. One salient and topical example is Blade Runner; I prefer the versions with no voice-over. Wait, the suits added the voice-overs, didn’t they? Oh well, point stands, I usually like the theatrical release better. Apocalypse Now Redux ruined the film with the puerile Playmate Bargain, Aliens was much better without the automated gun sequences, etc.

    Directors often get too attached to their work, which is, strictly speaking, not the finished film, but what gets handed to the editor; much of it winds up on the cutting room floor because the editors can look at the director’s product more objectively, with fresher eyes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    We don't see too many Director's Cuts where the suits unambiguously improved the movie.

    Here's a suggestion for the voiceovers to explain the plot in the original Blade Runner. Instead of having Harrison Ford do them (badly), or not do them at all, which leaves the movie confusing to first time viewers, they should have had Edward James Olmos do them.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @Romanian
    I had not idea I had seen Ron Howard in Happy Days. All I know about him is that he is a director with a beautiful daughter (Bryce Dallas Howard).

    Ron was an adult when Happy Days premiered. He was a child actor in The Andy Griffith Show.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    At the time when Ron Howard was playing Opie, on Romanian TV. they were announcing the numbers for the latest potato harvest (to the four people who actually owned TVs). When Romania started running out of money at the end, Ceaușescu just turned off one of the broadcast channels (there were only 2 to begin with) in order to "conserve energy".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @Svigor

    The director’s cut of a movie is often markedly different than the official version released by the movie studio(s), where executive producers and other suits hold more sway.
     
    True, and score one for the suits (though I would no more call an editor a suit than a director), because I rarely prefer the director's cut. One salient and topical example is Blade Runner; I prefer the versions with no voice-over. Wait, the suits added the voice-overs, didn't they? Oh well, point stands, I usually like the theatrical release better. Apocalypse Now Redux ruined the film with the puerile Playmate Bargain, Aliens was much better without the automated gun sequences, etc.

    Directors often get too attached to their work, which is, strictly speaking, not the finished film, but what gets handed to the editor; much of it winds up on the cutting room floor because the editors can look at the director's product more objectively, with fresher eyes.

    We don’t see too many Director’s Cuts where the suits unambiguously improved the movie.

    Here’s a suggestion for the voiceovers to explain the plot in the original Blade Runner. Instead of having Harrison Ford do them (badly), or not do them at all, which leaves the movie confusing to first time viewers, they should have had Edward James Olmos do them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    I watched the new Spielberg documentary on HBO or whatever (it's all blur now with Netflix, Amazon, and the rest), and there's a scene where Brian De Palma recounts how he gave George Lucas the idea for the crawl at the beginning of Star Wars. Lucas had screened an early version of it for the gang and De Palma was confused by the lack of back story.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Art Deco
    Vic Morrow died before Fast Times was released.

    By three weeks, so I’m sure it wasn’t a secret. Having said that, I never heard of Morrow disowning her. As an aside, John Landis should have done some time for killing Morrow and those 2 kids.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Danindc
    Agreed Landis was negligent.

    I couldn't find the Morrow /Leigh disowning on the web. I remember hearing about it asa kid. Who knows....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. … and Eyes Wide Shut a dud

    That set me back a bit. No one can account for people’s different reactions to films, but I thought Eyes Wide Shut was brilliant, up there with the best of Kubrick.

    Interesting analysis of it here, from a paranoid perspective with which I sympathize.

    https://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/the-hidden-and-not-so-hidden-messages-in-stanley-kubriks-eyes-wide-shut-pt-i/

    I also think Full Metal Jacket was top-notch, but it took me awhile to figure out how the first half connected to the second. So many vivid moments in it, from R. Lee Ermey to the “Me so horny” Vietnamese bar girl.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  155. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Steve Sailer
    Well said.

    Interestingly, Gloria Swanson had done a good job moving on with her life after her Hollywood career dried up in the early 1930s. She moved to NYC and became a top radio serial actress and enjoyed a variety of entrepreneurial ventures that made her additional money. Thirty years after making Sunset Boulevard she took an active role in the 1980 Reagan campaign as chairwoman of the senior citizen get out the vote drive.

    It's time for a feminist Republican gentile revisionist version of Sunset Boulevard.

    It’s time for a feminist Republican gentile revisionist version of Sunset Boulevard.

    I think the new BLADE RUNNER is the masculinist replicant(if not revisionist) version of SUNSET BOULEVARD(and others).

    Spoilers.

    Consider the scene where Deckard(Ford) is stalking K(Gosling) in the lounge with virtual images of Elvis and Sinatra, which is odder still since the original BLADE RUNNER takes place long after those two giants of music died. But they are always ‘alive’ because their images have been preserved on film and video(now transferred to digital format that can be transformed into who-knows-what in the future). If the original film was more about the physical replication of life, the new one seems to be just as concerned about the virtual replication of life. Instead of creating a robot version of Elvis, he can be created into something like a hologram, like K’s ‘laser’ girlfriend, mostly a software program(that however still relies on minimum of software).
    Of course, the irony of that scene with Elvis and Sinatra(as virtual figures eternally pristine on the digital-state) is the dynamics sort of applies to BLADE RUNNER itself. The original can still be seen in its original version as if printed yesterday. Indeed, with new technology, the film got ever fresher. Scott did a Final Cut that looked better than ever, and it looks fabulous on LCD screens. (And maybe a 3D virtual version will be made later for fans to enter.) So, the new BLADE RUNNER not only follows but exists parallel with the original BLADE RUNNER. We are told that much of the records and files from the previous era are lost forever, but Wallace corp can conjure and recreate Rachel anew. It’s like she will never age. This is in stark contrast to Deckard who has aged(like Norma Desmond). It’s a kind of LOGAN’S RUN moment. In LR, there are only young and healthy people who are ‘sent to heaven’ at age 30. The idea of old age is a lost concept since no one is allowed to grow old. So, it’s a marvel when the couple make the escape and meet an old person at the end. Our pop culture has no use for the old and caters to the young. And yet, precisely for that reason, there may be value in actual oldness as something organic, real, and natural. So, even though Ford is much aged and withered, he is a most welcome presence when he finally makes the entrance. In a world of replicants and virtuals, he is real. He aged like a human should. And yet, it’s also tragic since the love of his life will always remain young(in his mind) and same while he grows older. Worse, even though he wants to keep memory of Rachel as his, it can be recreated a million times by Wallace corp… just like David discovers he is part of a ‘he’ and is dime-a-dozen in A.I.

    I think part of the appeal of the new STAR WARS movie was the re-appearance of the old characters. It was like a reunion. And young millennials, so accustomed to youth culture, felt a sense of ‘family’ with old characters who visibly aged(unlike the new hollywood idea of the perpetual youth-looking actor like Tom Cruise or Leonard DiCaprio). And the newer one will have Mark Hamill reprising his role after a long long spell. And TRON LEGACY’s success owed as much to the human touch of reuniting with the lost aged father as with special effects. Age lent a regal element to an otherwise high-tech cutting-edge youth-oriented spectacle. It added the elder Vito Corleone touch.

    So, one part of our culture is to keep everything fresh and ‘new’. Yet, because the sheer artificiality of this prevailing norm, it is oddly refreshing to see something aged. It is a sign of life as actual process, a part of cycle of birth and death. It has the same appeal that old Maude did to the young Harold. And John Wayne’s rapport with the young girl in TRUE GRIT.

    And this speaks to the theme of the original where replicants, having no memory, long for some kind of backstory, even if imagined.

    [MORE]

    Replicants are fully conscious but their frame of reference is very narrow since they only have 4 yr life spans. In a way, modern life is like that. We are told to forget about roots, history, identity. Just think of the here-and-now, the latest fashions and trends. So, if homomania is all the rage, it’s all that matters. It’s difficult to imagine how humanity couldn’t see the wonder of ‘gay marriage’ for 1000s of yrs. ONLY THE NOW is correct. Pull down any monuments that don’t conform to the here and now. Every four years mean a new Year Zero, and the latest fads and fashions are all that matter. And so many fall for this… and yet, their lives feel empty because the deeper meaning of life can only be attained and preserved through a sense of history and heritage. I mean what are Jews if their minds were wiped of Jewish history and heritage and only thought in terms of here-and-now? Today’s Americans are so amnesiac. Or PC fills them with such loathing of white past that they don’t dare revisit it except to throw eggs at it.
    And the new BLADE RUNNER only comes to life by reconnecting with the old original story and with Harrison Ford who lives in a kind of red-dusty world surrounded by Clockwork Orange milk-bar statues(that also serves as a nostalgic nod to Kubrick). Before that, it was like 2 hrs of aimless meandering of some replicant without much to do. In the original movie, Deckard has a history, which is why the cop says, “I need the old blade runner.” Here, it’s given that K is a replicant, so there is no history. And unlike Rachel, he knows his memory is fake. So, he’s just stuck in the present and we with him.

    The Christological allusions in the film serve as both contrary and complementary to the problems of this horrible future California. Christianity is about history and roots on some level. After all, there is a long rich history of Christendom and its triumphs and tragedies. Many books have been written on that. And yet, the core theme of Christianity is to reject blood, soil, memory, and roots in favor of the Eternal Moment. A German can give up German identity, forgo marriage and family, neglect his history and heritage, and yet, he will be saved and redeemed in the eyes of God IF he gives his soul to Jesus. So, there is a kind of irony in the ‘miracle’ hope of the replicants. They crave meaning, a sense of community, a dream of their own history as yet-to-be-written. But a miracle is a moment in time made eternal. It has no history. After all, every person is part of a long chain of life through eons of evolution. In contrast, a miracle is something that happens seemingly out of nowhere. Every Jew is a part of a long line of Jewish blood. But Christianity says Jesus is a miracle, a Man created by the God’s divine touch out of the blue. In that sense, Jesus is and isn’t Jewish. He was born of a Jewish mother’s womb in the physical sense, but He is really the creation of God than of the bloodline of Jews.

    But aside the silliness, this bit of ‘miracle’ nonsense totally undermines the meaning and tragic beauty of the original. (Btw, if Rachel did give a ‘miracle’ birth, who would be god in this equation? Tyrell surely since he must have designed an android that could conceive life. Since this ‘miracle’ is the result of a sinister reptilian tycoon, how miraculous is it?) For starters, there was NO INDICATION whatsoever in the original that replicants could have children. Now, if New Replicants made by Wallace corp were designed to have kids, that’d be different story. So, this notion of Rachel bearing a child is too ‘out of the left field’ and incompatible with the BR universe.
    I suppose one could argue that Tyrell was so invested in making androids lifelike that he actually ended up creating something far more remarkable than he’d imagined. After all, scientists are sometimes surprised by phenomena they didn’t intend in their creations. In that case, the ‘miracle’ wouldn’t really be a miracle but an accident overlooked by Tyrell who, in making androids so humanlike, ended up equipping some of them with biological potential for giving birth. But if so, why did it ONLY happen with Rachel? Also, with all the Tarkovskean imagery, we are led into a spiritual kind of mindset. But in the end, there are no miracles in Tarkovsky’s world. There are only delusions, dreams, and visions. Not the same thing as miracle. In SOLARIS, the strange planet has a mysterious but real power to replicate figures and objects in the mind. In STALKER, there is a material explanation for everything the Stalker expounds spiritually. And in THE SACRIFICE, we enter the mental state of a man going crazy and saintly at the same time. Tarkovksy doesn’t say the world is filled with miracles. Rather, he suggests a properly contemplative outlook can make us aware of the miraculous nature of so much around us. But the new BLADE RUNNER is far more literal in its concept of the ‘miracle’. We are shown Rachel’s remains as if they’re sacred relics and made to think, gee, maybe a kind of impossible ‘miracle’ did happen between Deckard and Rachel.
    But what kind of cockamamie nonsense is that? Worst of all, it robs the original of its tragic beauty. The original movie was not about miracle and redemption but about luck and fortune in chance moments. A sense of epiphany yet all too fleeting and ephemeral, like traces of fragrance. And there is no escape. In the end, search as he might, Roy Batty cannot escape his doomed fate. He has seen so much, far more than any human on earth. He had semi-godlike power and has a longing for immortality as all gods do. But he can’t override the programming. After 4 yrs, his cord is cut and he must face the music… or silence. And yet, he died beautifully, and that moment will haunt Deckard forever. A light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. Some might say it’s a miracle that Rachel lives. But then, it could be she was made later than other replicants, and she will also expire when the 4 yrs are up. There are two endings to the movie, one more upbeat than the other, but both are sad. In the one where Deckard and Rachel drive away, they are happy and safe for the moment, but there’s no guarantee what will happen. In the Final Cut, it ends them with them on the run. So, there is in BLADE RUNNER the sense that even the most beautiful thing, esp the most beautiful thing, is doomed to fade. Permanence is an illusion. And Tyrell corp made replicants this way. More human than human, approaching the godly in either intelligence or beauty or strength. And no matter how amazing the new model, it will be replaced by yet newer models by the laws of commerce that renders everything dispensable and to be extinguished when the time is up. So, there is no escape for Deckard in the end. Either Deckard and Rachel will be captured or killed, or he will save Rachel but she will go kaput soon enough, and he will only have the memory of her. Now, it’s possible that Tyrell esp made Rachel to live beyond 4 yrs. 10 yrs? 20 yrs? 100 yrs? But that’s too much speculation. If for a long time, she will outlive Deckard who will grow old, and she will be left alone. So, BLADE RUNNER can only end tragically. There is no way out.

    Now, even as the new movie has tragic overtones, it turns all new-age flaky with the ‘miracle’ crap, and it has something like a happy ending. As depressing as it is, BLADE RUNNER only makes emotional sense as tragedy. With Rachel, Deckard had a love that should have lasted forever but couldn’t. And that woulda been that. But to cook up some notion that the two had a kid together and that Deckard is ‘spiritually’ united with Rachel through the kid is just goo-goo stuff. Do we want to connect the dark ending of the Final Cut with the nursery-vibes of the ending of the new movie where Deckard says hi to his girl? Gimme a break.
    This is like the mess at the end of TWILIGHT. The only way that story makes sense is to end as tragedy. Edward and Bella love one another but live in two different worlds. If Bella remains human, she will die and Edward will forever be sad thinking of her. If Bella turns vampire, she will outlast all the people she loves. But TWILIGHT has the even the father becoming instantly cool with whatever strange thing that happened with his daughter. And there is no mention of Bella’s mom after the transformation. And to make it even sillier, Bella, like Rachel, has a miracle baby before she turns vampire. Supposedly the ghostly sperm from Edward’s ice cold penis fertilized the egg… It’s just totally ridiculous.. though very well-done by Bill Condon.

    The ‘miracle’ bit is a sign of cultural sickness and not an isolated event in movies. Because religion is dead or because pop culture has become the new religion, the ‘artists’ and fans are infusing the works with a kind of quasi-spirituality. It’s like what John Simon warned of EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. But that was nothing compared to the ludicrousness of PHANTOM MENACE where we learn that Kid Vader was born of a virgin mother. I mean…
    Can you imagine Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers discovering they were miraculously born of a ‘virgin mother’? Lang’s METROPOLIS warned of how science and technology can create false idols and gods. And with recent sci-fi films, we are really getting there. Kubrick got away with it in 2001 because it was such an astounding work and left it up to us to interpret. As for Tarkovsky, he made what might be called anti-scifi. STALKER is bleak, and the element of faith is up to each person. It cannot be ascertained by what is out there. It’s a matter of what’s inside one’s own soul. And the original BLADE RUNNER was also pessimistic about technology as replacement for humanity.

    But now, we get a string of sci-fi that pretend to be the beginning of a new faith. Not just New Hope but New Religion. And we get this in fantasy too. It was interesting to turn Vampires into a saintly clan. Still, they were vampires and felt the burden of guilt. But as the story progresses, everything just becomes so hunky dory and Bella becomes a guilt-less happy vampire goddess and even has a miracle child.

    And what the hell was INTERSTELLAR, a bloated choral symphony about ‘corn is good’. It could have been a nice action sci-fi but tries to be like the founding of a new faith.

    And there is the overly serious BATMAN series by Nolan. What should be fun comic book hero movie tries to be a bona fide work of Western Myth. And this bug caught onto other franchises as well. I never much cared for 007 but Connery was cool and the series has its thrilling sensational moments. But SKYFALL tries to be Art Bond. I lasted about 15 min. If I want that, I’ll just see TINKER TAILER SOLDIER SPY.

    Why is Pop trying to be Art? Why is sci-fi trying to be religion? Miracle Birth? A quasi-spiritual brotherhood of the replicants?

    This miracle bit worked in TRON LEGACY because the concept is true to human psychology. There is the rational logical side(left side of brain) and the irrational, emotional, and creative side(right side of the brain). In the sequel, we learn how Flynn tried to be a total master of logic and math in mapping out the cyber world. He’d neglected his other side, but something unexpectedly flowed from that region and took his self-awareness to another level. So, even though it is miraculous, it can be explained in psychological terms. But the virgin birth of Kid Vader in PHANTOM MENACE is totally at odds with how the STAR WARS universe works. Yes, there is this mysterious thing called Force, but it’s not a world of miracles. It was just a case of Lucas getting so carried away with his work that he decided to throw New Testament into the mix. As for Stephanie Meyer, I don’t think she can tell Mormonism apart from Pop Culture anymore, but then, Mormonism itself is a PT Barnum-ish re-imagining of the Bible.

    The whole point of BLADE RUNNER is about existentially arriving at one’s personal truth in a world without certainty or reassurance. That is its poetry and its pain. In the end, it is up to Deckard what he is and what Rachel means to him. He knows and we know that she is a corporate product. And as he looks at the paper origami, he could be one too. So, even the ‘personal’ and ‘private’ could be corporate and generic. And yet, Deckard still clings to the meaning and love between him and Rachel.. even against all odds. This is akin to the ending of SILENCE where the fallen priest, upon dying in a foreign land where Christianity has been utterly vanquished, still holds within his folded hands a crucifix. In the end, it’s not about what the world thinks, but what HE thinks(still) in the depths of his heart. It’s both sad and illuminating. Sad because he has utterly failed and even publicly renounced God, but also moving because at a deeper personal level, he holds steadfast to the faith.
    In some ways, BLADE RUNNER’s world is even more bleak. After all, even without Christianity, Japan is a land of spirituality of Buddhism and Shinto. People believe in the sacred. But BLADE RUNNER world is utterly degraded and fallen where no one believes or trusts anyone or anything. So, Deckard’s feelings for Rachel, as strong and beautiful as they are, can only be a fleeting moment, like the memory of Batty as he finally dies. They may light up the individual ‘soul’ but they are nothing but fireflies in time. Once extinguished, gone forever and no one will ever know or care that there was a Rachel and Deckard and how he felt about her.

    So, for the remake to turn their story into the basis of a new faith.. It is so wrong. So, Rachel turned out to be madonna and Deckard was Joseph.. or Joe? That robs BLADE RUNNER of its poignancy. It’s all the sadder because replicants will be utterly forgotten(retired not only physically but historically, as if they’d never existed) despite the epic dimension of their ventures. It’s like Roy Batty has some of the most magnificent images stored in his head, but they will all fade away. And the ONLY person with an inkling of Batty’s short-lived grandeur will be Deckard. By keeping Deckard alive, Batty lives just a little bit more as a memory in Deckard who’ve witnessed the noble as well as dark side of Batty. But then, when Deckard dies, the last vestiges of evidence that Batty ever existed will be gone as well. So, BLADE RUNNER are about these beautiful fires that must sadly burn out and disappear forever. When this idea is taken by the new movie and turned into a promise of a Forest Fire that will redeem the world… that turns poetry into dogma.

    As for the movie as entertainment, Gosling is a good actor but isn’t given much to do except look pretty like Tippi Hedren. Also, there is no sense of fun, with the cast of originals now in retirement home. Olmos was a fun character, real cool cat in the original. His cameo doesn’t even give us the accent. Ford had charm and a smirk in the original. Gosling has just one expression, and the emotional scenes just aren’t convincing because BLADE RUNNER universe was not designed to carry such emotions. For a while, we are led to believe K is the lost son of Deckard, and it’s almost like the Steve Jobs story. But it gets even more ludicrous when we learn that the real kid is some funny looking millennial girl who toys with a camera. Now, if Rachel and Deckard are both very attractive people, why is their kid a pillsbury dough girl? What a bummer. Nothing about her seems special. Jared Leto comes across as overly eerie and creepy, but the character grows on you because the eccentricity is held so steady. What initially looks like posture takes on the semblance of possession. He becomes truly diabolical and frightening. Much else of the movie is cold and stalinist. The police captain seems made of concrete, inside and out, like the brutalist building. Even the replicants had personality in the original. Leon was a goofy bully, Pris a playful tease, and Zhora a dashing killer babe. In the new movie, everyone has a very narrow range of expression and emotions(like the characters in TWO JAKES, the dull and overlong sequel to CHINATOWN). They seem to have no purpose in life beyond service. It is however a nice touch that the assassin female replicant has also been programmed to shed a sentimental tear despite her cold commitment to Wallace’s orders. Besides that, the only other poetic touch in the movie is the brilliant scene where the hooker’s body syncs with the movements of the ‘girlfriend’. The fragile moment where the merging of the two alternate back and forth between blur and clarity is the high point of the movie.

    As for the Hans Zimmer’s music, is that a bullhorn or a soundtrack? In the IMAX showing, the seats were literally shaking, and if I hadn’t brought my ear plugs, I would have suffered hearing damage for sure.

    One problem with Villeneau is he was too reverential not only to the original but other great classics of cinema. As such, there are moments when it looks like an overly serious version of BRAZIL which is little more than endless movie references. On the one hand, Villeneau is obviously paying homage to the greats that came before him. But it also seems a bit pretentious, as if to declare that he his the heir to Tarkovsky, Scott, Welles, Hitchcock. Tarkovsky-ism just don’t belong there. While BLADE RUNNER is a slow for a Hollywood movie, it’s a difference of slowness than Tarkovsky’s. Tarkovksy’s slowness was to induce a contemplative and meditative mood. It was to dissolve and meld our sense of time and place with a spiritual and mysterious force. In contrast, Scott’s stillness and slowness were to sharpen and fine-tune our sense of the moment. Tarkovsky’s vision was about the dissolution of earth, body, time, and space into a unity known only to God. It’s about liquid. Scott, having honed his skills in advertising, worked like a jeweler cutting diamond to find that perfect eternity in the moment. It’s cyrstalline. So, mixing Tarkosky and Scott’s vision in the new work makes no sense.

    Villeneau is humble or arrogant enough to allude to #1 and #2 on the Sight and Sound Greatest Films list. The furnace scene works(likely a nod to Rosebud) pretty well, but Rachel as Vertigo-inspired double is too much.

    Overall, the movie suffers from the same problems as Pink Floyd albums after Rogers Waters left. Waters became the heart-and-soul of Pink Floyd, and without him, something crucial was missing. Sure, the album without him has same grand symphonic effects and visionary vibe, but it’s like a mansion without people and furniture in it. Indeed, to compensate for lack of Waters, MOMENTARY LAPSE OF REASON and DIVISION BELL are in some ways bigger and louder. But they ring hollow. Likewise, the new one is to the original film what Wallace Corp is to Tyrell. Much bigger but emptier, esp as the running time drags on and makes us acutely aware of so little that is happening original, or interesting. It’s just gigantism or gargantuanism, like Albert Speer at his worst. Speer was an able architect but sometimes he just fell back on scale, like the ridiculous mega-dome in the plan of city Germania. It’s like Hans Zimmer’s music is like the shell of Wagner without the soul.

    There are undoubtedly some great things in the movie but ultimately it’s terrible, not unlike HEAVEN’S GATE and LOLA MONTEZ that, despite their cinematic wonders, aren’t wired properly. It’s like a mansion with all sorts of fancy lighting fixtures but where most of the light remain off because the wires have been messed up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @feeeney
    WTF
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Alden says:
    @Jack D
    This really shows how much of Hollywood is about physical appearance rather than skills - it's more like modeling than golf. Someone like Rusty Hamer, who had considerable acting skills and experience (had put in the proverbial 10,000 hours) had to discard that completely and flip hamburgers because he didn't have the "look" that casting agents wanted once he became an adult. OTOH, there have been many fashion models that have transitioned to screen careers despite having no acting skills.

    Keep this in mind when Hollywood actors give you their opinions on any subject or make fun of models as being empty headed.

    There are only a few actresses who are more than 6 out of 10. Sharon Stone, Nicole Kidman, Michelle Pfieffer were goddesses in their time. Courtney Cox and that other one with black hair I think Posey Parker are beautiful. So is the one who played Pheobe on Friends. So is Katherine Zeta Jones.

    Those are the only actresses I can think of off hand who are 10 out of 10. And they are getting old. I have a friend who was an actress until she was about 35 and realizing she was going nowhere got a regular job. She is getting old but when she was young she was like a twin sister of Courtney Cox, perfect features, big eyes, fair skin and dark brown hair to show off the perfect face. She also had the perfect actress body, slim and small bones but curves at bust and hips. But she got nowhere. She is a beauty but I see average attractive women in all the big parts. And with all the make up and lighting and complicated camera shots they still look very average. They do have big eyes though which is necessary.

    I’m sick of drudge. It’s been nothing but Weinstein for days. It is such a common place part of the entertainment industry I don’t know why all the fuss. I mean, it’s nice that the brothel that is Hollywood is being exposed once again, Weinstein must have done something for the media to go against him

    It might be the years of resentment by other producers because of his bribes, extortion and threats to get those Oscars.

    Speaking of, I’ve only seen part of one in my life. It was spring of my first year of college. Everyone was going to the lounge to watch the Oscars. I watched for about half and then got so bored I went back to my room and read a book. BOOOOORRRRRRRRING.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Jack D says:
    @Anon
    OT: Big plague outbreak in Madagascar of the worst kind. It's pneumoniac plague, which spreads through coughing or sneezing, has an incubation time of just a few hours, and kills you within a day. It's the type that killed a lot of people in Europe and China back in the Middle Ages. Some guy who had it traveled 500 miles on a bus, gave it to almost everyone on the bus, and as these passengers disembarked at various stops, they in turn spread it to city after city throughout Madagascar. I cannot imagine what that sort of plague would do today in India, China, or overpopulated cities in Africa filled with poor people such as those in South Africa or Egypt. There comes a point in which the math of the plague makes it spread faster than antibiotics can be manufactured to keep up with it.

    Good argument for closing borders to immigrants and keeping them that way.

    Good argument for closing borders to immigrants and keeping them that way.

    Not really. To be really effective you would have to close the borders completely.

    The antibiotics used to treat plague are cheap and produced by the ton – streptomycin, tetracycline, etc. There is excess capacity because they used to put this stuff in animal feed (chickens gain more weight when they are given antibiotics). I can only imagine how much the Chinese produce – megatons. You can break a plague epidemic by putting everyone on antibiotics for a week so no one can spread the infection anymore. Even in a 3rd world place, Black Death type epidemics are impossible nowadays as long as there is at least a rudimentary public health system. The plague in Madagascar is not going to sweep thru their whole population. The scare scenarios that you see in science fiction movies never happen in real life. You get local outbreaks and they fizzle.

    A plague vaccine is possible but no pharma company wants to spend the money on it when they can develop high $ drugs for 1st world diseases instead.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    What happens when the known antibiotics no longer work?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Hibernian says:
    @Thea
    No worries, her mom made sure whites will never hold power in the DNC again

    She might be like Franklin Roosevelt jr. representing a white liberal area in Congress.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Jack D says:
    @ScarletNumber
    Ron was an adult when Happy Days premiered. He was a child actor in The Andy Griffith Show.

    At the time when Ron Howard was playing Opie, on Romanian TV. they were announcing the numbers for the latest potato harvest (to the four people who actually owned TVs). When Romania started running out of money at the end, Ceaușescu just turned off one of the broadcast channels (there were only 2 to begin with) in order to “conserve energy”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @Steve Sailer
    But what would, say, Spielberg's career look like if he worked on only a handful of movies for four years each? Heck, what would Soderbergh's career look like if he took four times as long on each movie? For example, Nolan slowed down his movie every two year pace a little recently and came up with Dunkirk after 32 months. If Nolan were on a 48 month schedule his career record might look like Kubrick's.

    Really, how many masterpieces did Kubrick make? Four? Dr. Strangelove, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, and The Shining? With Paths of Glory(?), Spartacus, Barry Lyndon, and Full Metal Jacket being one notch below, and Eyes Wide Shut a dud?

    Four is a lot, especially because they are in dissimilar genres and because they were highly innovative.

    And Kubrick-style striving after making each work a unique masterpiece has high risks. Paleo Retiree blogged about his theory that Leonard Bernstein got blocked by his felt need to top "West Side Story."

    Kubrick largely pulled off his ambitious plans, but other guys have stumbled into similar career-level achievements by doing a lot of work (e.g., Verdi), some of which is good, others of which turns out to be great. There's something a little adolescent about Kubrick's career path. It strikes me as like a comic book fan's theory of how to be a genius. In Kubrick's case, however, it worked.

    There is something to be said for the ‘just get it done and hope for the best’ model of artistic production.

    When you compare 19th-century novelists such as Dickens and Dostoyevsky (who often wrote fast in installments to deadlines) with some 20th- and 21st-century ‘literary’ novelists who obsessed for years or even decades over just a few works, it’s hard to say the latter approach typically results in quality of work that exceeds the former.

    Writing/film-making/whatever that’s picked over and redone to excess is in danger of going stale.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Jack D says:
    @Steve Sailer
    In "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead," the Travelling Players who pass through Elsinore are, the times being what they are, not above pimping out the youngest boy in the troupe.

    In "Hamlet," Hamlet denounces at considerable length the recent fashion in England for troupes of child actors putting on grown-up plays. In the 1590s, apparently, audiences went nuts over Bugsy Malone-style plays featuring child actors as grown up characters. This drove Shakespeare nuts. However, Hamlet's extended diatribe making fun of this fad is usually the first thing cut from that very long play.

    There are a lot of inside theater jokes in Hamlet, especially in the scene where the acting troupe shows up. Polionius hilariously announces all the genres the actors are capable of playing:

    tragedy, comedy, history, pastoral, pastoral-comical, historical-pastoral, tragical-historical, tragical-comical-historical-pastoral

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. BB753 says:
    @Jack D

    Good argument for closing borders to immigrants and keeping them that way.
     
    Not really. To be really effective you would have to close the borders completely.

    The antibiotics used to treat plague are cheap and produced by the ton - streptomycin, tetracycline, etc. There is excess capacity because they used to put this stuff in animal feed (chickens gain more weight when they are given antibiotics). I can only imagine how much the Chinese produce - megatons. You can break a plague epidemic by putting everyone on antibiotics for a week so no one can spread the infection anymore. Even in a 3rd world place, Black Death type epidemics are impossible nowadays as long as there is at least a rudimentary public health system. The plague in Madagascar is not going to sweep thru their whole population. The scare scenarios that you see in science fiction movies never happen in real life. You get local outbreaks and they fizzle.

    A plague vaccine is possible but no pharma company wants to spend the money on it when they can develop high $ drugs for 1st world diseases instead.

    What happens when the known antibiotics no longer work?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Steve Sailer
    But what would, say, Spielberg's career look like if he worked on only a handful of movies for four years each? Heck, what would Soderbergh's career look like if he took four times as long on each movie? For example, Nolan slowed down his movie every two year pace a little recently and came up with Dunkirk after 32 months. If Nolan were on a 48 month schedule his career record might look like Kubrick's.

    Really, how many masterpieces did Kubrick make? Four? Dr. Strangelove, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, and The Shining? With Paths of Glory(?), Spartacus, Barry Lyndon, and Full Metal Jacket being one notch below, and Eyes Wide Shut a dud?

    Four is a lot, especially because they are in dissimilar genres and because they were highly innovative.

    And Kubrick-style striving after making each work a unique masterpiece has high risks. Paleo Retiree blogged about his theory that Leonard Bernstein got blocked by his felt need to top "West Side Story."

    Kubrick largely pulled off his ambitious plans, but other guys have stumbled into similar career-level achievements by doing a lot of work (e.g., Verdi), some of which is good, others of which turns out to be great. There's something a little adolescent about Kubrick's career path. It strikes me as like a comic book fan's theory of how to be a genius. In Kubrick's case, however, it worked.

    But what would, say, Spielberg’s career look like if he worked on only a handful of movies for four years each? Heck, what would Soderbergh’s career look like if he took four times as long on each movie?

    People just work differently, and Spielberg’s movies would likely have suffered if he’d spent too much time on them.
    I think he did spend considerable time and energy on CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, a movie he was most proud of until maybe SCHINDLER. One thing for sure, he was never a think or philosophical type. So more time spent on projects would have been just a waste. Obviously intelligent and brilliant as a film-maker, he simply didn’t have the sensibility of an intellectual. He played pinball, not chess.

    When Kubrick thought of UFO or extraterrestrials, the question was, ‘what may they teach us?’
    When Spielberg thought of the same, the question was ‘how would they freak us out?’

    Spielberg was almost mostly a crowd-pleaser, so most of his films were half-complete when the project began. Spielberg knew the formula like the back of his hand, and he approached cinema as much as a moviegoer as movie maker. So, as long as he surrounded himself with professionals who also got the formula, they were all set to go. I mean John Williams understood Spielberg better than Spielberg understood himself.
    In contrast, Kubrick mapped out every inch because he was interested in the minutest detail and meaning. If Kubrick were Indiana Jones, his main interest would have been archaeology. If Spielberg were Indy, he would have been in for the adventure.

    So, it’s apples and oranges. Beatles wrote some great songs, but would they have done better if they were given 4 yrs to write something like ‘Ticket to Ride’ ? No, the Beatles thrived on energy and spontaneity. And Spielberg was in his element on the hubbub of the movie set. It was action that made him feel alive and creative.

    Take a movie like BRIDGE OF SPIES. Spielberg saw it as a suspense drama set in the Cold War and was content to fall back on Capra-isms and conventions from other spy thrillers. The movie is very good for what it is but not much more. It looks very good and moves smoothly but looks rather familiar. If Spielberg had been given 10 yrs to make the film, he would just have grown bored because he wasn’t curious in the way that Kubrick was.

    In contrast, Kubrick’s demands were far more eccentric and multi-faceted, and they required time. It’s like sodapop vs time. No sense in letting sodapop age for 5 yrs.

    As for Soderbergh, he thinks he’s a thinker. Generally, he’s been a decent Hollywood film-maker and somewhat interesting ‘auteur’ of independent films.

    He made some half-decent movies, but other Hollywood directors have done better, and other art-directors have been far more interesting. I think Hollywood likes to keep around as a kind of hybrid of entertainer and aesthete. I can appreciate his attempt at something different with movies like CHE — and it sure beats HAYNE’S dreadful I’M NOT THERE — , but there is too much of the SWPL hipster about him. It’s Starbucks Art.

    That said, I thought he finally delivered a near-perfect movie with THE INFORMANT. Like DAMSELS IN DISTRESS, it is a gem, perfectly cut with masterly balance of every genre. The material is so twisted that it could easily have slipped into satiric comedy or dark drama but is something much finer and nimbler It’s like heist where the crook leaves no fingerprints, no footprints, doesn’t trip the alarm, and even keeps the pigeon away.

    [MORE]

    At his worst, he sees movie-making as hipster exercise. It wouldn’t be so bad if he found something worth being experimental about, but he wastes time on stuff like HAYWIRE that I turned off after about 15 min it was so dumb.

    Also, for a thinking-man’s film-maker, he is not above cheapshots, like in CONTAGION which now seems utterly forgettable.

    And for an original artist, why did he remake a British TV show, esp has he hardly improved on it? TRAFFIC.

    Really, how many masterpieces did Kubrick make?

    That’s subjective. According to Stanley Kauffmann, Kubrick made one sure masterpiece with DR. STRANGELOVE. Kauffmann preferred 2001 the novel and had no feeling for BARRY LYNDON. Most critic were mixed or hostile to THE SHINING.

    Personally, I think everything he did beginning with THE KILLING is a masterpiece except for SPARTACUS that was largely under Douglas’ control. Others may disagree, but even detractors of, say, EYES WIDE SHUT, FULL METAL JACKET, and THE SHINING will have to admit they feature awesome mastery and prowess even if the elements don’t quite gel together. I never cared for the ending of THE SHINING myself.

    Kubrick largely pulled off his ambitious plans, but other guys have stumbled into similar career-level achievements by doing a lot of work (e.g., Verdi), some of which is good, others of which turns out to be great. There’s something a little adolescent about Kubrick’s career path

    Music is different. Verdi could sit and write music as he wished. As for the details of the productions, I don’t know how much he was involved. But many opera composers just wrote the music and left the productions to others. If Kubrick were only a screen-writer, he could have worked like Verdi. But cinema is a total art that combines so much. Also, Kubrick had a total vision of things, so everything had to conform to his big idea.
    In this, he was closer to Wagner who also took a totalist approach to art and had detailed ideas about everything from libretto to production. Wagner even went so far as build a new whole theater designed specifically to stage his operas. Of course, it cost Ludwig II dearly, but Bayreuth still stands. Beethoven also only composed only nine symphonies(though to be sure, tons of other stuff), but each symphony had to be ‘perfect’.
    I think exploratory and visionary artists will always take more time.

    Some artists are more comfortable with treading established conventions, and some make great music in that vein. Since they are less ambitious as explorers, the creative process comes easier to them. It’s like walking a familiar path on a hiking trail. In contrast, those who seek out unexplored territory will come upon more obstacles. When Brian Wilson was just writing surf songs, he knew the formula down pat. But as he began to experiment, he found both more satisfaction and more troubles… until SMILE project overwhelmed him.
    Verdi was a great artist but not very different from what other Italian opera composers were doing. Even if Verdi had never existed, Italian opera would pretty much be what it is. But take out Wagner and the German opera and opera itself — and all of music culture — would be different. He reached further.

    I don’t think Kubrick was as obsessed about ‘genius’ as some may suspect. I think he felt he had nothing to prove. He took his genius for granted. The question wasn’t proving his genius but using it to make something fascinating, provocative, and worthy. The reason why he needed so much time was he aimed for both experimentation and completion. A director like Godard cared mainly for experimentation and in 1965 made three films. He didn’t care that his movies seemed half-completed or open-ended. If anything, that was part of the method: to leave it up to the viewers to fill in their own ideas. In contrast, a film-maker who aims for the masterful finished touch doesn’t have to worry about experimentation. Just hire the professionals and rely on time-tested conventions, and make something like the usual Oscar winner for Best Picture.
    But to make a film that is both innovative and ‘classic’ in completion, that is a tall order. And Beethoven aimed for it in his symphonies and Kubrick in his films. 2001 is amazing as a work that was so new yet so classic. It is so audacious but also confident and sure of its vision. (Coppola maintained the balance for about one full hour in APOCALYPSE NOW before getting hopelessly lost.)

    Bernstein was a different animal than Kubrick. While WEST SIDE STORY is am amazing piece of music, it is kitsch. And it really broke no new ground in musical theater. It’s superior schmaltz. Yes, I like ‘Maria’ and ‘Tonight’ and all that. But it’s not exactly Mahler or Shostakovich… and not ever Gershwin. I think Bernstein’s problem was he was never sure what he was about: high art or middlebrow art. An elitist or populist. He tried to have it both ways.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    What is the formula that Spielberg hit upon?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Svigor says:

    I’m okay with opaqueness or confusion in a movie. Plot twists are usually too obvious, anyway. The theatrical release of Akira is much better than the newer, re-voiced edition. The new script is clearer, but not as entertaining. And more important, the original performances were way better than the new ones, which are flat. The original doesn’t really suffer for being a bit more confusing; it’s the end of the world in Japan – it’s supposed to be a little confusing.

    The opaqueness of the theatrical release of Blade Runner works fine for me, too. The voice-overs take away some of the mystery of the hypnotizing world. The happy-green ending didn’t belong in the film, either.

    I can understand the box office bottom line of the voice-overs, but BR has long since gone beyond a cult classic, and doesn’t need them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  165. Svigor says:

    Re confusion, I read somewhere that coming into a movie after the exposition can transform a movie and make it much more interesting (it might’ve been Dolan or one of the Exile boys writing). I’ve had it happen; start watching a movie while it’s underway, not be able to finish watching it, then go back and watch it from start to finish later, and think “this was way more interesting when I didn’t know what was going on.”

    That said, I watched Inception twice, and still never “got” what the Hell was going on. I know they’re surfing dream levels, but have no idea why people call the movie “brilliant.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    When I was a teenager going to college in NYC in the early 1970s, I used to go to the Brandt theaters on 42d St and catch a triple feature, often coming in in the middle of a movie. It was interesting: not only did you wonder how it would end, you wondered how it had all begun.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @Zippy
    I never understood precisely why your retweet of that joke was supposed to be so despicable. Is it because you were being anti-semitic? Sexist? What? Did he ever elaborate?

    Also, if we're playing the "look how the child actor turned out" game, Jake Lloyd and Edward Furlong (Star Wars prequel and Terminator 2) have had troubles, but Ron Howard has rather famously gone on to being a very successful director/mogul. Clint less so, but he gets to be a funny looking guy in Ron's movies. Molly Ringwald wasn't precisely a child actor, but she seems to be pretty well adjusted.

    Because of the time value of money equation, you would think that someone that young earning even a modest amount of money would be able to put some of it away and let it compound. Presumably, they are living rent free with their parents and really don’t need to live like a rock star. A couple of extra decades and the real value of their money has doubled or quadrupled over what the average person does.

    Early in my career, I worked with a company that managed the MLB pension fund. Many of those guys had a similar issues, particularly back in the day when they really did not get paid very much. All of them worked in the off season but their baseball careers interfered with a regular job and many died broke. I am not sure what they do now but the sports franchises could easily put together a fraction of what the players earn into a defined benefit plan which would pay out at 55 or 60 or some such. put it somewhere they cannot touch and pay it out in an annuity so they cannot spend through it and at least they would all have some modest stipend when they are through working at a regular job. Because they are making so much money in their early years the plans could all be front loaded and then left to grow for a while.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Steve Sailer
    We don't see too many Director's Cuts where the suits unambiguously improved the movie.

    Here's a suggestion for the voiceovers to explain the plot in the original Blade Runner. Instead of having Harrison Ford do them (badly), or not do them at all, which leaves the movie confusing to first time viewers, they should have had Edward James Olmos do them.

    I watched the new Spielberg documentary on HBO or whatever (it’s all blur now with Netflix, Amazon, and the rest), and there’s a scene where Brian De Palma recounts how he gave George Lucas the idea for the crawl at the beginning of Star Wars. Lucas had screened an early version of it for the gang and De Palma was confused by the lack of back story.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Mr. Anon says:
    @Svigor
    Jack, film is a collaborative process, so there is never any real way to tell where, say, the director ends, and the cinematographer begins, or where the cinematographer ends, and the camera operator begins, etc.

    And there's even the question of where "begin" begins, and "end" ends; how much of Kubrick's famed visual perfectionism is him having the actual knowledged needed, and how much of it is simply him knowing what he wants to see, and insisting on the crew working on it until he likes it? How much of his team's work can a director actually do? Does he just have a sense of what his people can deliver, or does he actually know their jobs?

    No analogy is perfect, but ship's captain drifts off course because the finished film is the ship. Getting the ship built is down to a lot of people, but consensus seems to be that the director is the person most responsible for what the finished ship looks like.

    The producer may budget a ship, conceive of and design it, hire the team to build it, and buy the equipment and materials needed for its production, but he doesn't remotely deliver a built ship for the captain to sail away in.

    Really, I think the public attaches more importance and rigidity to the various roles than the people making the movies do, at least in the work sense. It's probably nearly as fluid as the business structure (each film being it's own company), varying between projects and teams. Does anyone really think any of the top directors have no more influence over pre-production than any given director? That it would be any different, even if the top directors didn't get producer credit?

    And there’s even the question of where “begin” begins, and “end” ends; how much of Kubrick’s famed visual perfectionism is him having the actual knowledged needed, and how much of it is simply him knowing what he wants to see, and insisting on the crew working on it until he likes it?

    In Kubricks’ case it was actual knowledge. While making Spartacus, the cinematographer complained that Kubrick essentially took over the job himself, leaving him with nothing to do. Kubrick never took credit for it, and the dunsel cinematographer won an oscar for Kubricks’ work. Kubrick was also a nut about lighting and lots of other technical details. While Spielberg delegates more than Kubrick did, he still also has a pretty comprehensive view of the technical arts of movie-making.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Shouting Thomas
    The casting couch is even more brutal and destructive for men.

    The men I know or knew in the modeling or acting biz are all either HIV positive or dead. You could say they were enthusiastic participants in the gay orgy/party scene, but that scene was and is the casting couch for actors. Don’t play and you’re out.

    Weinstein gave us what we want in the only way possible. The movie biz grew up, developed and prospered because of the way Weinstein did biz, not in spite of it.

    We’ve discovered in the digital age that just about anybody can play and record rock and roll. Same is true of acting. It’s not a difficult skill and anybody can learn it. Before digital tech, recording and distribution were prohibitively expensive. Now, both are cheap.

    What really separates out actors and actresses is physical beauty and fuckability. Weinstein was test driving the merchandise to see if it was up to snuff. He was doing that for us. And we bought it big time. Because it is human nature to want what Weinstein was selling. He’s an Ashkenazi Jew with a stratospheric IQ, right? He had the intelligence to understand how to get directly from A to B.

    Bitching and cause mongering will not change this. There will simply be a new Weinstein who is even more clever at giving us what we want while mouthing the most stale and cliched political orthodoxies.

    Same is true of acting. It’s not a difficult skill and anybody can learn it.

    This isn’t really true. An actor gave me a counter-example once.

    Back in the ’80s there was a former Aussie Rules football player known as Jacko who was briefly famous. He appeared in the battery commercial below. Per the actor I knew, an American TV network sought to capitalize on his fame by building a sitcom around him. Didn’t work because Jacko couldn’t act, not even as a fictionalized version of himself, despite working with acting coaches.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Didn’t work because Jacko couldn’t act, not even as a fictionalized version of himself, despite working with acting coaches.

    In movies, it's not just about acting talent. This is why some people who are so good on stage fail on the screen, whereas some people who aren't particularly talented as actors shine on screen. Without closeups, Clint Eastwood is nothing. He conveys so much with his eyebrows. You can't get that on stage. But on screen, he can just look this way, that way, and say a few lines, and he holds the audience captive.

    You need something like star power, even in art films. Some people are cinegenic.
    , @MEH 0910
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQXUgi85EdM&feature=youtu.be&t=231
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Mr. Anon says:

    A lot of former child-stars, in the last forty years or so, eventually became drug addicts. This might be an indicator of the prevalence of sexual abuse in Hollywood.

    A number of actresses who seem relatively well-adjusted have now come out with stories about having been propositioned or assaulted as child actresses: Molly Ringwald, Reese Witherspoon, for example. An interview of Jodie Foster from a few years back has resurfaced, in which she says that one of her producers tried to the moves on her when she was 14 years old. Perhaps the child stars who developed drug problems were the ones who were not successful at resisting the attentions of pedophiles in the industry.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  171. feeeney says:
    @Anon
    It’s time for a feminist Republican gentile revisionist version of Sunset Boulevard.

    I think the new BLADE RUNNER is the masculinist replicant(if not revisionist) version of SUNSET BOULEVARD(and others).

    Spoilers.

    Consider the scene where Deckard(Ford) is stalking K(Gosling) in the lounge with virtual images of Elvis and Sinatra, which is odder still since the original BLADE RUNNER takes place long after those two giants of music died. But they are always 'alive' because their images have been preserved on film and video(now transferred to digital format that can be transformed into who-knows-what in the future). If the original film was more about the physical replication of life, the new one seems to be just as concerned about the virtual replication of life. Instead of creating a robot version of Elvis, he can be created into something like a hologram, like K's 'laser' girlfriend, mostly a software program(that however still relies on minimum of software).
    Of course, the irony of that scene with Elvis and Sinatra(as virtual figures eternally pristine on the digital-state) is the dynamics sort of applies to BLADE RUNNER itself. The original can still be seen in its original version as if printed yesterday. Indeed, with new technology, the film got ever fresher. Scott did a Final Cut that looked better than ever, and it looks fabulous on LCD screens. (And maybe a 3D virtual version will be made later for fans to enter.) So, the new BLADE RUNNER not only follows but exists parallel with the original BLADE RUNNER. We are told that much of the records and files from the previous era are lost forever, but Wallace corp can conjure and recreate Rachel anew. It's like she will never age. This is in stark contrast to Deckard who has aged(like Norma Desmond). It's a kind of LOGAN'S RUN moment. In LR, there are only young and healthy people who are 'sent to heaven' at age 30. The idea of old age is a lost concept since no one is allowed to grow old. So, it's a marvel when the couple make the escape and meet an old person at the end. Our pop culture has no use for the old and caters to the young. And yet, precisely for that reason, there may be value in actual oldness as something organic, real, and natural. So, even though Ford is much aged and withered, he is a most welcome presence when he finally makes the entrance. In a world of replicants and virtuals, he is real. He aged like a human should. And yet, it's also tragic since the love of his life will always remain young(in his mind) and same while he grows older. Worse, even though he wants to keep memory of Rachel as his, it can be recreated a million times by Wallace corp... just like David discovers he is part of a 'he' and is dime-a-dozen in A.I.

    I think part of the appeal of the new STAR WARS movie was the re-appearance of the old characters. It was like a reunion. And young millennials, so accustomed to youth culture, felt a sense of 'family' with old characters who visibly aged(unlike the new hollywood idea of the perpetual youth-looking actor like Tom Cruise or Leonard DiCaprio). And the newer one will have Mark Hamill reprising his role after a long long spell. And TRON LEGACY's success owed as much to the human touch of reuniting with the lost aged father as with special effects. Age lent a regal element to an otherwise high-tech cutting-edge youth-oriented spectacle. It added the elder Vito Corleone touch.

    So, one part of our culture is to keep everything fresh and 'new'. Yet, because the sheer artificiality of this prevailing norm, it is oddly refreshing to see something aged. It is a sign of life as actual process, a part of cycle of birth and death. It has the same appeal that old Maude did to the young Harold. And John Wayne's rapport with the young girl in TRUE GRIT.

    https://youtu.be/QVGOUxQrISc?t=53s

    And this speaks to the theme of the original where replicants, having no memory, long for some kind of backstory, even if imagined.



    Replicants are fully conscious but their frame of reference is very narrow since they only have 4 yr life spans. In a way, modern life is like that. We are told to forget about roots, history, identity. Just think of the here-and-now, the latest fashions and trends. So, if homomania is all the rage, it's all that matters. It's difficult to imagine how humanity couldn't see the wonder of 'gay marriage' for 1000s of yrs. ONLY THE NOW is correct. Pull down any monuments that don't conform to the here and now. Every four years mean a new Year Zero, and the latest fads and fashions are all that matter. And so many fall for this... and yet, their lives feel empty because the deeper meaning of life can only be attained and preserved through a sense of history and heritage. I mean what are Jews if their minds were wiped of Jewish history and heritage and only thought in terms of here-and-now? Today's Americans are so amnesiac. Or PC fills them with such loathing of white past that they don't dare revisit it except to throw eggs at it.
    And the new BLADE RUNNER only comes to life by reconnecting with the old original story and with Harrison Ford who lives in a kind of red-dusty world surrounded by Clockwork Orange milk-bar statues(that also serves as a nostalgic nod to Kubrick). Before that, it was like 2 hrs of aimless meandering of some replicant without much to do. In the original movie, Deckard has a history, which is why the cop says, "I need the old blade runner." Here, it's given that K is a replicant, so there is no history. And unlike Rachel, he knows his memory is fake. So, he's just stuck in the present and we with him.

    The Christological allusions in the film serve as both contrary and complementary to the problems of this horrible future California. Christianity is about history and roots on some level. After all, there is a long rich history of Christendom and its triumphs and tragedies. Many books have been written on that. And yet, the core theme of Christianity is to reject blood, soil, memory, and roots in favor of the Eternal Moment. A German can give up German identity, forgo marriage and family, neglect his history and heritage, and yet, he will be saved and redeemed in the eyes of God IF he gives his soul to Jesus. So, there is a kind of irony in the 'miracle' hope of the replicants. They crave meaning, a sense of community, a dream of their own history as yet-to-be-written. But a miracle is a moment in time made eternal. It has no history. After all, every person is part of a long chain of life through eons of evolution. In contrast, a miracle is something that happens seemingly out of nowhere. Every Jew is a part of a long line of Jewish blood. But Christianity says Jesus is a miracle, a Man created by the God's divine touch out of the blue. In that sense, Jesus is and isn't Jewish. He was born of a Jewish mother's womb in the physical sense, but He is really the creation of God than of the bloodline of Jews.

    But aside the silliness, this bit of 'miracle' nonsense totally undermines the meaning and tragic beauty of the original. (Btw, if Rachel did give a 'miracle' birth, who would be god in this equation? Tyrell surely since he must have designed an android that could conceive life. Since this 'miracle' is the result of a sinister reptilian tycoon, how miraculous is it?) For starters, there was NO INDICATION whatsoever in the original that replicants could have children. Now, if New Replicants made by Wallace corp were designed to have kids, that'd be different story. So, this notion of Rachel bearing a child is too 'out of the left field' and incompatible with the BR universe.
    I suppose one could argue that Tyrell was so invested in making androids lifelike that he actually ended up creating something far more remarkable than he'd imagined. After all, scientists are sometimes surprised by phenomena they didn't intend in their creations. In that case, the 'miracle' wouldn't really be a miracle but an accident overlooked by Tyrell who, in making androids so humanlike, ended up equipping some of them with biological potential for giving birth. But if so, why did it ONLY happen with Rachel? Also, with all the Tarkovskean imagery, we are led into a spiritual kind of mindset. But in the end, there are no miracles in Tarkovsky's world. There are only delusions, dreams, and visions. Not the same thing as miracle. In SOLARIS, the strange planet has a mysterious but real power to replicate figures and objects in the mind. In STALKER, there is a material explanation for everything the Stalker expounds spiritually. And in THE SACRIFICE, we enter the mental state of a man going crazy and saintly at the same time. Tarkovksy doesn't say the world is filled with miracles. Rather, he suggests a properly contemplative outlook can make us aware of the miraculous nature of so much around us. But the new BLADE RUNNER is far more literal in its concept of the 'miracle'. We are shown Rachel's remains as if they're sacred relics and made to think, gee, maybe a kind of impossible 'miracle' did happen between Deckard and Rachel.
    But what kind of cockamamie nonsense is that? Worst of all, it robs the original of its tragic beauty. The original movie was not about miracle and redemption but about luck and fortune in chance moments. A sense of epiphany yet all too fleeting and ephemeral, like traces of fragrance. And there is no escape. In the end, search as he might, Roy Batty cannot escape his doomed fate. He has seen so much, far more than any human on earth. He had semi-godlike power and has a longing for immortality as all gods do. But he can't override the programming. After 4 yrs, his cord is cut and he must face the music... or silence. And yet, he died beautifully, and that moment will haunt Deckard forever. A light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. Some might say it's a miracle that Rachel lives. But then, it could be she was made later than other replicants, and she will also expire when the 4 yrs are up. There are two endings to the movie, one more upbeat than the other, but both are sad. In the one where Deckard and Rachel drive away, they are happy and safe for the moment, but there's no guarantee what will happen. In the Final Cut, it ends them with them on the run. So, there is in BLADE RUNNER the sense that even the most beautiful thing, esp the most beautiful thing, is doomed to fade. Permanence is an illusion. And Tyrell corp made replicants this way. More human than human, approaching the godly in either intelligence or beauty or strength. And no matter how amazing the new model, it will be replaced by yet newer models by the laws of commerce that renders everything dispensable and to be extinguished when the time is up. So, there is no escape for Deckard in the end. Either Deckard and Rachel will be captured or killed, or he will save Rachel but she will go kaput soon enough, and he will only have the memory of her. Now, it's possible that Tyrell esp made Rachel to live beyond 4 yrs. 10 yrs? 20 yrs? 100 yrs? But that's too much speculation. If for a long time, she will outlive Deckard who will grow old, and she will be left alone. So, BLADE RUNNER can only end tragically. There is no way out.

    Now, even as the new movie has tragic overtones, it turns all new-age flaky with the 'miracle' crap, and it has something like a happy ending. As depressing as it is, BLADE RUNNER only makes emotional sense as tragedy. With Rachel, Deckard had a love that should have lasted forever but couldn't. And that woulda been that. But to cook up some notion that the two had a kid together and that Deckard is 'spiritually' united with Rachel through the kid is just goo-goo stuff. Do we want to connect the dark ending of the Final Cut with the nursery-vibes of the ending of the new movie where Deckard says hi to his girl? Gimme a break.
    This is like the mess at the end of TWILIGHT. The only way that story makes sense is to end as tragedy. Edward and Bella love one another but live in two different worlds. If Bella remains human, she will die and Edward will forever be sad thinking of her. If Bella turns vampire, she will outlast all the people she loves. But TWILIGHT has the even the father becoming instantly cool with whatever strange thing that happened with his daughter. And there is no mention of Bella's mom after the transformation. And to make it even sillier, Bella, like Rachel, has a miracle baby before she turns vampire. Supposedly the ghostly sperm from Edward's ice cold penis fertilized the egg... It's just totally ridiculous.. though very well-done by Bill Condon.

    The 'miracle' bit is a sign of cultural sickness and not an isolated event in movies. Because religion is dead or because pop culture has become the new religion, the 'artists' and fans are infusing the works with a kind of quasi-spirituality. It's like what John Simon warned of EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. But that was nothing compared to the ludicrousness of PHANTOM MENACE where we learn that Kid Vader was born of a virgin mother. I mean...
    Can you imagine Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers discovering they were miraculously born of a 'virgin mother'? Lang's METROPOLIS warned of how science and technology can create false idols and gods. And with recent sci-fi films, we are really getting there. Kubrick got away with it in 2001 because it was such an astounding work and left it up to us to interpret. As for Tarkovsky, he made what might be called anti-scifi. STALKER is bleak, and the element of faith is up to each person. It cannot be ascertained by what is out there. It's a matter of what's inside one's own soul. And the original BLADE RUNNER was also pessimistic about technology as replacement for humanity.

    But now, we get a string of sci-fi that pretend to be the beginning of a new faith. Not just New Hope but New Religion. And we get this in fantasy too. It was interesting to turn Vampires into a saintly clan. Still, they were vampires and felt the burden of guilt. But as the story progresses, everything just becomes so hunky dory and Bella becomes a guilt-less happy vampire goddess and even has a miracle child.

    And what the hell was INTERSTELLAR, a bloated choral symphony about 'corn is good'. It could have been a nice action sci-fi but tries to be like the founding of a new faith.

    And there is the overly serious BATMAN series by Nolan. What should be fun comic book hero movie tries to be a bona fide work of Western Myth. And this bug caught onto other franchises as well. I never much cared for 007 but Connery was cool and the series has its thrilling sensational moments. But SKYFALL tries to be Art Bond. I lasted about 15 min. If I want that, I'll just see TINKER TAILER SOLDIER SPY.

    Why is Pop trying to be Art? Why is sci-fi trying to be religion? Miracle Birth? A quasi-spiritual brotherhood of the replicants?

    This miracle bit worked in TRON LEGACY because the concept is true to human psychology. There is the rational logical side(left side of brain) and the irrational, emotional, and creative side(right side of the brain). In the sequel, we learn how Flynn tried to be a total master of logic and math in mapping out the cyber world. He'd neglected his other side, but something unexpectedly flowed from that region and took his self-awareness to another level. So, even though it is miraculous, it can be explained in psychological terms. But the virgin birth of Kid Vader in PHANTOM MENACE is totally at odds with how the STAR WARS universe works. Yes, there is this mysterious thing called Force, but it's not a world of miracles. It was just a case of Lucas getting so carried away with his work that he decided to throw New Testament into the mix. As for Stephanie Meyer, I don't think she can tell Mormonism apart from Pop Culture anymore, but then, Mormonism itself is a PT Barnum-ish re-imagining of the Bible.

    The whole point of BLADE RUNNER is about existentially arriving at one's personal truth in a world without certainty or reassurance. That is its poetry and its pain. In the end, it is up to Deckard what he is and what Rachel means to him. He knows and we know that she is a corporate product. And as he looks at the paper origami, he could be one too. So, even the 'personal' and 'private' could be corporate and generic. And yet, Deckard still clings to the meaning and love between him and Rachel.. even against all odds. This is akin to the ending of SILENCE where the fallen priest, upon dying in a foreign land where Christianity has been utterly vanquished, still holds within his folded hands a crucifix. In the end, it's not about what the world thinks, but what HE thinks(still) in the depths of his heart. It's both sad and illuminating. Sad because he has utterly failed and even publicly renounced God, but also moving because at a deeper personal level, he holds steadfast to the faith.
    In some ways, BLADE RUNNER's world is even more bleak. After all, even without Christianity, Japan is a land of spirituality of Buddhism and Shinto. People believe in the sacred. But BLADE RUNNER world is utterly degraded and fallen where no one believes or trusts anyone or anything. So, Deckard's feelings for Rachel, as strong and beautiful as they are, can only be a fleeting moment, like the memory of Batty as he finally dies. They may light up the individual 'soul' but they are nothing but fireflies in time. Once extinguished, gone forever and no one will ever know or care that there was a Rachel and Deckard and how he felt about her.

    So, for the remake to turn their story into the basis of a new faith.. It is so wrong. So, Rachel turned out to be madonna and Deckard was Joseph.. or Joe? That robs BLADE RUNNER of its poignancy. It's all the sadder because replicants will be utterly forgotten(retired not only physically but historically, as if they'd never existed) despite the epic dimension of their ventures. It's like Roy Batty has some of the most magnificent images stored in his head, but they will all fade away. And the ONLY person with an inkling of Batty's short-lived grandeur will be Deckard. By keeping Deckard alive, Batty lives just a little bit more as a memory in Deckard who've witnessed the noble as well as dark side of Batty. But then, when Deckard dies, the last vestiges of evidence that Batty ever existed will be gone as well. So, BLADE RUNNER are about these beautiful fires that must sadly burn out and disappear forever. When this idea is taken by the new movie and turned into a promise of a Forest Fire that will redeem the world... that turns poetry into dogma.

    As for the movie as entertainment, Gosling is a good actor but isn't given much to do except look pretty like Tippi Hedren. Also, there is no sense of fun, with the cast of originals now in retirement home. Olmos was a fun character, real cool cat in the original. His cameo doesn't even give us the accent. Ford had charm and a smirk in the original. Gosling has just one expression, and the emotional scenes just aren't convincing because BLADE RUNNER universe was not designed to carry such emotions. For a while, we are led to believe K is the lost son of Deckard, and it's almost like the Steve Jobs story. But it gets even more ludicrous when we learn that the real kid is some funny looking millennial girl who toys with a camera. Now, if Rachel and Deckard are both very attractive people, why is their kid a pillsbury dough girl? What a bummer. Nothing about her seems special. Jared Leto comes across as overly eerie and creepy, but the character grows on you because the eccentricity is held so steady. What initially looks like posture takes on the semblance of possession. He becomes truly diabolical and frightening. Much else of the movie is cold and stalinist. The police captain seems made of concrete, inside and out, like the brutalist building. Even the replicants had personality in the original. Leon was a goofy bully, Pris a playful tease, and Zhora a dashing killer babe. In the new movie, everyone has a very narrow range of expression and emotions(like the characters in TWO JAKES, the dull and overlong sequel to CHINATOWN). They seem to have no purpose in life beyond service. It is however a nice touch that the assassin female replicant has also been programmed to shed a sentimental tear despite her cold commitment to Wallace's orders. Besides that, the only other poetic touch in the movie is the brilliant scene where the hooker's body syncs with the movements of the 'girlfriend'. The fragile moment where the merging of the two alternate back and forth between blur and clarity is the high point of the movie.

    As for the Hans Zimmer's music, is that a bullhorn or a soundtrack? In the IMAX showing, the seats were literally shaking, and if I hadn't brought my ear plugs, I would have suffered hearing damage for sure.

    One problem with Villeneau is he was too reverential not only to the original but other great classics of cinema. As such, there are moments when it looks like an overly serious version of BRAZIL which is little more than endless movie references. On the one hand, Villeneau is obviously paying homage to the greats that came before him. But it also seems a bit pretentious, as if to declare that he his the heir to Tarkovsky, Scott, Welles, Hitchcock. Tarkovsky-ism just don't belong there. While BLADE RUNNER is a slow for a Hollywood movie, it's a difference of slowness than Tarkovsky's. Tarkovksy's slowness was to induce a contemplative and meditative mood. It was to dissolve and meld our sense of time and place with a spiritual and mysterious force. In contrast, Scott's stillness and slowness were to sharpen and fine-tune our sense of the moment. Tarkovsky's vision was about the dissolution of earth, body, time, and space into a unity known only to God. It's about liquid. Scott, having honed his skills in advertising, worked like a jeweler cutting diamond to find that perfect eternity in the moment. It's cyrstalline. So, mixing Tarkosky and Scott's vision in the new work makes no sense.

    Villeneau is humble or arrogant enough to allude to #1 and #2 on the Sight and Sound Greatest Films list. The furnace scene works(likely a nod to Rosebud) pretty well, but Rachel as Vertigo-inspired double is too much.

    Overall, the movie suffers from the same problems as Pink Floyd albums after Rogers Waters left. Waters became the heart-and-soul of Pink Floyd, and without him, something crucial was missing. Sure, the album without him has same grand symphonic effects and visionary vibe, but it's like a mansion without people and furniture in it. Indeed, to compensate for lack of Waters, MOMENTARY LAPSE OF REASON and DIVISION BELL are in some ways bigger and louder. But they ring hollow. Likewise, the new one is to the original film what Wallace Corp is to Tyrell. Much bigger but emptier, esp as the running time drags on and makes us acutely aware of so little that is happening original, or interesting. It's just gigantism or gargantuanism, like Albert Speer at his worst. Speer was an able architect but sometimes he just fell back on scale, like the ridiculous mega-dome in the plan of city Germania. It's like Hans Zimmer's music is like the shell of Wagner without the soul.

    There are undoubtedly some great things in the movie but ultimately it's terrible, not unlike HEAVEN'S GATE and LOLA MONTEZ that, despite their cinematic wonders, aren't wired properly. It's like a mansion with all sorts of fancy lighting fixtures but where most of the light remain off because the wires have been messed up.

    WTF

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Steve Sailer
    But what would, say, Spielberg's career look like if he worked on only a handful of movies for four years each? Heck, what would Soderbergh's career look like if he took four times as long on each movie? For example, Nolan slowed down his movie every two year pace a little recently and came up with Dunkirk after 32 months. If Nolan were on a 48 month schedule his career record might look like Kubrick's.

    Really, how many masterpieces did Kubrick make? Four? Dr. Strangelove, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, and The Shining? With Paths of Glory(?), Spartacus, Barry Lyndon, and Full Metal Jacket being one notch below, and Eyes Wide Shut a dud?

    Four is a lot, especially because they are in dissimilar genres and because they were highly innovative.

    And Kubrick-style striving after making each work a unique masterpiece has high risks. Paleo Retiree blogged about his theory that Leonard Bernstein got blocked by his felt need to top "West Side Story."

    Kubrick largely pulled off his ambitious plans, but other guys have stumbled into similar career-level achievements by doing a lot of work (e.g., Verdi), some of which is good, others of which turns out to be great. There's something a little adolescent about Kubrick's career path. It strikes me as like a comic book fan's theory of how to be a genius. In Kubrick's case, however, it worked.

    In that Spielberg documentary I mentioned elsewhere, Spielberg says having the same crew for decades has helped him make so many movies. IIRC, his “newest” major crew member was his cinematographer, Janusz Kamiński, who he’s worked with since Schindler’s List, in the early 1990s.

    Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut were handicapped a bit by his refusal to leave England to shoot them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut were handicapped a bit by his refusal to leave England to shoot them.

    Not really. Kubrick wasn't after realism. All of his movies are kinda like a laboratory of reality, even when the violence is bloody and cruel. His 'Vietnam' isn't really mean to be Vietnam. It's like his characters are part of an experiment unawares... just like apes and earthlings are usually clueless as to what the monolith is doing to them.

    In that Spielberg documentary I mentioned elsewhere, Spielberg says having the same crew for decades has helped him make so many movies.

    That's part of it, but I think Spielberg is pretty easy to grasp. People who work with him know what he is about and knows what he wants. It's like every new movie is another birthday party for Spielberg and they know what cakes and gifts to bring, what music to play, what costumes to wear, what and how much confetti to shoot everywhere.

    Spielberg's most emotional autobio is probably E.T. A lonely kid is CHOSEN by some heavenly creature and is bestowed with a special covenant. And even though the kid is ignored or ridiculed by everyone else, it soon turns out everyone is on his side and recognize him as THE CHOSEN who was touched by the Gift, like Adam is touched by God in Michelangelo's painting. So, Elliot, the total nobody among peers and at school and teased by his brother's friends, becomes the center of the world. His brother, his mother, his brother's friends, the US government, and just about the whole town and whole world will discover that HE was the one chosen as special friend of the creature from heaven. It's like the scene in CHRISTMAS STORY where Ralphie imagines the teacher giving him A++++++ and everyone in the classroom celebrating his genius. In ET, everyone finally shares in the joy and wonder BUT the covenant is not with them but with Elliot, the only kid whose heart synced with that of ET.
    Spielberg's movies are elaborate in production and execution, but the mentality behind them is pretty childlike, and those who work with Spielberg understand him. Does this mean Spielberg is really simpleminded or a master of simplemindedness that is so profitable in moviedom? We will never know.

    One gets the impression that Spielberg is too intelligent for his sensibility, must like Tarantino is too intelligent for his morality(or lack thereof).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Autochthon
    I caught a snippet of an interview with Keifer Sutherland on some television in a waiting room recently. He was explaining that he keeps a ranch and other such enterprises going to remain occupied with varied interests and not obsess too much or depend too much upon acting. He explained it is very important to keep grounded and not accept work during the inevitable lulls in one’s career because taking the wrong rôles will destroy one’s career; I believe his words were that which work you reject is more important to your career and indeed your personal well-being than which work you accept. His acceptance of the fact that not every actor can be a superstar, and that any career will involve natural peaks and valleys seemed wise. For instance, the superhero craze recently had probably meant more work for buff, chiseled, young, hunky, all-American looking guys like Hemsworth, Chris Evans, etc. than usual. During a certain period in the seventies and eighties there was a lot more call for rougher, tough-guy looking leading men (Charles Bronson, Burt Reynolds, Clint Eastwood). One has to roll with such trends and not freak out as they change one’s popularity and demand. Likewise think of the kinds of markets which made stars of Jane Russell and Mariyln Monroe v. those which favoured Twiggy and Goldie Hawn....

    Thus, I agree that most acting is more about apprarances than talent, but even with that in mind, just what appearances are in demand fluctuates and matters a lot.

    Keifer Sutherland has had a pretty great career considering he’s not really a leading man type. 24 must have been quite a cash cow for him. I thought it was odd that they didn’t cast his father as his father on the show though. Maybe Donald wanted too much money?

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    Too suspension-of-disbelief-breaking most likely.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Hall of Fame Child Stars

    Ron Howard: acted from 3 to present day, succeeds as producer and director. Brother Clint also does very well as a character actor.
    Jodie Foster: one of the best child stars ever, two Oscars, a bit of a bore.
    Dean Stockwell: really great child actor, career as solid support his whole life
    Shirley Temple: short career, but great life success. Also only child star who was genuine movie star for her entire career.
    Daniel Radcliffe: shocking, when you consider it, that he was plucked from obscurity to head a major franchise and then went on to, you know, act. But then, he’s British.
    Robert Blake: had a hell of a career and transitioned pretty effortlessly from child to adult actor. Not sure why he counts as a failure as an actor. A person, sure.
    Darryl Hickman: very good child star, now produces in TV and movies. Also has a sideline in bitching about how bad child stars have it.
    Jackie Cooper–One of the first really talented child stars, transitioned from child star to actor to director.
    Drew Barrymore–again, very good career that is still going strong. Her family’s insane–can’t blame acting on that.
    Kirsten Dunst–hasn’t missed a beat.
    Veronica Cartwright–never a big star, but has worked steadily her whole life. Her sister Angela stopped after The Sound of Music and Lost in Space.
    Jackie Coogan–major child star, served honorably in WW2, went back to character actor work. Parents robbed him blind and instead of whining about it, he changed the law.
    Neil Patrick Harris
    Fred Savage–great child star, went to Stanford, came back and has a nice career as director and sometimes actor.
    Sarah Polley–child actress, then director & writer./
    Christian Bale–from Branagh to Spielberg to Batman.

    Unmentioned, but did just fine: Margaret O’Brien, Baby Peggy, Alyssa Milano, most of the kids in 60s TV shows.

    A HUGE number of child stars do just fine, taking their money and going to college and working in some other field.

    We just remember the disasters, the drug addicts, and the suicides.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    Yeah, what about Neil Patrick Harris? Did perverted tv people turn him homo as a child?
    , @Anon
    We just remember the disasters, the drug addicts, and the suicides.

    Who end up worse? Those who began as child-actors or teen-actors? It's when they turn teen that troubles really begin.

    Also, the problem is the culture itself. Some child actors turn out alright or even great. Some end up really badly. I think most fall in the middle, but that middle is pretty bad because the culture of Hollywood is about fame and narcissism.

    A child in a regular environment is just expected to learn, mature, and learn things. To adapt to society. But in the world of Hollywood, kids are surrounded by the culture of who's hot, who's not. Are you IN or OUT. This exists in any school with the stuff about 'cool kids' and popular kids. But that is balanced by teachers and parents who stress the need of education.
    But in Hollywood, the adults -- parents, producers, directors, and etc -- themselves are obsessed with the ranking, and this has a corrosive impact on children. Worse, children get sucked into a culture of lies as Hollywood industry is about cutthroat competition but its message to the world is 'we love you all'. There's no balance. Also, in a regular environment, you have value regardless of whether you're top student or top athlete. You can major in anything -- lit, history, science, and etc -- and you have value. In Hollywood, the ONLY value is success. It's a bad life lesson.

    Now, I think there will be need for real children in movies, but professionalizing child-acting as full-time thing comes with problems.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UArsRXNZcNM
    , @Alden
    Add Elizabeth Taylor, Natalie Wood
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. G Pinfold says:
    @Steve Sailer
    "And there’s even the question of where “begin” begins, and “end” ends; how much of Kubrick’s famed visual perfectionism is him having the actual knowledged needed, and how much of it is simply him knowing what he wants to see, and insisting on the crew working on it until he likes it? How much of his team’s work can a director actually do? Does he just have a sense of what his people can deliver, or does he actually know their jobs?"

    This, by the way, is similar to Robert Trent Jones Sr.'s criticism of Jack Nicklaus as a golf course architect: that Nicklaus lacked the kind of visual imagination to fully foresee what golf holes would look like in 3-d. But, on the other hand, Nicklaus was a great golf course architecture critic of what he could see. So, RTJ implied, Nicklaus would give vague orders to his staff to push dirt around, and then tell them it was all wrong when they thought they had it done. So Nicklaus would end up building an outstanding golf course, but it usually cost the client a bundle due to all the reworking Nicklaus required.

    I presume that at the highest levels of artistic accomplishment, they guy in charge tends to both be a visionary and a tyrant at demanding his staff start over again. Sometimes it's because the staff didn't live up to his original vision of what he wanted to see, sometimes it's because his original vision was lousy, but the Kubrick-level guy pushes through complaints from his staff and eventually gets something new done, whether by original vision or by trial and error.

    I see what you did there… another improbable segue to golf architecture. Outa nowhere!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    More than a million acres of the United States are devoted to golf courses. If you look out the window of your jetliner while taking off or landing, you can observe that golf courses are actually highly visible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. anon says: • Disclaimer

    It is my understanding that various porn sites requires the performers to be 18 or over AND document it and keep records. For the protection of viewers. Not that I have any personal experience with it. But they claim they comply with all laws, etc as well as:

    18 U.S.C. 2257 Record Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement

    So … they are on board with keeping out child actors and actresses.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  177. @G Pinfold
    I see what you did there... another improbable segue to golf architecture. Outa nowhere!

    More than a million acres of the United States are devoted to golf courses. If you look out the window of your jetliner while taking off or landing, you can observe that golf courses are actually highly visible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @G Pinfold
    I can see the bestseller(s) already: One Million Acres Clockwise - vol 1 The South West Corner.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. G Pinfold says:
    @Steve Sailer
    More than a million acres of the United States are devoted to golf courses. If you look out the window of your jetliner while taking off or landing, you can observe that golf courses are actually highly visible.

    I can see the bestseller(s) already: One Million Acres Clockwise – vol 1 The South West Corner.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    How about a golf course so big that it's visible from the Moon?

    Suppose E.T.'s find Earth on radar and see all these golf courses. What would they think it is?
    Might seem weird to them like it's something out of Alice in Wonderland.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Danindc says:
    @ScarletNumber
    By three weeks, so I'm sure it wasn't a secret. Having said that, I never heard of Morrow disowning her. As an aside, John Landis should have done some time for killing Morrow and those 2 kids.

    Agreed Landis was negligent.

    I couldn’t find the Morrow /Leigh disowning on the web. I remember hearing about it asa kid. Who knows….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. BB753 says:
    @education realist
    Hall of Fame Child Stars

    Ron Howard: acted from 3 to present day, succeeds as producer and director. Brother Clint also does very well as a character actor.
    Jodie Foster: one of the best child stars ever, two Oscars, a bit of a bore.
    Dean Stockwell: really great child actor, career as solid support his whole life
    Shirley Temple: short career, but great life success. Also only child star who was genuine movie star for her entire career.
    Daniel Radcliffe: shocking, when you consider it, that he was plucked from obscurity to head a major franchise and then went on to, you know, act. But then, he's British.
    Robert Blake: had a hell of a career and transitioned pretty effortlessly from child to adult actor. Not sure why he counts as a failure as an actor. A person, sure.
    Darryl Hickman: very good child star, now produces in TV and movies. Also has a sideline in bitching about how bad child stars have it.
    Jackie Cooper--One of the first really talented child stars, transitioned from child star to actor to director.
    Drew Barrymore--again, very good career that is still going strong. Her family's insane--can't blame acting on that.
    Kirsten Dunst--hasn't missed a beat.
    Veronica Cartwright--never a big star, but has worked steadily her whole life. Her sister Angela stopped after The Sound of Music and Lost in Space.
    Jackie Coogan--major child star, served honorably in WW2, went back to character actor work. Parents robbed him blind and instead of whining about it, he changed the law.
    Neil Patrick Harris
    Fred Savage--great child star, went to Stanford, came back and has a nice career as director and sometimes actor.
    Sarah Polley--child actress, then director & writer./
    Christian Bale--from Branagh to Spielberg to Batman.

    Unmentioned, but did just fine: Margaret O'Brien, Baby Peggy, Alyssa Milano, most of the kids in 60s TV shows.

    A HUGE number of child stars do just fine, taking their money and going to college and working in some other field.

    We just remember the disasters, the drug addicts, and the suicides.

    Yeah, what about Neil Patrick Harris? Did perverted tv people turn him homo as a child?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. snorlax says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Keifer Sutherland has had a pretty great career considering he's not really a leading man type. 24 must have been quite a cash cow for him. I thought it was odd that they didn't cast his father as his father on the show though. Maybe Donald wanted too much money?

    Too suspension-of-disbelief-breaking most likely.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. a reader says:
    @the one they call Desanex
    Here’s the Weinstein limerick I posted Sunday on Takimag:


    What they say about me, Harvey Weinstein?
    Science fiction that’s worthy of Heinlein!
    Those Hollywood shrews
    Must really hate Jews,
    And to figure that out don’t take Einstein.

     

    A commenter pointed out that the rhyme doesn’t work if the name is pronounced Wein-steen. I could plead poetic license, or that there’s no logical reason for the name to be pronounced Wein-steen. Instead, I plead that mispronouncing a person’s name is a time-honored way of showing contempt.

    It’s pronounced Weensteen, just like [Albert] Eensteen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    Einstein= Eye-n-styin'
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @G Pinfold
    I can see the bestseller(s) already: One Million Acres Clockwise - vol 1 The South West Corner.

    How about a golf course so big that it’s visible from the Moon?

    Suppose E.T.’s find Earth on radar and see all these golf courses. What would they think it is?
    Might seem weird to them like it’s something out of Alice in Wonderland.

    Read More
    • Replies: @G Pinfold
    They might conclude that the golf courses are magic dirt, somehow causing prosperity and enlightenment in their surrounding regions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @education realist
    Hall of Fame Child Stars

    Ron Howard: acted from 3 to present day, succeeds as producer and director. Brother Clint also does very well as a character actor.
    Jodie Foster: one of the best child stars ever, two Oscars, a bit of a bore.
    Dean Stockwell: really great child actor, career as solid support his whole life
    Shirley Temple: short career, but great life success. Also only child star who was genuine movie star for her entire career.
    Daniel Radcliffe: shocking, when you consider it, that he was plucked from obscurity to head a major franchise and then went on to, you know, act. But then, he's British.
    Robert Blake: had a hell of a career and transitioned pretty effortlessly from child to adult actor. Not sure why he counts as a failure as an actor. A person, sure.
    Darryl Hickman: very good child star, now produces in TV and movies. Also has a sideline in bitching about how bad child stars have it.
    Jackie Cooper--One of the first really talented child stars, transitioned from child star to actor to director.
    Drew Barrymore--again, very good career that is still going strong. Her family's insane--can't blame acting on that.
    Kirsten Dunst--hasn't missed a beat.
    Veronica Cartwright--never a big star, but has worked steadily her whole life. Her sister Angela stopped after The Sound of Music and Lost in Space.
    Jackie Coogan--major child star, served honorably in WW2, went back to character actor work. Parents robbed him blind and instead of whining about it, he changed the law.
    Neil Patrick Harris
    Fred Savage--great child star, went to Stanford, came back and has a nice career as director and sometimes actor.
    Sarah Polley--child actress, then director & writer./
    Christian Bale--from Branagh to Spielberg to Batman.

    Unmentioned, but did just fine: Margaret O'Brien, Baby Peggy, Alyssa Milano, most of the kids in 60s TV shows.

    A HUGE number of child stars do just fine, taking their money and going to college and working in some other field.

    We just remember the disasters, the drug addicts, and the suicides.

    We just remember the disasters, the drug addicts, and the suicides.

    Who end up worse? Those who began as child-actors or teen-actors? It’s when they turn teen that troubles really begin.

    Also, the problem is the culture itself. Some child actors turn out alright or even great. Some end up really badly. I think most fall in the middle, but that middle is pretty bad because the culture of Hollywood is about fame and narcissism.

    A child in a regular environment is just expected to learn, mature, and learn things. To adapt to society. But in the world of Hollywood, kids are surrounded by the culture of who’s hot, who’s not. Are you IN or OUT. This exists in any school with the stuff about ‘cool kids’ and popular kids. But that is balanced by teachers and parents who stress the need of education.
    But in Hollywood, the adults — parents, producers, directors, and etc — themselves are obsessed with the ranking, and this has a corrosive impact on children. Worse, children get sucked into a culture of lies as Hollywood industry is about cutthroat competition but its message to the world is ‘we love you all’. There’s no balance. Also, in a regular environment, you have value regardless of whether you’re top student or top athlete. You can major in anything — lit, history, science, and etc — and you have value. In Hollywood, the ONLY value is success. It’s a bad life lesson.

    Now, I think there will be need for real children in movies, but professionalizing child-acting as full-time thing comes with problems.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Dave Pinsen

    Same is true of acting. It’s not a difficult skill and anybody can learn it.
     
    This isn't really true. An actor gave me a counter-example once.

    Back in the '80s there was a former Aussie Rules football player known as Jacko who was briefly famous. He appeared in the battery commercial below. Per the actor I knew, an American TV network sought to capitalize on his fame by building a sitcom around him. Didn't work because Jacko couldn't act, not even as a fictionalized version of himself, despite working with acting coaches.

    https://youtu.be/-2RSu9Gw61U

    Didn’t work because Jacko couldn’t act, not even as a fictionalized version of himself, despite working with acting coaches.

    In movies, it’s not just about acting talent. This is why some people who are so good on stage fail on the screen, whereas some people who aren’t particularly talented as actors shine on screen. Without closeups, Clint Eastwood is nothing. He conveys so much with his eyebrows. You can’t get that on stage. But on screen, he can just look this way, that way, and say a few lines, and he holds the audience captive.

    You need something like star power, even in art films. Some people are cinegenic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. BB753 says:
    @a reader
    It's pronounced Weensteen, just like [Albert] Eensteen.

    Einstein= Eye-n-styin’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Chris Mallory

    Wasn’t the “They’re Back!” girl from Poltergeist, along with a man, killed on set by a helicopter’s blades crashing on them?
     
    Heather O'Rourke died of cardiac arrest and septic shock while undergoing surgery for a blocked bowel.


    Vic Morrow and two Asian children were killed by a helicopter accident on the set of the Twilight Zone movie.

    I keep confusing Vic Morrow with Vic Tayback.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. G Pinfold says:
    @Anon
    How about a golf course so big that it's visible from the Moon?

    Suppose E.T.'s find Earth on radar and see all these golf courses. What would they think it is?
    Might seem weird to them like it's something out of Alice in Wonderland.

    They might conclude that the golf courses are magic dirt, somehow causing prosperity and enlightenment in their surrounding regions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    There you go. Build some golf courses as magic dirt in Detroit.

    But it can be made more black-friendly. Baskolf.

    Instead of 18 holes, 18 hoops. And the thing is to shoot the hoop from far away. If you miss(as most will), you pick it up where it stopped and try again from nearer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @Anon
    The men I know or knew in the modeling or acting biz are all either HIV positive or dead. You could say they were enthusiastic participants in the gay orgy/party scene, but that scene was and is the casting couch for actors. Don’t play and you’re out.

    Maybe these people are so PC-moralistic because their lives so degrading and trashy. They need some flag to wave to feel righteous and redeemed in a world where they must be whores and treat others like whores. But since they can't bite the hand that feeds them, their anger must be directed as other APPROVED targets... like Trump. So, all the anger one has about Jewish or homo bosses are directed at another figure of authority, one that doesn't control their lives. Look at Jennifer Lawrence, Ashley Judd, and Emma Watson firing all their guns at Trump when, in fact, they were used like meat by men like Weinstein.

    What really separates out actors and actresses is physical beauty and fuckability. Weinstein was test driving the merchandise to see if it was up to snuff.

    In that case, prostitutes would make the best actresses. Not so.

    prostitutes would make the best actresses. Not so.

    If I take away your superlative, there’d be left that prostitutes are actresses. And that seems quite plausible. They even act in quite some ways…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @G Pinfold
    They might conclude that the golf courses are magic dirt, somehow causing prosperity and enlightenment in their surrounding regions.

    There you go. Build some golf courses as magic dirt in Detroit.

    But it can be made more black-friendly. Baskolf.

    Instead of 18 holes, 18 hoops. And the thing is to shoot the hoop from far away. If you miss(as most will), you pick it up where it stopped and try again from nearer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. BB753 says:
    @Anon87
    Track down the documentary An Open Secret. Then as a chaser watch the bizarre pilot Chad's World. The pedo Hollywood crisis is coming.

    Why, Bryan Singer has been part of that pedo scene for over two decades! He’s right there in that documentary. I wonder how he’s managed to stay out of jail so far.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. MEH 0910 says:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/movies/tarantino-weinstein.html

    Tarantino on Weinstein: ‘I Knew Enough to Do More Than I Did’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Brave Mr. Tarantino, speaking out now, expressing regrets and noble resolutions for the future! How contemptible. At this point, weirdly enough, I have more respect for those who make some defense of their old friend Weinstein. At least they have some guts.

    Mr. Tarantino, 54, apologized for not doing more while also explaining why;...

    Honest explanation: When someone is enabling you to do what you want to do, you don't concern yourself with his horribleness as a human being.

    ...admitted his own culpability while also calling for sweeping change in Hollywood’s treatment of women

    Ha ha. That'll happen around the time that Ta Nehisi Coates brings about the complete abolition of race as a construct.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. MEH 0910 says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Same is true of acting. It’s not a difficult skill and anybody can learn it.
     
    This isn't really true. An actor gave me a counter-example once.

    Back in the '80s there was a former Aussie Rules football player known as Jacko who was briefly famous. He appeared in the battery commercial below. Per the actor I knew, an American TV network sought to capitalize on his fame by building a sitcom around him. Didn't work because Jacko couldn't act, not even as a fictionalized version of himself, despite working with acting coaches.

    https://youtu.be/-2RSu9Gw61U

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Jacko!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @Svigor
    Re confusion, I read somewhere that coming into a movie after the exposition can transform a movie and make it much more interesting (it might've been Dolan or one of the Exile boys writing). I've had it happen; start watching a movie while it's underway, not be able to finish watching it, then go back and watch it from start to finish later, and think "this was way more interesting when I didn't know what was going on."

    That said, I watched Inception twice, and still never "got" what the Hell was going on. I know they're surfing dream levels, but have no idea why people call the movie "brilliant."

    When I was a teenager going to college in NYC in the early 1970s, I used to go to the Brandt theaters on 42d St and catch a triple feature, often coming in in the middle of a movie. It was interesting: not only did you wonder how it would end, you wondered how it had all begun.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @MEH 0910
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/movies/tarantino-weinstein.html

    Tarantino on Weinstein: ‘I Knew Enough to Do More Than I Did’

    Brave Mr. Tarantino, speaking out now, expressing regrets and noble resolutions for the future! How contemptible. At this point, weirdly enough, I have more respect for those who make some defense of their old friend Weinstein. At least they have some guts.

    Mr. Tarantino, 54, apologized for not doing more while also explaining why;…

    Honest explanation: When someone is enabling you to do what you want to do, you don’t concern yourself with his horribleness as a human being.

    …admitted his own culpability while also calling for sweeping change in Hollywood’s treatment of women

    Ha ha. That’ll happen around the time that Ta Nehisi Coates brings about the complete abolition of race as a construct.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Alden says:
    @education realist
    Hall of Fame Child Stars

    Ron Howard: acted from 3 to present day, succeeds as producer and director. Brother Clint also does very well as a character actor.
    Jodie Foster: one of the best child stars ever, two Oscars, a bit of a bore.
    Dean Stockwell: really great child actor, career as solid support his whole life
    Shirley Temple: short career, but great life success. Also only child star who was genuine movie star for her entire career.
    Daniel Radcliffe: shocking, when you consider it, that he was plucked from obscurity to head a major franchise and then went on to, you know, act. But then, he's British.
    Robert Blake: had a hell of a career and transitioned pretty effortlessly from child to adult actor. Not sure why he counts as a failure as an actor. A person, sure.
    Darryl Hickman: very good child star, now produces in TV and movies. Also has a sideline in bitching about how bad child stars have it.
    Jackie Cooper--One of the first really talented child stars, transitioned from child star to actor to director.
    Drew Barrymore--again, very good career that is still going strong. Her family's insane--can't blame acting on that.
    Kirsten Dunst--hasn't missed a beat.
    Veronica Cartwright--never a big star, but has worked steadily her whole life. Her sister Angela stopped after The Sound of Music and Lost in Space.
    Jackie Coogan--major child star, served honorably in WW2, went back to character actor work. Parents robbed him blind and instead of whining about it, he changed the law.
    Neil Patrick Harris
    Fred Savage--great child star, went to Stanford, came back and has a nice career as director and sometimes actor.
    Sarah Polley--child actress, then director & writer./
    Christian Bale--from Branagh to Spielberg to Batman.

    Unmentioned, but did just fine: Margaret O'Brien, Baby Peggy, Alyssa Milano, most of the kids in 60s TV shows.

    A HUGE number of child stars do just fine, taking their money and going to college and working in some other field.

    We just remember the disasters, the drug addicts, and the suicides.

    Add Elizabeth Taylor, Natalie Wood

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @MEH 0910
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQXUgi85EdM&feature=youtu.be&t=231

    Jacko!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @Anon
    But what would, say, Spielberg’s career look like if he worked on only a handful of movies for four years each? Heck, what would Soderbergh’s career look like if he took four times as long on each movie?

    People just work differently, and Spielberg's movies would likely have suffered if he'd spent too much time on them.
    I think he did spend considerable time and energy on CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, a movie he was most proud of until maybe SCHINDLER. One thing for sure, he was never a think or philosophical type. So more time spent on projects would have been just a waste. Obviously intelligent and brilliant as a film-maker, he simply didn't have the sensibility of an intellectual. He played pinball, not chess.

    When Kubrick thought of UFO or extraterrestrials, the question was, 'what may they teach us?'
    When Spielberg thought of the same, the question was 'how would they freak us out?'

    Spielberg was almost mostly a crowd-pleaser, so most of his films were half-complete when the project began. Spielberg knew the formula like the back of his hand, and he approached cinema as much as a moviegoer as movie maker. So, as long as he surrounded himself with professionals who also got the formula, they were all set to go. I mean John Williams understood Spielberg better than Spielberg understood himself.
    In contrast, Kubrick mapped out every inch because he was interested in the minutest detail and meaning. If Kubrick were Indiana Jones, his main interest would have been archaeology. If Spielberg were Indy, he would have been in for the adventure.

    So, it's apples and oranges. Beatles wrote some great songs, but would they have done better if they were given 4 yrs to write something like 'Ticket to Ride' ? No, the Beatles thrived on energy and spontaneity. And Spielberg was in his element on the hubbub of the movie set. It was action that made him feel alive and creative.

    Take a movie like BRIDGE OF SPIES. Spielberg saw it as a suspense drama set in the Cold War and was content to fall back on Capra-isms and conventions from other spy thrillers. The movie is very good for what it is but not much more. It looks very good and moves smoothly but looks rather familiar. If Spielberg had been given 10 yrs to make the film, he would just have grown bored because he wasn't curious in the way that Kubrick was.

    In contrast, Kubrick's demands were far more eccentric and multi-faceted, and they required time. It's like sodapop vs time. No sense in letting sodapop age for 5 yrs.

    As for Soderbergh, he thinks he's a thinker. Generally, he's been a decent Hollywood film-maker and somewhat interesting 'auteur' of independent films.

    He made some half-decent movies, but other Hollywood directors have done better, and other art-directors have been far more interesting. I think Hollywood likes to keep around as a kind of hybrid of entertainer and aesthete. I can appreciate his attempt at something different with movies like CHE -- and it sure beats HAYNE'S dreadful I'M NOT THERE -- , but there is too much of the SWPL hipster about him. It's Starbucks Art.

    That said, I thought he finally delivered a near-perfect movie with THE INFORMANT. Like DAMSELS IN DISTRESS, it is a gem, perfectly cut with masterly balance of every genre. The material is so twisted that it could easily have slipped into satiric comedy or dark drama but is something much finer and nimbler It's like heist where the crook leaves no fingerprints, no footprints, doesn't trip the alarm, and even keeps the pigeon away.

    At his worst, he sees movie-making as hipster exercise. It wouldn't be so bad if he found something worth being experimental about, but he wastes time on stuff like HAYWIRE that I turned off after about 15 min it was so dumb.

    Also, for a thinking-man's film-maker, he is not above cheapshots, like in CONTAGION which now seems utterly forgettable.

    And for an original artist, why did he remake a British TV show, esp has he hardly improved on it? TRAFFIC.

    Really, how many masterpieces did Kubrick make?

    That's subjective. According to Stanley Kauffmann, Kubrick made one sure masterpiece with DR. STRANGELOVE. Kauffmann preferred 2001 the novel and had no feeling for BARRY LYNDON. Most critic were mixed or hostile to THE SHINING.

    Personally, I think everything he did beginning with THE KILLING is a masterpiece except for SPARTACUS that was largely under Douglas' control. Others may disagree, but even detractors of, say, EYES WIDE SHUT, FULL METAL JACKET, and THE SHINING will have to admit they feature awesome mastery and prowess even if the elements don't quite gel together. I never cared for the ending of THE SHINING myself.

    Kubrick largely pulled off his ambitious plans, but other guys have stumbled into similar career-level achievements by doing a lot of work (e.g., Verdi), some of which is good, others of which turns out to be great. There’s something a little adolescent about Kubrick’s career path

    Music is different. Verdi could sit and write music as he wished. As for the details of the productions, I don't know how much he was involved. But many opera composers just wrote the music and left the productions to others. If Kubrick were only a screen-writer, he could have worked like Verdi. But cinema is a total art that combines so much. Also, Kubrick had a total vision of things, so everything had to conform to his big idea.
    In this, he was closer to Wagner who also took a totalist approach to art and had detailed ideas about everything from libretto to production. Wagner even went so far as build a new whole theater designed specifically to stage his operas. Of course, it cost Ludwig II dearly, but Bayreuth still stands. Beethoven also only composed only nine symphonies(though to be sure, tons of other stuff), but each symphony had to be 'perfect'.
    I think exploratory and visionary artists will always take more time.

    Some artists are more comfortable with treading established conventions, and some make great music in that vein. Since they are less ambitious as explorers, the creative process comes easier to them. It's like walking a familiar path on a hiking trail. In contrast, those who seek out unexplored territory will come upon more obstacles. When Brian Wilson was just writing surf songs, he knew the formula down pat. But as he began to experiment, he found both more satisfaction and more troubles... until SMILE project overwhelmed him.
    Verdi was a great artist but not very different from what other Italian opera composers were doing. Even if Verdi had never existed, Italian opera would pretty much be what it is. But take out Wagner and the German opera and opera itself -- and all of music culture -- would be different. He reached further.

    I don't think Kubrick was as obsessed about 'genius' as some may suspect. I think he felt he had nothing to prove. He took his genius for granted. The question wasn't proving his genius but using it to make something fascinating, provocative, and worthy. The reason why he needed so much time was he aimed for both experimentation and completion. A director like Godard cared mainly for experimentation and in 1965 made three films. He didn't care that his movies seemed half-completed or open-ended. If anything, that was part of the method: to leave it up to the viewers to fill in their own ideas. In contrast, a film-maker who aims for the masterful finished touch doesn't have to worry about experimentation. Just hire the professionals and rely on time-tested conventions, and make something like the usual Oscar winner for Best Picture.
    But to make a film that is both innovative and 'classic' in completion, that is a tall order. And Beethoven aimed for it in his symphonies and Kubrick in his films. 2001 is amazing as a work that was so new yet so classic. It is so audacious but also confident and sure of its vision. (Coppola maintained the balance for about one full hour in APOCALYPSE NOW before getting hopelessly lost.)

    Bernstein was a different animal than Kubrick. While WEST SIDE STORY is am amazing piece of music, it is kitsch. And it really broke no new ground in musical theater. It's superior schmaltz. Yes, I like 'Maria' and 'Tonight' and all that. But it's not exactly Mahler or Shostakovich... and not ever Gershwin. I think Bernstein's problem was he was never sure what he was about: high art or middlebrow art. An elitist or populist. He tried to have it both ways.

    What is the formula that Spielberg hit upon?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    What is the formula that Spielberg hit upon?

    A sharing of wonderment. The private becomes communal and cosmic. Take CLOSE and ET. What becomes the personal obsession of a man or a lonely child comes to be validated and shared by EVERYONE with that gushing music of Williams. Evangelical.

    The very opposite of BLADE RUNNER where the glow is private, a flicker that will burn out without anyone else knowing or caring. Calvinist.

    AI is a strange work because it has so much that is Spielbergian and David gets what he wants... except it's all just an illusion like the fantasies of the match stick girl.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Opinionator
    What is the formula that Spielberg hit upon?

    What is the formula that Spielberg hit upon?

    A sharing of wonderment. The private becomes communal and cosmic. Take CLOSE and ET. What becomes the personal obsession of a man or a lonely child comes to be validated and shared by EVERYONE with that gushing music of Williams. Evangelical.

    The very opposite of BLADE RUNNER where the glow is private, a flicker that will burn out without anyone else knowing or caring. Calvinist.

    AI is a strange work because it has so much that is Spielbergian and David gets what he wants… except it’s all just an illusion like the fantasies of the match stick girl.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. BB753 says:

    Steve, why block my comment about Bryan Singer? It’s widely known that he’s been in several suits involving minors, and used to hang out with convicted child abusers.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2836062/Bombshell-documentary-Hollywood-pedophile-ring-preying-child-actors-s-linked-X-Men-director-Bryan-Singer-premiers-New-York.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  201. Anon says: • Website • Disclaimer
    @Dave Pinsen
    In that Spielberg documentary I mentioned elsewhere, Spielberg says having the same crew for decades has helped him make so many movies. IIRC, his "newest" major crew member was his cinematographer, Janusz Kamiński, who he's worked with since Schindler's List, in the early 1990s.

    Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut were handicapped a bit by his refusal to leave England to shoot them.

    Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut were handicapped a bit by his refusal to leave England to shoot them.

    Not really. Kubrick wasn’t after realism. All of his movies are kinda like a laboratory of reality, even when the violence is bloody and cruel. His ‘Vietnam’ isn’t really mean to be Vietnam. It’s like his characters are part of an experiment unawares… just like apes and earthlings are usually clueless as to what the monolith is doing to them.

    In that Spielberg documentary I mentioned elsewhere, Spielberg says having the same crew for decades has helped him make so many movies.

    That’s part of it, but I think Spielberg is pretty easy to grasp. People who work with him know what he is about and knows what he wants. It’s like every new movie is another birthday party for Spielberg and they know what cakes and gifts to bring, what music to play, what costumes to wear, what and how much confetti to shoot everywhere.

    Spielberg’s most emotional autobio is probably E.T. A lonely kid is CHOSEN by some heavenly creature and is bestowed with a special covenant. And even though the kid is ignored or ridiculed by everyone else, it soon turns out everyone is on his side and recognize him as THE CHOSEN who was touched by the Gift, like Adam is touched by God in Michelangelo’s painting. So, Elliot, the total nobody among peers and at school and teased by his brother’s friends, becomes the center of the world. His brother, his mother, his brother’s friends, the US government, and just about the whole town and whole world will discover that HE was the one chosen as special friend of the creature from heaven. It’s like the scene in CHRISTMAS STORY where Ralphie imagines the teacher giving him A++++++ and everyone in the classroom celebrating his genius. In ET, everyone finally shares in the joy and wonder BUT the covenant is not with them but with Elliot, the only kid whose heart synced with that of ET.
    Spielberg’s movies are elaborate in production and execution, but the mentality behind them is pretty childlike, and those who work with Spielberg understand him. Does this mean Spielberg is really simpleminded or a master of simplemindedness that is so profitable in moviedom? We will never know.

    One gets the impression that Spielberg is too intelligent for his sensibility, must like Tarantino is too intelligent for his morality(or lack thereof).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. jlee0 says:

    I want to hear in the film “the irishman” “sheeran” talk about slaughtering german POWs and making some of these dig their own graves. Then I want to hear Americans speak about how so honorbly American boys served during WWII, like the gallant Soviet troops did during their tour at the end of the war in Berlin. Then I want to hear Americans defame say Japanese troops for their “Bataan Death March”. No one holds the high ground during war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  203. jlee1 says:

    re; As Jane Goodall has pointed out, we should stop stealing cute baby chimps from their mothers in the jungle just to have a short career in entertainment before they become ugly and uncontrollable at puberty at age 8.”

    well, now, according to Dr. Goodall, should we not stop “stealing” non-white cute baby [least favorite race here] from their mothers as well?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?