Jump to content

taylorannephoto

Members
  • Content count

    3452
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    85

Posts posted by taylorannephoto


  1. 6 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

    Well, this sucks. It’s my birthday this weekend. Please stay. :( 

     

    6 hours ago, grudlian. said:

    If you feel this place is unwelcoming or if dipshits from reddit are talking shit, I understand why you want to leave. But, as Cameron said, please stay. 

    I appreciate these, and I do regret saying that this place is a dumpster fire now because ultimately that's not true. However, things have been feeling different lately, and considering the things that have been said towards me in these kind of instances it leads me to believe that I am part of the problem here. So I think it's just best for everyone, mainly myself, that I take an extremely extended hiatus from the forums.

    • Like 2

  2. 11 hours ago, theworstbuddhist said:

    Just curious, what do you think you're accomplishing here, rhetorically speaking? Are you trying to imply that I don't think rape is bad? You feel my phrase that you called out is insufficient to cover the actions of some in Hollywood who are criminals? I disagree. Rapists and abusers are absolutely shitty people.

    So what's your purpose here, apart from trying to reassert some kind of weird alpha-poster dominance with your hair-splitting and your "impressive" signature? I have neither the time nor patience for this. If you just want to put words in my mouth or nitpick to serve your own agenda, kindly don't bother replying next time, or just mute me, as I certainly plan to do with you.

    You know what you were inferring with that statement. I quoted everything you said back at you so there's literally no putting any words into your mouth. You literally stated that even shitty artists can be on our side and to instead concentrate on "actual" enemies. I pointed out the difference between just "shitty" and physical abuse and that those artists are in fact not on the right fucking side. If you want so badly to dodge being called out then fine, but don't try and act like you weren't doing what you literally did.

    But yeah you're sooo right, I'm just trying to be number one here instead of being absolutely fucking triggered by this whole fucking conversation and try and keep my god damn cool and listen to literally everyone's point of view in the most civil way possible and then call out some total fucking bull shit when it happens. But it seems like if you plan on muting me (eye roll) then you won't even see this so this is mainly for myself because lmao what the fuck ever.

    Actually maybe this is just the right time to say I'm fucking leaving. This place used to be a literal safe haven (no pun intended considering they covered that movie) and now it's a god damn dumpster fire.

    I hope everyone feels the absolute joy of my departure that they seem to be clamoring for since I'm so fucking hated by the whole god damn fanbase for my favorite fucking podcast.

    • Like 1

  3. 6 minutes ago, theworstbuddhist said:

    I guess my point is, if you want to battle the evil in your world, artists of any type are probably already on your side, even if they are shitty people. You can concentrate on actual enemies like, say, your rapist "president" and his oligarch masters first.

    There's a difference between "shitty people" and an actor that was accused of beating his girlfriend, or say a director that was convicted of raping a 13 year old girl and fled the country to avoid sentencing, or say a producer that raped multiple women over decades.

    Also... it's almost as if we can concentrate on multiple issues at once...

    • Like 2

  4. 34 minutes ago, gigi-tastic said:

    I take umbrage to the idea we were fighting on the message boards. As far as I could see it was business as usual. There was a lot of discussion about baseball that I didn't understand but I don't think that got particularly heated? Am I missing something?

    I feel like as of late there's been a lot of misunderstanding of how we all talk to each other on the boards. Paul inferred something similar during the Snow White conversation over on the Unspooled side of the forums and he said that we all didn't want it on the list because it's problematic now and I was like wait what? No one even talked about the problematic side of the film???

    • Like 2

  5. 8 hours ago, gigi-tastic said:

    It's really not about the money for me so much as I feel like when I do buy their stuff (even older stuff in some people's case) it's like I'm saying " I support you and I don't care what you did. "

    I think this is what I was trying to get to. It doesn't matter how much it is to me because it's still a message of support and I am actively choosing to contribute something to them, and that's not something that sits right with me.

    • Like 3

  6. 5 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    That contribution seems very minor, though. Like, so minor as to basically not matter or have any real impact on their future career prospects.

    But this is also something I very much care about: being able to view and study past works in a medium I love (film). To me that overrides whatever minimal impact an iTunes rental might have on someone's pocketbook.

    That's not the point though. I don't care if it's minimal in your personal outlook, but if we're talking about contributing to them then money is indeed a contribution. It may only end up being $0.10 but that's ten cents *I* worked hard for and that's ten cents *I* could instead add to my donation to RAIN or to Planned Parenthood or to literally any other movie that doesn't have an abuser in it. There are millions of them out there.

    Again it's your personal decision, but it feels important to me to comment on these lines that we've all drawn up.


  7. 3 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

    Ha! I almost asked if we should all watch A League if Their Own to balance the scales, but I was afraid it would come off snarky and I really didn’t want that.  :) 

    I wasn't sure if I wanted to admit this but I should own my truth in that I have never actually seen A League of Their Own. I just know everything that happens and feel like I have seen the movie but legit I have not lol.

    • Like 1

  8. 11 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    I was thinking about this earlier today, and I get this is a very specific example, but what about supporting the abused? In this case, not supporting Penn also means not supporting Madonna. Granted, I don’t think she really needs the residuals from people watching Shanghai Surprise, but should she be punished because he’s an ass? 

    I guess I’m falling a bit on Paul’s side from the Unspooled episode. A lot of people worked on Chinatown, should they be punished because they unknowingly worked with a monster? Should we ignore the work of the other actors, cameramen, writers, sound editors, composers etc, because they worked with someone who turned out to be a piece of shit?

    It’s a tough nut to crack. It really is. And for me, it really comes down to when I first experienced their work. I think it also makes a difference if the person is in front or behind the camera. Since I’ve never seen them, I know I will never now be able to watch American Beauty or The Usual Suspects. I don’t care how good they are. I won’t be able to get passed Kevin Spacey. I guess it really comes down to how people can compartmentalize . 

    And, like SyCasey alluded to, there are so many garbage people out there. I’m sure there are terrible people who work on every movie, show, song, whatever. Where do we draw the line? If Ringo’s drum technician is a serial killer, do we stop buying Beatles records? What’s different between that and being an actor-for-higher beyond visibility?

    Personally, if I don't want to support Shanghai Surprise but I would like to support Madonna, then I'll go out of my way to do something else for her or anyone else ya know? Unless someone truly never did anything before or after this movie then there are other opportunities to support those people in other ways. I can buy a Madonna song for the same price as this movie was available to rent, or I can watch something else with Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunnaway.

    It really is a tough nut to crack and it's probably something we're all going to be discussing not only with each other but with ourselves for years to come, because truly I haven't even come to a solidified answer for myself yet, but I know I'm like you in that if there are things I've never heard or seen then I'm definitely now never going to watch or listen to them. I'm fine with never seeing Chinatown now because it's never going to be anything different for me than a movie by a convicted pedophile who escaped from his punishment.

    • Like 1

  9. 31 minutes ago, gigi-tastic said:

    Agreed. However I also agree that sometimes you can separate the work from the artist it's just where you personally say this is something I cannot forgive. It's very tricky. I love Picasso but abhor Picasso. However he's dead and I'm never going to be in a position to own a piece of his work.

    I think using Picasso as an example is probably not the most fair considering yeah we're never going to afford a real Picasso painting and he's dead.

    Like I said though it's a personal choice. We just did Chinatown on Unspooled a few weeks back and while I know the woman has made a statement about not wanting to be used as a martyr for people to boycott Polanski, I can never erase that from my mind and I refuse to participate in giving him any money, especially as a survivor of assault myself.

    It's a conversation I think people have had over and over and while I still think it's a personal decision I also think it just so easily gets tossed aside with a separation of art and artist thing, but sooo many times we see the artist put their abuse into their art (looking at you Woody Allen making Manhattan) and I live paycheck to paycheck and work way too fucking hard for how little I make to just turn around and put more money into the pockets of these billionaire abusers.

    ETA: This comes off super judgey and I apologize, cause I truly couldn't care less what people choose to do, but I think if we're having the conversation and we're all saying where we personally are drawing these lines then it needs to be really talked about.

    • Like 1

  10. 34 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    I understand not wanting to support new work from these people, but for old stuff I've decided that I'm fine with watching it. If I had to cut out all old artwork from potentially abusive people I would be missing out on a lot.

    But even old work, if paid for, gives money to said abusers. Many artists get royalties or residuals based off of if something airs on television or gets purchased off of iTunes. So this is really a personal decision for everyone, but don't think that just because you're not purchasing something new that you're not still putting money in their pockets.

    • Like 3

  11. 1 hour ago, SaraK said:

    I feel bad I derailed things a bit! I'll try to pop in when I can, I love when I get the chance to participate. I just honestly am so brain dead after work lately (which is a huge difference from my last job where I was literally watching movies during work hours). Miss hanging out here with you guys ❤️

    Sara nooo! If anyone started the derailing it was me over Christmas cause I think we've all been trying to get back on track since then lol.

    • Like 2

  12. On 5/11/2019 at 8:50 PM, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    Aside comment - the podcast mentioned how this was the rare (only?) Oscar BP that was released in February.  My recollection is, it came out in February, but then was re-released close to the end of the year when they felt they had a shot at the Oscars (admittedly a memory from when I was a teenager, and as I write it, it feels weird that that is something I think I remember).  One of the more overt Oscar campaigning practices.

    I did a quick search and it's wikipedia entry made it sound like it never actually stopped showing until October of 1991, but that almost seems impossible for a movie to stay in theaters that long!

    The exact quote is: "The Silence of the Lambs was released on February 14, 1991, grossing $14 million during its opening weekend. At the time it closed on October 10, 1991, the film had grossed $131 million domestically with a total worldwide gross of $273 million."

    But either way it seems like your memory is correct!


  13. 3 hours ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    Well, within the context of the movie they say he's not untalented, he's just too difficult to work with. So he starts getting work because he's in disguise, not specifically because he's a woman.

    Anyway, I'm not commenting on the later plot developments once he's disguised as a woman, more the setup that he has trouble getting work and yet is supposed to be a talented actor. I think that is actually decently explained in the movie.

    *He* makes it about gender though.

    And anyway, you commented on a comment that was a reply to my comment that has to do with the gender politics of the concept so 🤷‍♀️


  14. 11 hours ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    In fairness, being in a place with a lot of acting work like NYC also means there's a lot of competition.

    Not enough to dress like a woman and expect there to be more work *because* you are a woman.


  15. Ooooh I just finally listened to the episode and Paul you made a ginormous error! Roz was NOT on RuPaul's Drag Race! She's definitely quality enough to be on the show but she's never been a contestant!


  16. 12 minutes ago, sugarpussOShea said:

    I think it's Michael Dorsey's overestimation of his own acting talent that makes him do it - he thinks he's so good that he can even dress as a woman, audition, and land the part easily - which he does! I think it's hubris that makes him dress as a woman and the lure of easy and consistent soap opera money that makes him choose that part.

    I guess I worded my statement wrong because I don't have a misunderstanding of why he does it, that's pretty clear to me. I have a misunderstanding of why I'm supposed to be okay with the concept and his thought process because it's a very thinly veiled reason and any woman watching this movie would immediately be like uhm what?


  17. 7 minutes ago, WatchOutForSnakes said:

    I love that podcast too

    It's become a dream of mine to get famous enough that Jamie and Caitlin invite me on and they can tear my favorite movie apart lol.

    • Like 1

  18. 3 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    I don't necessarily know if I would go so far as to put it on the list, but I would certainly place it ahead of Tootsie.

    9 to 5 is a perfect movie and should be recognized as such 😂

    • Like 2

  19. 8 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    Yea definitely. It's not like there isn't some feminist messages in there, but as I said in my Letterboxd, it's basic. Almost too basic, if you ask me. So basic that it might even hamper the film's points entirely.

    (Ah sorry for my typo... I have not had any caffeine yet...)

    I think this is feminist to a point for sure. In 1982 I'm sure some men saw this for Hoffman and it probably blew their minds but I completely agree that it's very basic, and it's a very surface level take on feminism for sure. I totally forgot for a second that 9 to 5 was made a full two years prior so it's even worse now in my opinion lol. For some reason I was just convinced this came first and then 9 to 5 just improved on the women in the workplace conversation.... yet.... nah they did it first and fucking fantastically.

    Why isn't 9 to 5 on this list!?

    (Quick sidebar but Dolly Parton did NOT win the Oscar for the song 9 to 5 and I'm pissed cause "Fame" won and literally it beat both Dolly and Willie Nelson's On the Road Again.... what the fuck Academy???)

    • Like 3

  20. 18 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    I don't think it does pass, come to think of it. No two (real) women talk to each other that I can recall.

    Booooooo!

    I just check to see if The Bechdel Cast has covered it but alas they have not. I think it would be very fascinating to hear a specific take on this movie. (That podcast has covered Mrs. Doubtfire and She's The Man in terms of other cross-dressing movies.)

    • Like 1
×