Leaderboard

I was a big Michael Crichton fan when I was young, I read a lot of his books. But I stopped when he got on his “global warming is a hoax” era. I believe he served as a consult for the Bush White House. That was very disappointing for me from someone who was into science and was a doctor. This movie makes me think he was very right wing all along. He’d be on TV saying these women are ruining men’s lives and such.

Ok so let's get to the nitty gritty here. Men can be and are sexually harassed. Much like domestic violence it's 100% something that does happen to men but is not talked about nearly as much as what happens to women. Nearly 1 in 5 ( roughly 17%) complaints to the EEOC are by men. A survey by Quinnipiac University found 20 percent of men surveyed had been harassed. While they government does not track the gender of perpetrators researchers say that men are more likely to harass other men then women ( though women can be perpetrators). The number of men who have reported harassment has stayed pretty steady for the past decade. The movie is correct in the idea that a lot of sexual harassment is about power. It's also a way to punish people who do not meet the ideal gender norms and for men in particular, those who are not sufficiently like the idealized version of their (perceived) gender. Many men do not report their harassment much like many male victims of sexual and domestic assault. they feel they will not be believed because we live in a society that thinks only women can be victims. A 2014 study found that Canadian woman were twice as likely to report harassment Han their male counterparts( 20% vs just 9 %) To quote a survivor who told his story in this really great article from the Washington Post : "Funk, 53, said he was at first hesitant to talk about what he said he was experiencing at work. “ ‘You are a man. You should be able to protect yourself,’ ” he recalled thinking to himself." But even incredibly "masculine" men can be subject to harassment. In 2016 Terry Cruz says he was groped by Adam Venit at a party. Venit is a very well known executive who works at William Morris Endeavor. He's not alone. Brandon Fraser claims in 2003 former HFPA president Philip Berk groped him. These are both famous men, powerful in their own right yet they both have stories about harassment. While this movie is 100% the panicking of rich straight white men in the wake of the Anita Hill Clarence Thomas testimony ( yet here we are in 2019 with another sexual predator on the bench. I'm not going off on that rant) there is a germ of truth in it. Sexual harassment can happen to anyone https://www.canadianwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Facts-About-Sexual-Assault-and-Harassment.pdf https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2502 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/men-account-for-nearly-1-in-5-complaints-of-workplace-sexual-harassment-with-the-eeoc/2018/04/08/4f7a2572-3372-11e8-94fa-32d48460b955_story.html https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sexual_harassment_new.cfm

I think she does say this while Michael Douglas is showing everyone the news footage, but it's only one line uttered in quick objection to what he's doing, rather than something that's been detailed and laid out like in the book.

And not only that, but I assumed that when someone signed "A Friend" that they were just being cheeky, but no... it turns out it's actually been sent from "Arthur Friend's" email. As if to say you could only sign an email with the name that matches your email address? But yeah I figure the kid's mom was telling him what to write, especially since she says something in the beginning about being really close to him or talking to him a lot or something? It's a weird reveal that makes very little sense. And why do his kids sign their cutesy email at the very end as "A Famiily"? Do they know about "A Friend"?

Let's talk Corridor y'all: During the climax of the movie, Tom cannot access sensitive business files because his security status has been knocked down to an entry level employee. Since he can't get in on his computer, he goes to where the demo for the Corridor is set up in the Conley's hotel suite. Why in the world would Arcamax allow the guys, who are potentially trying to merge with their company, have such high access? Or why do they keep their actual private business fiiles in the Corridor at all? That seems like it would not be terribly prudent during a negotiation period. Regardless, Tom accesses the pertinent files while Meredith at the same time has decided to log on in her office and delete incriminating files. Why now? Why not right after these video recordings were made... you know... the videos of private phone calls where two parties are openly talking about sabotaging a colleague. That's like white collar prison type shit. All of this leads to the true Ridiculous of this movie: When Meredith shows up as an extra from Dire Strait's Money For Nothing video. She is represented as a physical body in the Corridor itself, stalking Tom like Michael Meyers. There's even a jump scare noise. WTF and Whhhhhyyyyy? What if... Donald Sutherland (or ANYONE) just so happened to be hanging out in the Corridor in this moment ... wouldn't they see her deleting shit? That ain't workin... that's the way you do it... get your money for nothing, and your chicks for free...

I grew up in Seattle and I will give Disclosure this much credit: it was actually shot here. Many movies SAY they are filmed in Seattle but are actually filmed in Vancouver, because (a) it’s cheaper and (b) Washington does a terrible job providing tax breaks and incentives for movies to be able to afford to shoot here. Basically, that’s a long-winded way to say, when a whole movie is shot here (not just exteriors and shots of the Space Needle) that’s a BIG deal. Especially when that movie stars Michael Douglas, Demi Moore, Donald Sutherland and was directed by Barry Levinson. I was in between high school and college when Disclosure came to town. Since I had never seen a film shoot before and loved films, I was very excited. The scene where Dennis Miller embarrasses Michael Douglas at a fancy dinner in front of his wife, that was shot four blocks from the house where I grew up! It was filmed at the Volunteer Park Conservatory at a beautiful old greenhouse made up to look like a fancy restaurant (it was also the greenhouse where Annabella Sciora worked in The Hand That Rocks The Cradle, BTW). My younger brother and I walked up and stared at all the production trucks lining the street, hoping to get a glimpse of somebody, anybody. Time may have distorted this memory, but I still can picture how all the lights made the park seem like it was glowing. December rolled around and people packed into the Cinerama (a giant old-school theater that still exists) to see Disclosure on its opening weekend. Me, (now in college), my parents and my brother (now in high school) were among them. The film started, everyone was excited to see our hometown on film. Two hours and ten minutes later, the vibe of the entire theater was “I guess that was ...good...right?” Rewatching it 25 years later, I can’t even say that. But it is hilarious!

So what was interesting to me about this was that the movie basically took out most of the reason why Moore did what she did, which in the book is explained as she was getting major kickbacks from the Malaysian government who wanted their own changes made in the factory to aid in cost cutting. In the movie it just comes off as a spiteful kind of "fuck him" type of plan for shits and giggles a la Trading Places or Cruel Intentions. Also the ending of the book is A LOT more bleak in that when the machinations of Moore and her conspirators are revealed, it basically tanks the deal that the company was hoping for and the bad guys basically end up with better offers from other companies elsewhere while Douglass' character is left without the promotion and the future of the company is left in question. Crichton was kind of like Stephen King in that he would occasionally redo stories from different focal points but with similar plot threads, in this case his book Airframe which follows a female quality assurance executive at a plane manufacturer who is trying to solve a mysterious incident that happened on one of her company's planes that left two people dead, while a giant merger looms. The tension is so much better and the reasoning behind why someone is trying to screw her is more built into corporate espionage which Crichton writes really well about. It also removes a harassment storyline, making the attack on her more mental and work related rather than dong related. Also hearing that June loved this movie now makes me think there might be some relation to my family as my parents love the most random movies, from classics to utter dogshit. For June I can recall these for the love list: Daredevil, Odd Life of Timothy Green, Grease 2, Teen Witch, Drop Dead Fred, Disclosure, Crank 2 My family's love list: Godfather part 2, Meet Joe Black, The Postman, Jaws

Omission: Dude, totally fuck a hotel room door electric key card reader, for real. I've stayed at a bunch of hotels lately, and the fact that it takes 20 swipes before the door will open is probably the most realistic tech thing in this movie.

I agree that this movie is terrible. I also agree wholeheartedly that so called men's rights activists do not give a flying fuck for male survivors or the well being of men in general. For example On International Women's Day many of them demand an International Men 's Day even though that already exists and is November 19. Ironically the day is rarely googled on its actual date. They care about the fact women have a day at all not that they really want their own day. I also agree that yes women are much more likely to be harassed. I've had several conversations with other female friends about how we do not know *any* women who HAVEN'T been sexually assaulted or harassed including ourselves. However I don't think that negates the fact this does happen to men as well and those survivors deserve every bit of respect and compassion as their female counterparts. It could just be my reading but it feels like you're saying that because a smaller number of harassment is reported it means less? That what they went through isn't as upsetting because women face worse? Again this could be my interpretation. I honestly don't think you can compare this kind of thing. It's deeply personal and affects each survivor differently. I think that our society tends to fail people who speak out but I really think that we fail male survivors in a unique and horrible way. It's bad enough to not think you will be believed because the system is awful. Even worse when you think people won't believe you because of your gender.

I don't think anyone denies that sexual harassment can and does happen to men, but horseshit movies like this don't help, and I don't care for the arguments that try to compare the relatively uncommon suffering and exploitation of men under the patriarchy with the extremely common and usually much more severe suffering of women. It's just not equivalent. Unfortunately there are disgusting organizations claiming to fight for "men's rights" who will use these stats and the testimonies of male victims to push their own sexist, homophobic, and often white supremacist agenda. As someone said on the podcast, this film seems like it would be a real favourite with that crowd, pandering to their inflated sense of victimhood and entitlement.

I think one of the best examples of why this is a good HDTGM movie is that a crucial plot point is a factory that we essentially never visit has changed from a Level 7 to Level 5 air handler. This movie could have been truly great if it been tweaked so that the sexual harassment was a contrived plot where everyone was a conspirator (including his wife and kids) to give Michael Douglas the crucial motivation to solve the Arcamax problem.

Oh geez! I was going to reach out to you today and ask how you were. I’m sorry about your foot, but I’m glad you’re on the mend! Get well soon!

Apologies all for being MIA. I got a very serious strep infection in my left foot. I have been in the hospital since 9/16. It appears I will get to go home tomorrow so I hope to be able to join next week’s mayhem.

So at the start when Douglas is grilling that guy about if he got the promotion the guy asks him if he's ok and needs a Prozac. I don't think that this movie understands how Prozac works. Not that I'm surprised. Not to *brag* but I was on Prozac and I know for a fact it takes a week( usually 2) to start working. It's not like Xanax or something similar that works instantly. I don't know why but the idea of people just passing out random Prozac to their upset colleagues like fucking tic tacs is both hilarious and worrisome. Edit: I just started the episode and they also mentioned this. Oops!

I’m listening to the episode and had some info on a part of the movie that confused you. When Disneyland first opened you bought ride tickets in addition to paying general admission. So whoever wrote that line(assuming it’s Crichton) was thinking about pre-1981 Disney.

This over Ben Hur any day. I'm not a huge fan of Spartacus but I have liked it every time I watched it. Ben Hur has always felt like homework outside of the chariot race. I think it's kind of strange that they never mentioned Lord Of The Rings as one of the epics on the list because I'd take it over Ben Hur, Spartacus and maybe Lawrence Of Arabia (but, like Lawrence, LotR isn't really American in my mind and doesn't belong on the list). I think it's kind of weird that, for all the episodes that they've asked "Does X need to be represented this many times?" and the discussion of how many times Kubrick is on the list isn't really brought up (was it in another episode?) Taking it in the direction of "How many movies do we need that were inspired by McCarthyism" seems strange. High Noon, On The Waterfront and Spartacus are all quite different and you could easily watch them without picking up their shared origin.

I reviewed this film last week, and I'll try not to repeat too much of what I said there. Ben Hur came out the year before. I prefer it because at least it had spectacle, whereas this film did little for me and didn't seem to bear the mark of Kubrick at all. Paul is confused why anyone would consider this film Marxist propaganda, but Tom Breihan isn't. After finishing his "History of Violence" series he began going over the top film at the box office of every year, starting with this one. I'll quote him on its politics: [...] I find John Wayne's hatred of High Noon far more inexplicable, because most of the things he criticizes about it also occur in Rio Bravo, the movie he made specifically intended as a critique of High Noon. Those interested can read "The Tin Star", the story the film is credited as being an adaptation of, starting here and continuing from the seventh page starting here. The film is much more cynical, especially in its rather opposite ending, but I find it an interesting comparison.

How has this movie not been done yet? Bump

Sporgan was on fire on the Pro version. Laughing my whole butt off as usual

Live from the Dynasty Typewriter, The Boys help ANDY DALY make an entire new season of Andy Daly Podcast Pilot Project.

Agree with The Social Network. Didn’t love Crash but throat-ripping is a little extreme, no?

i loved hayes's big laugh after francesca said "gondoliers"

Great episode! Seemed like a golden opp for the Popcorn Gallery. Popcorn Parmesan!!

Syncs: 1. Once when I was a teenager I had a nightmare that absolutely terrified me. I was getting pulled under the bed by cookie monster and I was in that dream-like slow motion where you can't react properly. It was weird cause I had no association with Sesame Street except having watched it as a kid. 2. I have a recording of my wife and I playing "Tiny Bubbles":

this movie is bonkers... The Barbie museum, wow Jon Lovitz stealing Hitler's car...