MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

The Shia & Megan Drama

Real simple… Megan Fox was NOT dumped from Trannys 3 for saying that Michael Bay wanted to be like Hitler. Bay is a lot of things, but he’s not thin-skinned in that particular way.
Megan Fox may turn out, someday, to be more than an on-screen piece of ass. There are hints that she is a conceptual thinker. But right now, that is what she is – especially in this franchise – and a fresh piece of ass, in the great horrible tradition of Hollywood, is called for. She is, in movie terms, now too old for the role.
Shia LaBeouf is an odd movie thing. He’s been in 3 worldwide blockbusters in 3 years, all of which relied on him for box office in any way. Eagle Eye & Disturbia each did more business than expected, for which he certainly can take some credit. But is he a major box office stat? There is no strong indication, one way or the other. He’s Harrison Ford, in a way, in that Ford never really proved himself a box office draw of any weight until after all 3 Star Wars and 2 of the 3 Indiana Jones films were out. And then, starting with Witness, we started to see what he would become on his own head of steam. Shia’s box office story has not yet really begin to be written.
In any case, there is a BIG difference between being a truth-teller and being someone who gets a rep for biting the hand that feeds them. There is honesty. And there is stupidity.
This, friends, is stupidity.
Comparing it, as Patrick Goldstein does, to whistleblowers and war protesters, is a bit of a reach.
This is an issue of common courtesy… well, more than common, since without Michael Bay there is no boldfaced Megan Fox and without Spielberg, Shia LaBeouf is still hoping to get Holes 2 and is best known for being on Project Greenlight.
And as hypocritical as Deadline Hollywood is, in so many ways, does Patrick Goldstein really get to call anyone out for logrolling from the ultimate self-protectionist environs of the LA Times? Seriously… traditional-journalist-turned-blogger heal thyself.
The only reason Nikki Finke is still able to publish is that the industry allows her to because she is of use to so many. She is the greatest kind of lay-down… the kind that appears to the public to be not only independent, but utterly uncontrollable… the exact opposite of the truth, if you are the top exec at a company and want her in your camp. Staff… even senior staff… still get shit on daily. But the bosses want Nikki to keep doing their dirty work, so they let their employees suffer the indignity of Nikki’s insanity.
No one but a boss or someone closely aligned with a boss could survive that behavior… because there is no perceived payoff for it internally. Yes, there is kinds of bad behavior. But if your boss at a studio thinks you are not on their team, you’re soon to go away.
And that is why Nikki is in the position she is in right now… because she can do what others – people who actually control purse strings and jobs – dare not… and she gets away with it. The more she gets away with it, the more people indulge her. Quite literally a vicious circle.
Back on the talent side, i have had this conversation many, many times with high-end actors and writers and directors who were considering slicing into the studios or even producers they were working for. And in the end, each of them got it… it’s suicide.
Studios have, say, 15 slots a year, and 200 movies that actively want the slots. Except for Will Smith, Angelina Jolie, Vince Vaughn, and sometimes Johny Depp, there are no irreplaceable actors… even movie stars. So if you are running the studio, who would you hire? The kid who you turned into a worldwide star by putting him in your three massive franchises and his one other $100 million grosser, but who thinks it’s “honest” to diss your work… or someone else who might actually not piss where he lives as though he was better than the people he works with?
“Telling the truth” about the people you work with in Hollywood is almost never about honor. It is almost always a massive form of self-indulgence. “Look how big my meat is! I can diss Spielberg! Or “I can tell fans that ‘We are going to do better next time,’ even though I will read whatever words they put in front of me for that 8 figure check.”
Of course, there is always cocktail/coffee chatter between friends and even off-the-record journos. And even then, it must be taken with a grain of salt because it is one perspective on a story. But it’s a very dangerous game because if word gets back to the higher-up and they believe it to be true, forget about the next deal/job/favor/what-have-you.
And there is this… Patrick and others agree with the “truths” offered by Ms Fox and Mr LaBeouf. What if he and others did not agree with the “truths?” This is one of my mega-peeves at the media right now… too many things are being vetted or shot down because of the personal tastes or relationships of the journalists. Things are not facts because we agree with them in our gut.
Regardless, attacking the people who hand you giant sums of money is not smart in Hollywood. And really, it’s not good behavior either.
Need we be reminded about what happened to Gary Oldman when he went up against Spielberg privately and publicly? Now, his comments were much nastier than LaBeouf’s or Fox’s. And the decade in studio movie prison he spent for the bad behavior – 4 years before a single role of any size in a studio movie (Potter and then Nolan’s Batman films)… 6 more before he got a role big enough to advertise (The Book of Eli) – was perhaps too great a punishment for being a jerk and having a bit of a lunatic as his manager. But pay it he did.
Tony Kaye went after New Line publicly over American History X and hasn’t worked for an American studio since.
Both men are massive talents. Both men dug their own graves… from which both are still reemerging.
Finally, need I point out… Shia LaBeouf was in Transformers and Transformers 2. He’s about to do Trannys 3. Neither of the first films was, objectively, much better, if better at all, than Indy 4.
Hopefully, Wall Street 2 will be the best film of his career, which would make a total of maybe 4 good films out of 25 or so he’s made. At this point, the guy is, as my sister would say, all beans, no franks.
Should people be enraged by these “truths” being spoken? Why would anyone waste their times caring about what either one of these kids has to say? They’re not talking world peace… they’re talking movie smack. Yawn.
But is it good behavior… smart behavior… even fully truthful behavior? Not so much.

Be Sociable, Share!

94 Responses to “The Shia & Megan Drama”

  1. The Big Perm says:

    Shia was being nice when he was shitting on Indiana Jones. You KNOW that he knows that he looked like a fucking jackass swinging from vines with a hundred monkeys, but he’s all like “that didn’t work at all but it’s my fault, as an actor. I didn’t sell it well enough.” Like if you put Marlon Brando in his prime in that scene and it suddenly works.

  2. NickF says:

    I hope for her sake that she was the one who decided to quit. If she had a moment of enlightenment and said enough is enough, good for her.
    Shia is just lucky that he’s male and in a position of power. His comments are what they are. He’s calling the movies shitty and lumping himself in by throwing in a “we” here and there.

  3. SmilingPolitely says:

    I read Shia’s comments in something close to context on LaTimes’ blog, and some people are seriously making a mountain out of a mole hill.
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2010/05/shia-
    Shia does need to hold his tongue, however. It doesn’t help anyone but the media vultures to be remotely candid about anything. Smile big and give fluffy, banal answers to everything, kid.

  4. The Big Perm says:

    Don’t know how that link illuminates anything. There’s not a whole lot more to what he says than what everyone else has reprinted in full over and over. It’s not like that was a few lines from a ten page interview.
    And he said this…”If I was going to do it twice, my career was over.”
    He’s calling Indiana Jones the spark that may ignite the TNT which will end his career!

  5. LexG says:

    Fox, hot, bow, look at her, power, k-stew, Bay, awesome, toes, charming, etc.
    Even I’d be as bored typing it out as you’d be reading it.
    But I will say, Gemma Arterton is NO MEGAN FOX. Who is every bit as important to my interest in these movies as Bay is. It’s a 50/50 deal.
    Taking THE FOX out of Transformers is like taking David Soul out of Starsky and Hutch.

  6. leahnz says:

    i like it when actors, particularly the young silly ones, ‘speak their minds’, it’s amusing the kerfuffle it creates
    (obviously fox and bay do not get on. i think it’s hilarious. i would pay $ to see fox deck bay with a right hook to the ground, “TRANNIES 3: revenge of the tranny” right there. good on her. kick ass, fox. just…avoid acting wherever possible) and before anybody splits a seam i have nothing against fox the person, in any interviews i’ve seen of her she always seems like she’s on acid, sorta trippin, says all sorts of weird shit. not horribly dull at least but certainly no brain box
    and shia’s just a blabbermouth, he’s always running his gob off, does anybody remember a little while back when he went on and on about his mum and all that quite inappropriate-sounding stuff about how much he fancies her? i’m sure in reality it’s perfectly innocuous (i hope) but shia just has no filter whatsoever, diarrhea of the mouth personified. and he got arrested in that k-mart or whatever it was, i remember seeing him explain it on letterman about how he got all pissed and ended up in the k-mart sort of unbeknownst to him in a stupor. i remember thinking right then: you’re a weirdo, dude. maybe it takes one to know one

  7. MDOC says:

    Transformers 2 made no sense. It made a lot of money because the first one was competent and the trailers were gorgeous. Take a notepad and write down the plot, it will make your head hurt.
    It was refreshing to me to see Shia admit that the movies were sub par. They are. Baseball players come out and say “We had a bad day”, “We think we have it figured out this time”. Shia is fortunate that his bad products were financially successful. These actors are a brand, bad product damages their brand. Ask Emile Hirsch.

  8. Stella's Boy says:

    Where’s Don with the 411?

  9. coffeefortwo says:

    It doesn’t diminish your point all that much, so I’ll note the slight chronology issue with the Harrison Ford comparison. Witness came out well before the third Indiana Jones movie. I think in some ways, it’s the career after all three were released that’s more significant. After his franchise work was fully complete, Ford managed hits that were–while mostly high concept hooks–very reliant on him for the sell: Presumed Innocent, The Fugitive, the mini-franchise of the Jack Ryan films, Air Force One.
    Maybe down the road, he’ll prove otherwise, but I think Shia is more like Mark Hammill. In the right place at the right time, but showing little to no indication that he’s got the chops or presence necessary to develop a long-term career. The only difference is that Shia works in an era where there’s no shortage of franchise work to happily hopscotch into to keep inflating the perception that he’s a major factor in the astounding box office takes. Hammill had to settle for The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia for work away from the money machine of the franchise that launched him.
    Their signature roles even have excessive whining in common.

  10. Eric says:

    I agree with CoffeeForTwo’s very perceptive point about the changing norms for blockbuster success, where the actors are just kind of along for the ride.
    Also noticing that this thread seems to have brought in a bunch of new voices, which is really nice.

  11. Tony says:

    …without Spielberg, Shia LaBeouf is still hoping to get Holes 2 and is best known for being on Project Greenlight.
    Did Speilberg have anything to do with Shia getting cast as the lead of “Distubrbia” which grossed somwhere around $80 million? If not, I would say Shia was well on his way to becoming a box office player before landing in two back to back franchises. I think it would be difficult to argue that the success of “Disturbia” and “Eagle Eye” (both so-so thrillers) didn’t have something to do with Shia.

  12. Tony says:

    …without Spielberg, Shia LaBeouf is still hoping to get Holes 2 and is best known for being on Project Greenlight.
    Did Speilberg have anything to do with Shia getting cast as the lead of “Distubrbia” which grossed somwhere around $80 million? If not, I would say Shia was well on his way to becoming a box office player before landing in two back to back franchises. I think it would be difficult to argue that the success of “Disturbia” and “Eagle Eye” (both so-so thrillers) didn’t have something to do with Shia.

  13. Dr Wally says:

    “I hope for her sake that she was the one who decided to quit. If she had a moment of enlightenment and said enough is enough, good for her.”
    Her contract was for three films, it’s simply not that simple as deciding to quit. And did you know that just last week, Megan Fox was doing FX plate photography for Trannys 3 with the Bumblebee car. So clearly something is off here.

  14. I read a twitter blurb last night that said Fox quit Trannys 3, not thgat she was fired. Which makes sense since she was apparently doing things like Dr. Wally said.
    And I also liked Shia’s comments on Indy 4 and don’t think it’ll hurt his rep. He’s already GOT a rep as a wild child type who speaks his mind. I don’t think it’s any big secret that Indy 4 pissed people off. A “secret” is that Michael Bay is (apparently) a total asshole to women on his set.
    As for speaking your mind, it seems weird that pointing out obvious flaws in a film is taboo but mentioning what seems to be misogynistic and borderline harassing actions isn’t.

  15. Rob Malouf says:

    This post literally makes no sense. It is nearly incomprehensible. Not sure what the point is of writing a column that really has no internal logic and which is written so poorly.

  16. The Big Snake says:

    Was the Oldman/Spielberg flap about edits to THE CONTENDER, or was there some other fuss I missed?

  17. Sam says:

    I have to agree. Once the aside about Nikki hits, I have no clue what this post is about anymore.
    Actually, I’m not sure I know what the stuff before it is about either. The opening line suggests that this is about how a star didn’t get dumped for badmouthing the boss, but then the rest of the article is about how you don’t get work if you badmouth the boss. What’s the difference between those other situation and Fox’s?
    And what about Shia? His remarks were considerably less harsh than Fox’s, but this post condemns them as career suicide. I think? Maybe not? A lot of this post talks about Shia’s particular circumstances, but I have absolutely no idea what’s being said about how they change the picture, if at all.
    And as for that Nikki bit, I don’t even have a GUESS as to what it has to do with anything else.
    David, maybe it was just me, but I really don’t have any clue what you’re saying here. Which is a shame, because I’d *like* to. I’ve read some of the reporting on this stuff, and all of it left me thinking, “This is the kind of PR mess where nobody reporting on it has any idea of what’s really going on, but which David tends to see right through and clarify.” So I read this post with particular interest. But what it actually says, I have no idea.
    Maybe I need more caffeine.

  18. Triple Option says:

    Well, I

  19. Triple Option says:

    Crap, that should’ve been *intuitively know how to tap into*

  20. Joe Leydon says:

    The flip side of this, I suppose: I’ve often been amused, and occasionally surprised, to hear people on both sides of the cameras talk about how much they value working with certain actors and actresses who are pleasant team players. Seriously. More than once, it’s been explained to me this way: “If you’re on location for two or three months, or even if you’re just going to work in L.A. on something for that long, you really appreciate being around [Fill In the Blank].” Which goes a long way toward explaining why some actors continue to get work on a steady basis even after being associated with a long strip of under-performers or outright flops, and other, supposedly bigger stars — even Oscar winners — drop right off the A-list after only 2 or 3 b.o. misses. Specifically: Without taking anything away from either Jeff Bridges or Dennis Quaid as actors, they owe at least part of their longevity simply to their being so genuinely liked by so many co-workers. Of course, respect has a lot to do with it, too. But… well, let’s put it like this: Never mind who you’d rather have dinner with, or who you think is a better actor. If you were going to work on a three-month shoot in a remote area of a foreign country, who would you hope to work with: Michael Caine or Kevin Spacey?

  21. Kelby says:

    Three month on set dilemma: Megan or David?

  22. Joe Leydon says:

    @Kelby: David Poland?

  23. The Big Perm says:

    Seriously Joe, getting along can mean a LOT. Even a great artist like David Lynch was concerned about Dennis Hopper for Blue Velvet. Hopper was saying “I AM Frank Booth,” and Lynch was saying “but we have to eat dinner with the guy.”

  24. Kelby says:

    @Joe: of course, our Dear David. Drinking milk.

  25. LexG says:

    Yeah, Kelby, spending time in a remote locale with Megan Fox vs David Poland.
    Let me think on that one and get back to you.

  26. Kelby says:

    Lex, you don’t need to think. You know +100 mil box office min.

  27. Joe Leydon says:

    Well, I must admit: Ms. Fox appears to have more of a sense of humor about herself.

  28. IOv2 says:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486822/companycredits
    Tony, The Beard did have a hand in Shia getting Disturbia and most of his roles since The Battle of Shaker Heights. If you watch that season of Project Greenlight, the directors of that god awful film go on about how Shia has been CHOSEN by The Beard, and that they are getting on the Shia train early. Seriously, it’s an entire sub-plot of the season outside of Shia’s wanky mom.
    Nevertheless, my lady summed it up perfectly tonight, when she said; “I hate it when actors bad mouth their work.” Seriously, Shia, got paid a good amount of money for Trannies 2 and Indy 4. He probably got much more than Fox but seeing as how dudes rule the world. He can act like a jack-off and it’s a reason to respect him for TELLING THE TRUTH. While Fox stating how she felt about a guy that has a reputation makes her a piece of shit and worthy of kicking to the curb.
    It’s all bullshit, they should stop going into business for themselves, but no one is going to convince me otherwise that this entire situation does not have a little bit of sexism to it. The chick is condemened while the man is praised. Utter bullshit.

  29. EthanG says:

    Good piece mostly but a little harsh on Shia. He’s made nowhere close to 25 films (18 to be exact) and most of it is kiddie-targeted fare that is good for what it is (Holes, Greatest Game, Surf’s Up, Disturbia) or pure studio popcorn. When actually being asked to act (Guide to Recognizing Your Saints) he’s actually decent.

  30. The Big Perm says:

    IO has a lady? Gross.
    Anyway, I don’t recall Spielberg being mention in Project Greenlight. Supposedly Spielberg saw Shai in Holes which is what got him interested in the kid, and Shia had only just finished shooting that when he did Shaker Heights. They kept saying they were getting on the Holes bandwagon, not Spielberg’s.
    Also, actors should be able to bad mouth their work if they want. It’s annoying seeing little fake robot people, come on you know they think half of their movies suck. Nice to hear a little honesty once in a while. Otherwise we just have to wait until they hit 70 and write a book and then we get the real stuff.
    And Shia badmouthed Transformers 2 as well…notice he’s back for a third. But also, unlike Fox, he didn’t call Bay Hitler. So, there’s that.

  31. CaptainZahn says:

    Remember when Jennifer Lopez talked smack about Cameron Diaz, Madonna, Winona Ryder, and Gwyneth Paltrow in Movieline magazine back in ’98?
    Her publicist must have schooled her hardcore after that shit.
    http://beautiful962.yuku.com/topic/3206/t/Movieline-1998.html

  32. leahnz says:

    ftr, this is the direct quote re: fox’s ‘hitler’ comment, in context (very candid):
    “When asked what Megan liked and disliked most about working with Michael Bay:
    “God, I really wish I could go loose on this one. He’s like Napoleon and he wants to create this insane, infamous mad-man reputation. He wants to be like Hitler on his sets, and he is. So he’s a nightmare to work for but when you get him away from set, and he’s not in director mode, I kind of really enjoy his personality because he’s so awkward, so hopelessly awkward. He has no social skills at all. And it’s endearing to watch him. He’s vulnerable and fragile in real life and then on set he’s a tyrant. Shia and I almost die when we make a Transformers movie. He has you do some really insane things that insurance would never let you do.” ”
    and here’s a brief youtube clip of the two with a telling moment of tension, she is clearly weary of bay:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0OeiuburIM&feature=player_embedded#!
    also, duhamel has publicly commented on bay as being a tyrant on set and a slave-driver with exhaustively long days, but funnily enough nothing much came of that in the media. i mean, there couldn’t possibly be any double-standards or sexism at work in the film industry.
    (in terms of the movies alone, fox’s character mikaela goes from being a teen-boy fantasy having at least a modicum of moxie as the hard-luck ‘tough girl’ mechanic chick with a sarcastic streak and something to do in #1 (in the city battle she shows some skills by driving the truck in reverse so that the immobilised bumblebee can join in the firefight) to being an utterly useless glossypufflipped-orange-sex-object-damsel-in-distress-done-wrong who does virtually nothing but scream ‘sam!’ a trillion times in # 2. fox may not be a genius or be able to act her way out of a paper bag, but i doubt this escaped her notice. she’s probably lucky to get out before mikaela morphs into a mere blow-up-doll sex toy for #3. and those who say the first movie and the second are pretty much the same but ‘bigger’ are not paying attention to the womenfolk, aside from perhaps leering at vacuous barbi dolls if that’s your thing)

  33. The Big Perm says:

    Well, no one really cares about Duhamel or knows who he is, so no one cares what he says. Fox and Shia are different matters.
    Fox is obviously full of shit though…for one thing, Bay has to be a tyrant because as I understand he does the A.D. duties himself. And the A.D. is always the asshole who keeps things moving, and this allows the director to remain the nice guy. Also, her talking about almost dying making the movie…does anyone believe that? If insurance wouldn’t let them do it, then how are they captured on film doing it? She sounds like a whiny baby.

  34. David Poland says:

    Sam & Malouf… not sure I could repeat the central theme more times in one piece.
    And the aside was in regards to the Patrick Goldstein piece, which took Nikki to task for Mike Fleming slapping Shia on the basis that it was hypocritical. (probably should have linked)
    The reason for the aside is that bad behavior for someone like Nikki – or me, for that matter – is not the same as an actor who is being paid millions pissing on the product.
    #1 Rule – Do NOT piss on the movie before it’s out. NEVER. Suicide.
    Not pissing on it later is, when you are dealing with a financially successful film and filmmakers who are still working, is just smart.

  35. leahnz says:

    “Fox is obviously full of shit though…for one thing, Bay has to be a tyrant because as I understand he does the A.D. duties himself. And the A.D. is always the asshole who keeps things moving, and this allows the director to remain the nice guy.”
    good grief perm, that is a remarkably bizarre comment on several levels, but mainly, do you not see that you are directly contradicting yourself in a single sentence by saying “fox is obviously full of shit” for saying bay is a tyrant, but then you immediately follow that with a comment in which you yourself confirm that bay is indeed a tyrant on set (because he has to be because he has no AD, which is almost as absurd)? sheesh.
    (but i almost forgot, you are ‘bored’ by examples of sexism and misogyny in film and the industry and therefore it doesn’t exist because it bores you; so you wave it off with some excuse, any excuse will do, she’s a whiny baby, duhamel (who said virtually the same thing) doesn’t count…i’m sure you could come up with numerous other excuses why “fox is obviously full of shit” but here’s a thought: maybe she’s actually right. you never know. you certainly don’t. you don’t know what fox has had to put up with)
    also, who knows if bay has pushed the boundaries with the actor’s stunt work, it wouldn’t be the first time in history a director asked/finessed/cajoled/bullied actors into doing stunts the insurance company wouldn’t exactly approve of. it happens

  36. Tony says:

    “I don’t recall Spielberg being mention in Project Greenlight. Supposedly Spielberg saw Shai in Holes which is what got him interested in the kid, and Shia had only just finished shooting that when he did Shaker Heights”
    Yeah, I just saw that season of Project Greenlight last year for the first time and there was no mention of Shia having anything to do with Speilberg. He had just been on a Nickelodeon show and was coming off of “Holes” when they were casting for “Shaker Heights”; their first choice was actually Emile Hirsch who at the time was just coming off of “Dangerous Lives of Alter Boys”

  37. IOv2 says:

    Tony, I disagree. Shia is talked up the entire time during that series as “The Next Big Thing”. The entire first meeting with Shia, if I remember correctly, is the basis for an entire episode because those two goofy dudes are almost fanatical about getting Shia in their film.
    I also could have sworn that they bring up Shia taking meetings and stuff and one of them being with the Beard. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but Shia has been pretty much endorsed as the Beard’s go to guy. Heck, don’t they vacation together? If I had someone that I essentially made and had help to given a good life, and they responded to something we did together as “not very good.” I would be peeved but Shia really does not need the Beard anymore, so that’s why he did this. He’s a big important movie star now. No time to be loyal to the guy that bankrolled… YOUR LIFE!
    Gross? No, your lacking of seeing how this whole episode is nothing more than a double standard is gross. Heck, if I were a young woman and some crazy socially awkward guy that goes to Lakers games and exposes his chest, decided to involve me in the biggest on screen gasoline fueled explosion of all-time. I am sure that I would have wonderful things to say about him. Seeing as… I am a man… I could get away with it. Slap some lady parts on me and I better get ready for a career in Cinemax after dark films. Here’s hoping Fox finds someone to put her in a film that makes her a huge star, so she can figuratively stick it to Bay and Co.

  38. Cadavra says:

    Call me crazy, but how does Bay get away with not having a first A.D. on a union shoot?

  39. The Big Perm says:

    You’re disagreeing with facts, IO…because like Tony I also recently watched Greenlight…as in a few months ago so it’s pretty fresh in my mind. At that time, the movie in which Spielberg has said Shia caught his eye and MADE him his go-to guy had just finished being shot. Spielberg was never mentioned.
    And what are you saying “here’s hoping someone puts her in a film and makes her a huge star?” I think someone already did that, and she shit on him! What credits did she have before Bay? What magazine covers?
    And leahnz, I know you have difficulty with complex thought, and I can imagine you reading this, brow burrowed, trying to figure stuff out, so I’ll try to write very clearly. She’s full of shit because she’s whining that Bay is a tyrant. But Bay is his own A.D., who is usually the tyrant. If there is not someone kicking ass on a movie set, then nothing gets done. Since there is no A.D. that is Bay kicking ass. Part of the job as an actor, so suck it up.
    But even that would be okay if she only complained that Bay is a meanie and barks lots of orders even though he’s setting up ridiculously complcated shots on a huge set. Her talking about how their lives were in danger…okay as you say, who knows for sure, right? But I have to believe we’re not looking at any John Landis situation and she was perfectly safe. Insurance won’t let Jackie Chan do simple stunts here, you think Megan Fox is running through explosions?

  40. Foamy Squirrel says:

    I have vague recollections of Josh Duhamel confirming the insurance rumours. The movement of the robots was represented by strings of rather large squibs, so the cast were told not to slow down or the explosions would overtake them.
    They were also connected by chains to large cranes which would suddenly yank them, in a similar manner to Susan Backlinie who had her ribs broken as the first victim in “Jaws”, whenever the action called for them to be manhandled by a Decepticon.

  41. leahnz says:

    “And leahnz, I know you have difficulty with complex thought, and I can imagine you reading this, brow burrowed, trying to figure stuff out, so I’ll try to write very clearly.”
    lol, yes perm, you should make an effort to write very clearly because you rather suck at it. and really, personal insults are such a snooze. is that the best you can do? funny how when i point out that you’ve rather absurdly contradicted yourself, instead of just addressing the issue your inept response is to call me dumb. when it comes right down to it, YOU GOT NOTHING (see, i could have easily called you dumb after what you wrote, which was actually very dumb, but instead i addressed the issues around the topic of debate instead of resorting to a personal insult of your intelligence)
    now newsflash, silly boy, bay is not his own AD (crew credits. read them). many directors vary in the tasks they do personally on a shoot/on set, and the exact purview of the AD varies from director to director, film to film, according to the director’s personal style, requirements and the size of the shoot. you’d know this if you had any idea what you’re actually talking about instead of acting like a big-shot. bay makes big flicks and most certainly has AD’s. how he uses them is his choice.
    and you excusing bay’s behavior because he’s doing AD duties is about the stupidest thing i’ve read in a long time. epic fail.
    now, did fox exaggerate the danger her and shia were in? i don’t know, i’m guessing yes because actors are drama queens by nature, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t pushed to do things that had an inherent element of peril because the director is a bully. big stunts can and do go wrong. duhamel also confirms this.
    the truth is, you’re just being a dick for the sake of it, you’re not on the trannies set, you have NO IDEA what bay has done so that his cast (and crew, there are several instances where crew have confirmed bay’s tyrannical tendencies) to call him a tyrant. your “stupid whiny fox, man up!” is just too lame, like you have any inkling what’s happened on that shoot to have any opinion, yet alone telling fox to suck it up. give me a break, little tinpot producer or whatever it is you think you are)

  42. David Poland says:

    Look… there are people who will tell you that Bay (and Cameron) have killed and/or seriously injured people on their sets. Neither has ever been charged with anything like that, a la John Landis. But both are controversial figures in terms of pushing the envelope on sets.
    I’m not accusing either myself. The last time I covered a Bay accident, it was a chopper crash and death that happened while a pilot was re-setting… not when Bay told him to fly in a less safe way.
    I guess this can be an issue here. But it’s not what I was writing about.
    If every actress told The Truth about her experiences, more than half the directors, producers, and execs in town would not be allowed to work again after the avalanche of lawsuits.
    After all these years, I have stopped being quite as judgmental about the men who force themselves on women in this town and the women who welcome them in exchange for a career (or the hope of one). It’s a nasty game, but I guess I have become jaded enough to give up on the idea that these ambitious people are, on either side, victims.
    That said… dissing your films and the filmmakers you have worked for in public is rude and dumb.
    And if you think that Steven Spielberg doesn’t have the highest level stories to tell, shredding any number of movie stars, you’d be wrong. And he could do it and still be beyond any of their reach. But he doesn’t. Because he is an adult.
    I have seen his eyes light up, as everyone’s do, when his anger rises and he has something off the record to say. But in my very limited experience, he only goes there when he feels that someone or some company is actively trying to hurt him and/or his business.
    Even Geffen, who can be a diabolical genius of rage and clearly knows he is beyond the reach of anyone he might attack, doesn’t do this kind of petty stuff in public.
    There are those who use outbursts of “truth” as a tool to prove intimacy, attempting (usually with success) manipulation. But they aren’t on the record, as a rule.
    Even the Sumner Redstone spin about Tom Cruise… bullshit, making excuses for a really bad previous business decision that pissed him off.
    Anyway…

  43. Foamy Squirrel says:

    John Sessions tells a brilliant story about 1st AD David Tomlin on the set of “Ghandi”. There were a million or so extras during the funeral scene, so director Richard Attenborough told David, “I want you to convey to them that Ghandi has died, and that it’s an extraordinary event in the whole history of India. Their national hero has died, and he’s like a god to them and the experience is absolutely unbearable”
    So David Tomlin grabs his megaphone and turns to the crowd and yells, “Listen up! Ghandi’s dead and you’re all fucking sad!”

  44. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Oh look, there’s even
    a youtube of John Sessions doing the voices too.

  45. leahnz says:

    So David Tomlin grabs his megaphone and turns to the crowd and yells, “Listen up! Ghandi’s dead and you’re all fucking sad!”
    that’s hilarious
    so DP, you’re really comparing some extremely wealthy, powerful, influential men in the film industry with inevitable dirt on actors and their propensity to keep their lips zipped by way of carefully maintained smiling public facades, to a couple of silly kids in positions of virtually zero power and influence who happen to be rather candid and open about their experiences (instead of doing the expected towing of the line and kissing of the ass), and you’re chastising the latter for not having the cultivated cunning of the former to ‘keep quiet’? i’m not sure if i’m understanding you there, but if so, how status quo of you.
    (personally i hope more actors rock the boat and start blabbing publicly about their experiences and what goes on behind the curtain and the quality of the work, blow that shit wide open and air out all those musty closets crammed with skeletons. light is the best disinfectant. after all, one could argue any publicity is good publicity; trannies 3 will no doubt get a boost from looky-loos curios to see who fills foxes shoes. just spell the names right)
    “After all these years, I have stopped being quite as judgmental about the men who force themselves on women in this town and the women who welcome them in exchange for a career (or the hope of one). It’s a nasty game, but I guess I have become jaded enough to give up on the idea that these ambitious people are, on either side, victims.”
    so, men in positions of power who take sexual advantage of ambitious, often deluded young women in positions of no power desperate to further their careers are not abusing their position, and said parties are on an equal footing in such matters free of any victimisation on EITHER side? well hey, nice to see the patriarchal paradigm is alive and well, whereby ambitious young women (and probably young men to a lesser degree) in positions of no power beyond that of the power of beauty, and for whom sex is their only currency, are conveniently held to equal responsibility and accountability as equitable participants in such affairs with those who are in charge and set/enforce the rules of the game, wherein the imbalance of power is clearly evident but easy to rationalise away by the those with the traditional upper hand. more status quo

  46. The Big Perm says:

    Your dumbass problem is that you’re taking an interview and just assuming that everything Megan Fox is saying is relatively true. You said I wasn’t on the Transformers set…that’s true. Neither were you. So what the fuck do you know? You don’t know shit about Bay’s behavior on set. A lot of actors are giant pussies and being told what to do hurts their feelings, I see it all the time. You don’t KNOW, so why are you being so judgmental? You make assumptions based on that Bay is a wealthy famous director who makes crappy movies and is insanely rich and powerful, and you are ignored and…I mean Megan was supposedly pushed around by him and almost killed numerous times.

  47. David Poland says:

    Actually, Lesb, trying to simplify it the way you have in this last post is “status quo.”
    I wish the world was filled with Peter Jacksons, but it’s not. (And I’m sure that someone, somewhere has something bad to say about him too… though I have never heard anything close to anger about him – aside from the NL lawsuit – actually.)
    I know actresses who sexed their way into careers who are perfectly happy to have used their assets to get ahead. It was The Hedgehog who said, at Slamdance, that the greatest misconception about the porn business was that the women had to be recruited or seduced or drugged into the business. The truth is, there are too many of them who want to get in for the industry to absorb, even in the era of homemade porn and pro porn that looks homemade.
    But then, from a moral perspective, one must consider whether the vast majority of these women have already been sexually abused by the time they get to porn and are acting out primarily as a way to take control of their bodies back.
    But as you go down that road, you start to think about tattoos, which in American culture, is also often seen as a means of controlling one’s body. Should every woman with an armful of tatts be considered a likely victim of molestation? Same question for piercers.
    You misunderstand me if you think I am not disgusted by every single conversation I have had about a powerful heterosexual man (or woman… or gay man) taking advantage of someone who wanted something that he could potentially deliver.
    But here is the rub.
    You have to draw a line somewhere about what is the responsibility of the individual and what is the responsibility of their history, society, The System, etc.
    I DO consider myself morally culpable for bad behavior in which I include others. For me, personally, a woman who offers sex in return for soemthing – pretty much anything – is my victim if I accept. That is how I see it. That is how I see myself in the mirror. But for em to impose that morality on others is extreme.
    And as with the discussion on Shia and Megan, it’s not just capital M Morality to me. It’s basic civility and self-respect. The notion of a $150 dinner equaling an inevitable blow job has never felt good to me. It’s always seems like an informal kind of pay to play.
    But Leah… the world keeps spinning. People have sex for all kinds of reasons, trading on all kinds of assets. The subtleties of barter cold fill multi-terabyte hard drives… without the pictures.
    Even in the pursuit of True Love, it’s a bit like opening weekend for a movie. You don’t really know whether you want to see the movie until you are seeing it. Something needs to bring the audience of 1 into the theater. Is it her ass or his wallet or her laugh or his great hair or her perspective on life or his genius, etc, etc, etc.
    And how do we judge unless we are intimately familiar with the circumstances?
    I would support Megan Fox or any other actor 100% if they made a labor claim against a director or crew member for dangerous or overtly sexist (or racist or orietation-ist, etc) behavior. That takes guts and it requires detail and fact that can hold up.
    But there are plenty of successful actresses out there who will take a knee for a job. And I am not amused or excited by the fact. But there are plenty of horrible directors who work because they are good in a meeting or over a meal or on a trip to Vegas and there are hairdressers from who leapfrog the LA union and work for specific stars because they kissed their asses for years in NY and there are a hundred ways in which the decisions are made based on relationships of some kind and not based on solid reason.
    And having spent some time around people who do all kinds of not-so-good things, I have to say, I am not worried about some exec demanding a lapdance from the next Dakota Fanning so she can work. I think that women and men who are willing to play for pay (of whatever kind) make themselves known… and not just in the entertainment industry.
    Your presumption that someone has “no power beyond that of the power of beauty, and for whom sex is their only currency” is – though I often feel the same way – a bit old-fashioned and sexist.
    It gets very blurry. Did Monica Lewinsky want to put Li’l Bill in her mouth? I say, “Yes.” No coercion. But did he have a responsibility, as her employer – beyond being married, president, etc – to say, “No, thanks?” In my opinion, absolutely, In the opinion of many others, including feminists who sold themselves out on this issue because he was a well-liked liberal president, not so much.
    My personal code is pretty black and white. Probably too much so sometimes. But I am not the morality police. And I see a lot of gray in the lives of those who walk this line.
    I do get moralistic in here. But for me, those are always much bigger picture issues than any one person’s personal behavior. For instance, the Polanski thing is a discussion of morality much more so than it is a discussion of Polanski. Other weasels have scurried back into the gutter and this one is not an ongoing danger to society as such. But if you excuse specific, admitted, clear, extreme immoral, illegal behavior because you like someone or their work or yes, even if the victim said “give it up,” you are eviscerating the idea of any moral standard.
    You know, in Rwanda, they have those hearings where the murderers speak of what they did and are, in principle, forgiven. That country needs to do that to continue on without more self-destruction. Jews can’t hate all Germans still and be reasonable. And we can’t hate all Muslims because of 9/11.
    Gray.

  48. LexG says:

    Anyone else re-read the above Dakota Fanning sentence three times, extra slow?

  49. christian says:

    Only you creepy.

  50. leahnz says:

    perm: i haven’t voiced judgement on any party in this issue, i merely posted some links that speak for themselves, and pointed out that duhamel has also stated publicly virtually the same thing as fox about bay and the stunts, and so has his crew on several occasions, it’s a matter of public record.
    YOU, on the other hand, posted this statement, which is is an obvious judgement of fox, when you have no idea what you are talking about (and further, you then go on to defend bay)
    “Fox is obviously full of shit though”
    so say again, who’s judgemental in this? have i said: “bay is a full of shit” or ‘this is obviously bay’s fault”, even once? no, but you have. take a look in the mirror
    and DP….did you just call me LESB?
    classy move. if that wasn’t a typo, you really are a bit of an ass. are you a fratboy who is so insecure that he must label women who don’t tow the line a lesbian? if it was a typo, then whatever, i really hope so because to be honest, i expect more from you. maybe i’m wrong.
    at any rate, you’ve completely missed my point and that’s a huge post, responding to individual points it is just too much, but i will say:
    bringing the extreme example of the porn industry into the conversation to back yourself up is absurd, you can do better than that, i would hope (also, siting one person’s – a man’s? – opinion about why women get into porn, as if they could possibly know or be in every woman’s head to know the REAL truth, is weak. and you say, “THE TRUTH IS”…. you know THE TRUTH? i doubt that very much, i think you know what you’re told) i can tell you one thing, the vast majority of the porn industry is a stone cold excellent example of the patriarchal paradigm at work, whether you want to believe it or not.
    as for the rest, i would redirect you back to this portion of my comment:
    “[young women] are conveniently held to equal responsibility and accountability as EQUITABLE PARTICIPANTS in such affairs with those who are in charge and set/enforce the rules of the game, wherein the imbalance of power is clearly evident but easy to rationalise away by the those with the traditional upper hand.”
    i submit that 90% of what you wrote above is a perfect example of ‘rationalise away’ as per my assertion above. please, don’t pretend you understand both sides clearly, because you are a bloke and you look at everything from a male perspective, like it or not.
    also, please point out anywhere in my comment that i say young women are not responsible for their actions, they most certainly are, that is not the point.
    my observation is one of the great patriarchal paradigm to which you are apparently blind, the larger CONTEXT of women operating within patriarchal culture, conditioned from childhood by that very culture to use their looks/wiles to get ahead/what they want/make easy $, because this perfectly suits men who are likewise largely conditioned from early on to view women as objects for their pleasure.
    the men in charge of the game like to delude themselves into believing that women with no power who play ‘the game’ to get ahead are somehow on an equal playing field, equally accountable/responsible for what occurs, simply because women may do something willingly. this is, of course, just a construct those in power use to excuse exploiting those with none.
    your mistake is that in thinking that women who may play into the game willingly to get ahead, who allow themselves to be exploited for $ and appear unscathed by it, are not themselves the very product of the patriarchal paradigm.
    it is abundantly clear throughout human civilisation that those in positions of power ALWAYS have the upper hand, and also, the greater responsibility, which is the hard part. the self-delusion of those in power who assign equal responsibility to an inherently inequitable situation, in order to absolve themselves of the responsibility of abusing their power for personal gain, is the issue i was addressing, and what you largely ignored in most of your statements above.
    do women play the game to get ahead? of course, we are well trained to and often don’t even realise it. and i think it may actually be worse now than ever in many respects, sadly, with the hyper-sexualisation of girls from a younger and younger age and a society that tolerates, even condones, this. if the paradigm ever shifts and women achieve actually equality in society on every level, do you think young women will still need to drop to their knees and blow some guy to get ahead and think it’s all in a day’s work? we’ll see. or not.

  51. LexG says:

    “and DP….did you just call me LESB?”
    I’ve been laughing about that for two hours now. It gets funnier every time I read it.
    Leah: If women are willing to do it, men should have NO QUALMS about it. THE greatest thing about CAPITALISM is ANY GUY WITH MONEY can get a HOT CHICK to do ANYTHING to advance herself.
    If that’s not awesome, I don’t know what is. You can be some fat Burt Young-looking slob, but if you’ve got 40 mil in the bank, you can get all the L.A. coke-whore action you can handle. “Hot fucking action to the maxx.” YEP YEP.
    Considering it the EVENING OF THE TABLES, considering WOMYN CONTROL EVERYTHING for sadsack schmos with no power. Currency is the great equalizer. And again, WOMEN ARE WILLING to sell themselves. At least I’m banking on it.

  52. christian says:

    I wasn’t sure about that “Lesb” either but if DP was aiming that at you…he proves your point.

  53. LexG says:

    I just read it again.
    Yep, still funny.

  54. LexG says:

    Also Leah:
    Every single coffee date, overpriced dinner date– hell, EVERY SINGLE EXCHANGE BETWEEN *any* and every man and women on this planet is one thing and ONE THING ONLY: Bartering for sex. Spend enough, you get some sex. Every moment of every male-female interaction in the universe is based on money, power, and the sex for which the former can be traded.
    LEYKIS 101, BABY.

  55. leahnz says:

    sorry you are so repetitive, lex, i fell asleep. what was that again?
    oh, go have a wank boy, your brain is clogged with jizz

  56. leahnz says:

    oh and lex: thank YOU for proving my point. your ignorance is perfect

  57. christian says:

    Yeah, Leykis 101 has made Lex the man he is.

  58. leahnz says:

    well you know how it is, big fat bullies tend to herd together, much like cows

  59. David Poland says:

    Sorry – and I am thinking maybe both Lex and Leah will be disappointed – that was absolutely a typo. Sorry.
    I’d fix, but it would seem to be something that would make the thread confusing. If you want to me to do it anyway, Leah, I will.
    You’ve been hear a long time. I would think you would be clear that shots like that are not my style.
    As for the rest, the patriarchy is what it is. We can debate that. But a one-0sided system does not excuse bad behavior from the less powerful. Spreading your legs for a job is not the only way in… no more than blackmailing your boss is the only way to advancement by men.
    And porn is an extreme example? Seriously?
    It has been my hypothesis for many years that “we know what you are… we’re just negotiating price.” Professional girlfriend or Hooters waitress, casting couch girl or porn star, I acknowledge a difference between each, but I also see a mindset that is very much the same. Yes, some strippers are working their way through college. Most are not.
    I thought your whole point was that Hollywood men treat women like strippers and hookers. So how is porn a reach?
    It’s a cheap out, rhetorically, to try to claim I am “apparently blond” to “the great patriarchal paradigm.” Nothing I have written suggests that there is NO patriarchal paradigm. But perhaps we see its degree of power differently.
    Gray.
    This is the problem I get into when arguments like these start. You and I agree 85% of the way, Leah… but you are so committed to your position of near-absolutism that I have to be EVIL and DELUSIONAL to disagree with you that 15%. I respect (and am pleased to engage with) your fight. But there is no conversation with you on this.
    Again… gray.

  60. David Poland says:

    More typos… less heinous

  61. Thefoulness says:

    Shia talked smack about Indy 4 AFTER it came out, so that’s okay with me. If he’d done it during release, that would be a different story. Then you’d be fucking your collaborators and that’s a no-no. But it’s okay after the fact to say you were in a dud. It happens. Much different than attacking the filmmaker. Which is what Fox did, and justified or not, it’s still a bad move since it looks like it got her fired.
    And Megan Fox getting fired off Transformers is not a good thing for Megan Fox. Anytime you get fired it looks bad on you, period. For it to happen right before Jonah Hex comes out is a total disaster – b/c Hex is almost sure to bomb and Fox will get the blame, even though she has a thankless part that’s in like 10% of the movie. But J’s Body bomb plus fired from Transformers plus Jonah Hex bomb equals the world piles on Megan Fox. Tough to get up from that.
    Next step seems like Fox sues for damages, right? Does anyone know what she was getting paid for the Tranny 3? You gotta think they worked out her deal before the 1st one so it isn’t so extravagant that it doesn’t make sense to just pay her to avoid a nasty lawsuit. But I’d still love to see a judge ask Michael Bay if he had anything to do with that long diatribe against Fox – since I sort of take it as fact that he wrote it himself.

  62. Foamy Squirrel says:

    I don’t think she can sue for damages – the way I understand it the producers had an option to the renew and didn’t exercise, so there was no deal to break.

  63. LexG says:

    Utter insanity that it could even POSSIBLY be “all over” for THE FOX because of Jennifer’s Body (masterpiece), Jonah Hex (Brolin is a GUARANTEE of awesomeness), and the lack of T3.
    Meanwhile, that OLD CRONE Sarah Jessica Parker is still around doing her best John Merrick impression after 25 years, and THE SECOND MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMAN ALIVE and CHARISMA AVALANCHE Megan Fox gets relegated to DTV within a span of five years?
    That is messed up.

  64. Stella's Boy says:

    Jonah Hex might do OK Lex. The second weekend of A-Team is probably chasing the same audience, but depending on how A-Team catches on and Hex’s marketing, it could make some nice coin.

  65. LexG says:

    ANOTHER POINT, all shall listen:
    I am the biggest Josh Brolin fan in the world, he’s practically my favorite big actor of the moment, but…
    Why this tone that if HEX flops, it’s over for Megan? I’ve seen this argument here and at Wells’s and Finke’s blogs.
    How is that remotely fair??? Isn’t it, you know, Brolin’s movie? There’s absolutely no doubt that if it tanks, Brolin will continue to be in big-time Coen, Van Sant, Stone, Scott type movies. It could make 8 mil domestic, and it will not affect Brolin’s career in the SLIGHTEST, beyond MAYBE ruling him out as a lead in superhero flicks from here out… which I doubt he’d be too broken up over anyway, with the parade of great directors lined up to cast him.
    So how does the female eye-candy romantic sidekick awesome chick MEGAN catch ANY blame for its potential B.O. disappointment? How is it on her?
    For that matter, Jennifer’s Body was as much an Amanda Seyfried movie as it was a Fox; Granted, all the promotion was centered around Fox, but AGAIN…
    As with Lindsay, she is being PERSECUTED for BEING TOO HOT AND AWESOME, because bitter women and rageful fanboys can’t just be mature and ADMIT that Megan Fox or Lindsay Lohan is a GOD and superior to them in EVERY SINGLE WAY.
    On this issue I should be awarded by NOW for my feminist insights. Two sterling examples of American sexism and marginalization of HOT CHICKS.

  66. Stella's Boy says:

    You’re right Lex. Fox should not be blamed of Hex tanks. I’m sure her role in thankless female sidekick/eye candy. Fox shouldn’t be blamed for Jennifer’s Body either. Look at the box office track record of horror comedies. The marketing wasn’t great. Not her fault.

  67. LexG says:

    I love her SO MUCH.
    Megan is the coolest chick in the world, except for K-Stew. Dakota in third, then Seyfried, Taylor Swift, Biel, Alba, Taylor Momsen…
    I love them all– Yay female celebrities, better than real women! They are like a breath of comforting sun with their greatness.
    I should get a job at a chic celebrity shoe store or something. mmmmm

  68. Triple Option says:

    LexG wrote: For that matter, Jennifer’s Body was as much an Amanda Seyfried movie as it was a Fox; Granted, all the promotion was centered around Fox, but AGAIN…

  69. LexG says:

    jonah lex
    haha funy

  70. leahnz says:

    DP:
    “Sorry – and I am thinking maybe both Lex and Leah will be disappointed – that was absolutely a typo. Sorry.”
    oh really?
    i guess you missed my “if it was a typo, then whatever, i really hope so because to be honest…” comment, or do you doubt i was being forthright? please don’t lump me in with lex, i think ive presented my opinion in at least a reasonable manner and not like a raving hateful ass.
    and really, please don’t play the victim. saying i’ve called you EVIL and DELUSIONAL or even vaguely implied such a thing is a complete misrepresentation on your part, i did no such thing. the only reference i made to delusion was to those in positions of power, and no offence but i would have thought it was quite clear i wasn’t referring to you personally, it was a general statement. where you get EVIL from is beyond me and completely OTT.
    if you think we agree 85% i actually thing that pretty good for common ground. as far as being inflexible in my opinion, yes, is there some law that because we are discussing something on a blog one has to be flexible in one’s beliefs? this is a bizarre concept. no, i’m not flexible in my observation of the power structure, attitudes and social constructs inherent to patriarchal culture, nor am i required to be just because you don’t happen to agree with me on something and have your own viewpoint.
    naturally you are entitled to your way of thinking, and i’m entitled to mine. i wholly accept that you opinion may differ from mine and will happily listen to and discuss it with you or anybody for that matter, but are you flexible in your opinion, can i make you change your mind, or do you think you know what you know? you defend your position, i defend mine. i’ve been reading you for quite a long time and i don’t find you particularly particularly flexible in your opinons, so i’m not sure why i am expected to be.
    i suspect there are certain things we absolutely will not agree on because of the differences in our perspective and experiences, and that’s fine, par for the course. but just because you see something as as ‘gray’ as you keep repeating does not mean i do, nor do i have to accept that it is indeed a grey area because you think it is. some of your opinions are based on assumptions that i don’t necessarly think are valid. so it goes. if i feel you or anyone for that matter makes a good point i try to say so if i have time, i’m constantly open to learning and interested in other’s interpretations and perspectives, but this doesn’t mean i have to concede you’re/they’re right if i don’t think that’s the case.
    just briefly, at NO time have i excused ‘bad’ behavior of ‘the powerless’. everyone must take responsibility for their own actions and face the consequences (tho the consequences for those with power and those without are not always equitable)
    both men and women mainly operate within the parameters of social/cultural conditioning, the difference being that the power structure was set up by men to cater for their needs, with women as ‘supporting players’ with few options. this is of course changing and women are progressively waking up to the fact that they can write their own playbook, play the game differently and needn’t pander to the status quo, but challenging accepted norms and the accepted social order is VERY DIFFICULT, and let’s face it, something that men just don’t really have to deal with. when you don’t have to deal with something in your life, it’s often hard to really understand it. for women it’s much easier to go with the flow and play the game as dictated to get ahead.
    the truth is, men exploit women for $ and women debase themselves for $, it’s an accepted paradigm of patriarchal culture. a paradigm shift is not only ‘up to women’ to affect tho, it’s also up to men to take responsibility for attitudes and behaviour, and stop blaming women – half the population and yet still a long way from social equality, which is inexplicable.
    placing the onus of responsibility for the proliferation of sexual favours in return for some advantage where it belongs – with the person in the position of power using that advantage to dictate an outcome that could be just as easily achieved without sexual favours and debasement, rather than on the often person in a position of lesser power – is one such step.
    (and to answer your question, porn is a reach because it’s an extreme example of the exploitation of women in patriarchal culture, and when having conversation about gender and social/cultural paradigms, it’s best to leave the extremes at both ends out of the mix because by nature extremes are not representative of the general group, and using extremes to make a point about the group at large is untenable. now, just because a wannabe actress might work at hooters or pose nude, or even perform a sexual favour to advance her career, by no means does this indicates she is capable of doing pornography or a porn star in the making, that is simply absurd. women who end up in hard-core porn for any length of time (and i’ve know 3, or 4 actually in my life) are very likely: EXTREME exhibitionists first and foremost, extremely cavalier about sex for whatever reason (often as a result of a sexual dysfunction), and with pathological need to be looked at as sexual and have ‘public’ sex as reassurance of their worth. while the progressive normalisation of porn into the mainstream thanks to the internet is troubling on a few levels (the most heinous of of which is the follow-on proliferation of child porn), to suggest or assume it is representative of actresses as a whole in any meaningful way is spurious. i think people in LA get a skewed view of the porn industry because of its prevalence there)

  71. leahnz says:

    sorry for any typos/weird grammar, i wrote that hurriedly

  72. David Poland says:

    The problem I have with your take, Leah, is the notion that men set up the paradigm… like the Trilateral Commission is in charge of society.
    Women are, no question, a disadvantaged group over time, that are moving into a much less disadvantaged position over time. Just like many ethnic minorities.
    But no one lives their life in macro. Life is lived in micro.
    Yes, there are systemic issues that are so ingrained that they aren’t even considered in any real way anymore.
    But when Actress X gets on her knees to blow Producer X in pursuit of an acting job (not a $10 an hour job that she need to pay rent, which is a completely different power relationship), I have a hard time blaming the patriarchy. That doesn’t mean I think the patriarchy doesn’t exist, though i imagine we see its level of power differently.

  73. leahnz says:

    “The problem I have with your take, Leah, is the notion that men set up the paradigm… like the Trilateral Commission is in charge of society.”
    woa, holy shit, DP, are you serious? i honestly don’t know what to say, i’m genuinely flabbergasted and that’s pretty rare for me. i have a hard time believing you are that ignorant, naive or in denial. are you playing devil’s advocate here? yikes (let’s see now, how many women in your 100-member senate? hmmm)
    i should probably just leave it because i don’t know what planet you are on, at the very least floating down that river in egypt, but by way of explanation i refer you to human history and the record thereof (i assume you are aware of the indisputable fact that historically speaking, up until very recently – mere decades ago in fact in some instances – women had virtually no autonomy and very few rights such as that to vote, own marital property – in fact women were regarded basically AS property – not to be raped by their spouses and have it be legal, etc etc, all the while being dependant on men for survival for themselves and their children with few to no options, legal recourse or financial or social independence. in many places in the world, this is still the case today.
    so who exactly do you think set up this power structure, and to whose benefit is said structure, from early civilisation onward (much of it reinforced by patriarchal religious dogma) in which women were systematically oppressed as second-class citizens…women? of of course…oh, wait…
    good god man, you can’t honestly believe that men aren’t responsible for putting into place the power structure and social paradigms under which society still largely operates today. if so, you may need to visit an optometrist.
    (and did you just compare women, half of all humanity, to an “ethnic minorty”? wow, that almost takes the cake)
    “But when Actress X gets on her knees to blow Producer X in pursuit of an acting job (not a $10 an hour job that she need to pay rent, which is a completely different power relationship), I have a hard time blaming the patriarchy.”
    huh? actually, considering what you’ve just said that’s hardly surprising (and obviously you haven’t given a moments thought to single word i’ve written on the subject in this thread, but whatever, that’s your prerogative. that 85% common ground thing tho? your first paragraph in this comment proves that’s absolute BS, no need for that, at least be honest)
    so you don’t see the inherent patriarchal power play of an actress having to blow a male producer to get a part?
    briefly:
    there is a person in a position of power supposedly able to wield it to get an actress a job (producer x), and there is a person without any power going into the situation who wants a job (actress x), right? do you at least ‘get’ that the producer and the actress do NOT start out on an equal footing as far as power-brokering in this scenario goes? i hope so; if not just don’t bother reading any further.
    but if so: if the producer is in the position to get an actress a role, why does he have to have a blow job, exactly? why is payment of sexual favours necessary? there is absolutely NOTHING preventing the producer from doing the professional and honorable thing and getting her the role out of professional courtesy or (god forbid) competence if indeed he is able to do so. so again, why exactly is payment by way of a sexual favour necessary?
    (hint: it has to do with the patriarchal paradigm wherein since year dot men in positions of power have sexually exploited women in positions of no power for absolutely no reason apart from for their own gratification)
    so please, explain to me how this isn’t the very essence of the patriarchal paradigm at play. but given you don’t even acknowledge that patriarchal culture was set up by men for the benefit of men…
    do you think female producers routinely require young actors to ear their pussies in order to get a role? now, why is that do you think? are you starting to get the picture?
    maybe this will get you to think beyond your blinkered assumptions to the root, the CORE of the matter, to see the forest rather than just the trees. you say no one lives their life in macro? you are so very wrong. we live under the macro of social conditioning, norms and assumptions day in, day out without even thinking about it. ironically, i think you might have just offered yourself up as proof.

  74. leahnz says:

    a friend of mine (a guy indecently) just read this and said, “so how many of the founding fathers weren’t dudes?”

  75. leahnz says:

    i meant ‘a guy INCIDENTALLY’, bloody hell

  76. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Oooh… indecently, eh? Got some gossip there? 😉

  77. leahnz says:

    facepalm. i’m actually with TWO guys right now, but don’t make anything of it

  78. christian says:

    Since David wanted to reward the most sexist, proto-misogynist playa here with a column (his fun take on movies notwithstanding) I don’t think DP is the “go to” guy for patriarchal issues;]

  79. David Poland says:

    Yeah, Christian… I also have a long history of working with and hiring women… and have even gotten my balls in the wringer for trying to promote female writers who have previously traded on their looks without trading on their looks Barking up the wrong tree there.
    Leah… there is no end to this, as I see you position as too extreme to ever budge an inch and you see me through a pig prism for suggesting anything less than MALE POWER as the central force in the world.
    You’re fluttering heart over me comparing women to ethnic minorities is so over the top and intentionally avoiding the point that there is no reasoning with you.
    I cannot take away the social advantages of being a tall, not ugly, bright, white male. But I have been Jew- bashed. I have lived with sisters who have acculturated quite differently from one another and a mother who took a fourth path and a father who aspired to and achieved status in the partiarchy.
    I disregard nothing. But I believe blacks can be racist, women can be pigs, and men can see past their dicks. Not all of them… In any of these categories. But if you want to know the #1 advantage of being a white male, it’s not constantly trying to prove I’m a victim.
    That doesn’t mean that inequity isn’t real. But lingering in the inequities is the best way to keep them going.
    Why is a black man in the White House? Because he didn’t pretend to be white… but he didn’t make race the center of his campaign.
    Why is Sarah Palin, a true weak sister, more popular than Hilary Clinton? Because she fights like a boy, but still looks like a girl? Is that fair? No. Is it smart? No. But it’s true. And it’s true for female voters as much as male voters. (Fortunately, she is too radical politically and unstable philosophically to win nationally.)
    In the end, your belief system is that women are victims. That means that they cannot be held responsible. And that means, they can never be winners.
    Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. But those who use it as a shield are forever on the defense.

  80. leahnz says:

    christ, DP, sometimes your ability to miss a point is absolutely STAGGERING
    rather revealing that you should accuse me of using history as a shield and being on the defense, very ‘member of the ruling class oppressor’ in attitude of you, for whom conveniently ignoring historical context and accusing those who’ve had to fight – and still fight – for social equality of being ‘defensive’ is typical self-righteous preening.
    also i noticed you conveniently sidestepped my questions:
    why are blowjobs/sexual favours as payment to men in positions of power/influence necessary for career advancement of young actresses, when women in power somehow manage to do their jobs and deal with/cast young actors without cunnilingus as part of the equation?
    and how is it that women have to essentially sell themselves for a role when there is no practical reason whatsoever to have to do so other than so a man with influence can get his rocks off before he simply DOES HIS JOB?
    you’ve stated that this is not a function of patriarchal culture (when clearly it is; women selling themselves so men can get off is a cornerstone of the patriarchy and has been for iceages), please provide an alternative explanation for why young women who sell/debase themselves completely unnecessarily to men in positions of influence get ahead faster? i’m looking forward to your response to that, not all this other nonsense where you simply ignore and twist things to suite your own indignant viewpoint.
    at any rate, i guess hearing the truth is difficult for you. or perhaps you honestly don’t comprehend the concepts i’ve written about here. actually that sounds likely, given THIS is what you’ve apparently gleaned:
    “Leah… there is no end to this, as I see you position as too extreme to ever budge an inch and you see me through a pig prism for suggesting anything less than MALE POWER as the central force in the world.”
    huh? how convenient that in this assesment of our back & forth, both your observations are based on me, in that 1) according to you my position is too extreme as you see it, and then your ridiculous fabrication that 2) i see you as a *pig* and ‘male power is the central’ force nonsense, in which you falsely victimise yourself by my imaginary hand, me having said no such thing. curious how this little assessment doesn’t involve you or your attitudes, i guess it’s convenient not to have to consider your own POV as having any bearing in a discussion, beyond the vignettes you offer in your own positive defense that really have little to do with the topic at hand of pervasive patriarchal paradigms/attitudes at work in society.
    (but than again, you can’t seem to wrap your head around the fact that most of human civilization has been a paean to patriarchal culture and male ambition upon which the oppression of women as a subservient and without rights has been very much dependant, so i don’t know why your comments continue to surprise me)
    “In the end, your belief system is that women are victims. That means that they cannot be held responsible. And that means, they can never be winners.”
    really, your telling me that’s my belief system? so glad you could clear that up for me…good lord that is about the silliest thing i’ve ever read. not only do you have the gall to tell me what my belief system is, but you get it so colossally and catastrophically wrong it’s almost comedic in your ability to be off base, so i’ll give points for comedic lack of comprehension.
    all of what i’ve written has largely been an attempt to examine the CONTEXT of social conditioning and prevailing attitudes, which you just don’t seem to get AT ALL, simply content to look at the results as if they mean everything. again, i have NEVER said or implied that women are victims by nature and aren’t responsible for their actions; in fact i clearly stated earlier that women are responsible for their actions and have to accept the consequences thereof. unlike your little floating observational vignettes about sexism and female culpability, i’ve attempted to look at the CAUSES of behaviour, whereby under the auspices of patriarchal culture certain attitudes by men in power and women who want to advance their careers are dictated as ‘the norm’ — and to further point out that ultimate responsibility for taking unnecessary sexual advantage lies with the person exerting their power and influence, and that holding the person with little power in the scenario to equal responsibility is a deflection designed to ease the conscious of the exploiter. this behavior is rather typical of men loathe to take responsibility for exploitative behavior and who wish to pass responsibility off onto the exploited (a common theme in patriarchal culture from the ‘she led me on/asked for it’ defence to rape to the ‘she got me mad so it’s her fault i hit her’ defence for violence). however this does in no way excuse women from participating in the sham of ‘sexual favours for jobs’ because it’s the far easier option, not at all. women must take a long look at themselves and teach children of both sexes to do much better. but to view both players in a game where sexual flavours are required as ‘equals’ in what is an inherently unequal power play is, frankly, a male fallacy.)
    your need to reduce what i’ve written here into a bizarre assertion that i think women are victims who can’t be held responsibly and can never be winners is just a joke, really. this rather inept interpretation on your part is about YOU twisting what i’ve said in order to conveniently fit YOUR world view and interpretation of feminism and the patriarchy (to which you belong, and according to which YOUR attitudes are shaped and thru which YOUR perspective is filtered, like it or not, as enlightened as you may think you are)
    you have to describe my world view as ‘extreme’ in an attempt to marginalise it because it conflicts with your world view wherein, in your own words, the women who give blow jobs to men in power to get acting roles are not in any way victims but equally responsible for said transactions wherein blow jobs are somehow necessary, all apart of a GRAY AREA. but what this discussion is REALLY about is male entitlement, and men (or women if it should be the case) accepting responsibility for ABUSING their power and influence for the sole purpose of personal sexual gratification. i guess you don’t want to accept this because then it would mean the women who stoop to debasing themselves are susceptible to pressure and coercion, and not ‘equals’ in the transaction, which i guess conflicts with your ‘but women are equals and not victims!’ mantra.
    yes, women ARE equal by nature and entitled to social equality in every sense, but that doesn’t mean that in reality social equality has been achieved or exists in daily life, clearly it does not. women are as influenced by a history of civilization’s-worth of institutionalised sexism and social conditioning as men are, something to be overcome for both genders. there’s a gap between the IDEAL of women being socially equal, and the reality of social equality for women being MANIFEST. the gap is still considerable, and pretending it isn’t or doesn’t exist at all is either denial or ignorance at play (and while women are most certainly not victims, being incredibly strong, resilient, intuitive and intelligent, and having played their way nearer and nearer to social equality from being second-class citizens with few rights a mere century ago, this does not mean that women are now socially equal and can’t be victimised. the difference is, now we can stand up for ourselves and be heard)
    whew

  81. leahnz says:

    again, apologies for no proofreading, i see a few boo-boos here and there and likely more i didn’t notice

  82. leahnz says:

    oh, and something i was going to ask ages ago in this discussion and i totally spaced it:
    DP, have you ever gone for a position you really wanted or needed, in which a female employer has made it clear that if you sleep with her, the job is yours?
    no? then really, until it does, just sorta shut up.
    i love it when (usually) men carp on about this subject when they have NEVER had to face such a thing/put up with such rubbish. i’ve had it happen to me twice during a time when i was modeling my way thru university doing a lot trade-show swimwear, and it’s hard to describe how creepy it is being made to feel like a playtoy with some creep telling you how good looking you are and then asking you to demean yourself by partaking in what is probably a couple minutes of utter revulsion and self-degradation in order to to get $. of course i made it quite clear that such tactics don’t fly with me and i didn’t get those particular gigs altho i went on to get plenty of work when i needed it, but i can see how coercion might work on others when $$$ is involved, your self-worth has to be strong and in tact to resist the lure of what appears an easier/more successful life if only you debase yourself, esp. when the enticement is disguised as a compliment, when it is in fact the greatest insult a woman can ever receive, so be asked to prostitute herself.
    so, until you’ve been there…i don’t know how else to say but, you just don’t know what your talking about

  83. HardCaseCrime says:

    Not to make light of a serious topic, but I suspect there are any number of young, male actors who envy their female counterparts for having the option of giving a blowjob or two in order to secure a part. And others who have done exactly that.

  84. David Poland says:

    Let’s see, Leah… yes. I have been sexually harassed in the workplace, both by women and gay men. No, I have never wanted a job so much that I would acquiesce.
    But my personal story is utterly irrelevant to this conversation.
    And if you don’t think that women of power in this industry and as has been pointed out, gay men of power, have no demanded and received sexual favors for business reasons, you’d be dead wrong. There was one woman whose husband was incredibly powerful who was known for bedding the most handsome actors of the day as part of their toll.
    Also irrelevant to the discussion of women being in this position in this town, however.
    “all of what i’ve written has largely been an attempt to examine the CONTEXT of social conditioning and prevailing attitudes,”
    That’s fine. But sadly, it’s not how you have approached this. You have argued, quite angrily, that there is only one answer to a big and complex question.
    I have never said – not once – that women are not often victimized… both by men and by the institutional ideas of men holding power over women.
    But there is a big hole in it… which you, perhaps mistakenly, offer up yourself… “have you ever gone for a position you really wanted”… WANTED.
    That’s the only context I have spoken to in this. The standard for abuse is not the same for WANTING and for NEEDING…. not in my philosophical idea of the world.
    I WANT my kids to eat and have a roof over their heads is not the same, to me, as I WANT to be in a movie. Eating really is “need” and movie actor really is “want.”
    Same with modeling.
    I agree with your assessment of the situation you offer up. What I don’t agree with is your notion that had you decided to take that jackass up on his offer – the kind of offer which, of course, almost never leads where it claims to be leading – that you would have no responsibility and his responsibility would somehow land on The Patriarchy.
    And by the way, here is another detail. I have worked, briefly, in the modeling profession… dealing with wannabes. Once it was for a major agency’s spin-off business and there was no sexual harassment of the girls… but it was still disgusting and abusive, setting them up to dream big and fail bigger. And later, for a scumbag agency in Hollywood, where I assumed that harassment would be on the platter, but which to start was so financially crooked that I involved the police.
    I consider the lowest form of show biz life to be people who trade on the dreams of others for their own benefit. Sexually, yes. But that’s the tip of the iceberg in this business. There is institutionalized thievery by people with big jobs in big organizations, including educational institutions, who emotionally and financially rape the vulnerable all the time.
    By the time an aspiring actress ends up on her knees in a studio producer’s office, do you really think she doesn’t know the score… that she is an innocent?
    There is NOTHING right about it. Not a thing. But I have to think she knows the score.
    My wife argues that almost every time someone watches porn, they are watching an abused woman get abused some more, no matter how strongly she claims she is doing it of her own free will. And I can’t disagree with her completely.
    And that argument can, in some ways, be extended to women who allow themselves to be used sexually in the film industry in hopes of getting ahead. But like so many things, there are matters of degree. And my willingness to judge without knowing the details of these “relationships,”, as I wrote at the start of all of this, is limited.
    If you think I like it, am okay with it, or condone it, you are wrong. But unless I have a personal stake in it or detailed knowledge, I don’t actually KNOW… patriarchy or not. And I do believe that it is completely possible for power and abuse to be exchanged in both directions in this kind of situation.
    I assume you are going to explain to me how blind I am again. Feel free. But I think I am done chasing my tail on this one. There is no room for me to have an opinion with you that doesn’t match yours, it seems.

  85. The Big Perm says:

    I hate it when women complain about this stuff, it could easily be the other way…hasn’t anyone seen one of those 80s sci-fi movies where for some reason there was always Amazons on a distant planet, and they would net innocent men and keep them for love slaves? Workplace harassment is no joke but at least you’re not being caught in a net in outer space.

  86. jeffmcm says:

    Because that happens so often.

  87. The Big Perm says:

    Seemed pretty routine in the 80s, I’m not so sure about it now. They don’t really make sci-fi post apocalyptic movies any more. Even stuff like The Road and Book of Eli is set on Earth…maybe there were Amazons there, if so they chose to ignore the problem and sweep it under the rug, just like regular bosses here on earth do.

  88. HardCaseCrime says:

    Kind of off-topic, I know, but…if you want a great, modern-day “caught in a net by Amazons” story set right here on Earth, check out HUNT BEYOND THE FROZEN FIRE by “Gabriel Hunt” (actually written by MONEY SHOT author — and SNAKES ON A PLANE novelizer — Christa Faust). http://www.huntforadventure.com/

  89. leahnz says:

    i’m weary, and this is like beating one’s head against a brick wall
    i’m not talking about sexual harassment, DP. so you’ve had whether or not you got a job solely determined by having sex with your female boss first? really? i’d say you are very unlucky man then (and gay male bosses are not that same as women, because gay men are not, in fact, women, they are MEN)
    rumour is just that, rumour. as far as anecdotal evidence goes, i’ve gotten to know a lot of men in my time in this industry from all over the world to boot including numerous actors and i’ve never come across a single ONE who’s had whether they get a job or not depend on sexual favours for a female boss, not one, and actors have huge blabbermouths. i can’t say the same about the women/actresses i’ve known, not by a long shot.
    the difference between NEEDING and WANTING a job is completely immaterial to this argument about the patriarchal paradigm, clearly, and further it’s a judgement call impossible for any outside observer to make. again DP you are making assumptions and judgements based on your outside interpretation, which is just that, NOT fact.
    the one actual example you give, of a woman bedding young actors is because (and i quote), HER HUSBAND IS VERY POWERFUL. way to negate your point and make mine. also, i have no doubt that there are instances of women in power abusing that power for sexual gratification, it’s bound to happen, but trying to imply that this is anywhere near as INSTITUTIONALISED a paradigm as men demanding bj’s/sex for roles is completely spurious.
    (and for the kazilionth time, at no time during this volley have i been in the least bit angry as far as my personal composure while writing down my thoughts goes, not even close. i write emphatically with far too many adjectives and i just bluntly say what i think, that’s my style, always has been. anger is your interpretation. if i’m angry, you’ll know it because i’ll say, ‘i’m fucking annoyed, shitbrain wanker and i’d like to slap you upside the head!’ or something, i’m nothing if not forthright. btw, it is possible to disagree strongly with someone and not get angry, at least for me. that people honestly get angry while blogging is bizarre, what’s the point
    and your response re: my experience:
    “that you would have no responsibility and his responsibility would somehow land on The Patriarchy.”
    i was joking before about you needing an optometrist but i’m serious now, how many times are you going to claim that i’ve said ‘women have no responsibility’ in this matter, which i have NEVER SAID ONCE. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO KEEPS SAYING IT. YOU. reading comprehension.
    this leads me to the conclusion that you are not actually reading what i’m writing, about which there is nothing i can do. how many different ways do i have to say it, apart from the 3 times i’ve said it, that women are responsible for their actions in this paradigm and must face the consequences?
    again, i’ll just cut and paste because i’ve repeated myself so often in different ways, i can’t actually think of how to say it any clearer, so quoting myself:
    “again, i have NEVER said or implied that women are victims by nature and aren’t responsible for their actions; in fact i clearly stated earlier that women are responsible for their actions and have to accept the consequences thereof. unlike your little floating observational vignettes about sexism and female culpability, i’ve attempted to look at the CAUSES of behaviour, whereby under the auspices of patriarchal culture certain attitudes by men in power and women who want to advance their careers are dictated as ‘the norm’ — and to further point out that ultimate responsibility for taking unnecessary sexual advantage lies with the person exerting their power and influence, and that holding the person with little power in the scenario to equal responsibility is a deflection designed to ease the conscious of the exploiter. this behavior is rather typical of men loathe to take responsibility for exploitative behavior and who wish to pass responsibility off onto the exploited (a common theme in patriarchal culture from the ‘she led me on/asked for it’ defence to rape to the ‘she got me mad so it’s her fault i hit her’ defence for violence). however this does in no way excuse women from participating in the sham of ‘sexual favours for jobs’ because it’s the far easier option, not at all. women must take a long look at themselves and teach children of both sexes to do much better. but to view both players in a game where sexual flavours are required as ‘equals’ in what is an inherently unequal power play is, frankly, a male fallacy.)
    doesn’t that about cover it? but you would have to actually read it for comprehension.
    again, my problem is with you holding the person in a position of no influence as being EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE to the person who is utterly needlessly abusing their power simply because they feel they are ENTITLED to a sexual favour/gratification, and who then decides who gets or does not get a job based on acquiescence. this is NOT an equitable scenario in any way, and yet this is what you clearly said. this is what my entire argument has been, that this presumption of yours is faulty.
    the person using sexual favours to decide how to wield their power and the person who acquiesces to the sham ARE NOT on a equal footing in terms of responsibly, the person abusing their power is ALWAYS the standard-bearer of responsibility in the matter. does that mean the woman (or the man if that’s the case) who participates in the sham is blameless? OF COURSE NOT, and I’VE NEVER SUGGESTED OTHERWISE, only that they are NOT EQUAL in the power play as participants or in their responsibility for said power play. NOT EQUAL. i don’t know how to make it any clearer, i simply don’t understand how you are unable to comprehend this. NOT EQUAL clearly does not equate to NO RESPONSIBILITY. is that clear now?
    and the fact you STILL can’t seem to comprehend that the concept of male entitlement – wherein this instance men abuse their power to exploit powerless women, which is exactly what unnecessary sexual favours in turn for a job is – as a traditional cornerstone of patriarchal culture tells me that you do not have an actual understanding of patriarchal culture as the prevailing historical paradigm under which civilisation has developed and society still largely operates, tho this is SLOWLY changing, thank goodness, and rightly so.
    when your country has as many female presidents as male and the idea of gender is completely immaterial and irrelevant to that fact, when women are represented equally in all levels of government and company management and industry, paid equal $ for the same work, when the universal male is no longer the social standard and the work of raising children in the home is as valued as work outside the home, etc etc etc, then get back to me about this absurd statement: “The problem I have with your take, Leah, is the notion that men set up the paradigm… like the Trilateral Commission is in charge of society.”

  90. leahnz says:

    “I hate it when women complain about this stuff, it could easily be the other way…”
    shocker! and no, it couldn’t actually, unless men were traditionally the caretakers of children with little financial independence or options as a result of that responsibility

  91. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Leeaaaaah, can I ask a faaavooouuurrr?
    (Yes, that’s all kinds of fucked up given the subject of the thread, but I figure you’re most likely to be monitoring this topic)

  92. leahnz says:

    i totally don’t get it, foamy. and my thinking cap is in the dirty clothes so to paraphrase ‘galaxy quest’, ‘explain as you would to a child’

  93. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Actually, it’s a legit request – I’m popping over to NZ in a few weeks to visit my sister in Welly.
    Since I’m assuming you don’t want your details on the intertubes, you can email on foamysfakeemail@gmail.com

  94. The Big Perm says:

    leahnz, did you actually read the rest of what I wrote? Would you care to comment on the dangers of Amazons in space and why you choose to ignore that problem because it suits your arguments, thanks.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon