Awards Season 2021

[hearthesilence]

I was under the impression that after he came back, he wasn't apologetic about it, and the main reason why I said his case was much worse is because they involved many incidents to multiple people over a long period of time. You definitely can't compare one action to the other, but it was much more about the serial behavior, not the action in itself.

[therewillbeblus]

I don’t think that’s a fair barometer to what is “much” worse though- that one happened more often? There are posters here- myself included- who have probably rustled more feathers over time than some members who got banned for relentlessly mean spirited comments, and I’d hate to think of myself as worse than those people because my comments sparked discomfort over a longer duration of time. Now, I’m being obtuse, but I still don’t think one can throw around “much worse” here pertaining to what each man “did.” I do get where you’re coming from, just trying to push back a bit on the criteria for striking a hyperbolic line of dissonance between levels of harm.

Louis made a joke about it after going away for a couple years which led to articles insinuating that he wasn’t sorry. The man apologized, and is a standup comic, of course he’s going to make a joke about it. That doesn’t mean we need to forgive and forget, but I was sure surprised when people were surprised about him doing his job, and then assigned all kinds of connotations around his intentions based on observations that deliberately ignored the context of the platform he was using.

[Soothsayer]

It's been six years, he has apologized, and basically set fire to his career as the first person ousted post-Weinstein openly admitting his actions against the advice of probably every rep he had at the time. I think Matt Damon had it right when he said to Peter Travers how we were sending the message to young boys to not take accountability by everyone setting an undefined bar for Louis CK that was always going to be 'higher' than what he did/said ("He apologized but it wasn't enough" without defining what "enough" would be) vs. all the celebs who stayed quiet and continued their careers. Also, how are you quantifying what's "much worse"? One man struck another man physically, while another man sexually harassed women in a non-physical way. Is it because one of the actions is 'sexual' so it's taboo? I'm not saying I necessarily disagree, but this is comparing apples to oranges and one of these people actually put their hands on another human being which can carry physical trauma and potentially induce death. Think about it.

There's also the power imbalance in the Louis CK situation. IMO, that makes it worse than the Will Smith/Chris Rock situation. Just because Louis CK may not have physically touched anyone in his trespasses, he absolutely traumatized people. That trauma should be respected in the same way the injuries from a physical assault are. That trauma exists in abuse in all forms.

The Matt Damon quote has always bothered me as it ignores the other conclusion to be drawn. That "young boys" (in reality, children) aren't being taught and nurtured to understand the power in violence, and the nature and consequences of abuse. Teach kids those lessons, and they learn accountability in the process.

Ultimately, things need to be seen individually. Trying to draw parallels between wrongdoings where there are none will only lead to more disparity. edit: Forgot to add one point. The #MeToo movement's value in showing the scope of unreported abuse though collective examination, has a wonderful value. My initial statement regarding things being seen individually was in regards to consequences. Sorry for being unclear.

I'd also argue that Louis CK hasn't had as substantial a punishment meted out as many would like to think. He has still been able to bring in relatively large amounts of revenue from live bookings. Relative to many who haven't been accused of what Louis CK has, to be sure. He has virulent defenders in most corners.

[swo17]

I don't see much point in comparing which acts are worse than others, or which punishments are "enough." Why shouldn't Louis C.K. be able to go on making a living, particularly if there are people willing to independently support his work?

[therewillbeblus]

There's also the power imbalance in the Louis CK situation. IMO, that makes it worse than the Will Smith/Chris Rock situation. Just because Louis CK may not have physically touched anyone in his trespasses, he absolutely traumatized people. That trauma should be respected in the same way the injuries from a physical assault are. That trauma exists in abuse in all forms.

Well obviously, that's most trauma, as we typically define it. I was pointing out that physical trauma to the body exists too, which is often less considered. It's a different kind altogether. I specialize in treating the one you're talking about for a living. Not trying to negate that at all... but they are not comparable, because to attempt to measure these women's trauma from our vantage points is ridiculous, as is it to try to measure Rock's.

The Matt Damon quote has always bothered me as it ignores the other conclusion to be drawn. That "young boys" (in reality, children) aren't being taught and nurtured to understand the power in violence, and the nature and consequences of abuse. Teach kids those lessons, and they learn accountability in the process.

Ultimately, things need to be seen individually. Trying to draw parallels between wrongdoings where there are none will only lead to more disparity. edit: Forgot to add one point. The #MeToo movement's value in showing the scope of unreported abuse though collective examination, has a wonderful value. My initial statement regarding things being seen individually was in regards to consequences. Sorry for being unclear.

I think that Damon's quote taken out of context can signify that, but his intent as expressed throughout the whole interview is to land on your second (well, third) paragraph here- differentiating consequences. After that initial minute he spends the next 12 or 13 of the interview saying this is a long way off and the conversation right now (circa Fall 2017) needs to be blanket punishment because creating systems of rehabilitation will take time. Though I don't think we've really done/offered that...

And I'm sorry but I don't think he's ignoring the other conclusion- he's just saying that, in a vacuum, this is sending that message. Sure, it's not up to a macro-level process of issuing consequences bleeding through social media into the minds of children to teach them all they know, but it does send a message when Louis CK apologizes and receives sanctions while Dustin Hoffman didn't when he denied, despite being called out by John Oliver for a second (My 2017 Thanksgiving featured everyone shouting that Louis CK should be "arrested" and that they would never consume his media again, but they were planning to watch The Meyerowitz Stories later, and when I brought up the hypocrisy since Hoffman was accused of very similar exposures - to a minor, I believe- they passively acknowledged this and then went to watch the movie an hour later). Anyways, Damon's was a point worth making and worrying about. But he acknowledges this as a multifaceted issue after that opening quote.

I'd also argue that Louis CK hasn't had as substantial a punishment meted out as many would like to think. He has still been able to bring in relatively large amounts of revenue from live bookings. Relative to many who haven't been accused of what Louis CK has, to be sure. He has virulent defenders in most corners.

I mean, now he's 'back' to some degree, but he wasn't exactly working for a while and since he funds his own projects with his own money- several of which were in development I believe- he took a huge hit financially, which obviously isn't all that matters- but it is what seems to be the uniform consequence issued: to discontinue their careers and thus deplete resources, regardless of that being the intent. I think it's frustrating when people complain that these stars haven't received a substantial punishment, because a) punishment by nature is not a teachable method to promote betterment, natural consequences are. When a behavior has a consequence that is disconnected to the offense, it's not as ideal - sure, removing opportunities for a person to work was the default back in 2017, and there is a natural consequence of people not wanting to pay someone who did the stuff Louis and others have done, thus affecting their careers, which is a really good point some have made on this forum and one that's inspired me to change my stance on that aspect of cancel culture. But now that enough people have decided he's 'done his time' or whatever, to switch it from a natural consequence to "punishment" seems like nothing ever is going to be enough.

Which leads me to b) What are the opportunities out there we've come up with for "substantial punishment(/consequence)"? What would make you happy? I'm not asking that in a provocative way, but very earnestly. I want to know what ideas someone has come up with in the last five years, because that's the kind of critical thinking we need to be doing around these issues, and something I don't think we've really done. I can go first: I wish people took the SLAA format or various overlapping therapeutic interventions around sexual impulses and created classes/programs for rehabilitation. I wish SLAA in general as a 12-step self-help program was treated as sincerely as AA has been for people in Hollywood to commit themselves to a program of recovery and personal growth that measures sobriety and work done, and has helped them 'earn' (as much as anybody can, which is subjective, and never ever undoes past transgressions) public approval based on evidence of thorough engagement in rehabilitation.

[zedz]

First of all, I'd like to note for the record that this whole situation is a lose / lose shitshow, which is why I've been reluctant to wade into it thus far, but the question of proportionate punishment in recent posts has raised some interesting issues.

In these matters, unless somebody is prepared to press charges or there was a contractual violation (e.g. an employment relationship), the relevant enforcement body for any alleged or proven wrongdoing is either "the industry" (an amorphous and slippery thing indeed) or the general public, and ultimately "the industry" is governed by the general public. And the general public is foolish, brilliant and utterly ungovernable. Some arbitrary call will be made at some indefinable point and, until it's unmade again on a whim, Celebrity X will be rehabilitated. Or they might hang around forever in a twilight of disgrace and acceptance. And there's nothing any of us can do about it except make up our own minds and behave accordingly. None of us can stop anybody else working with somebody of whom we disapprove, all we can do is not support that person and that project if we feel strongly enough about it.

The best thing "the industry" can do is have a backbone and not employ offenders, but that backbone is an anatomical illusion: smoke and mirrors reflecting the audience's views, as far as they can be perceived. They'll cool on Will Smith for only as long as it seems like the general public has cooled on him, then they're back in business, baby, with the weepy press tour to prove it.

Actually, the best thing "the industry" can do is effect internal change to avoid repeat incidents occurring, as we all cross our fingers has happened after Weinstein. This is an ongoing process that will only be ongoing as long as victims are brave enough to speak up and the media continues to shine a light on bad practices and people.

One of the worst things about the Smith / Rock incident, among a lot of "worst things", is that it happened in an environment where there were copious internal and industry processes, and established enforcement protocols to deal with it. The event had security, contracts in place that presumably guaranteed rudimentary physical protections for staff and contractors, codes of conduct for members, all of which they'd vigorously used in the past to maintain order, BUT they gave Smith a Weinstein Pass: they considered him to big to hold to account and decided to sit on their hands. That's a colossal act of cowardice on their part and absolutely disastrous optics in the wake of all the MeToo platitudes. Would Smith have got away with groping a female presenter as well? After all, this was His Night.

So, in the end, this is all going to come down to how the public judges Smith and how great their appetite is for more of his films, and the industry's "principled" response will be tailored accordingly. No doubt the Academy is desperately trying to read those tea-leaves before making any announcement and committing themselves one way or the other.

We can just sit and fume, or stand and cheer accordingly. All we can do about public opinion is move one grain of sand at a time by keeping an open mind, spreading good information, calling out bad information, and making measured and rational arguments on an informed basis.

Fantasy outcomes:
- Chris Rock makes a public apology - to Demi Moore, for inadvertently dragging her into this. He's asked to present next year's Oscars, accepts, and does the whole thing in a hockey mask.
- Jada Pinkett Smith is very publicly offered the lead in a remake of G.I Jane, which she very publicly turns down. The role goes to a lookalike unknown, who wins an Oscar for it.
- Will Smith's next couple of films flop and he's quietly forgotten about, except for those perpetual Oscar's Wildest Moments montages on YouTube and the inevitable (Oscar-worthy) biopic about his tragic downfall.

[swo17]

Very eloquently put

[therewillbeblus]

Great post, zedz, I'm not sure but you may have been the one I was referring to who presented the outlook on the general public controlling the industry controlling the canceling in the first place

Also, I'd like to note for the record that we share fantasies

[furbicide]

Great posts zedz and twbb, particularly this:

I'd also argue that Louis CK hasn't had as substantial a punishment meted out as many would like to think. He has still been able to bring in relatively large amounts of revenue from live bookings. Relative to many who haven't been accused of what Louis CK has, to be sure. He has virulent defenders in most corners.

I mean, now he's 'back' to some degree, but he wasn't exactly working for a while and since he funds his own projects with his own money- several of which were in development I believe- he took a huge hit financially, which obviously isn't all that matters- but it is what seems to be the uniform consequence issued: to discontinue their careers and thus deplete resources, regardless of that being the intent. I think it's frustrating when people complain that these stars haven't received a substantial punishment, because a) punishment by nature is not a teachable method to promote betterment, natural consequences are. When a behavior has a consequence that is disconnected to the offense, it's not as ideal - sure, removing opportunities for a person to work was the default back in 2017, and there is a natural consequence of people not wanting to pay someone who did the stuff Louis and others have done, thus affecting their careers, which is a really good point some have made on this forum and one that's inspired me to change my stance on that aspect of cancel culture. But now that enough people have decided he's 'done his time' or whatever, to switch it from a natural consequence to "punishment" seems like nothing ever is going to be enough.

Which leads me to b) What are the opportunities out there we've come up with for "substantial punishment(/consequence)"? What would make you happy? I'm not asking that in a provocative way, but very earnestly. I want to know what ideas someone has come up with in the last five years, because that's the kind of critical thinking we need to be doing around these issues, and something I don't think we've really done. I can go first: I wish people took the SLAA format or various overlapping therapeutic interventions around sexual impulses and created classes/programs for rehabilitation. I wish SLAA in general as a 12-step self-help program was treated as sincerely as AA has been for people in Hollywood to commit themselves to a program of recovery and personal growth that measures sobriety and work done, and has helped them 'earn' (as much as anybody can, which is subjective, and never ever undoes past transgressions) public approval based on evidence of thorough engagement in rehabilitation.

So much discussion of "cancellation" either serves to obscure or miss the point, and it's important to be clear about this (as the quoted post is). Putting questions of what cancellation does or doesn't mean to one side, we know more or less precisely what happened to Louis CK, and what is still happening to him, Grammy or no Grammy: he remains in some significant contexts persona non grata, and any success he achieves in his field in the foreseeable future will attract backlash – the prospect of which is sufficient for many potential backers or collaborators to steer clear of him, and for him as a person and public figure to remain tainted. And as zedz also points out above, this actually has little to do with what he specifically did or whether he can be judged to have been rehabilitated; for those who hold the purse strings, it's all about optics, or a nebulous projected public sentiment.

Personally, I'm a little resistant to the idea of using therapy as a public marker of rehabilitation (as, say, the justice system might) as I feel that personal work should be done for its own sake, not in service of a material goal or merely ticking a box. But it would nonetheless be a vast improvement on this notion of indefinite ostracisation (partial or otherwise). And putting external outcomes to one side, society would benefit considerably from such therapies being funded and promoted.

I haven't thought much about functional solutions as I've by and large been against "cancellation" and always preferred offences to be dealt with by the legal system rather than by self-interested corporations. The idea of restorative justice appeals to me, though, and I wonder if elements of that could be adapted here – say, to include the victims in a decisionmaking process, and offer them the opportunity to mediate with the offender, accept a personal apology if they choose and negotiate an outcome that entails some kind of end resolution that all parties can agree is fair (which might include taking a break from acting for a year, or doing volunteer work with survivors, or some such). This is tricky as some victims quite understandably want nothing to do with people who've done harm to them and may feel pressure to be more lenient than they would like. But my understanding is that quite a lot of survivors would far prefer a process like this than the blunt (and often additionally traumatising) instruments of investigation and punishment, formal or otherwise.

[therewillbeblus]

Personally, I'm a little resistant to the idea of using therapy as a public marker of rehabilitation (as, say, the justice system might) as I feel that personal work should be done for its own sake, not in service of a material goal or merely ticking a box. But it would nonetheless be a vast improvement on this notion of indefinite ostracisation (partial or otherwise). And putting external outcomes to one side, society would benefit considerably from such therapies being funded and promoted.

Sorry, I should have been clearer, that the therapeutic programs would be geared towards a more long-term program of recovery and therapeutic work - the workshop A triggering lifestyle B, but I agree with you which is why I like the 12-step model: the idea that this is a lifelong program of engagement, which is seen within these communities as an opportunity for continual growth and self-betterment through the fellowship and program rather than a prison sentence. To zedz' point, and one that I've made before, the only reason that people in AA have become un-canceled in the past is not because they are public about it and the public says, 'oh ok cool' (which they don't, addiction is reportedly the most stigmatized mental health issue/chronic illness across cultures, at least it was when I did my graduate thesis in summer of 2017, and it certainly is not treated amicably by the public as a 'condition' in my experience), but because so many people within the Hollywood elite are members of AA and 12-step fellowships and can observe the person authentically engaging in a program (for their own sake) vs. "in service of a material goal or merely ticking a box." There's just no way that people like Robert Downey Jr. would go to bat for Mel Gibson and that he would subsequently get another shot with Hacksaw Ridge if he wasn't doing the work, at least that's my belief. People in 12-step fellowships don't throw people bones who aren't engaging. And I would hope that such platforms could encourage earnest engagement from people with sexual histories that have made their lives unmanageable too. SLAA provides that- though it's a more abstract and diverse fellowship, and there's definitely a stronger stigma to overcome there...

[therewillbeblus]

Fantasy outcomes:
- Will Smith's next couple of films flop and he's quietly forgotten about, except for those perpetual Oscar's Wildest Moments montages on YouTube and the inevitable (Oscar-worthy) biopic about his tragic downfall.

Apparently a Will Smith biopic was in the works, and now Netflix and Apple+ have backed out of the bidding war, so maybe they're waiting for the 'Fall' part of the narrative now that it's no longer landing on a finite endpoint of a linear 'Rise'

[RIP Film]

Opinion: The 2022 Oscars gave us a ceremony for people who hate movies

[tehthomas]

Opinion: The 2022 Oscars gave us a ceremony for people who hate movies

The NYT also had a similar piece - Does The Academy Hold Movies in Contempt? - and I have to agree with these theories.

For one, why would you pay tribute to the 50th anniversary of The Godfather while playing clips set to '90's hip-hop? And this coming from a diehard fan of the films and the music. It was such an obvious ploy to make The Godfather 'relevant' but it just came off as bizarre. And I understand how influential Coppola's films have been on hip-hop, especially the '90's mafioso sub-genre. But it was so out of place and disrespectful to the films AND the music, they don't need to be elevated by anything. It's stunts like this that makes me think they have contempt for film and more troubling - film history.

[aox]

Will Smith Banned from the Oscars for 10 Years

(CNN Link to the story)

[beamish14]

Opinion: The 2022 Oscars gave us a ceremony for people who hate movies

The NYT also had a similar piece - Does The Academy Hold Movies in Contempt? - and I have to agree with these theories.

For one, why would you pay tribute to the 50th anniversary of The Godfather while playing clips set to '90's hip-hop? And this coming from a diehard fan of the films and the music. It was such an obvious ploy to make The Godfather 'relevant' but it just came off as bizarre. And I understand how influential Coppola's films have been on hip-hop, especially the '90's mafioso sub-genre. But it was so out of place and disrespectful to the films AND the music, they don't need to be elevated by anything. It's stunts like this that makes me think they have contempt for film and more troubling - film history.

Diddy is the absolute bottom of the barrel, too. I know he got respectable notices in a revival of A Raisin in the Sun, but I cringed when he came out to introduce it with those asinine remarks

[domino harvey]

Will Smith Banned from the Oscars for 10 Years

(CNN Link to the story)

I'm impressed that they banned him from attending the ceremony. Many people here and elsewhere thought that was unlikely

[Brian C]

Seems like overkill to me - I thought 2 years seemed pretty fair - but also I won’t miss him.

The upshot, though, is that anyone who says “IT’S NOT ENOUGH!!!” is automatically kind of insane. So at the very least, I’m grateful for that kind of clarity.

[swo17]

Honestly they should only have an Oscars every 10 years to begin with

[Brian C]

Eh, it was bad enough watching Green Book being Best Picture of just one year.

[swo17]

To clarify, I meant that the ceremony should be held once every ten years, but that the eligibility year should always be 2018

[hearthesilence]

Eh, it was bad enough watching Green Book being Best Picture of just one year.

That's more or less the same thought that came to mind. And "Best Picture" of the '00s: Gladiator! Ugh.

[feihong]

Opinion: The 2022 Oscars gave us a ceremony for people who hate movies

I must hate movies, too; I didn't see these moments in the ceremony, but I thought the jokes the author took umbrage at sounded pretty funny when I read them in the article.

[therewillbeblus]

Ten years is a significant consequence but it sends a clear message that defines the boundaries between the entertainer and audience with severe reinforcement. I hear Brian that a few years would still teach ‘Smith’ a lesson perhaps, but I don’t think this is about Smith anymore. Ten years is a sizable chunk of a career, and while I’m optimistic enough to hope nobody would mob the stage to follow suit in the next few years, to seize ‘their moment’ and take a slap on the wrist, two years won’t be felt by a collective audience. Ten years will, and that ‘sentence’ looming over the ceremony will practically guarantee one of the apparently 40% of people out there who thought Smith was in the right will control their impulses before deciding to step into the spotlight to “defend [enter misinformed moral idea]” next time they feel offended. It’s (unfortunately) a necessary standard to set.

[therewillbeblus]

Will Smith posts video addressing Oscar slap

[colinr0380]

The BBC awkwardly phrased this on their news ticker as Smith "reaching out" to Rock. I think he already did that at the time of the incident!