I’ll be honest, I haven’t really delved into this controversy, but I think my take is basically this:

I’m sympathetic to casting concerns in situations where the role is explicitly tied to ethnic identity and of a historically underrepresented group, and where the casting choice evokes specific racist precedent of white actors portraying that ethnic group.

I don’t think either holds that strongly here. Obviously antisemitism is a very real issue, but I don’t see Cooper playing Bernstein falling into anything resembling real antisemitism. It would be different if he were playing a comedic stereotype, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Especially if Bernstein’s family is supportive.

I think the most traction I can remember this kind of controversy getting was when Scarlet Johansen got cast in Ghost on the Shell. Sure, it would have been nice if an Asian actress was cast, but 1) anime characters aren’t necessarily Japanese, and 2) the character in the anime specifically does not look Japanese (and the story makes a big thing out of this). There are people I’ve run into online that act like she’s a dyed in the wool white supremacist for taking the role (and her clumsy defense of doing so), and I have to wonder if they’re at all familiar with the source material.

I watched this Depp v Heard on Netflix.  I haven't given the trial a whole lot of thought since last summer when I did have a few things to say about it.  I'm not really interested in a proper review of this shit.  I think it should suffice to say that this documentary is far more concerned with the social media "phenomenon" surrounding the trial than any of the evidence or testimony in the actual trial.  And guess what?  It might turn out that this social media thing is a pretty awful way of wasting your time and attention.  So thanks, Netflix documentary, for wasting a couple of my hours by introducing me to a medley of awful nitwits in their pajamas giving completely unqualified opinions based soley on the credentials of likes and subscribes.

I don't believe I've ever seen an actual TikTok meme until now.  I was under the impression that I didn't really care, and turns out I just might care less.  For whatever sorcerous reason, I somehow managed to watch several hours of the actual trial without ever watching a single one of these TikTok memes, Twitter trolls or amateur Youtube analysis.  I just watched the blocks of unedited courtroom footage on a Youtube channel called Law & Crime.  That channel did include some videos of commentary, but, even with gun to my head, I refused to watch those and survived.  It's telling, at the beginning of this doc, that many of Heard's, I dunno, team?, were complaining about the use of a camera in the courtroom.  I find that strange because it allowed me to get all of the information I needed without the aid of some schlub's hot takes.  And I'm better for that.  Better than anyone who felt compelled, in the short hours of their lives, to prefer to expend their attention on endless endlessly stupid social media.  And then complain about it!  No, you don't get to do that.  You need to own your choices.  This doc points out how some TikTok "creators" were making collective millions of dollars off of their views.  Whose fault is this?  Not mine.  All of the major developments in this trial are not measure by facts and evidence, but by tweets and engagements.

So I don't really respect all of the criticism pointed at those "looky-loos" like myself who chose to actually watch the evidence and testimony, rather than some idiot incels on TikTok.  And, considering all of the complaints from people about the prevalance of these TikTok incels (which this doc is especially keen to air), maybe.....stop watching them?  People complaining about how they don't feel TikTok is a safe place for women?  I wouldn't go there.  Like that Monica Lewinsky op-ed last summer, that tried to indict society for this shitshow, what's really being indicted here has very little actual relevance to this particular trial.  Social media has made all of you more shallow, impulsive and conformist.  And apparently helpless.  But that's all manipulative and abusive in other ways.

It would have been intriguing, if challenging, for a documentary filmmaker who had the capabilty to explore the complexities of this case while resisting the above type of pop culture shallowness.  Even in terms of its polarization, there's more going on than just sweepingly blaming social media, or "the internet", as if it's some kind of monolithic force majeure.  It seems that very few people are willing to concede the mutual abuse involved in this relationship.  Team Johnny doesn't want to fess up to his volatility and possessiveness, Team Amber refuses to acknowledge her emotional manipulation and psychological abuse.  Neither side seems willing to admit that they were equally heavy substance abusers, and embodied by the kind of arrogance and entitlement that is a prerequisite for the celebrity lifestyle.  Frankly, they both seem pretty dumb, too.

This tribal binary instinct driven by faceless numbers has made it impossible to point out observable liabilities with Heard's defense without a reflexive accusation of being a Depp apologist.  But the problem is that there's a considerable number of legitimate issues with Heard that aren't going to go away by trying to shame anyone who paid attention to the testimonies.  She was abusive, demonstrably in audio evidence.  She was manipulative, collecting and curating incriminating images of Depp that had nothing to do with his temper.  She was provocative, sleeping with at least two men (Franco and Musk) under Depp's roof in ways he would have been certain to learn of it.  And she orchestrated with TMZ her abuse allegations at the same time that she was begging Depp not to leave her (again, clearly demonstrated in audio recordings).  And she never paid those charities as she pledged to do, even six years after the fact, which means she did in fact profit from the divorce a cool couple of million dollars, and that being only the most obvious example of getting caught on the stand without her story straight.  It starts to sound like those Team Heard folks are more mad about not being able to defend the evidence than they are about those courtroom cameras which happened to expose these flaws.

Does any of that excuse Depp for slapping her around?  Absolutely not.  Does that give her the right to scold him into slapping her around by sarcastically saying how "admirable" he was for refusing to do so?

These are a couple of co-dependent self-involved drug addicts.  I'm sorry it didn't work out.  They're better off. 
 

"Groucho Marx models Groucho Glasses."

"In 1950, NBC-TV began to air You Bet Your Life, a game show hosted by Groucho Marx. Everything was heavily “Groucho” branded, complete with a mustachioed prop duck and cartoon title card. As a publicity effort to cross-promote the series, the network authorized the production of official Groucho Goggles. First appearing on the market in the late 1950s, these toys were the next variation of today’s disguise glasses. Groucho Goggles were one piece of heavy plastic with a block mustache, cigar attachment, and thick eyebrows fixed to two white donut-shaped eyes, with free black “pupils” which spun around when you blew into a whistle on the back of the toy."
—From Embalmed in Plastic: The Nuances of Groucho Glasses by Brooke Viegut, March 1, 2023
 
Tayla Zax wrote a level–headed piece in 2015 for Forward, a self–described “Jewish independent nonprofit” publication, titled Remembering the Days of Vaudeville and Jewface, and containing excerpts from an interview with Eddy Portnoy, curator of the exhibit “Jewface: Yiddish Dialect Songs of Tin Pan Alley” at the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research:

“Jewface” refers to the vaudeville mainstay of the stage Jew, a Yiddish-speaking, large-nosed, bearded caricature, often played by a non-Jewish actor, that sprang into popular circulation after large numbers of Eastern European Jews began immigrating to the United States in the 1880s.

Although such a portrayal would provoke outrage from Jews and non-Jews alike in America today, reactions in the turn-of-the-century Jewish community were mixed.

“You have the Americanized Jews who have already been here for a few generations very upset about these portrayals of Jews,” Portnoy said. “The Yiddish press also complains about it to a degree, but they also say that it’s perfectly acceptable to make fun of Jews onstage, as long as there’s some semblance of truth to it.”

Even religious bodies had little luck fighting the stage Jew. “The Central Conference of American Rabbis in 1909 passed a resolution to protest the existence of the stage Jew,” Portnoy said. “What they ended up finding is by this time, it was almost a completely Jewish experience. In 1913, an article appears in their weekly newspaper saying that we can protest it, but it will do no good. The reality is that the theater managers are Jews, the agents are Jews, the actors are Jews and the audience is mostly Jewish. In fact, some of the routines are so full of Yiddish that gentiles don’t even understand it.”

Why were Jewish audiences so welcoming of the stage Jew? For one thing, when Jews became involved in creating Jewface pieces, the stereotypes portrayed became less derogatory.




... and then this happened!!!

He said the movie deepened his faith... his Episcopalian faith!!!

 

Rock wrote:

I think the most traction I can remember this kind of controversy getting was when Scarlet Johansen got cast in Ghost on the Shell. Sure, it would have been nice if an Asian actress was cast, but 1) anime characters aren’t necessarily Japanese, and 2) the character in the anime specifically does not look Japanese (and the story makes a big thing out of this). There are people I’ve run into online that act like she’s a dyed in the wool white supremacist for taking the role (and her clumsy defense of doing so), and I have to wonder if they’re at all familiar with the source material.

Another excellent point. In fact sometimes it seems most anime is populated with non–Japanese characters. 

So I said fuckit and rented the Johansson Ghost in the Shell last night, just to verify I wasn't full of shit. I reviewed the earlier versions as well for the sake of comparison. First of all I was pleasantly surprised, probably due in no small part to significantly lowered expectations but I gotta say it's not a bad movie. I might rank it on par with Running Man.

As for the likeness, eh, it seems to depend on which panel you're looking at. Seems the character Major is one of those anime characters that could be both Japanese or non–Japanese. I could see the role going to most any actress, regardless of ethnicity. Not so much for the white–haired Daisuke Aramaki, who is unmistakably Japanese, and who was well–cast and well–played by "Beat" Takeshi Kitano, and who spoke in Japanese throughout the movie despite it being an English–language production.  I also like the style and placement of the subtitles. I could do with more of that.  The dude with the bionic eyes, of course a honkee from the get–go.  Looks like the other female lead played by Juliette Binoche, Dr. Ouelet, is a new character, if I am not mistaken.

As for Bradley Cooper, after reviewing the photos I gotta say there might be no controversy at all if that prosthetic nose didn't suck!!!  Seriously, who signed off on that? That is a shitty makeup job, judging by the photos. Never mind the size, it just doesn't look like a real nose. There's no sense of gravity to it, it just sticks straight out, all firm and sculpted, and it has the look of a texture that doesn't seem to match that of the skin on the rest of his face. When I first saw a picture, the first thing that came to mind was not Roxanne, nor was it Pinocchio. Those came in 2nd and 3rd, respectively. The first likeness that came to my mind upon seeing Cooper's faux–nose was Geena Davis' rubberface mask in Beetlejuice. I mean, that nose sucks! And the side–by–side comparisons don't come close, judging by the photos at least. Does it make anybody an antisemite, of course not. Just guilty of letting such an unconvincing makeup job make it to print. It's distracting. Like Baby: Secret of a Lost Legend. I want more dinosaurs, too, but you can't have dinosaurs if you can't maintain suspension of disbelief.

What's so ironic about all this for me is that I've been griping for decades about Hollywood's insistence on whitening everything. It annoyed the shit out of me that we couldn't have Amistad without Sir Anthony Hopkins in the lead, Glory without Matthew *%^&$& Broderick, Shaka Zulu without... all those English fucks in Shaka Zulu, Last Samurai without Tom Cruise (though it was actually a good movie), Great Wall without Mark Wahlberg (didn't see it), and worst of all the blasphemous injection of Keanu Reeves into Japan's centuries–old traditional tale of The Loyal 47 Ronin. I think maybe we can all agree to give Dustin Hoffman a pass. I didn't like the way Matt Damon's character was framed as the clean–shaven idealist with the strong work ethic in contrast with his backdrop of extras as shady ne'er–do–wells with Mexican accents in Elysium, even telling one of them to "get a job," if I recall correctly. I was annoyed growing up when movies with Black leads (I like the capital B, sue me) would only play in Black neighborhoods, as though it were assumed only Black people wanted to see Friday or The Original Kings of Comedy, and I find it insulting that after streaming Chris Rock or Dave Chappelle on Netflix, I get flooded with recommendations for unknown Black male standup comedians, as if that's my thing or something. Not whether they're funny or not, just whether they're Black or not. Still, same shit! I'm agog at an executive culture in Hollywood that breeds ideas like casting Juliette Lewis as Harriett Tubman, and after declining for decades to do a movie about Harriett Tubman at all! Her story is amazing! Why did it take so long in the history of cinema for anybody to even green–light a Harriet Tubman movie?!?

Likewise I've been griping for years about the need for more female leads, and for better jobs for actresses in general. Some extremely talented females have come along and then vanished from view too soon, seemingly more often than not because they're no longer young and pretty enough to get the jobs, and that's fucked up. Name one other industry that tolerates that kind of peril. Actors don't get health insurance, do they? Why not more roles for females? It's not like that's any big ask. It's not like literature isn't replete with them, history even more so, nor is it so outlandish to write some.

[Incidentally a question bubbles up to one side of me: is Horror the genre with the best representation of strong female leads?]

So gimme a cinematic world with more diversity behind the scenes, too. Bring more female writers, directors, gaffers, and more of diverse backgrounds.  A pox on the problem that talented writers, directors, etc seem so painfully rare, no matter what body they came wrapped in. For every "great" there are a thousand derps of every shade and hue. So I find myself in situations where I get all hopeful any time I see evidence of a potential addition to the pantheon, desperately hopeful, like that bug–eyed gambler with crossed fingers and fistfuls of paper yelling at a racehorse or a roulette table "Come onnn, come onnn!" Jennifer Kent makes for a good example. Especially after The Nightingale, I'm still crossing my fingers blue going pleeease Jennifer, don't be another one–hit wonder! We don't need any more M. Night Shaymalans! You can DO it!!!

And now I find myself in the contorted position of looking around at stuff like the all–female Ghostbusters and The Woman King and saying, "That's not what I meant!" Don't just graft female onto male characters and expect it to work, that's silly! Write female characters! Don't sanitize and twist history to make the slave–raiders into slave–liberators(!?) Why no movie about Hatshepsut? Any movies about Tecumseh? No? Oh, we've got a made–for TV movie, and, well this is embarrassing, one cinematic feature: an East German "red western" titled Tecumseh from 1972. The only Tecumseh movie is a communist anti–Western propaganda film, now that smarts. A movie about Halie Selassie could be interesting... There's a doc about him titled Grandpa Was an Emperor. Toussaint D'Ouverture is on the map with a French film from 2012.  

Here's a good idea: do a movie about Robert Smalls. That would be a motherfucking great movie. I do see evidence of some buzz from 2019 about a Smalls movie in the works titled Steal Away, but the trail seems to go cold after that. Meanwhile a different movie also titled Steal Away, and also set during Reconstruction, is currently in preproduction, and it's about the Fisk Jubilee Singers, another remarkable African–American story. I'd like to think I can take these all as potential signs of a much–needed course–correction.

A small part of my family is Chinese, and I have more Japanese, Chinese, and Korean in my innermost circles than I can easily count. Their kids call me Uncle Scott. They literally leap into my arms. To imagine one of them in harm's way, or denied equal rights or barred from opportunity or even just emotionally traumatized due to North America's stupid stupid stupid 200–year legacy of anti–Asian hate, that scares me to waking nightmares. I say North America since anti–Asian sentiment has historically run pretty much the entire length of the West Coast, irrespective of border. Not exclusively, of course. Much is said about how wrong and evil are racism, sexism and all forms of bigotry, but to those for whom that's not enough, it's worth noting additionally how dumb bigotry is, how provably baseless, and ultimately self–destructive it is. The Nazis shot themselves in the foot with their own intolerance, driving many of their brightest minds, including Albert Einstein, into the arms of the Allies.

The ALLIES. I know it's simplistic to emphasize that, especially having now witnessed a war waged by the sham "Coalition of the VILLing," but the principle remains sound enough. Diversity is not only pretty and just, it's also robust, it's an indicator of flourishing health. Homogeneity is frail and sickly like an inbred. Besides, it's boring.
Anybody can fancy themselves superior to the rest of the world, but the rest of the world has a stubborn tendency not to comply. Maybe I stumble too far into ideological faith that such a maxim may always hold true, since it most certainly does not, but may it prevail if I have anything to say about it.

Ah fuck. I've flogged this horse enough. Just wanted to be sure I had.

Last edited by Rampop II (9/12/2023 3:28 am)

I took the liberty of cleaning that up a little for you, Pop.

Jada Pinkett Smith wrote:

[We are] still trying to figure out between the two of us how to be in partnership, in regards to how do we present that to people, you know?

It's a revealing point to make about a relationship that's always felt performative, carefully curated for publicity, more of a celebrity media product than a sincere romantic bond.  In other words, people who truly, intimately love each other aren't usually concerned about how they're publicly presenting that love.  It's been this focus on presentation which feels so phony and has led to rumors of the Smiths' sexuality or infidelities, even before the recent scandals.  And even with the more recent stuff, each bit of tea which drops (what Vulture describes as "oversharing") seems calculated for maximum publicity, first through Jada's Red Table podcast or now with Jada's brand new book and its accompanying media tour.

You may have seen it this week.  Jada Pinkett Smith claims that she and Will have secretly been separated for the past seven years, living completely separate lives, married only in name and legal status.  She says they never came out and announced their separation because "we just weren't ready".  Need time to write a book about it first!  Again, people - even celebrities - get divorced every day.  Maybe the Smiths found this more difficult to publicly admit precisely because they've always seemed to have overly invested in the public aspect of their marriage.  It's always been more like a business franchise, including the franchising of their children, than a living relationship, and the issues that they may not have been ready for was to what degree they could dissolve the brand of the "power couple Smiths" in a way that maximizes the value of their particular season finale. 

It would be easy enough to ascribe this kind of self-absorbed behavior to being within the nature of typical celebrity psychosis.  Spend enough time in front of the camera, and eventually your entire life starts to seem like an orchestrated stage.  Especially those celebrities who are less-so talented entertainers than, say, more savvy media manipulators (we'll call it the Kardashian Syndrome), it can seem natural enough that eventually every single life choice becomes a crucial opportunity for twists, cliffhangers and optimal eyeballs.  But it's worth pointing out that very few talented entertainers invest so much high-priced publicity management on their personal relationships.  To the Smiths' extent, I can only think of Tom Cruise who compares (and his relationships have also largely been proven phony).  Most big time actor/stars - Clooney, Blanchett, Denzel - can somehow manage to live perfectly normal private lives without the need for such publicity management.  And we know that those celebs who just happen to get caught by the paparazzi stealing cute little kisses at the cafe, the dog park, courtside sports events, etc, have invariably tipped off the paps of where exactly they were going to be to provide the coverage.  Oh, am I being cynical?  No, it's just a deeply cynical business.  The "celebrity" business, I mean, not necessarily the actual entertainment business.

So I guess this latest news does, or should, deflate the last shreds of any defense anyone wants to bother to muster for Will Smith's grown-man tantrum at the Oscars.  Maybe Jada finally decided to throw Will under the bus by pointing out that, at the time of the slap, she had completely forgotten that she was still his wife.  "Even so, I am unclear on the reason why Will is so upset".  Because it was irrational aggression, or at least misplaced, because it was Jada who had actually made a public cuck out of Will Smith, while he was merely pretending to be the atavistic, chivalrous "protector of his family", that, unfortunately, didn't actually exist at that point.  I doubt that the Chris Rock haters are going to be giving him any apologies.  So, as an endnote, I'll just quote a lyric by Jada's young buck lover, August Alsina, who she also threw under the bus when its publicity was most profitable: "You left your man just to fuck with me and break his heart".
 

I know I could complain about the AV Club on a daily basis, but this new Marty Scorsese hit piece is really something, and probably deserves some far and wide ridicule.  The AV Club has been shilling for Disney and the big studios for some time, but I guess they felt the need to try to sabotage Flower Moon on the eve of its release this week with a screed against Scorsese, over nothing new just his aversion to the MCU, hyperbolicizing and strawmanning his past statements (I don't believe he ever called Marvel movies an "existential threat to movie-making").  But the real sweet spot is that the writer then goes into detail about how Scorsese actually sucks and doesn't make money without DiCaprio, his "entire body of work steeped in the belief that toxic masculinity is the organizing principle of the cosmos", which only "has long been taken for artistic seriousness by the testosterone-fueled sociopaths who invented, promulgated, and ran Hollywood for decades".  Because Scorsese doesn't watch films with ab-enhancing spandex and polyethylene cod-pieces.

Luckily the comments may show that this hivemind isn't going too far:

"Holy shit who wrote this the Disney PR department?"

"This reads like Ray Green’s version of the Jerk Store comeback."

"Try all you like, Kevin Feige is not going to fuck you."

"Martin Scorsese’s Opinion on Marvel Films Remains Unchanged, Vigil Continues"

And one after my heart: "Jesus wept why do I keep coming back to this place."

Apparently this piece is also getting trashed on other social media platforms.  I assume AVC will consider the attention a "win".
 

I can't tell who you're responding to here, but I see where you said basically the same thing about Scorsese's position a couple of weeks back.

crumbsroom wrote:

And I believe what Scorsese's concern is, is regarding these sorts of people. The average film goer. Not the freaks. Not the obsessives. We'll always find things of interest. But he believes, as do I, that art only matters as much as it can penetrate into the passive movie fans conscience. They are the one's needing convincing of films greatness. Of what art can do. And the stagnation of the last two decades of cinema, where almost all of the oxygen in the room is getting sucked away by these 6-8 films a year, has created a climate where no one really cares anymore. I can't think of a time when movie discussion, fandom, criticism or just general movie blather, has been more empty and devoid of ideas or love or passion. Every conversation is the ****ing exact same thing, because every conversation is about the same small pool of films.

And, while I've no doubt this point is arguable, these films are almost always the worst kind of shit. Not because they are about super heroes (because, of course, good movies can be made about ANYTHING), but because authorship of these films has become so diluted due to studio interference, and IP issues and all other sorts of extraneous meddling. There is now just too much money being invested in these projects for them to ever be anything but faceless piles of shit. You (understandably) are not going to take artistic risks when you've got hundreds of millions of dollars on line.