Wow, looks like I'm incredibly late to the party once again (Facebook is eating up so much of my social media time nowdays).
To me it looks like Terry never did anything to Barkin inside an elevator (and if you asked her directly, she'd probably admit to that), but when he made his remarks on #MeToo, she obviously found it a great opportunity to opportunistically ruin his reputation by claiming women should be afraid of him as a groper. I can't believe how people could get their pants in a twist about anything raunchy Terry might say to somebody, maybe with others but not with Terry, if they know half a thing about his amiable style of language and communication regarding the people he talks to.
I agree that Terry's right on #MeToo (also see what Catherine Deneuve had to say about the movement as using a twisted view on sexuality for a totalitarian, anti-constitutional assault on democracy, freedom of speech, and the basic rule of law), but he spoke too soon and without thinking to phrase it better. He should've said that Weinstein and the #MeToo movement overall and what it's grown into are two different things: Weinstein is a monster and an asshole and he's known it for years and before he's heard about him being a rapist, but #MeToo is using his case and others for an utterly distorted perception of the role of sexuality between men and women (of what is "typically male" for every single man in the world and what is "typically female" for every single woman in the world, in a highly essentialist fashion, rather than things to do with society, hierarchies, and systems), and for public slander based on nothing and hearsay. Basically, that Weinstein and the #MeToo movement as it exists right now are too entirely different stories.
I think when Terry says that he "doesn't like victims", he means an attitude, not what happens to people or what they have suffered, as in, "I don't like people who give up", and especially a dramatic and dishonest attitude (which can be seen in regards to #MeToo where outside people jump to conclusions that would be met with harsh protests from all parties that were actually involved, especially from the designated "victims", if only #MeToo would care to listen). Terry's once said something similar about "professional victimhood" in an interview about Tideland, and my intuition of what makes Terry tick is telling me these views he's expressing about "professional victimhood" may have something to do with how he keeps emphasizing how Sam Lowry's greatest fault is his desperate opportunism and "trying to fit in", in that Sam refuses to take responsibility for the society he's living in. Interestingly enough, while many people compare Brazil to 1984, the great (and I think decisive and perceptive) difference between the two is that the society in Brazil lacks an easily identifiable, powerful boogeman and shows how we're all doing this to ourselves by "not taking responsibility", just mindlessly doing our jobs and what we're being told.
I also highly doubt that Terry's finished. He's much too cordial and great at winning people's favors in person, and still has his genuine optimism and enormous energies.
Nimue Brown totally misunderstands just about anything. a.) They falsely think Terry had been talking about Weinstein when he wasn't. b.) They treat it like Terry would call violent, unsolicited, nonconsensual, assaultive sudden rape "a fair price to pay for a career". Terry has never said that in the slightest. He's said there are particular women who are well prepared to have a person in power *ASK* for sex in return, and that a number of them will make a rational, sometimes even highly scheming choice and say yes, even in more or less limiting capacities where the women in question will say what they are and what they are not okay with.
Terry has never denied that rape occurs in any bussiness or claimed that it wouldn't be a serious issue when it happens, but that #MeToo has a tendency to willfully confuse rational, sometimes even scheming decision processes where there is time to think things over for days or weeks before saying yes or no (where the worst that could happen is not getting a job) with violent sudden assault, where the women dragged into this mud by #MeToo often would protest to have their conscious decisions associated with #MeToo if #MeToo would actually bother to listen to them.
So Brown could be hardly further from the truth of what Terry has actually said. Actually, I find Brown acting like a much greater trollish asshole than Barkin in how they're deliberately twisting Terry's words into pretty much the opposite of what he's actually said. I wouldn't be surprised if Brown is actually consciously aware of how much they're elaborately lying about Terry, just to join the popular in-crowd under the guise of "doing right" and "helping unfortunate victims". I'd also be highly interested in Brown's definition of "power", and whether they believe that history is made mainly by "powerful individuals" rather than large crowds and social conditions. Combined with how #MeToo has basically turned into a kind of conspiracy theory movement (with its views on "wide-spread denial", "constant sex abuse cover-ups", and how men are supposedly "constantly told that rape would be a good thing to do"), I wouldn't be surprised if Brown believes into powerful individuals, "strong men" and "strong women", and sinister elites that use manipulation ("gaslighting") to control the good-hearted but naive masses where those evil folk devils in power only have to be violently eliminated to achieve public salvation and paradise, which is a popular trope within structurally anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
And on a related note of popular conspiracy theories dealing with perverted folk devils: There's a recent video on YT where a guy is basically doing a mad 6 or 10 minute rant dealing exclusively with two sentences of Terry's why he doesn't like Alien (1979) and Aliens (1986), where the guy's intercut stills from both films with recent photos of old Terry. One immediate response in the comments was: "Just look at that creepy old fart! Looks like he's molested hundreds of kids in his life!"
As for Woody Allen, I heartily recommend reading Moses Farrow on the issue: https://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05...arrow.html The most blatant sore thumb that stands out from Mia's story that she's violently forced upon Dylan and others (some of which she tried to bribe or blackmail to join her on the issue long before it's allegedly supposed to have happened, and who witnessed Mia writing a complete narrative script for Dylan, arguing at length with others what imaginable acts to put in to make things either more dramatic or more believable, which Dylan had to strictly learn word-by-word for many weeks) is that her claim on why Allen has supposedly done it was not out of any sexual motive or anything to do with Dylan at all, but that Allen supposedly did it one single time exclusively out of a will to hurt Mia back as the mom for having filed divorce (over Allen dating and later marrying one of her relatives, not *HIS*, that he only got to know when they were both adults).
Moses's account is rich in so many facts about how phoney Mia is about the story and how she has both emotionally and physically victimized and terrorized the family, including beating her own kids, since long before it happened, and most of all Dylan in how she's thoroughly and with so many efforts effectually brainwashed her with such long-lasting effects. There are even hints that Mia has been and still is actually trying to cover up something either her brother or cousin has done to Dylan, a man who has repeatedly spent many years in jail for repeated child molestation and whom she is so supiciously quiet about in her many public crusades on the issue whenever she can use hearsay against somebody, by blaming one of her close relative's acts on Allen instead for several decades now.
As for La La land, that film and the story of how it's received its Oscars is an utter joke. The hottest Oscar contender during that year was The Birth of a Nation by Nat Turner that had already been accepted by the Oscar jury for consideration. Then suddenly rape accusations against Turner appeared, the film was immediately thrown out of competition and received a number of panning and mediocre reviews (while all reviews *BEFORE* the accusations were determined that it could pretty much break Oscar records set by Titanic). So Summit Entertainment had to find a new film they could send into the Oscar race, and the next best thing (not even thinking much about its qualities in comparison to other films on its roster that year) happened to be the toe-curlingly schmaltzy, mawkish tearjerker La La land which they sent without even thinking much of it, and neither had the critics until that moment. What happened then was that La La land was given all the Oscars that had originally been intended for The Birth of a Nation.
I wouldn't judge the guy too harshly on that alone. I know if the film receiving it was utter trash (like I can't believe how the recent Mad Max even remotely got into competition, let alone win an Oscar), my face would fall (though personally, I'd rather stare in utter shock, disbelief, and probably disgust) the moment I heard it. But if it was a film I'd like and appreciate on its own merits, I'd be fully okay with giving credits where credit is due. But generally, I can get amazingly riled up at what films are getting Oscars lately.
To me it looks like Terry never did anything to Barkin inside an elevator (and if you asked her directly, she'd probably admit to that), but when he made his remarks on #MeToo, she obviously found it a great opportunity to opportunistically ruin his reputation by claiming women should be afraid of him as a groper. I can't believe how people could get their pants in a twist about anything raunchy Terry might say to somebody, maybe with others but not with Terry, if they know half a thing about his amiable style of language and communication regarding the people he talks to.
I agree that Terry's right on #MeToo (also see what Catherine Deneuve had to say about the movement as using a twisted view on sexuality for a totalitarian, anti-constitutional assault on democracy, freedom of speech, and the basic rule of law), but he spoke too soon and without thinking to phrase it better. He should've said that Weinstein and the #MeToo movement overall and what it's grown into are two different things: Weinstein is a monster and an asshole and he's known it for years and before he's heard about him being a rapist, but #MeToo is using his case and others for an utterly distorted perception of the role of sexuality between men and women (of what is "typically male" for every single man in the world and what is "typically female" for every single woman in the world, in a highly essentialist fashion, rather than things to do with society, hierarchies, and systems), and for public slander based on nothing and hearsay. Basically, that Weinstein and the #MeToo movement as it exists right now are too entirely different stories.
I think when Terry says that he "doesn't like victims", he means an attitude, not what happens to people or what they have suffered, as in, "I don't like people who give up", and especially a dramatic and dishonest attitude (which can be seen in regards to #MeToo where outside people jump to conclusions that would be met with harsh protests from all parties that were actually involved, especially from the designated "victims", if only #MeToo would care to listen). Terry's once said something similar about "professional victimhood" in an interview about Tideland, and my intuition of what makes Terry tick is telling me these views he's expressing about "professional victimhood" may have something to do with how he keeps emphasizing how Sam Lowry's greatest fault is his desperate opportunism and "trying to fit in", in that Sam refuses to take responsibility for the society he's living in. Interestingly enough, while many people compare Brazil to 1984, the great (and I think decisive and perceptive) difference between the two is that the society in Brazil lacks an easily identifiable, powerful boogeman and shows how we're all doing this to ourselves by "not taking responsibility", just mindlessly doing our jobs and what we're being told.
I also highly doubt that Terry's finished. He's much too cordial and great at winning people's favors in person, and still has his genuine optimism and enormous energies.
Nimue Brown totally misunderstands just about anything. a.) They falsely think Terry had been talking about Weinstein when he wasn't. b.) They treat it like Terry would call violent, unsolicited, nonconsensual, assaultive sudden rape "a fair price to pay for a career". Terry has never said that in the slightest. He's said there are particular women who are well prepared to have a person in power *ASK* for sex in return, and that a number of them will make a rational, sometimes even highly scheming choice and say yes, even in more or less limiting capacities where the women in question will say what they are and what they are not okay with.
Terry has never denied that rape occurs in any bussiness or claimed that it wouldn't be a serious issue when it happens, but that #MeToo has a tendency to willfully confuse rational, sometimes even scheming decision processes where there is time to think things over for days or weeks before saying yes or no (where the worst that could happen is not getting a job) with violent sudden assault, where the women dragged into this mud by #MeToo often would protest to have their conscious decisions associated with #MeToo if #MeToo would actually bother to listen to them.
So Brown could be hardly further from the truth of what Terry has actually said. Actually, I find Brown acting like a much greater trollish asshole than Barkin in how they're deliberately twisting Terry's words into pretty much the opposite of what he's actually said. I wouldn't be surprised if Brown is actually consciously aware of how much they're elaborately lying about Terry, just to join the popular in-crowd under the guise of "doing right" and "helping unfortunate victims". I'd also be highly interested in Brown's definition of "power", and whether they believe that history is made mainly by "powerful individuals" rather than large crowds and social conditions. Combined with how #MeToo has basically turned into a kind of conspiracy theory movement (with its views on "wide-spread denial", "constant sex abuse cover-ups", and how men are supposedly "constantly told that rape would be a good thing to do"), I wouldn't be surprised if Brown believes into powerful individuals, "strong men" and "strong women", and sinister elites that use manipulation ("gaslighting") to control the good-hearted but naive masses where those evil folk devils in power only have to be violently eliminated to achieve public salvation and paradise, which is a popular trope within structurally anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
And on a related note of popular conspiracy theories dealing with perverted folk devils: There's a recent video on YT where a guy is basically doing a mad 6 or 10 minute rant dealing exclusively with two sentences of Terry's why he doesn't like Alien (1979) and Aliens (1986), where the guy's intercut stills from both films with recent photos of old Terry. One immediate response in the comments was: "Just look at that creepy old fart! Looks like he's molested hundreds of kids in his life!"
As for Woody Allen, I heartily recommend reading Moses Farrow on the issue: https://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05...arrow.html The most blatant sore thumb that stands out from Mia's story that she's violently forced upon Dylan and others (some of which she tried to bribe or blackmail to join her on the issue long before it's allegedly supposed to have happened, and who witnessed Mia writing a complete narrative script for Dylan, arguing at length with others what imaginable acts to put in to make things either more dramatic or more believable, which Dylan had to strictly learn word-by-word for many weeks) is that her claim on why Allen has supposedly done it was not out of any sexual motive or anything to do with Dylan at all, but that Allen supposedly did it one single time exclusively out of a will to hurt Mia back as the mom for having filed divorce (over Allen dating and later marrying one of her relatives, not *HIS*, that he only got to know when they were both adults).
Moses's account is rich in so many facts about how phoney Mia is about the story and how she has both emotionally and physically victimized and terrorized the family, including beating her own kids, since long before it happened, and most of all Dylan in how she's thoroughly and with so many efforts effectually brainwashed her with such long-lasting effects. There are even hints that Mia has been and still is actually trying to cover up something either her brother or cousin has done to Dylan, a man who has repeatedly spent many years in jail for repeated child molestation and whom she is so supiciously quiet about in her many public crusades on the issue whenever she can use hearsay against somebody, by blaming one of her close relative's acts on Allen instead for several decades now.
As for La La land, that film and the story of how it's received its Oscars is an utter joke. The hottest Oscar contender during that year was The Birth of a Nation by Nat Turner that had already been accepted by the Oscar jury for consideration. Then suddenly rape accusations against Turner appeared, the film was immediately thrown out of competition and received a number of panning and mediocre reviews (while all reviews *BEFORE* the accusations were determined that it could pretty much break Oscar records set by Titanic). So Summit Entertainment had to find a new film they could send into the Oscar race, and the next best thing (not even thinking much about its qualities in comparison to other films on its roster that year) happened to be the toe-curlingly schmaltzy, mawkish tearjerker La La land which they sent without even thinking much of it, and neither had the critics until that moment. What happened then was that La La land was given all the Oscars that had originally been intended for The Birth of a Nation.
Quote:Oh, Jordan Horowitz is a vindictive cunt who showed his true colours at last years Oscars when the wrong winner was announced and he gave Warren Beatty a look that said, "I'll kill you, you bastard."
I wouldn't judge the guy too harshly on that alone. I know if the film receiving it was utter trash (like I can't believe how the recent Mad Max even remotely got into competition, let alone win an Oscar), my face would fall (though personally, I'd rather stare in utter shock, disbelief, and probably disgust) the moment I heard it. But if it was a film I'd like and appreciate on its own merits, I'd be fully okay with giving credits where credit is due. But generally, I can get amazingly riled up at what films are getting Oscars lately.
