|
Post by Real Duality on Mar 6, 2017 16:35:01 GMT
It's a response to an editorial from his college newspaper that attacked him and the University, in addition to Affleck, but it addresses the media coverage in general. This guy knows how to write.
Connor Aberle’s article about myself, Casey, Affleck and Wesleyan’s supposed complicity in condoning sexual misconduct – and worse – by tauting me as a Wesleyan alumn after I won an Oscar last week is such a tangle of illogic, misinformation and flat-out slander that only the author’s presumed youth can possibly excuse his deeply offensive display of ignorance, and warped PC-fueled sense of indignation. His random use of the terms “sexual misconduct” “sexual harrassment” “sexual abuse” and “sexual violence,” as if they were legally or physically interchangeable, only indicates the reckless sloppiness of his thinking. Never mind what he doesn’t know about the movies and how they are cast: That’s not as important, although it does underline that he doesn’t mind knowing nothing about his own subject. But frequently dropping the word “alleged,” which grown-up journalists mindful of their own vulnerability to libel suits are careful to include when they compose equally wrongheaded pieces on this subject, he writes as if Casey Affleck were actually guilty of a crime. In fact, it was alleged 7 years ago, in a civil lawsuit for breach of contract, that Casey sexually harrased two women formerly in his employ. Casey denounced the allegations as being totally fabricated. Like most civil suits, this one was settled out of court by mutual consent on undisclosed terms. In other words nothing was proved or disproved. So how does Mr Aberle dare to write as if he knows who was telling the truth and who was not? Anyone can sue anyone for anything in this country; the unsubstantiated details go in the public record and stay there. Somebody as interested in actual as opposed to merely vocalized social justice as Mr Aberle presumably is, should unwind his tangled, immoral chain of reasoning and start over at the fundamental precept that an allegation is not an indictment. Nor can it be treated as such by any ethical person living in a democratic society supposedly based on the rule of law. Anything less vigilant exemplifies a disjointed abuse of morals and reason which those of us on the Left like to imagine exists only on the Right. I wish it were so. But I do hope that Mr Aberle is capable of taking a much harder look at the merits of his own arguments before he decides to air his views in public again.
Kenneth Lonergan
Lonergan is a member of the Class of 1984.
The Argus edits Letters to the Editor submissions for neither style nor grammar.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Mar 6, 2017 17:46:24 GMT
Do you have the original article? I'm too lazy to look it up myself.
|
|
|
Post by Kirk-Picard on Mar 6, 2017 17:58:04 GMT
Do you have the original article? I'm too lazy to look it up myself. Here
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Mar 6, 2017 18:19:20 GMT
Do you have the original article? I'm too lazy to look it up myself. HereI meant the original editorial. My bad. I'll go look it up. Edit: Here it is, thank you to kirk-picard for supplying the above that had it in a link. wesleyanargus.com/2017/03/02/oscars-so-problematic-wesleyans-complicity-in-sexual-harrassment/Edit 2: Hahahahahahaha! Wow, this guy is so delusional it makes for a genuinely entertaining read. My favorite bit is the declaration that Moonlight is now a blockbuster. Lonergan's write-up totally devours this idiot's driving points, though.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Mar 6, 2017 19:25:58 GMT
I meant the original editorial. My bad. I'll go look it up. Edit: Here it is, thank you to kirk-picard for supplying the above that had it in a link. wesleyanargus.com/2017/03/02/oscars-so-problematic-wesleyans-complicity-in-sexual-harrassment/Edit 2: Hahahahahahaha! Wow, this guy is so delusional it makes for a genuinely entertaining read. My favorite bit is the declaration that Moonlight is now a blockbuster. Lonergan's write-up totally devours this idiot's driving points, though. Holy shit, this is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. And of course this Aberle person had to describe "La La Land" as a 'jazz rescued by white savior' movie as well. It's like a collection of twitter outrage in one ridiculous piece.
|
|
|
Post by cornnetto on Mar 6, 2017 19:39:30 GMT
Do you have the original article? I'm too lazy to look it up myself. Here But instead, the film afforded the lead role to a well-known white actor, much in the same way “La La Land” opted for the star power of Ryan Gosling instead of casting someone who could actually sing and dance.
Can you imagine that movie with a non-white actor in the lead role ? Would have been a bit strange. Not so sure how relevant the Gosling comparison is, the idea was never to have someone that is great at singing and dancing in those lead role, he aimed for a grittier dancing/singing and was always planned to be like that (Miles Teller casting before Gosling was not about casting star power nor a great dancer). Some other fun moment is: Although members of the cast like Janelle Monáe and Mahershala Ali have extensive backgrounds in film,Outside one voice role, Moonlight seem to be the first movie ever made by Monáe (nothing in television either). That said, he never drop the word "alleged" and use allegations in just one sentence.
|
|
|
Post by harlequinade on Mar 6, 2017 20:14:27 GMT
The worst part is that this 'accusation = guilt' is happening all the time on social media. It literally takes few words from someone and a whole group of people are going to believe it without even researching anything first, not that they would even find the truth that way but at least they would maybe find something that would give them pause before heading to twitter and facebook and proclaiming someone guilty because someone else claims they did this and that.
|
|
|
Post by marvelass on Mar 6, 2017 20:31:58 GMT
Recasting Teller with Gosling was very much about star power. Gosling is a bigger star and more recognizable (facially and name-wise) of the two. But it was sh!tty the way Chazelle went about it, not telling Teller directly and letting the chips fall where they may.
|
|
spiralstatic
New Member
Maybe you're like Dangermouse: small, but mighty... ? ??!?!?!
Posts: 171
Likes: 69
|
Post by spiralstatic on Mar 6, 2017 20:34:11 GMT
I think it's pretty amazing Kenneth Lonergan piled in on this. He took the guy down and good for him. Although, if he really felt strongly about supporting Casey, Affleck could use it: the press has been crazy against him everywhere and I am sure Lonergan could have offered a well worded response of this style to pretty much any publication and they'd have published it. There are plenty of articles that have been published that have insinuated things that are quite simply false. (I read a particular one which used the word "assault" (well into) a double figure number of times and "harassment" only once... And that is supposedly professional journalism...)
However, it does come across a little to me as though Lonergan's motivation here is that some college kid made assertions that Kenneth himself is a bad person for having employed Casey and Lonergan took personal offence. Which is understandable and as good a reason to decide to chime in at last as any... but also it is interesting to me. It makes me wonder whether actors necessarily have to have pretty thick skins to have gotten to where they are in the business and remained there... and maybe it is the writers and Directors who are the more sensitive souls. Maybe Lonergan was just unable to leave this be?
Whatever the case, I'll take it and I'm glad he wrote it! Thank you Kenneth Lonergan.
|
|
|
Post by cornnetto on Mar 6, 2017 20:35:14 GMT
I said casting Tellers was not about casting star power, not that Gosling was not, I don't think it was between a good singer/dancer of professional level and an actor of star power (Chazelle never wanted a perfect singer/dancer in the first place, at least that was he is saying in interview and the casting history seem to indicate)
|
|
|
Post by harlequinade on Mar 6, 2017 20:40:27 GMT
I think it's pretty amazing Kenneth Lonergan piled in on this. He took the guy down and good for him. Although, if he really felt strongly about supporting Casey, Affleck could use it: the press has been crazy against him everywhere and I am sure Lonergan could have offered a well worded response of this style to pretty much any publication and they'd have published it. There are plenty of articles that have been published that have insinuated things that are quite simply false. (I read a particular one which used the word "assault" (well into) a double figure number of times and "harassment" only once... And that is supposedly professional journalism...) However, it does come across a little to me as though Lonergan's motivation here is that some college kid made assertions that Kenneth himself is a bad person for having employed Casey and Lonergan took personal offence. Which is understandable and as good a reason to decide to chime in at last as any... but also it is interesting to me. It makes me wonder whether actors necessarily have to have pretty thick skins to have gotten to where they are in the business and remained there... and maybe it is the writers and Directors who are the more sensitive souls. Maybe Lonergan was just unable to leave this be?Whatever the case, I'll take it and I'm glad he wrote it! Thank you Kenneth Lonergan. I don't think that's the case. I think any person who would have something like this written about them and accused of being a bad person in an article filled with factual errors would do something about it. The reason Affleck was not saying anything was because of the settlement - he can't say anything about it. Also maybe he was super professional on the set of MbtS and Lonergan simply found it unjust that he is being treated in this way and wanted to say something.
|
|
spiralstatic
New Member
Maybe you're like Dangermouse: small, but mighty... ? ??!?!?!
Posts: 171
Likes: 69
|
Post by spiralstatic on Mar 6, 2017 20:44:24 GMT
As for the college guy's assertion Ryan Gosling can't dance though. I mean clearly Lonergan is right that he clearly didn't do his research...
Any excuse to share that video!
As a musician myself (well, I feel uncomfortable calling myself that, but anyway) I thought Gosling's incredible jazz piano was easily the most mind boggling aspect of La La Land incidentally! From someone who really is irked by instrument miming pretty often, I was blown away by the film and the subsequent discovery that Gosling actually learned to be a jazz pianist. What on Earth! I've played violin since 8 and piano since 11 and I use both in my work and I could not have played piano like Ryan does in La La Land.
Bit off topic, but you know!
|
|
spiralstatic
New Member
Maybe you're like Dangermouse: small, but mighty... ? ??!?!?!
Posts: 171
Likes: 69
|
Post by spiralstatic on Mar 6, 2017 20:49:36 GMT
Lonergan could have explicitly supported Affleck at any point though. As I say, I'm happy he did it, but I was just interested it was this particular, small article by a kid in college he chose to respond to. Not that he hasn't responded in a more tenuous fashion elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Mar 7, 2017 0:01:20 GMT
That said, he never drop the word "alleged" and use allegations in just one sentence. What Lonergan meant by "dropped" is that Aberle dropped the use of that word. He doesn't say that the sexual harassment/assault/etc. was "alleged," dropping that important word and merely stating that Casey sexually harassed women, instead of "allegedly" harassing them. If that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by cornnetto on Mar 7, 2017 0:03:12 GMT
Ok thanks (that make complete sense).
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Mar 7, 2017 1:30:47 GMT
Seconding what harlequinade said: something about Affleck came up in my Facebook feed and the replies scared me. "Where there's smoke there's fire, so he's obviously done something bad"; "settling = confessing"; "he wouldn't have done it if he wasn't hiding something" etc. I do think it's questionable that the same press that (deservingly) grilled Nate Parker all year long had very, very little to say about Affleck thanks to his connections, but some of these responses are ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Mar 7, 2017 1:36:15 GMT
His random use of the terms “sexual misconduct” “sexual harrassment” “sexual abuse” and “sexual violence,” as if they were legally or physically interchangeable That's one of the things I really dislike about this whole thing. Nothing he's been accused of doing constitutes "violence" in any way does it? People shouldn't compare it to Polanski or Nate Parker all the time like they always do.
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Mar 7, 2017 2:00:51 GMT
Seconding what harlequinade said: something about Affleck came up in my Facebook feed and the replies scared me. "Where there's smoke there's fire, so he's obviously done something bad"; "settling = confessing"; "he wouldn't have done it if he wasn't hiding something" etc. I do think it's questionable that the same press that (deservingly) grilled Nate Parker all year long had very, very little to say about Affleck thanks to his connections, but some of these responses are ludicrous. To claim that the press had very little to say about Affleck and the allegations made against him is complete revisionist history b.s. They said quite a bit actually. The reality is that people were never going to be satisfied unless he suffered a similar fate as Nate Parker, even if it meant completely disregarding the varying levels of severity of the two situations (not suggesting sexual harassment isn't a serious issue but it's never going to be viewed similarly to rape and suicide)... Even if it also meant ingoring his poor attempts at controlling the backlash (which made it worse) by speaking out and giving a series of responses that showed ignorance and a complete lack of remorse for the victim and her family. There's also the issue that the BoaN film has a rape side plot involving his character if I remember reading correctly. I imagine would make it even more difficult to seperate art from the artist.
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Mar 7, 2017 2:16:39 GMT
I think it's pretty amazing Kenneth Lonergan piled in on this. He took the guy down and good for him. Although, if he really felt strongly about supporting Casey, Affleck could use it: the press has been crazy against him everywhere and I am sure Lonergan could have offered a well worded response of this style to pretty much any publication and they'd have published it. There are plenty of articles that have been published that have insinuated things that are quite simply false. (I read a particular one which used the word "assault" (well into) a double figure number of times and "harassment" only once... And that is supposedly professional journalism...) However, it does come across a little to me as though Lonergan's motivation here is that some college kid made assertions that Kenneth himself is a bad person for having employed Casey and Lonergan took personal offence. Which is understandable and as good a reason to decide to chime in at last as any... but also it is interesting to me. It makes me wonder whether actors necessarily have to have pretty thick skins to have gotten to where they are in the business and remained there... and maybe it is the writers and Directors who are the more sensitive souls. Maybe Lonergan was just unable to leave this be? Whatever the case, I'll take it and I'm glad he wrote it! Thank you Kenneth Lonergan. I think it's more about defending himself and HIS position in celebrating Affleck as an important part of the films overall success than actually defending Affleck. I also suspect that he was advised not to say much about it during award season.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Mar 7, 2017 2:45:22 GMT
Seconding what harlequinade said: something about Affleck came up in my Facebook feed and the replies scared me. "Where there's smoke there's fire, so he's obviously done something bad"; "settling = confessing"; "he wouldn't have done it if he wasn't hiding something" etc. I do think it's questionable that the same press that (deservingly) grilled Nate Parker all year long had very, very little to say about Affleck thanks to his connections, but some of these responses are ludicrous. To claim that the press had very little to say about Affleck and the allegations made against him is complete revisionist history b.s. They said quite a bit actually. The reality is that people were never going to be satisfied unless he suffered a similar fate as Nate Parker, even if it meant completely disregarding the varying levels of severity of the two situations (not suggesting sexual harassment isn't a serious issue but it's never going to be viewed similarly to rape and suicide)... Even if it also meant ingoring his poor attempts at controlling the backlash (which made it worse) by speaking out and giving a series of responses that showed ignorance and a complete lack of remorse for the victim and her family. There's also the issue that the BoaN film has a rape side plot involving his character if I remember reading correctly. I imagine would make it even more difficult to seperate art from the artist. I'm not trying to say Affleck and Parker are on the same level because they absolutely aren't (not in terms of what they were accused of, not in how they dealt with it in the press, not in how the subject is represented in the films they were contending for), but the Affleck controversy absolutely would've been a much bigger deal if he weren't so well connected. There was a handful of articles and everything, but they never really caught on over the year, and I don't think he was ever actually pressed about it directly, which he would've been had there not been any fear of reprisals from the people surrounding him. Part of that silence is because he (intelligently) avoided press rooms after each ceremony and kept his appearances to a minimum, but still. The big outlets did have little to say.
|
|
atn
Full Member
Posts: 680
Likes: 353
|
Post by atn on Mar 7, 2017 2:51:13 GMT
Bingo. Same shit I've said for months.
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Mar 7, 2017 3:36:48 GMT
To claim that the press had very little to say about Affleck and the allegations made against him is complete revisionist history b.s. They said quite a bit actually. The reality is that people were never going to be satisfied unless he suffered a similar fate as Nate Parker, even if it meant completely disregarding the varying levels of severity of the two situations (not suggesting sexual harassment isn't a serious issue but it's never going to be viewed similarly to rape and suicide)... Even if it also meant ingoring his poor attempts at controlling the backlash (which made it worse) by speaking out and giving a series of responses that showed ignorance and a complete lack of remorse for the victim and her family. There's also the issue that the BoaN film has a rape side plot involving his character if I remember reading correctly. I imagine would make it even more difficult to seperate art from the artist. I'm not trying to say Affleck and Parker are on the same level because they absolutely aren't (not in terms of what they were accused of, not in how they dealt with it in the press, not in how the subject is represented in the films they were contending for), but the Affleck controversy absolutely would've been a much bigger deal if he weren't so well connected. There was a handful of articles and everything, but they never really caught on over the year, and I don't think he was ever actually pressed about it directly, which he would've been had there not been any fear of reprisals from the people surrounding him. Part of that silence is because he (intelligently) avoided press rooms after each ceremony and kept his appearances to a minimum, but still. The big outlets did have little to say. A much bigger deal in what way exactly? Because there was plenty of press that grew with every award he won, celebrities even spoke out on it and the press was so obsessed with the ordeal that they even deemed it news worthy that Brie Larson merely smiled instead of jumped for joy at the Globes and Oscars. I'm not sure how much more coverage would be necessary to satisfy people, and I don't think there was anyone with even a casual interest in award season that wasn't aware of the allegations by Oscar night. I don't think it's a coverage issue more than an issue of the results of the coverage.
|
|
spiralstatic
New Member
Maybe you're like Dangermouse: small, but mighty... ? ??!?!?!
Posts: 171
Likes: 69
|
Post by spiralstatic on Mar 7, 2017 7:44:30 GMT
I'm not trying to say Affleck and Parker are on the same level because they absolutely aren't (not in terms of what they were accused of, not in how they dealt with it in the press, not in how the subject is represented in the films they were contending for), but the Affleck controversy absolutely would've been a much bigger deal if he weren't so well connected. There was a handful of articles and everything, but they never really caught on over the year, and I don't think he was ever actually pressed about it directly, which he would've been had there not been any fear of reprisals from the people surrounding him. Part of that silence is because he (intelligently) avoided press rooms after each ceremony and kept his appearances to a minimum, but still. The big outlets did have little to say. The people who made allegations against Affleck actually went to the press before pressing charges, back in 2010 so this was covered back then. But I guess Casey wasn't as big news back then so nobody cared so much. Regarding now, there was clearly a clause in the settlement that means neither Casey nor his accusers can discuss the case at all, so any journalists who wished to ask about it are going to get a very unsatisfactory answer. I agree, people would also prefer not to press on an issue against someone with power in Hollywood, potentially risking access to other big stars too. But even if they had pressed Casey, there would have been little result. Everyone thinks they might get a reply from Kenneth Lonergan now.... wesleyanargus.com/2017/03/06/what-kenneth-lonergan-is-missing-its-not-an-oscar/This article to me reads as "I shall take the moral high ground and therefore I dare you to disagree..." But really, isn't is just a petty attempt to get an Oscar winning writer to potentially read your words too? I don't know... I guess I like the platform: a load of people writing proper articles of discussion in response to each other. Nice to think such a place exists. And iheartamyadams - I agree regarding your reply to my post.
|
|
|
Post by marvelass on Mar 13, 2017 18:34:56 GMT
What bothered people about that was that the rape never happened; Parker invented his character's wife's violation as a plot device. Granted, female slaves were often assaulted by their male masters, but Nat Turner's wife wasn't, and her 'rape' wasn't the reason for the rebellion. It's kind of creepy and perverse that Parker (who got off on a technicality) and Jean McGianni Celestin (who was convicted of rape, though it was later overturned on appeal due to 'ineffective counsel') would put a fictional rape at the center of their historical film, and that Parker would portray himself as a hero avenging that rape.
|
|