by maryann johanson, liberal movie person
Mon Jan 09 2017, 08:35pm | 47 comments
And without ever even saying his name.
Everything Streep says. Movies matter. Stories matter. Empathy matters.
She absolutely deserves her own applause gif.
More and more, I keep thinking about astronauts vs. cavemen:
I think the cavemen are winning.
Trump and his cronies and his acolytes proudly wear their cruelty on their sleeves.
Here’s a video deconstructing Trump’s Twitter habits. Neat stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geEVwslL-YY
And yet Streep, who has a daughter of her own, had no issues with giving Roman Polanski a standing ovation at the 2003 Academy Awards. A tad hypocritical… of course that is usual for Hollywood.
And the Declaration of Independence was written by slaveholders. Imperfect messengers don’t make the message incorrect. Empathy is still a good thing.
And applauding a fugitive and child molester is “empathy” ? How conveniently Hollywood actors forget the ones in their midst whose behavior they enable.
Thereby completely ignoring the point of my comment. Well done.
Thereby ignoring Hollywood’s selective “outrage”. Well done indeed.
The selectivity can be criticized, but outrage that is selective is not therefore outrage that is invalid. And it’s better than no outrage at all.
What part of the text of Streep’s speech, itself, do you disagree with?
I am curious what prompted this outburst from Ms Streep, in the light of her previous gushings of praise of people like Polanski. I am just looking for some consistency in her criticism. Isn’t Trump criticized for his inconsistency when he speaks ? Praising Putin ? How is praising Polanski something a sane person would so ? Would you praise Polanski ? Ms Streep would have better credibility if she wasn’t praising criminals.
And we can (rightly) criticize Thomas Jefferson for being inconsistent when he wrote the Declaration while owning slaves. Now, knowing what you do about Jefferson, do you disagree with any of the text of the Declaration? And do you disagree with any part of Streep’s speech?
Isn’t Trump criticized for his inconsistency when he speaks? Praising Putin?
Bad example. Praising Putin is the only CONSISTENT thing he does.
The reason it’s important for Trump to be consistent is because he’s in a position to affect national policy and his actions will actually impact people’s lives, so it’s crucial to try to understand what he’s thinking. Streep is a citizen rightly criticizing her nation’s leader, whether or not she failed to criticize someone else in the past.
Eh, I’d take this guy more seriously if he hadn’t introduced himself here by urinating all over the Passengers comments.
And as you clearly pointed out, nobody forgets Jefferson’s slave ownership, which was not unusual for the time he lived in . Yet Streep and other Hollywood actors’ praise of criminals is conveniently forgotten. Or is in your opinion ok for them to praise pedophiles, as long as they are actors/directors and not MMA athletes or foot ball players ? Oh.. did you forget Streep’s bashing of MMA athletes and NFL players in her same speech ? Some of the MMA athletes tweeted back their disgust at Streep insulting them. Note that athletes also come from all over the world. Streep seems to think only Hollywood is international. Looks like Streep needs a better script writer to fact check her “outrage” speeches.
Eh, perhaps you’ve been cavorting in some Russian hotel, since that metaphor is on your mind. Hope your clothes are drip dry.
We should ignore him. Otherwise, he might run for president.
Instead of reading his comments, we can listen to this:
You’re still attacking the messenger and dismissing the message.
People’s opinions evolve. There are probably things I was okay with 14 years ago that I’m not okay with today. It would be interesting to hear what Streep would say today about Polanski. Regardless, she doesn’t have to be right in ALL situations in order to be right about THIS situation.
If Streep thinks only Hollywood is international, she’s obviously wrong. If she meant to condescend to fans of football and MMA, she’s obviously wrong. But she’s correct that NFL and MMA are not the arts, and her speech was in celebration of and in defense of the arts. And of journalism, and of being kind, and of not using one’s power to attack those who are weaker than you. Surely you don’t have a problem with any of that, do you?
Betcha a shiny nickle he couldn’t name any details about the woman Polanski is accused of raping.
He’s trying to emulate his hero by engaging in some form of Trump’s ritual humiliation and domination game. What he doesn’t seem to appreciate is that he’s impotent to either humiliate or dominate anyone, because no one cares what he thinks.
I am merely pointing out that there is something odd about a Hollywood actor praising a convicted pedophile hiding in Europe while moralizing about Trump. And at the same time taking a condescending swipe at athletes. If she had a point to make, it was lost in the midst of the overwhelming hypocrisy. The MMA athletes were offended as indicated by the angry tweets they sent out. Or are you saying they should bow to Ms Streep’s superior intellect ?
Seems you are unaware the “woman” was a 13 year old girl. Maybe where you live a 13 year old is considered to be a woman,
If she had a point to make, it was lost in the midst of the overwhelming hypocrisy.
Her point was crystal clear to anyone watching and listening. It’s only being muddied now by people who refuse to agree with anything a liberal says — so they bring up her failure to condemn someone else 14 years ago, or they’re suddenly affronted by a dig she made at a couple of sports she may not personally appreciate. If the tables were turned, and a conservative figure made a dig at, say, Broadway or hip-hop or opera, and liberals raised an outcry — I wonder how many of Streep’s critics would turn on a dime and say, “Oh, those liberal snowflakes can’t take the heat, they’re so sensitive and upset that someone’s just telling it like it is and not being politically correct“?
As a liberal, I’ll admit that sometimes liberals have blind spots and may be prone to condescension. But you know what? Football players and MMA athletes will survive a little condescension. Women, minorities, LGBT folks, the poor, the sick, the uninsured, etc will face far worse consequences under a Trump administration that refuses to feel empathy for them.
Right. Because in 2003 Streep was unaware of Polanski’s crime and that he was hiding out in Europe to escape US law enforcement. You are seriously defending Streep after she applauds a criminal and then slams athletes ? What point was she trying to make in your fractured logic ?
“Football players and MMA athletes will survive a little condescension.”. And there you have it. So in Streep’s vision and yours, being sanctimonious hypocrites is quite all right. Keep it up.
You are seriously defending Streep after she applauds a criminal
I never defended her applause of Polanski. But her being wrong then doesn’t mean that she’s wrong now.
What point was she trying to make
That actors (and others in the film industry) really come from everywhere and from ordinary backgrounds. That the value of acting is that it lets the audience imagine lives different from theirs. That the powerful should not use their position to bully those who are weaker, because it encourages others to do the same. That we should support and protect journalists who can hold our leaders to account. I’m sorry that you missed all that.
being sanctimonious hypocrites is quite all right.
No it isn’t. (And by the way, as I’m sure you’re aware, the left hardly has the monopoly on sanctimonious hypocrisy.) But there are worse things than the left’s condescension, which will affect MMA athletes not one bit. Stripping poor people of their healthcare is worse. Encouraging an atmosphere of violence against minorities is worse. Making it harder for women to have reproductive healthcare is worse. Preventing the press from asking questions is worse. And endorsing a leader who does all these things is worse.
But you understood my point the first time I made it. Deliberately distorting it is your game, not mine, so I’ll leave you to it.
“I never defended her applause of Polanski. But her being wrong then doesn’t mean that she’s wrong now.”
You brush off praise of Polanski by an auditorium of Hollywood’s “intelligentsia”, including Ms Streep. Why would they praise a person whose person behavior seems to be exactly what they claim is a terrible thing when they wear ribbons on stage to bring attention to crime against women, children etc. Seems like they are quite alright with it when it is one of their own. Would you feel the same way if she had praised Bill Cosby for his contributions to Hollywood ? Cosby hasn’t been convicted yet.
In the the thread about the film “Passengers”, the fictional hero’s apparent “reward” for his behavior was heavily criticized. Yet you have no problem with a room full of people praising a real life person who is profiting and receiving awards in Hollywood after committing a terrible crime.
I’ve indicated several times that I think Streep was wrong in 2003, but for some reason you refuse to hear it. Oh well. If you get off on repeatedly arguing a point that I never contested, go right ahead.
If past inconsistencies and moral failings disqualify citizens from holding leaders accountable or speaking up for a cause, then no one except saints can ever speak up about anything. Unfortunately saints are in short supply in our society, so it’s up to the rest of us, flawed and compromised as we are, to do our best to call for justice and fairness. Even if we do it inconsistently.
It’s really interesting that at no point in this discussion do you ever concede that Streep is right about the value of the arts, right about the dangers of abusing power and attacking the weak, right about the need for empathy, right about the importance of a free press. If I didn’t know any better, I’d suspect you were siding with Trump on this: attacking the flaws of his critics and ignoring their criticism, instead of helping to hold accountable the soon-to-be most powerful man in the world. Surely you’re better than that, no?
You are ignoring the point that it was not just Streep but pretty much every major actor/actress in the Oscar audience that wildly cheered Polanski. The same people who are now so upset over Trump. Streep is just representative of the hypocrisy of Hollywood.
And it is interesting that Streep thinks minorities only work in Hollywood and none play in the NFL, which she looks down on. 68% of the NFL players are Black. What’s Streep have to say about that ? So the NFL is actually far more welcoming to minorities than the industry she works for. And this is all well before Trump arrived on the scene.
And now you’re moving the goalposts: it’s not just Streep, it’s everyone!
My argument still applies. Past failure to condemn an outrage does not disqualify you from condemning an outrage in the present.
Yes, Streep’s dig at the NFL and MMA was unnecessary and ill-informed. No, that one sentence doesn’t take away anything from the main point of her speech — which you have never, not once, commented on. You’re again attacking the critic and ignoring the validity of the criticism.
Feel free to keep beating your single point into the ground.
And while we’re on the subject of “excusing the sins of your own team” hypocrisy, surely you know that the left doesn’t have a monopoly on it. Trump’s supporters (including you? you’ve never said) heil him as a Man of the People, their Champion Against the Elites, conveniently ignoring that he’s one of the most elite figures ever in our nation, hobnobbing with international billionaires, parading a series of supermodel wives in a golden tower in Manhattan. They approved when he attacked Clinton for her ties to the big banks, and now conveniently look the other way when he stocks his Cabinet with Goldman Sachs execs. They cheered when he demanded that Clinton be transparent with her emails and speeches, and now shrug when he refuses to release his tax returns. They roared when he accused Clinton of having shadowy international ties and conflicts of interest, but now don’t care that he has plenty of his own. Why? Because he’s on Their Team.
If (according to you) hypocrisy disqualifies someone from speaking out and criticizing problems, then everyone on the right disqualified themselves long ago.
No, I was actually giving Streep the pass that she wasn’t the only hypocrite in Hollywood. She has plenty of company. :-).
So if Bill Cosby or Roman Polanski (if he has the guts to come back to the US) were to get up on stage and talk about how badly women have been treated in Hollywood, would you give weightage to their words ? Ignore their hypocrisy ? When people who live in glass houses get up on stage to pontificate, they also themselves open up criticism of their own hypocrisy. You can call this an extension of the Streisand Effect. Sorry, but Hollywood is hardly a bastion of fair play and ethics. Look at their history over the years and tell me that isn’t true with all their scandals, suicides, plagiarized work, drug addictions etc. This is an industry that wants to lecture the world on ethics. Hilarious. Sure, let’s have the tobacco industry lecture the country on good health practices. No, that wouldn’t be hypocritical.
Actually you seem to be of the mindset that “If you don’t agree with the Hollywood hypocrites you must be the enemy” . When I pointed out that the NFL and the MMA athletes were upset, you brushed aside their opinions. A bit elitist , no ? And note that the very states that voted for Obama a mere 4 years ago are now suddenly full of racists ? Please… perhaps it is that arrogance that led Hillary and her advisors to ignore those states which contributed in large part to her loss. Even Joe Biden raised concerns in October about what he saw in PA, where many were gravitating to Trump. And the “fake news” that was spun by the media was that Hillary was doing well, when the truth was she wasn’t, also amplified the illusion that Hillary was a strong candidate in states where she was actually very weak.
Please stop feeding the troll. While I’ve enjoyed reading your arguments, the comments on both sides are the same arguments we’ve been seeing for the past 24-48 hours, and there’s not much value in repeating them in an endless loop.
The woman is older than I am, moron.
And I wasn’t talking to you. Fuck off.
< "get a load of this asshole” emoji >
In 1977 the woman was 13. Is basic math beyond your mathematical abilities… genius. Got your doctorate from an online university ?
And if there’s one thing 52 year old women love, it’s being referred to as “girl”. Idiot.
Delete your account.
What are you talking about? Do you know the case ? In 1977 Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. That is the crime he was charged with. What are you raving about ?
So if Bill Cosby or Roman Polanski (if he has the guts to come back to the US) were to get up on stage
More goalpost-moving. Now it’s not just those who fail to condemn the outrage, but those who commit the outrage themselves. Your game, not mine. I’m out.
The outrage is selective.. get it ?
Delete. Your. Account.
I. Am Not. The. One. Using. Abusive. Language.
You are engaging in rhetoric that is not acceptable here. Either argue fairy or take it elsewhere.
I’m sorry but if you look at my comments, I have been polite and directed at the content of the post. I have not cursed out anyone and have kept stayed civil. Yes, I have responded when abused. But as you can see I have maintained decorum. And what I pointed out about Meryl Streep has been pointed out as accurate on Snopes.com a well known site that debunks fake stories:
“A video clip showing Meryl Streep applauding for Roman Polanski at the Academy Awards in 2003 came to the forefront after the actress’ controversial 2017 Golden Globes speech.”
I have provided citations from reputable sources for my arguments. The people who are abusive to me have not.
Did you suddenly feel a need to be honest about yourself ?
Delete you account, rico.
Do it now, before it’s… well, it’s already too late, but still, your handle is generic enough that no one ever has to know that all this was you.
Do it now.
I posted the link to the Snopes site which has the video clip of Streep and others giving a standing ovation to Polanski. Her hypocrisy and of those around her is called out in the article posted there too. What exactly are you finding untrue in what posted ? Am curious .. really I am.
On a movie trivia note, In “Starship Troopers” , a mortally wounded character tells a soldier named Rico to put him out of his misery and to “Do it now” Am reminded of that :)
Oh, child, you can’t even keep track of your own rantings. But there’s an easy fix…
I posted the link to the Snopes site
No one is questioning the fact that Streep applauded. But seem unable to comprehend that someone can be wrong about one thing — or may have evolved their position in the intervening decade — and right about something else.
I am not sure one needs to evolve in their position on a matter like this. There was no ambiguity about what Polanski did. But even in 2003, Polanski was a known criminal and fugitive. His crime and fleeing to Europe was no secret. In your thread on “Passengers” you raised the point that the main character got everything he wanted after committing a crime and people were supposed to accept it. Isn’t that what Polanski got from Hollywood after committing his crime.. fame, awards and praise from Meryl Streep and her colleagues ? It would be like praising O J Simpson today for being a great football player, while acting as if what he did to his ex wife was inconsequential.
based on the Aggregate theme by Elegant Themes | powered by WordPress