criterionforum.org

Honestly they're building goodwill toward their films from me because of how nice they seem in real life.

hearthesilence wrote:Yes, but to be fair, this is how people are supposed to be. Maybe it's a hopeful sign that the film business is slowly being taken over by more civil and honorable individuals while those who give it a bad name are on their way out.

Eh, I doubt it means much except that they're behaving decently. Every industry has their good apples and bad apples - might as well applaud the good ones when their decency shines through.

domino harvey wrote:My biggest takeaway from everything I've read in the last couple days is that the producers, directors, and stars of La La Land and Moonlight are better people than I'll ever be. Just consistent class and friendliness from both sides of this mess

In a weird way, I think this debacle might end up being the best possible outcome for the filmmakers involved. Maximum exposure for both films, and they're getting to demonstrate positive qualities that most people in the public eye never even have the opportunity to demonstrate. And it's exactly the right time for a big public display of how people are supposed to behave in a civil society.

It's also easy to imagine how massively unpleasant this all could have been with different parties involved. James Cameron in the La La Land seat?

zedz wrote:It's also easy to imagine how massively unpleasant this all could have been with different parties involved. James Cameron in the La La Land seat?

Or if it had happened with an individual award somehow: imagine if Denzel was making the same face he did while in his seat, except on the stage while having to hand off the trophy to Affleck.

Y'all missing the beauty of if somehow Beatty had been given the spare envelope for Best Editing and we'd seen Mel Gibson having to hand the Best Picture trophy over...

Altair wrote:Y'all missing the beauty of if somehow Beatty had been given the spare envelope for Best Editing and we'd seen Mel Gibson having to have the Best Picture trophy over...

He'd probably have made Jenkins wrestle him for it.

London Theater Pranks Audience by Playing ‘La La Land’ in a Screening of ‘Moonlight’

http://www.indiewire.com/2017/03/la-la- ... 201788778/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

domino harvey wrote:People on Twitter are trying to turn the Variety cover into a huge disgrace for Jenkins. Thankfully he set them straight:



Typical New Left, speaking for victims that aren't even slighted

Turns out it was Chazelle who asked Variety to reach out to include Jenkins for the cover story-- and people on Twitter, learning nothing from the commendable behavior exhibited by these two, tried to turn it into something ugly and awful

Twitter has an amazing way of making even things I agree with seem stupid and awful. Probably for the best that I spend as little time there as possible.

Ira Madison, the MTV writer who originated the tweet, has a habit of being reactionary, jumping to conclusions for the sake of outrage. I posted about him in a discussion regarding Nate Parker and Mel Gibson awhile back to highlight an example of his grossly misleading acts of journalism.

domino harvey wrote:People on Twitter are trying to turn the Variety cover into a huge disgrace for Jenkins. Thankfully he set them straight:



Typical New Left, speaking for victims that aren't even slighted

domino harvey wrote:and people on Twitter, learning nothing from the commendable behavior exhibited by these two, tried to turn it into something ugly and awful

Dude your hyperbole is severely misrepresenting that twitter thread.

Nobody, not even Ira, were turning the Variety cover into a 'huge disgrace for Jenkins'. In fact it had little to do with the Variety cover and more to do with a substantive discussion regarding press coverage since Sunday specifically pertaining to Moonlight sharing the spotlight with La La Land. This is a reasonable discussion to have especially between members of the press. Mark was on one side of it while Alex P & Miriam were closer to Ira's views on overall press coverage, not the Variety cover.

https://twitter.com/MarkHarrisNYC/statu ... 4768002049" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://twitter.com/ira/status/836842015748939777" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lastly these people you hand waved into the dustbin of intellect as 'people on twitter' are among the most thoughtful, intelligent and engaging members of the film press.

The above are but one subsection of people responding negatively on Twitter. To suggest this situation is being treated fairly on the whole by those using the app is utter fiction. For instance, using your own links, accusing coverage of glorifying "White grace" is an automatic conversation-ender, and hardly thoughtful, intelligent, or engaging

The coverage has totally been glorifying "white grace," though. One would assume without any context that the La La Land folks found it in the goodness of their hearts to hand over their rightful accolades to a film that they thought could use the exposure. Or that this was a first ever Best Picture tie. While he was incorrect about the facts of the tradition of the Variety cover (which I found lovely), Ira was 100% correct about how unfortunate it is that Moonlight has been linked to this unusual occurrence, and to La La Land, even though only one film won Best Picture. Pointing out that something is less than ideal is not an attack on those who see it as nothing but an idealistic narrative, meant to shut down any further discussion.

What is the difference between "white grace" and "grace"? How would the La La Land producers have been able to exhibit "grace" instead?

domino harvey wrote:The above are but one subsection of people responding negatively on Twitter. To suggest this situation is being treated fairly on the whole by those using the app is utter fiction. For instance, using your own links, accusing coverage of glorifying "White grace" is an automatic conversation-ender, and hardly thoughtful, intelligent, or engaging

To suggest you were talking about all the people responding negatively on Twitter and not these four people who you yourself quoted then smeared is 'utter fiction'.

I also have no idea why remarking on media portrayal 'white grace' is an automatic conversation-ender, but that's a whole other conversation.

What distinguishes the grace of the La La Land producers from that of the Moonlight producers?

Not sure how a "gotcha" about those producers being white changes the conversation at all. Handing over an award that you didn't win to those who did should have a cap on the lionization associated with it. It's exactly what they should've done, and anything less than that would've been an embarrassment. It's nice that this was handled with warm feeling on both sides, but I think the issue that many have with the reception is the fact that there's a metaphorical asterisk on the award, and covering the response of the La La Land producers instead of merely treating that as an unrelated footnote to which film won Best Picture continues that narrative in the eye of people who aren't paying close attention to this.

Frankly, the only "metaphorical asterisk" I see attached to the win is the one MOONLIGHT's most strident defenders insist on attaching to it.

Otherwise, it's basically 100% a strawman.

I hope you're right. Maybe the additional attention has had the reverse effect. I personally doubt it, but I don't think there's any way of proving this.

domino harvey wrote:What distinguishes the grace of the La La Land producers from that of the Moonlight producers?

White grace is a concept much like white privilege, white savior etc, etc. Agree with it or not and I can't get inside your head obviously, but it's honestly rather perplexing to read you claim to not understand an idea I'm pretty sure you do.

Conceding that point shouldn't you then understand the idea before criticizing it?

Considering you've now acknowledged not understanding what 'white grace' is at least your misinterpretation of the journalist's conversation makes a lot more sense.

Brian C wrote:Frankly, the only "metaphorical asterisk" I see attached to the win is the one MOONLIGHT's most strident defenders insist on attaching to it.

Otherwise, it's basically 100% a strawman.

Agreed, but this isn't what the four journalists were speaking on.

Black Hat wrote:

domino harvey wrote:What distinguishes the grace of the La La Land producers from that of the Moonlight producers?

White grace is a concept much like white privilege, white savior etc, etc. Agree with it or not and I can't get inside your head obviously, but it's honestly rather perplexing to read you claim to not understand an idea I'm pretty sure you do.

Conceding that point shouldn't you then understand the idea before criticizing it?

Considering you've now acknowledged not understanding what 'white grace' is at least your misinterpretation of the journalist's conversation makes a lot more sense.

Did you just have an entire debate with me, including speaking for me, without my participation?

Just because I ask questions of those furthering an argument (which have yet to be answered) does not mean I am ignorant of the topic at hand...

One other thing about this that's been bugging me for all the praise being lavished on how Jordan Horowtiz handled this I thought the dude (understandably so) was pretty salty. He raised his voice, snatched the card out of Beatty's hand, the way he held it up - the guy was clearly p-o'd (again understandably so).

domino harvey wrote:

Black Hat wrote:

domino harvey wrote:What distinguishes the grace of the La La Land producers from that of the Moonlight producers?

White grace is a concept much like white privilege, white savior etc, etc. Agree with it or not and I can't get inside your head obviously, but it's honestly rather perplexing to read you claim to not understand an idea I'm pretty sure you do.

Conceding that point shouldn't you then understand the idea before criticizing it?

Considering you've now acknowledged not understanding what 'white grace' is at least your misinterpretation of the journalist's conversation makes a lot more sense.

Did you just have an entire debate with me, including speaking for me, without my participation?

No I just rhetorically cornered you by using your own words or to be more specific questions. Now you can continue attempting to be clever for clever's sake or you can tackle the issues raised.

You cornered me by not answering the questions I asked? Brilliant maneuver!