criterionforum.org

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.

I like to think of myself as one of Moonlight's strongest defenders, and I wouldn't put any asterisk on it. Also, it's not unfortunate that exponentially more people are discussing Moonlight (and La La Land) than would have been the case had either film won the award in the usual straightforward fashion. If the favorite had won, people would have bemoaned the Academy awarding a depiction of itself yet again; if the underdog had been announced correctly, the narrative would likely have been how the Academy neglects popular movies in favor of obscurities no one actually sees. Either way, those tired conversations would have burned out quickly and this thread would have died Monday.

Instead, PWC fucked up and everyone is still talking about two very good films, and more people will likely see both as a result, which is entirely a good thing.

domino harvey wrote: 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...

So you're asking questions you already know the answer to for what purpose exactly? To judge the bona fides of others raising an issue?

It seems to be more of an obfuscating tactic.

Whatever it is it's not a good look dude.

So... that's a "no" to defending your position by answering questions about it?

Black Hat wrote: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).

I honestly wonder if it might have been interpreted as an elaborate prank unless the camera zooms in on him holding that card.

As for the movie having some kind of asterisk and all this, it seems a bit premature to tell, and then it's a matter of, an asterisk with who? Moonlight won best picture and is now playing in more theaters. The flub could just as well be remembered as an embarrassing disaster, not necessarily attached to these films--of which the directors and producers handled the situation best. People seem deeply concerned with the legacy of these movies which are still new movies. Maybe there's some justification as it took me a google search to realize Spotlight won last year, though I've dropped attention to these shows the last few years. Time will tell I suppose.

Black Hat wrote: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).

And the way he said he'd be thrilled to give the award to his friends ... meow!!!

domino harvey wrote:So... that's a "no" to defending your position by answering questions about it?

Excuse me you're the person who staked out a position.

What I did was point out your position as false.

Therefore the onus was on you to defend your position as.

Instead you have since diverted attention or obfuscated.

Domino's question is of the utmost importance in this discussion. It is not a false position; it is the key one.

If you cannot provide a clear distinction between: A. white grace, and B. being white and showing grace, then you have no clear or even debatable ideas.

Another way of putting this is: does any evidence or argument against your position exist that you will accept as refuting it? Answering Domino's question will show whether or not you've engaged in this discussion in good faith.

JohnShade wrote:I honestly wonder if it might have been interpreted as an elaborate prank unless the camera zooms in on him holding that card.

Absolutely, especially with Kimmel's reputation. Funny thing about this was how when the camera zoomed in you can clearly see the words on the card which is usually not the case on late night shows, game shows etc, etc.

Brian C wrote:[And the way he said he'd be thrilled to give the award to his friends ... meow!!!

Not sure what your point is.

Got some stuff to do at work, I'll see you guys later.

Mr Sausage wrote:Domino's question is of the upmost importance in this discussion. It is not a false position; it is the key one.

If you cannot provide a clear distinction between: A. white grace, and B. being white and showing grace, then you have no clear or even debatable ideas.

Another way of putting this is: does any evidence or argument against your position exist that you will accept as refuting it. Answering Domino's question will show whether or not you've engaged in this discussion in good faith.

Mr. Sausage, with respect I strongly disagree.

The conversation, one DH brought up by the way, was not one of 'white grace' it was about how these four journalists were 'turning Barry Jenkins into a disgrace'

DH clearly misrepresented the Twitter thread involving the four journalists.

All I did was point this out and instead of saying 'yeah I erred on that', DH has been going on about this or that which have nothing to do with what I took him to task for.

Having said that I'm confident what I've said speaks for itself and see no reason to continue banging this drum.

I'm really happy with the way this statement

Black Hat wrote:Not sure what your point is.

followed this one

Black Hat wrote: Funny thing about this was how when the camera zoomed in you can clearly see the words on the card which is usually not the case on late night shows, game shows etc, etc.

all in the same post.

Black Hat wrote:

Mr Sausage wrote:Domino's question is of the upmost importance in this discussion. It is not a false position; it is the key one.

If you cannot provide a clear distinction between: A. white grace, and B. being white and showing grace, then you have no clear or even debatable ideas.

Another way of putting this is: does any evidence or argument against your position exist that you will accept as refuting it. Answering Domino's question will show whether or not you've engaged in this discussion in good faith.

Mr. Sausage, with respect I strongly disagree.

The conversation, one DH brought up by the way, was not one of 'white grace' it was about how these four journalists were 'turning Barry Jenkins into a disgrace'

That's not what domino said, and by presenting it as a quote, you are simply lying.

Black Hat wrote: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).

Being pissed off with how crap the non-awardees were handling the situation is different from being pissed at not winning. Seems pretty clear the PwC two weren't fit for the role they were performing. This Jason Horowitz pretty much rescued the entire affair.

TMDaines wrote:

Black Hat wrote: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).

Being pissed off with how crap the non-awardees were handling the situation is different from being pissed at not winning. Seems pretty clear the PwC two weren't fit for the role they were performing. This Jason Horowitz pretty much rescued the entire affair.

Agreed, producer was producering.

Brian C wrote:

Black Hat wrote:The conversation, one DH brought up by the way, was not one of 'white grace' it was about how these four journalists were 'turning Barry Jenkins into a disgrace'

That's not what domino said, and by presenting it as a quote, you are simply lying.

What? That's exactly what Domino said.

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

Anyways to be accused of lying is a bit much for a Thursday morning, enjoy the rest of your day.

Are you unaware that what you falsely quoted above and what you directly bolded from me are not the same thing, in wording or meaning?

I clicked your link and one of the first things I saw when scrolling through the Twitter exchange I was accused of misrepresenting was the aforementioned decrying of "white grace" from one of the aggrieved, so

Kimmel breaks down the show (and the near-death stage collapse during rehearsals) on Bill Simmons' podcast.

An additional question should be when has a minority earned white grace? I'm sure a guy named Hurwitz is glad to be in the same company as a Bush.

domino harvey wrote:Are you unaware that what you falsely quoted above and what you directly bolded from me are not the same thing, in wording or meaning?

I clicked your link and one of the first things I saw when scrolling through the Twitter exchange I was accused of misrepresenting was the aforementioned decrying of "white grace" from one of the aggrieved, so

I apologize for taking this liberty.

However it doesn't change my point - none of these four people, not even Ira, were 'aggrieved' in the way you are portraying them to be.

Let me take a stab at painting a clearer landscape.

The meaning of your post as I understood it was people, meaning these four journalists as indicated by your link to their Twitter thread were trying to turn the shared Barry Jenkins/Damien Chazelle Variety cover as a slight to diminish the accomplishments of Jenkins & Moonlight. This prompted Jenkins to say the Variety cover is traditionally reserved for best director. You followed this up by further burying these people and by extension whoever you perceive to be representative of the 'new left'.

I challenged you because when I found these threads on Twitter I saw that this wasn't the conversation being had in any way shape or form. It was a substantive, intelligent and thought provoking discussion. The impression I have, perhaps incorrectly, is you find the mere discussion of this topic to be idiotic. Clearly I disagree.

Furthermore you mentioned one of the first things you saw when clicking on the links I provided was Ira using the phrase 'white grace'. Leaving that to the side for a moment this indicates that until you clicked on the thread links I provided you hadn't bothered to read these threads before tarring and feathering these four journalists. That's not cool.

Yet I'm the one accused of 'lying' or having a discussion in 'bad faith'? Come on man.

To that point and in deference to Mr. Sausage, on the topic of 'white grace' vis a vis 'white grace' vs 'being white and showing grace' as DH acknowledged he is well aware of what the term means therefore to respond to his question is a bit of a fool's race in obfuscation. Beyond this Mfunk had already answered his question. A not particularly relevant one because the conversation is about films and their auteurs. A very small slice of the population give a thought to who a film's producers are so to link the white producers of Moonlight is a feeble attempt at equating these lines.

To clarify Mr. S believed my calling DH's position to be false as pertaining to his question. Domino's calling out the behavior of the four journalists is the position I called false.

Now if people want to hang their hats on the implication of the term 'white grace' being used in this context when Moonlight has three white producers go ahead and fall on that sword, but frankly contrary to the four journalists it seems to me you're the ones unwilling to fairly engage preferring to stick with your intransigent narrative about this topic.

Hope this cleared things up a bit.

You are really struggling to not directly answer my questions and turn this debate into something else entirely, namely a defense of your beloved journos. That you are still casting aspersions on my perspective and speaking for me in the latest response above is galling and ridiculous. That you are incapable of answering a direct question with anything short of deflection or aversion is amazing. That you are proving over and over again that I was correct in my initial remarks that the internet is filled with people outraged on the behalf of others and hellbent on turning friendly interactions between the filmmakers of these two movies into something ugly, well, that's just perfect.

I dream of a day when every time someone feels compelled to post their opinion on the internet, they instead go out and buy someone a sandwich.

I like a #13 or #56 from Jersey Mike's. Surprise me.

Domino, from the beginning all I took issue with was your characterization of the journalists and yes defending them against your meritless attack was precisely what I was doing. I'm as stunned at you for not realizing this until now as you are at me for not fully indulging you in whatever tangential question you've been banging on about.

We've reached loggerheads with firm no quarter so I'll grant the rest of the board mercy and leave it there.

cdnchris wrote:I like a #13 or #56 from Jersey Mike's. Surprise me.

I got a #13 but you never showed up so I ate it myself.

Sounds like an uncharacteristically lucky thirteen