Predator and Prey: Assault, harassment, and other aggressions in the entertainment industry

[MsTree]

13 hours ago, Lady Whistleup said:

She's not lying though.

As Judge Judy would say...that statement calls for you to be inside her head. 

[Ohiopirate02]

5 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

I'm sure she'll be as forthcoming in paying the judgement as she was in donating to the ACLU and Children's Hospital.

Amber has been forthcoming in paying the money she pledged to those two organizations.  The gifts were set up to be paid over the course of a decade which is common with large donations.  The ACLU has gone on record about this.  They also understand that Amber has a large legal bill due to this trial and their payments are delayed due to this.

I get it. Amber is not likable,  but she never lied about donating this money.  

[inkworks]

4 hours ago, MsTree said:

As Judge Judy would say...that statement calls for you to be inside her head. 

By that logic the jury shouldn’t have been able to say she lied then.

[bluegirl147]

6 minutes ago, inkworks said:

By that logic the jury shouldn’t have been able to say she lied then.

In a civil trial for a jury to believe something there has to be a preponderance of the evidence.  This jury felt there was enough to determine Amber lied.  Not that she lied about the donation specifically because that wasn't something they needed to decide but they didn't believe other things she said on the stand.  Have we heard from any jurors yet?  I am interested to hear their reasoning for the verdict.

[Prairie Rose]

5 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

In a civil trial for a jury to believe something there has to be a preponderance of the evidence.  This jury felt there was enough to determine Amber lied.  Not that she lied about the donation specifically because that wasn't something they needed to decide but they didn't believe other things she said on the stand.  Have we heard from any jurors yet?  I am interested to hear their reasoning for the verdict.

Even suing someone on these grounds in civil court is hard. Not every lawyer will take a case like this. 

What really bothers me about this case is the misogyny and favoritism unleashed. Fans circulating a petition to get Ms. Heard removed from Aquaman 2, for example. Booing her and cheering him whenever they arrived at the courthouse. Would things have been different if Ms. Heard had been the older and established half of the couple?

[bluegirl147]

15 minutes ago, Prairie Rose said:

What really bothers me about this case is the misogyny and favoritism unleashed.

I've said from the beginning that I thought they were both toxic and even worse together but the outright refusal of people (and especially saddened me that a lot were women) to even consider Johnny Depp might have been a bad guy was shocking to me.  In my own life I had people say well you know men are abused too.  As if that meant Amber couldn't have been abused.  No matter the verdict at the end of the day these two people are still the same people they were before the trial and still have the issues and problems they did before the trial.  

15 minutes ago, Prairie Rose said:

Would things have been different if Ms. Heard had been the older and established half of the couple?

That is a good question.  I do think celebrity had a lot to do with how people viewed things. What if it had been Julia Roberts and her husband who most people don't know?

Edited June 3, 2022 by bluegirl147

[aradia22]

https://www.gawker.com/celebrity/matthew-morrison-shares-text-that-got-him-fired-from-sytycd

If this is true, he's an idiot. If it's not, he needs to learn to lie better.

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, aradia22 said:

https://www.gawker.com/celebrity/matthew-morrison-shares-text-that-got-him-fired-from-sytycd

If this is true, he's an idiot. If it's not, he needs to learn to lie better.

I wouldn't say I respected him more when I thought it was a straight forward flirty text but at least I could think he was straight forward.  But this?  Ugh.

"It's just an innocent text!" I am stunned how oblivious he is and doesn't realize that women can usually see right through this kind of "professional opportunity" pretty easily.  He was going to try to get her a job as a choreographer on the show? He was a judge not an EP.  He isn't really a dancer or a choreographer.  And one thing I'd bet money on is that he has nothing to do with hiring the choreographers. If he really thought she should do it, he could've mentioned it to the person who does do the hiring instead of reaching out on his own.

But nope, he had to do it himself because hiring her as a choreographer wasn't the goal.  His goal was to open up the lines of communication under the guise of offering her a professional opportunity and dangling the carrot he can't actually provide but hoped even the smallest possibility would be too hard for her to pass up.  I also bet that "single text" was a continuation of on set interactions that gave her a bad vibe.

Good on her on outing him to the FOX execs.

[Ms Blue Jay]

Omg, and he's married!  This story, oh my word.

[Jaded]

I was an All My Children viewer for it's last 10 years or so. I mention that because I first became familar with Matthew Morrison a year or two before Glee started when he awkwardly broke off his and Chrishell Stause's engagement. He's made weird comments about it over the years since like he felt pressured by society to propose (which is some ways makes sense) and how he regretted proposing minutes after doing so.

He's come across to me more times than once since the engagement debacle like he has a lot of trouble taking personal responsibility for the things things he's chosen to do which have had negative effects in other peoples lives. His reaction after news about his inappropriate texting behavior got out is another example of that.  

Edited June 4, 2022 by Jaded

[Prairie Rose]

2 hours ago, Jaded said:

I was an All My Children viewer for it's last 10 years or so. I mention that because I first became familar with Matthew Morrison a year or two before Glee started when he awkwardly broke off his and Chrishell Stause's engagement. He's made weird comments about it over the years since like he felt pressured by society to propose (which is some ways makes sense) and how he regretted proposing minutes after doing so.

He's come across to me more times then once since the engagement debacle like he has a lot of trouble taking personal responsibility for the things things he chooses to do which have negative effects in other peoples lives. His reaction after news about his inappropriate texting behavior got out is another example of that.  

I'll always remember Ms. Stause's comment at the time - that it wasn't his fault he thought monogamy was a tree!!!!

[peachmangosteen]

I think he's saying that he and the contestant had a mutual friend and he was reaching out to the contestant to talk about getting their mutual friend a job as a choreographer. I don't think that text alone is overwhelming evidence of him being 'flirty' but I also suspect there were more texts and he purposefully chose to make one public that wasn't necessarily of that nature on it's own. In any case, it is completely inappropriate for a judge to be contacting a contestant privately in any manner imo.

[Prairie Rose]

Just now, peachmangosteen said:

In any case, it is completely inappropriate for a judge to be contacting a contestant privately in any manner imo.

Bingo!!! Wouldn't something like that be violating your contract?

[peachmangosteen]

42 minutes ago, Prairie Rose said:

Bingo!!! Wouldn't something like that be violating your contract?

It was and his initial statement said just that, that he had violated the contract and was let go because of it. So, no matter whether the texts he sent were flirty or not, he's an idiot lol.

[Prairie Rose]

1 minute ago, peachmangosteen said:

It was and his initial statement said just that, that he had violated the contact and was let go because of it. So, no matter whether the texts he sent were flirty or not, he's an idiot lol.

Not the brightest bulb in the lamp, for sure. Yikes!!

[Notabug]

4 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

I think he's saying that he and the contestant had a mutual friend and he was reaching out to the contestant to talk about getting their mutual friend a job as a choreographer. I don't think that text alone is overwhelming evidence of him being 'flirty' but I also suspect there were more texts and he purposefully chose to make one public that wasn't necessarily of that nature on it's own. In any case, it is completely inappropriate for a judge to be contacting a contestant privately in any manner imo.

He didn't exactly purposefully make it public.  He 'read' it aloud online, didn't provide a screenshot or other documentation. If he was interested in helping their mutual friend get a job as choreographer, why didn't he contact that person himself?  Why would a third party, a contestant on the show who has no power, need to be involved?  Why would he need to get together with a contestant on the show to talk it over?

Even if his idea was to have their mutual friend choreograph a routine for the contestant, wouldn't he take that up with the producers? I doubt competitors on the show are given a choice of routines or choreography; so why would this instance be different?  Wouldn't it be giving her an unfair advantage if she got to approve or veto?

The whole thing is shady as he** and his 'explanation' only reinforces that.

Also, what part of the rule that judges should have no personal contact with contestants on a TV game show was too hard for him to understand?  Maybe he needs to Google the game show scandals of the 1950's to understand why the rule is in place/

Edited June 4, 2022 by Notabug

[Guest]

4 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

I think he's saying that he and the contestant had a mutual friend and he was reaching out to the contestant to talk about getting their mutual friend a job as a choreographer. 

I think that is what he is saying but none of it makes any sense. If he was actually friends with the choreographer for over 20 years why would he need the contestant’s help? How could the contestant even help since they would have zero pull with the show? The Broadway and Hollywood vet reaching out to a much younger and less experienced dancer to help get a choreographer a job is bizarre. 

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, Dani said:

I think that is what he is saying but none of it makes any sense. If he was actually friends with the choreographer for over 20 years why would he need the contestant’s help?

Exactly.  If he wanted the choreographer to get a job on the show, he wouldn't approach the person who admires their work, he'd approach the person who hires the choreographers on the show.  And that person probably already knows a choreographer in the business for 20 years.  The dance world is small. 

It's why I had to laugh at some people initially speculating that maybe it was just because he worked with a contestant on Glee but didn't disclose because he didn't remember.  Something that tangential wouldn't have led to his ouster since there are choreographer assistants who try out for this show. 

[Annber03]

9 hours ago, Jaded said:

I was an All My Children viewer for it's last 10 years or so. I mention that because I first became familar with Matthew Morrison a year or two before Glee started when he awkwardly broke off his and Chrishell Stause's engagement. He's made weird comments about it over the years since like he felt pressured by society to propose (which is some ways makes sense) and how he regretted proposing minutes after doing so.

He's come across to me more times than once since the engagement debacle like he has a lot of trouble taking personal responsibility for the things things he's chosen to do which have had negative effects in other peoples lives. His reaction after news about his inappropriate texting behavior got out is another example of that.  

I did not even realize that he was once romantically involved with someone from "All My Children"! Huh. Small world, indeed. 

But yeah, Morrison's attempted defense of that text just has me wanting to hand him a shovel and be like, "Here. You might need this." :p. 

[katie9918]

This is a serious question.

In the absolute beginning, before any true evidence and/or proof (and let’s take a hard look at what “evidence” constitutes and an even harder look at what proof constitutes) is presented, why should all accusations be believed?

All accusations should be heard and listened to and treated with respect, but why should they all be believed? That did not work out too well for black men before the Civil Rights Era. All someone had to do was point at someone and all hell broke loose whether it was deserved or not and that indiscriminate broad stroke has been brought back. Take it from someone who works in the public sector and has to deal with both legitimate and illegitimate accusations.

Many deserve it, but there are many who don’t deserve it who don’t get the vindication they deserve because no one cares because they’re not famous.

Depp is an asshole, no doubt about it. But Heard is also an asshole. I hope both of them fade as quickly as possible because that’s the best punishment for both of those sub-humans.

[peachmangosteen]

31 minutes ago, katie9918 said:

Depp is an asshole, no doubt about it. 

There does seem to be plenty of doubt about it for many though, which is what's alarming.

I hope I didn't come off like I was defending Matthew Morrison lol. He is, at best, an absolute idiot that broke his contract to ask a very odd question to the wrong person and he likely, imo, sent more overtly flirtatious texts to someone at least 13 years his junior that he was judging and while he's married with children. No matter what, he doesn't look good lol. I'm thankful to the contestant for bringing it to TPTB's attention and to them for firing him. 

[katie9918]

Why are we now screaming for an asshole like Amber to be treated more gently than an asshole like Johnny Depp?

If women are asking for equity, we need to step up and give up our assholes for the same public humiliation as male assholes are subjected to.

[Ohiopirate02]

13 minutes ago, katie9918 said:

Why are we now screaming for an asshole like Amber to be treated more gently than an asshole like Johnny Depp?

If women are asking for equity, we need to step up and give up our assholes for the same public humiliation as male assholes are subjected to.

I'm going to need some examples of famous men who were treated worse than what Amber has endured.  Or Monica Lewinsky. Or Anna Nicole Smith. Or Tammy Faye Bakker.  Honestly,  the list is endless.  

[Notabug]

31 minutes ago, katie9918 said:

Why are we now screaming for an asshole like Amber to be treated more gently than an asshole like Johnny Depp?

If women are asking for equity, we need to step up and give up our assholes for the same public humiliation as male assholes are subjected to.

I missed the part where Johnny Depp was subjected to public humiliation.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, katie9918 said:

This is a serious question.

In the absolute beginning, before any true evidence and/or proof (and let’s take a hard look at what “evidence” constitutes and an even harder look at what proof constitutes) is presented, why should all accusations be believed?

In watching these stories evolve over the last few years I don’t think that the true point of contention is if we should believe women but what constitutes proof. One side believes outside evidence is necessary to prove an accusers story and the other believes that accusers story alone can be enough evidence to evaluate. To me “believe women” never really meant to blindly believe anything that a woman says but to not automatically disbelieve a story. 

[Annber03]

1 minute ago, Dani said:

To me “believe women” never really meant to blindly believe anything that a woman said but to not automatically disbelieve a story. 

This. The whole point was to try and change things so that when women did come forward, people wouldn't automatically jump to the tired old, inevitable, "Oh, she's just making it up/exaggerating/she just wants money and fame off this!" responses, but rather, would take her seriously and hear her out and be willing to support any efforts to get to the bottom of what happened. Especially since false accusations are very uncommon to begin with. 

[Zella]

1 hour ago, Dani said:

In watching these stories evolve over the last few years I don’t think that the true point of contention isn’t if we should believe women but what constitutes proof. One side believes outside evidence is necessary to prove an accusers story and the other believes that accusers story alone is enough evidence to evaluate. To me “believe women” never really meant to blindly believe anything that a woman says but to not automatically disbelieve a story. 

1 hour ago, Annber03 said:

This. The whole point was to try and change things so that when women did come forward, people wouldn't automatically jump to the tired old, inevitable, "Oh, she's just making it up/exaggerating/she just wants money and fame off this!" responses, but rather, would take her seriously and hear her out and be willing to support any efforts to get to the bottom of what happened. Especially since false accusations are very uncommon to begin with. 

Yes I've always loved the way Ronan Farrow phrases it: “I subscribe to listening to all survivors, listen to all the facts, listen to all women." It's not about mindlessly accepting all accusations without evidence. It's about not automatically dismissing those accusations. 

https://rrj.ca/ronan-farrow-and-robyn-doolittle-discuss-reporting-on-metoo/

Edited June 5, 2022 by Zella

[Lady Whistleup]

4 hours ago, katie9918 said:

This is a serious question.

In the absolute beginning, before any true evidence and/or proof (and let’s take a hard look at what “evidence” constitutes and an even harder look at what proof constitutes) is presented, why should all accusations be believed?

All accusations should be heard and listened to and treated with respect, but why should they all be believed? That did not work out too well for black men before the Civil Rights Era. All someone had to do was point at someone and all hell broke loose whether it was deserved or not and that indiscriminate broad stroke has been brought back. Take it from someone who works in the public sector and has to deal with both legitimate and illegitimate accusations.

Women should be believed because statistics show that there are very few false accusations of rape and sexual abuse. Study after study has borne this out:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21164210/

This doesn't mean all accusations should be believed. Recently at work I was confronted with a totally false accusation of sexual harassment (I'm a woman and my accuser was a woman). The story fell apart quicker than Heard and Depp's marriage though. False accusations tend to fall apart quickly.

[Ms Blue Jay]

This is behind a paywall, but perhaps some are subscribed

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/02/arts/depp-heard-trial-malice.html?referringSource=articleShare

[SusanM]

17 hours ago, Notabug said:

I missed the part where Johnny Depp was subjected to public humiliation.

So much this.  And what particularly is bothering me now is that most people I know who are upset about this verdict will say that they feel that both Depp and Heard are toxic people but the people I know personally (sigh) who are gloating at Depp's victory are talking like he's a great guy who's just been misunderstood.

[ParadoxLost]

21 hours ago, Dani said:

In watching these stories evolve over the last few years I don’t think that the true point of contention is if we should believe women but what constitutes proof. One side believes outside evidence is necessary to prove an accusers story and the other believes that accusers story alone can be enough evidence to evaluate. To me “believe women” never really meant to blindly believe anything that a woman says but to not automatically disbelieve a story. 

I completely agree with this.  But I tend to think the side that believes outside evidence is necessary also likely thinks this.

I also think that anyone who comes down firmly on the side of either party, in any of these situatons, is not much different than Dr Spiegel, the dumpster fire of an expert witness who testified about Depp for Heard based on media and movies and depositions he saw, read, or was told about.

I think this is absolutely the case before any public legal proceedings and sometimes even after.  We do not know these people.  We have an opinion and despite some in social media land seemingly thinking they are spouting objective facts, they are not.  Its opinion formed on varying degrees and types of information.

It makes me sad when people attack the other side with hate and disgust because they are certain that they know they are right.  I'm disgutsted by the tendency to call out randoms on twitter and assign them deragotory sterotypes like its ok becasue its not done to them directly.  We don't know the people behind the keyboard.  We don't know who is reading  and sees themselves reflected in the group being pilloried and are being hurt by it.

And I wandered into...can't we all just get along.   Back to Depp and Heard.

This is my feeling on it.  The jury got it right.  Both on the verdict for Depp and the verdict for Heard.  Do I know that is objectively true, no?  But from the information I've seen both in the trial and from the UK trial and other stuff, the verdict makes sense to me. 

Seems to me that Heard both exagerated and in some cases lied about the abuse for whatever reason.  From what actually made it into the trial, there is more evidence that Heard was physically violent (and yes, I know physical isn't the only type of abusive behavior) against Depp than the other way around.

Edited June 5, 2022 by ParadoxLost

[Danielg342]

Jacob Hoggard, frontman of Canadian hitmakers Hedley (who have a few minor hits in the U.S. as well), has been found guilty of sexual assault after a month long trial. He was, however, acquitted on another sexual assault charge and on a charge of sexual interference with a minor. Hoggard also faces another sexual assault charge that will be tried at a later date.

He has a hearing concerning his bail tomorrow and will likely get sentenced later this summer.

[JustHereForFood]

On 5/31/2022 at 10:21 PM, BlackberryJam said:

I can't take credit...I think they call themselves that...:)

So many new reaction emojis, yet we still need the facepalm one.

[JustHereForFood]

Just leaving this here:

Could toxic Depp-Heard case have chilling effect on accusers?

Quote

"I think that's something we should be really clear-minded about moving forward: this trial has led to a huge amount of harassment toward Amber Heard," said Dr Nicole Bedera, a sociologist who specialises in sexual violence. "It was shocking."

Domestic violence experts like Ms Bedera fear the intensely negative response toward Ms Heard will have repercussions far beyond the trial. Many warn that the online abuse she suffered will have a chilling effect on survivors, deterring some from reporting their stories of abuse.

"There are a lot of survivors who will see their story in this trial. They will be harmed by this case, too," Ms Bedera said. "I think a lot of victims will be more nervous about coming forward in the future."

Quote

"I think it's become clear that survivors are making rational decisions when they decide not to come forward," said Alexandra Brodsky, a civil rights attorney and author of Sexual Justice. "They are engaged in a cost/benefit analysis, and often that calculus shows them they're better off not reporting."

That balance is weighted heavily by the fear of a painful investigation and trial, and a fear of not being believed.

Both were crystallised by the response to Ms Heard, said Kelly Sundberg, a professor at Ashland University and author of Goodbye Sweet Girl, a memoir about her experience in an abusive relationship. "There is a reason that most people keep their abuse private."

"Even if she [Heard] had won, this would have had a chilling effect on survivors because no-one wants to be disbelieved and discredited on the kind of scale that she was," said Ms Sundberg.

"If I had seen this kind of response before I wrote my book, I don't think I would have felt safe publishing it," she said.

‘Men Always Win’: Survivors ‘Sickened’ by the Amber Heard Verdict

Quote

In the thick of the trial, many organizations that advocate for survivors have remained silent, choosing not to weigh in on one side or the other until a verdict was reached. (The #MeToo organization released a tepid statement in support of “survivors” in general, without aligning with either Heard or Depp by name.) But that hasn’t stopped Depp fans from sending harassing and abusive messages to these organizations, accusing them of bias in Heard’s favor.

Quote

Maureen Curtis, vice president of criminal justice programs at victim assistance organization Safe Horizon, says the verdict is “one more way of silencing survivors and taking away the one real option they may have” by speaking out against their abusers in the media. Indeed, this seems to already be happening. Taylor says she has already been contacted by “hundreds” of survivors wishing to retract public statements they have made in the press, or pulling out of court cases against their abusers. She says the verdict “opens the floodgates” for future defamation cases. “Survivors watching this will rethink everything they say out loud about what happened to them, and the potential of being sued and dragged through a court process for saying something they know is true, but they could be found guilty of defamation,” she says. “It’s a scary place to be.”

Quote

Other experts on domestic abuse have been horrified watching the methods that are traditionally employed to discredit survivors — such as diagnosing them with a mental illness — wielded on a global stage, with Dr. Shannon Curry, a clinical and forensic psychologist who testified on Depp’s behalf, diagnosing Heard, who was not her patient, with borderline personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder, inaccurately linking the former condition to physical abuse. “I hear from women in the U.K., Canada. All the lawyers use the same tactics — they position them as hysterical, as gold-diggers, malicious, out for revenge, emotionally unstable, as having personality disorders,” says Taylor. “It provides a model of discrediting the woman.” The Depp verdict, she says, will only make such tactics more common in a courtroom setting.

[Ms Blue Jay]

11 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

Jacob Hoggard, frontman of Canadian hitmakers Hedley (who have a few minor hits in the U.S. as well), has been found guilty of sexual assault after a month long trial. He was, however, acquitted on another sexual assault charge and on a charge of sexual interference with a minor. Hoggard also faces another sexual assault charge that will be tried at a later date.

He has a hearing concerning his bail tomorrow and will likely get sentenced later this summer.

This is incredibly disappointing.  There were some talented people from Canadian Idol, like he and Carly Rae Jepsen.  And look at what Jacob has become.  Carly is an incredible success story though.  I remember both of them auditioning.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Ms Blue Jay

[RealHousewife]

Let me know if I need to take this to chat . . .

I know this is incredibly old news, but I thought I'd get everyone's opinions on listening to Michael Jackson's music. He was my absolute favorite growing up. To be honest, I still can't find a music artist I enjoy listening to as much. His songs, videos, and performances were magic to me growing up. I don't listen to him a fraction as much as I did before I realized who he truly was, but do you think it's wrong to listen to him at all? Does the fact he's deceased make a difference with your comfort level listening to him? Do you think he should be muted on Spotify? Do you believe in separating the artist from the art? 

[Anduin]

21 minutes ago, RealHousewife said:

Let me know if I need to take this to chat . . .

I know this is incredibly old news, but I thought I'd get everyone's opinions on listening to Michael Jackson's music. He was my absolute favorite growing up. To be honest, I still can't find a music artist I enjoy listening to as much. His songs, videos, and performances were magic to me growing up. I don't listen to him a fraction as much as I did before I realized who he truly was, but do you think it's wrong to listen to him at all? Does the fact he's deceased make a difference with your comfort level listening to him? Do you think he should be muted on Spotify? Do you believe in separating the artist from the art? 

As much as I enjoy black metal, I don't listen to Burzum or Mgla. OTOH, I have a couple of Orson Scott Card books somewhere, though I haven't bought a new copy in 15 years or more. Harry Potter never moved me enough to keep loving it after I found out about Rowling.

Essentially, I have a hard time with separating art from artist, though there are sometimes exceptions. But it helps that Jackson is dead, he's not profiting from the music. Someone is, sure. But what do they believe, and how do they act on it?

[Mabinogia]

8 minutes ago, RealHousewife said:

but do you think it's wrong to listen to him at all? Does the fact he's deceased make a difference with your comfort level listening to him? Do you think he should be muted on Spotify? Do you believe in separating the artist from the art? 

For me it is easier in a case like Michael Jackson because he is dead and therefore can no longer profit from my enjoyment of his music. And his music was good. He was an amazing performer. Unfortunately, he was also a pedophile. To make his case more confusing, I do think that he was a truly damaged person. 

It is so hard to separate an artist from their art and I don't judge anyone who still enjoys the work of a certain artist despite what they have done in their personal lives. I have decided that my line is flexible and dependent on if listening to a Michael Jackson song reminds me of what he's done. If it does, then I won't listen. In his case I can't think of any that really hit that button for me. 

What I find harder to sort through is when the artists work parallels their crimes. I have a tougher time watching Weinstein produced films with women in them because I can't not wonder if she was one of his victims and it makes me feel sad that he could get away with it because people like me wanted to watch a movie and didn't know what went into making it. 

The sad thing is, it is getting to the point that, if you were to swear off all products that were created in some part by some sleazy predator, there would be nothing left to watch/listen to/enjoy. And it's not sad because "oh cancel culture is ruining art" (which I don't believe but have heard in various forms) but because it has held up a mirror to a dark and horrible side of human nature, that so many terrible people have gotten away with so many terrible things for so long simply because we all like to be entertained. 

So, I don't know if I answered your questions actually. I think it's a truly individual thing. I think it's easier when the person is dead. I think it's easier when their disgusting behaviour isn't reflected in their work. And I think there isn't a catch all answer. It depends.

I think with Jackson, as disgusting as what he did was, and he should have gone to jail for it, at least his music wasn't built off the victimization of those boys the way Weinstein's empire was in many ways if not built, at least made larger by his victimization of those women. 

I do not think that any of them should be erased from the world of entertainment. I think we each have the right to decide if we want to support their art now that we know the man behind it or not. 

I will say, thought, that when I hear something like how Kevin Smith said he will donate all future residuals off movies he made with Weinstein to a women in film organization. This is one source, though not where I originally heard it: https://www.nola.com/entertainment_life/movies_tv/article_841d93b0-b594-5c28-a6ab-8e9d13623062.html It makes me want to seek out Smith's work and support him. 

[Zella]

1 hour ago, Mabinogia said:

I think it's easier when their disgusting behaviour isn't reflected in their work.

That was Jim DeRogatis's take on R. Kelly. He's the Chicago music reporter who really pushed for a reckoning to happen with R. Kelly (and wrote a really good book about R. Kelly's crimes). And his take was basically that he could never listen to R. Kelly music again, not just because he was so enmeshed in the case, but also because R. Kelly's music was so enmeshed in his crimes. That makes a lot of sense to me.

I think for me, newer and unseen/unexperienced efforts from disgraced celebrities tend to be more ruined by than older ones that I already like, especially if they're disconnected from their crimes. I am not sure that makes any sense on a logical level. But for example, I'll never watch another new Roman Polanski movie and don't actively seek out his work (or Adrien Brody's for that matter), but I can't deny how much of an effect that The Pianist had me on when I first watched it as a teenager. Way more so than Schindler's List actually. I rewatched it for the first time in years a few months ago, and it still had that effect on me. I know it incorporates some of Polanski's own experiences as a child Holocaust survivor, so his being the director is pretty integral to the final product, but it's also remarkably close to the source text and I think it stands alone on the strength of its own merits as biopic of Władysław Szpilman. 

[Mabinogia]

1 minute ago, Zella said:

I think for me, newer and unseen/unexperienced efforts from disgraced celebrities tend to be more ruined by than older ones that I already like, especially if they're disconnected from their crimes.

I kind of feel the same. It is also slightly different with movies/tv than music. Music I see as more of a one person project. I know it is not, but when I hear a Michael Jackson song I mainly think "oh, that's a Michael Jackson song" but something like Pirate's of the Caribbean, which is a Johnny Depp film and I will never look at Jack Sparrow the same again, but I love the movie for Geoffrey Rush and Keira Knightly and Orlando Bloom. So to me I would continue to watch that movie because I like them. I luckily can't think of a Polanski movie that I would want to watch again, I haven't seen many of his movies, and I hate Woody Allen movies so I'm safe there. Don't listen to R Kelly so all clear. lol 

I have to admit, though, that I get a little worried every time I come to this thread that I'm going to see something about someone I really admire. 

[scarynikki12]

1 hour ago, Mabinogia said:

I have a tougher time watching Weinstein produced films with women in them because I can't not wonder if she was one of his victims and it makes me feel sad that he could get away with it because people like me wanted to watch a movie and didn't know what went into making it. 

With regard to Weinstein, Salma Hayek's op-ed laid out step by step the hoops he made her jump through to first get Frida made and then distributed. The hoops included requiring her to film nude sex scenes that she wasn't comfortable with and, according to the op-ed, only existed for his own enjoyment. All the hoops he set up for that movie were punishment for her rejecting his advances. She managed to clear them all in pursuit of getting the movie made and released but the trauma that he inflicted was deep. I haven't seen the movie in a long time and I can't imagine being able to watch it ever again knowing what he was putting her through the whole time.

[Zella]

37 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

Music I see as more of a one person project. I know it is not, but when I hear a Michael Jackson song I mainly think "oh, that's a Michael Jackson song" but something like Pirate's of the Caribbean, which is a Johnny Depp film and I will never look at Jack Sparrow the same again, but I love the movie for Geoffrey Rush and Keira Knightly and Orlando Bloom. So to me I would continue to watch that movie because I like them. I luckily can't think of a Polanski movie that I would want to watch again, I haven't seen many of his movies, and I hate Woody Allen movies so I'm safe there. Don't listen to R Kelly so all clear. lol 

Yes this is pretty similar for me! Most of the musicians whose work I've enjoyed who then have been outed or confirmed as creeps are in bands, so I'm less likely to think of their music as their sole work. 

I will admit to not actually realizing that R. Kelly was the "I Believe I Can Fly" guy until just a few years ago. I was young enough to hear the song everywhere (like Space Jam) but not old enough to know who the artist was. Then I felt kind of dumb for not having that epiphany sooner. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, RealHousewife said:

Let me know if I need to take this to chat . . .

I know this is incredibly old news, but I thought I'd get everyone's opinions on listening to Michael Jackson's music. He was my absolute favorite growing up. To be honest, I still can't find a music artist I enjoy listening to as much. His songs, videos, and performances were magic to me growing up. I don't listen to him a fraction as much as I did before I realized who he truly was, but do you think it's wrong to listen to him at all? Does the fact he's deceased make a difference with your comfort level listening to him? Do you think he should be muted on Spotify? Do you believe in separating the artist from the art? 

I don’t think there is a right answer because we all process information differently. For whatever reason I don’t strongly associate things that I hear with the creator but I do if I can see them or their name. When I listen to music my brain is not particularly engaged. I react to music more emotionally. If multiple Michael Jackson songs play in a row it would probably register and might make me uncomfortable enough to stop listening. 

I have a harder time with movies and tv shows because my brain tends to be more engaged. Having a big issue with an actor can take me right out of whatever I am watching particularly if the role fits their type. I can’t watch later Johnny Depp movies because his real life issues really show up on screen. The more I see the actor in the role and if I know the actor is a creep I can’t watch. I can’t watch action Tom Cruise but I can watch Rainman.  

[aradia22]

Quote

It is so hard to separate an artist from their art and I don't judge anyone who still enjoys the work of a certain artist despite what they have done in their personal lives. I have decided that my line is flexible and dependent on if listening to a Michael Jackson song reminds me of what he's done. If it does, then I won't listen. In his case I can't think of any that really hit that button for me. 

For me, the line is not putting any MJ music on my playlists and actively listening to it. But if I'm in a store and a song comes on, I'm not going to pretend the music is terrible because of what he did. PYT is the song that's hard to listen to in any context though.

Spotify is a mess itself so I really don't care about them deciding which musicians should and shouldn't be on the service (the podcasts are relevant because they are actively giving a ton of money to certain people for exclusive deals). 

Quote

With regard to Weinstein, Salma Hayek's op-ed laid out step by step the hoops he made her jump through to first get Frida made and then distributed. 

This makes me want to watch a movie like that more to see the story she was so passionate about telling in spite of him. Also, nothing will ever ruin Chicago (2002) for me but I think it's harder to see the hand of the producer (even one as notably controlling as Weinstein) without being able to see the film as it would be without their influence. I think Grace of Monaco is notable for being a movie he tore apart with edits.

I'm glad I got to enjoy Diane Keaton's performance in Annie Hall years ago before knowing anything because Woody Allen's influence is so obvious in his movies that he even made Owen Wilson into himself in Midnight in Paris.

Even though he doesn't play a great character, I'm glad I saw Sorry to Bother You before the Armie Hammer stories came out. I just don't know if I want to look at his face anymore. I will probably never see The Man from UNCLE now though I've heard Henry Cavill is good in it.

[Vermicious Knid]

Regarding MJ, if his music comes on the radio I change the station. If I'm watching a music channel and one of his videos comes up I change the channel. It's all tainted to me. His 'art' was used to make connections with children and directly prey on them. I turn off R. Kelly for the same reason.

Kevin Spacey must stand trial in federal court.

Quote

The lawsuit, filed by actor Anthony Rapp, accuses Spacey of assault, battery and intentionally inflicting emotional distress. The suit accuses Spacey of groping Rapp's buttocks in 1986, when Rapp was 14, and says Spacey placed the then-teen on a bed and put his body partially on top of Rapp.

At Rapp's deposition, he testified that there was "no kissing, no undressing, no reaching under clothes, and no sexualized statements or innuendo," and that the incident took no more than two minutes, according to US District Judge Lewis Kaplan's order Monday.

Kaplan said there is "a genuine issue of material fact" as to whether Spacey, whose legal name is Kevin Spacey Fowler, engaged in forcible touching of Rapp's "intimate parts." Kaplan ruled that Rapp can pursue his claims of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress but not assault, due to statute of limitations restrictions.

[merylinkid]

I think it was earlier in this thread someone said or posted from another source -- it's art.  It's personal.   It's what you make of it.   If an MJ song has particular meaning for you, then the song has THAT meaning for you, not what MJ meant for it to mean or what he did.   So if the songs mean something to you, listen to them.   If they don't, then don't.

I don't care enough about MJ songs, so we change the station when they come on.   Other than Schindler's list I've never seen a Polanski film.   I have never seen a Woody Allen film and I am good with that.   Hubby and I are split on Tom Cruise, I will never watch another TC film.   He LOVES Top Gun.   Like we own it so he can watch it any time.   But he was stationed in San Diego when he was in the Navy.   He would go to Miramar to watch the planes.   He's been to Kansas City Barbecue and seen the Wurltizer.   And chatted up a waitress there.   So that particulare movie has meaning to him.   I won't watch it, but he does when I'm not around.   Harry Potter is more problematic.   I LOVED those books.   But she is such an unrepented Anti-Trans person that I can't help thinking it every time I see one of the movies.   So I don't know going forward with the Fantastic Beasts series.   I like Eddie Redmayne but soooo problematic (and they are a hot mess, I watched the second one and it was so bad and the end I was like, "what happened?  I have no clue who anyone is and what they are doing or why).   

[Hiyo]

Quote

Other than Schindler's list I've never seen a Polanski film.

I think you meant The Pianist.

[bluegirl147]

13 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

Other than Schindler's list I've never seen a Polanski film.   

Schindler's List isn't a Polanski film. Steven Spielberg directed it.

14 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

 Harry Potter is more problematic.   I LOVED those books.   But she is such an unrepented Anti-Trans person that I can't help thinking it every time I see one of the movies. 

I never read the books or saw the movies but my best friend, a gay man, recently wanted to buy all the Potter books but didn't want Rowlings to receive any money so he scoured second hand stores to till he found them all.

15 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

I don't care enough about MJ songs, so we change the station when they come on. 

I didn't listen to him for years.  Now I don't seek his music out but if one of his songs pops up on Pandora I listen to it. And I feel bad.  I know that he is dead and in no way profiting from my listening to his music but I can't help but feel guilty for listening to something he made. And it saddens me that I feel more guilt for listening to him and than he probably ever felt for the things he did.  

10 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

I have to admit, though, that I get a little worried every time I come to this thread that I'm going to see something about someone I really admire

Me too.  It seems to be each day brings a new accusation against someone. And for me it doesn't  have to be some sort of sexual misconduct allegation.  I have put people in the trash heap for saying things I find offensive or just being someone I find horrible.  My list gets longer and longer.

[angora]

Unless someone's going around actively claiming that 1) the artist they like didn't do those things (even if they were convicted of and/or admitted to them) or 2) they did them but it doesn't matter, I try not to judge other people's choices about what to watch/read/listen to. Because I know my own decisions are inconsistent, based more on my personal feelings/reactions than any hard-and-fast rule.

Like @aradia22 said, it can be easier for me to separate art from artist with a producer--when I'm watching an older movie and I see the Weinstein Company logo in the opening credits, I usually sigh and go, "Oh, shit," but I don't turn off the movie. But if it's a film where I specifically know Harvey Weinstein was making an actress's life a living hell during production, it's much more in the forefront of my mind, and I might not be able to watch it.

There are a lot of actors' faces that I just don't want to see anymore and choose not to watch (Kevin Spacey is a big one for me,) but again, it's not the same across the board. It can make a difference to me if the actor isn't playing the lead--it's an "oh right, Jeffrey Tambour is in this, ugh" moment, but I don't usually turn it off. And if the movie means a lot to me, I tend to claim the movie for my own, beyond the actor. I used to be a big Johnny Depp fan, although I hadn't seen a lot of his more recent work because it looked bad, even before the accusations. And I haven't tried to watch any of his old stuff lately, so I don't know whether I'll be too bothered to watch, but I haven't gotten rid of my DVDs of movies like Benny & Joon, Ed Wood, and Edward Scissorhands.

When I DO choose to consume content from people like that, I try to avoid profiting them wherever I can. Movies/shows I already own, buying stuff secondhand like @bluegirl147's friend, or getting something from the library instead on streaming.

[Kitty Redstone]

1 hour ago, merylinkid said:

I don't care enough about MJ songs, so we change the station when they come on.  

Same.  Even if he had not been a pedophile, all his songs have the same overabundance of eee hee hees, ehhs and other assorted squeals that get on my nerves.  Axl Rose has the same affected way of singing (so many ooohs and ewwws!) and it gets in the way of my enjoyment of GNR's music.