Alexis Arquette Outs Will Smith and Jada Pinkett/ Who Knew? Everyone?

[+ quoththeraven]

I agree, i think this could get Daddy and others potentially in trouble. I am not overly paranoid but when it comes to underage I am overly overly cautious. Also given the heightened focus on the industry as well as the recent rash of underage issues popping up i think it is inappropriate to post on a message board. I really don't want to be associated with that type of thing.

 

The photo itself is not sexual. The rule is there (I assume) to ensure the lines demarcating child porn isn't crossed. What people do about/with it is covered by the First Amendment, as are the statements in the post. It's also not within DHS ' purview. *waves to whomever in DHS/ US Attorney's office may be reading this thread*

 

Report if you are concerned, as suggested above, and let management decide. I can see why some might think the post is tasteless, but bannable or out of bounds? No.

[+ quoththeraven]

Latinos and Asians have a far lower rate of representation in proportion to their part of the population.

 

Not enough time to read the link at the moment, but I agree with you 110% about Latinos and Asians.

 

I said what I said with the background of DuVernay and Oyewolo being snubbed for Selma last year and Coogler, the director of Creed, being snubbed this year. And I think a case can be made for Jordan and Coogler back in 2013 with Fruitvale Station.

 

Then a midlist French actress whose name I've already forgotten makes the rather outrageous and overbroad statement that it's easier (or better) to be African-American than a woman. Hey, there are African-American women... I get what I think she meant - certain African-American men have made it as performers and have real power, and as a group they're not subject to sexual harassment, objectification and discrimination the way women are (fun fact: Fox originally proposed to pay Gillian Anderson half of what they were offering David Duchovny to reprise their roles in the X-Files; Anderson stood her ground and in the end they were paid the same) - but it's still an outlandish thing to say. Worse than posting publicly-available photos of Jaden Smith, imo.

 

(To be clear, the last paragraph has nothing to do with your response to me.)

[bigvalboy]

Mr. Smith has a reputation for being homophobic ( apparently "... The Lady doth protest too much") and Ms. Pinkett-Smith is all but a cypher in terms of her importance to the AMPAS membership. His role in Concussion was well reviewed, but I do not recall anyone saying it was oscar worthy. Mr. Jordan would have been nominated in the Best Actor category where there were many outstanding performances, his would have not stood the test of comparison in that category for 2015. Here is a link to an article in the Economist that does a pretty decent analysis of the problem that the Academy has. http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/01/film-and-race

Latinos and Asians have a far lower rate of representation in proportion to their part of the population.

 

Not enough time to read the link at the moment, but I agree with you 110% about Latinos and Asians.

 

I said what I said with the background of DuVernay and Oyewolo being snubbed for Selma last year and Coogler, the director of Creed, being snubbed this year. And I think a case can be made for Jordan and Coogler back in 2013 with Fruitvale Station.

 

Then a midlist French actress whose name I've already forgotten makes the rather outrageous and overbroad statement that it's easier (or better) to be African-American than a woman. Hey, there are African-American women... I get what I think she meant - certain African-American men have made it as performers and have real power, and as a group they're not subject to sexual harassment, objectification and discrimination the way women are (fun fact: Fox originally proposed to pay Gillian Anderson half of what they were offering David Duchovny to reprise their roles in the X-Files; Anderson stood her ground and in the end they were paid the same) - but it's still an outlandish thing to say. Worse than posting publicly-available photos of Jaden Smith, imo.

 

(To be clear, the last paragraph has nothing to do with your response to me.)

 

This was reported tonight...

http://www.billboard.com/articles/events/oscars/6851660/academy-changes-increase-diversity-oscars-voters

 

Academy Unveils Dramatic Changes to Increase Diversity of Oscars Voters

1/22/2016 by The Hollywood Reporter staff

http://www.billboard.com/files/styles/article_main_image/public/media/oscar-statue-academy-awards-2015-billboard-650.jpg

 

 

The Academy unveiled on Friday several dramatic changes in its structure and Oscars voting regulations in an effort to promote diversity. Its goal, the Academy said, is to double the number of women and diverse members of the Academy by 2020.

Oscars 2016: All Our Coverage

The Academy is adding three new seats to its 51-person board of governors. Rather than represent existing branches, the members chosen to fill those seats will be nominated by the president for three-year terms and then confirmed by the board. The Academy also said it will take immediate action to increase diversity by adding new members who are not on the board of governors to its executive and board committees, where decisions about membership and governance are made in the hopes of allowing new members to have a more active role in Academy decision-making.

The organization is also instituting new rules affecting voting status: Each new member's voting status will last ten years, and will then be renewed if that new member has been active in motion pictures during that decade. In addition, members will receive lifetime voting rights after three ten-year terms or if they have won or been nominated for an Academy Award. The same standards will be applied retroactively to current members. Those who do not qualify for active status will be moved to emeritus status and, while they will enjoy other membership privileges, will not be able to vote. None of those changes yet will affect voting for this year's Oscars.

Oscar Voters Discuss 'Straight Outta Compton' Snub

In an effort to recruit new members, the Academy will continue with its traditional process in which current members sponsor new members, but will also launch what it is calling "an ambitious, global campaign to identify and recruit qualified new members who represent greater diversity.

“The Academy is going to lead and not wait for the industry to catch up,” read a statement from Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs. “These new measures regarding governance and voting will have an immediate impact and begin the process of significantly changing our membership composition.”

The changes were approved unanimously by the board of governors, the Academy said in announcing the dramatic moves. They were developed by Boone Isaacs and the board's membership and administration committee, chaired by Phil Robertson, who represents the writers branch on the board of governors.

[+ WilliamM]

I said what I said with the background of DuVernay and Oyewolo being snubbed for Selma last year

 

There was a backlash against "Selma" because of the way the film represented LBJ.

[Kenny]

There was a backlash against "Selma" because of the way the film represented LBJ.

That was a big problem.

[+ quoththeraven]

There was a backlash against "Selma" because of the way the film represented LBJ.

 

I know. That's part of the problem: circling the wagons to defend a powerful white man who didn't need it. The facts are easily and widely available. There was a huge debate about it in and out of reviews.

 

But the objection is political, not artistic, and similar objections are ignored all the time when history is rewritten to be more white-centric or male-centric. Examples: Stonewall, Mississippi Burning, The Imitation Game. Then there are the fact-based movies that are just misleading, like JFK (two-time Academy Award winner Oliver Stone is a particular offender) and even Twelve Years a Slave, which ended triumphantly and failed to tell us Solomon Northrup disappeared a few years later, never to be heard from again. Most likely he was killed while traveling and lecturing by some random criminal(s) unaware of who he was, but that's a far more ambiguous ending than the one screenwriter John Ridley (whose views on Hollywood and diversity I agree with) gave us.

 

That the objections and snubbing goes one way and not the other is particularly telling. Selma got enough votes to be nominated for Best Picture, but its director not getting a nod reads veey much like "let's ignore/punish the Angry Black Lady." Forget her skintone. Some really vile things are said or thought about female directors, starting with Bret Easton Ellis' comment that to be good, as well as commercial, movies have to be directed by men using the male gaze. Don't know if you noticed, but he meant straight male gaze. He's excluding you, too.

 

ETA: To my point anout female directors, a list of 52 female-helmed movies. Also how the types of films that are Oscar bait skew certain ways.

 

http://letterboxd.com/teresakayep/list/52filmsbywomen/

[+ quoththeraven]

That was a big problem.

 

I would defend it on narrative and artistic grounds. Otherwise where do you locate the conflict?

[actor61]

Which nominated actor should have been dropped to nominate Will Smith, assuming he was next on the list to be nominated?

Bryan Cranston in "Trumbo".

[+ WilliamM]

I know. That's part of the problem: circling the wagons to defend a powerful white man who didn't need it. The facts are easily and widely available. There was a huge debate about it in and out of reviews.

/

 

I am lost by your comment that LBJ's reputation did not need it. How many people know that Johnson was partly responsible for three other civil rights acts, four in all. One when he was majority leader of the Senate and three more when he was president. Or how many people know that Johnson is rated second by political scientists and historians in civil rights behind only Lincoln.

[+ WilliamM]

.

 

That the objections and snubbing goes one way and not the other is particularly telling. Selma got enough votes to be nominated for Best Picture, but its director not getting a nod reads veey much like "let's ignore/punish the Angry Black Lady." Forget her skintone. Some really vile things are said or thought about female directors, starting with Bret Easton Ellis' comment that to be good, as well as commercial, movies have to be directed by men using the male gaze. Don't know if you noticed, but he meant straight male gaze. He's excluding you, too.

 

I saw a number of interviews with Ava DuVernay. She was not prepared to answer the questions about "Selma" and LBJ. And she did not take the time to answer slightly better in later interviews. And I am not writing about answers that would please me.

 

The 1960s civil right bills were passed through a strong strategy/partnership of civil rights leaders and politicians. Both were necessary and vital to the process and its success. Your displeasure should be focused on Eisenhower, JFK and Nixon, presidents who did little to advance civil rights.

[Kenny]

I know. That's part of the problem: circling the wagons to defend a powerful white man who didn't need it. The facts are easily and widely available. There was a huge debate about it in and out of reviews.

 

But the objection is political, not artistic, and similar objections are ignored all the time when history is rewritten to be more white-centric or male-centric. Examples: Stonewall, Mississippi Burning, The Imitation Game. Then there are the fact-based movies that are just misleading, like JFK (two-time Academy Award winner Oliver Stone is a particular offender) and even Twelve Years a Slave, which ended triumphantly and failed to tell us Solomon Northrup disappeared a few years later, never to be heard from again. Most likely he was killed while traveling and lecturing by some random criminal(s) unaware of who he was, but that's a far more ambiguous ending than the one screenwriter John Ridley (whose views on Hollywood and diversity I agree with) gave us.

 

That the objections and snubbing goes one way and not the other is particularly telling. Selma got enough votes to be nominated for Best Picture, but its director not getting a nod reads veey much like "let's ignore/punish the Angry Black Lady." Forget her skintone. Some really vile things are said or thought about female directors, starting with Bret Easton Ellis' comment that to be good, as well as commercial, movies have to be directed by men using the male gaze. Don't know if you noticed, but he meant straight male gaze. He's excluding you, too.

 

ETA: To my point anout female directors, a list of 52 female-helmed movies. Also how the types of films that are Oscar bait skew certain ways.

 

http://letterboxd.com/teresakayep/list/52filmsbywomen/

But similar objections were in fact not ignored in those other movies -- most recently "Stonewall," which got thoroughly thrashed for its narrative of white male privilege.

[Kenny]

I would defend it on narrative and artistic grounds. Otherwise where do you locate the conflict?

Fabricating the conflict by misrepresenting a major player is just bad writing -- bad art -- self-defeating because it undercuts the larger motives of the movie. It's not as if no one will notice.

[+ WilliamM]

Fabricating the conflict by misrepresenting a major player is just bad writing -- bad art -- self-defeating because it undercuts the larger motives of the movie. It's not as if no one will notice.

 

And a major player, the president,who used his power of pursuasion to convince many Republicans to vote for civil rights legislation.

 

LBJ was in a very unique position in the 1950s and 1960s as a white southerner who supported civil rights. Johnson died in early 1973. His last public appearance, against doctor's orders, was to a large group of civil rights leaders at his presidential library. LBJ: "continue to fight for civil rights, no matter what stands in your way." Johnson also attended Harry Truman's funeral a month earlier in Missouri. People knew that LBJ was constantly using nitroglycerin pills for heart problems.

 

Johnson died while Mrs. Johnson was in Austin. When she arrived at the hospital, Lady Bird told an aide, "This time we did not make it. Well we expected it."

[+ WilliamM]

But the objection is political, not artistic

 

That's not true. When a major film misrepresent the thoughts and actions of a significant figure, who is president of the United States, it is an artistic failing.

[+ quoththeraven]

That's not true. When a major film misrepresent the thoughts and actions of a significant figure, who is president of the United States, it is an artistic failing.

 

That's how you and Kenny see it. Others of us do not, especially given the acclaim someone like Oliver Stone has received despite engaging in equally serious and harder to combat misrepresentations supporting conspiracy theories (at least as to the JFK assassination). To me, artistic merit has more to do with the story told and less to do with utter accuracy. We don't make these complaints as vociferously when it comes to adaptations of novels because we realuze what works for writing doesn't always work cinematically.

 

Also, how fo you explain why Selma received a Best Picture nomination?To my mind, that or screenplay would be where to express displeasure about ahistoricity, not best director.

 

It is probably sadly true that interviews and other publicity influence voters, but that IS a political, not an artistic, consideration. Artistic would be judging the movie alone. I only read one interview with du Vernay, but I did not see the lack of preparation you did. Perhaps it is more a matter of disagreeing with her answers, which you are entitled to do.

 

But similar objections were in fact not ignored in those other movies -- most recently "Stonewall," which got thoroughly thrashed for its narrative of white male privilege.

 

Elsewhere, maybe. Not here. Go back and look. I was one of maybe two or three people who was unequivocally negative about the movie because of the whitewashing. Others acknowledged the whitewashing but felt the movie was worthwhile nevertheless or shrugged their shoulders and said "it's an adaptation." Which is what I'm saying about Selma. Why doestruthfulness work one way for a movie about a movement begun by the most marginalized of marginalized people and an entirely different way for a movie that misrepresents the position of the most powerful man in the world on cuvil rights?

 

The reason I disliked 12 Years a Slave as a movie was because it was boring. It was boring because it was told from the point of view of a helpless person whom we got to see suffering and seething, but not doing much of anything ekse. I preferred the slave rebellion in Django Unchained (which killed off its white savior halfway through). I would have found a movie that was less literal in following Solomon Northrup's experiences more interesting. Or a movie that focused on the slave whose daughter was sold and taken away from her, or on the triangle between Patsy (Lupita N'yongo), her owner (Michael Fassbender), and his wife (Sarah Paulson).

 

I am lost by your comment that LBJ's reputation did not need it. How many people know that Johnson was partly responsible for three other civil rights acts, four in all. One when he was majority leader of the Senate and three more when he was president. Or how many people know that Johnson is rated second by political scientists and historians in civil rights behind only Lincoln.

 

Anyone paying attention already knew about Johnson's record on civil rights. One group I am certain knew beforehand: middle-aged and older black folks. As a result of the debate over the film's accuracy, many more people know it now. I would call that an astonishingly effective backdoor education campaign.

 

My view is also colored by the feeling that Johnson's reputation is no longer important to him. It's impossible to libel someone who's dead. I get that you feel this is disrespectful. The facts are there. People will know. And unlike some people who have accomplished great things no one knows about because of their race or gender, Johnson was famous and powerful during his lifetime. He doesn't need our continued adulation.

[Kenny]

the acclaim someone like Oliver Stone has received despite engaging in equally serious and harder to combat misrepresentations supporting conspiracy theories (at least as to the JFK assassination)

Really bad analogy to "Selma." Stone's entire JFK movie is a fantasy (and interesting because of it). "Selma" is not a fantasy. That's the problem: It's fact-based narrative takes a sudden false turn, skidding off the edge of the road into cartoon-land in the LBJ mess -- a jarring one-off that was entirely unnecessary. I don't think it ruined the movie, but it was a very stupid thing to do.

[+ quoththeraven]

Really bad analogy to "Selma." Stone's entire JFK movie is a fantasy (and interesting because of it). "Selma" is not a fantasy. That's the problem: It's fact-based narrative takes a sudden false turn, skidding off the edge of the road into cartoon-land in the LBJ mess -- a jarring one-off that was entirely unnecessary. I don't think it ruined the movie, but it was a very stupid thing to do.

 

You don't think some viewers of JFK took it for reality? Mark your calendars, everyone; it's a first that Kenny's view on this is less jaded and cynical than mine.

[+ WmClarke]

You don't think some viewers of JFK took it for reality? Mark your calendars, everyone; it's a first that Kenny's view on this is less jaded and cynical than mine.

Film endures and usually trumps actual history.

 

I think that's the main problem with both films.

[Kenny]

You don't think some viewers of JFK took it for reality? Mark your calendars, everyone; it's a first that Kenny's view on this is less jaded and cynical than mine.

Doesn't matter to me whether or not some JFK viewers mistook it for reality. Some viewers probably look at the painting of "George Washington Crossing the Delaware" and think that's how it happened too.

 

Oliver Stone was very clear about what he was doing, and reality was not it: His movie was a myth, he said, made to contrast (and thus highlight) the myth proposed by the Warren Commission. (Some, and probably many, people believed that myth, too.)

[+ WilliamM]

Anyone paying attention already knew about Johnson's record on civil rights. One group I am certain knew beforehand: middle-aged and older black folks. As a result of the debate over the film's accuracy, many more people know it now. I would call that an astonishingly effective backdoor education campaign.

 

My view is also colored by the feeling that Johnson's reputation is no longer important to him. It's impossible to libel someone who's dead. I get that you feel this is disrespectful. The facts are there. People will know. And unlike some people who have accomplished great things no one knows about because of their race or gender, Johnson was famous and powerful during his lifetime. He doesn't need our continued adulation.

 

As vice president, Johnson tried and failed to strongly encourage the Kennedy Administration to be far more agressive with civil rights legislation. QTR, you are reaching far to justify yourself by writing about "an astonishingly effective backdoor education campaign."

 

Lyndon and Lady Bird Johnson are not alive, although Lady Bird lived to 2007. But LBJ's two daughters and many grandchildren are very much alive. More concern goes to the the Johnson aides who worked on civil rights during the LBJ Administration. Joseph Califano amd Bill Moyers spoke out often against the inaccuracies in the film. Most of LBJ's other aids are no longer alive.

 

Lyndon Johnson may not need our continued adulation. But, especially now, we need to be reminded that some presidents (both Roosevelts as well Johnson) were masters at working with Congress.

[+ WilliamM]

Also, how fo you explain why Selma received a Best Picture nomination?To my mind, that or screenplay would be where to express displeasure about ahistoricity, not

 

Easy. More pictures are nominated (either eight or ten) than any other category.

[+ WilliamM]

because of the whitewashing. Others acknowledged the whitewashing but felt the movie was worthwhile nevertheless or shrugged their shoulders and said "it's an adaptation." Which is what I'm saying about Selma. Why doestruthfulness work one way for a movie about a movement begun by the most marginalized of marginalized people and an entirely different way for a movie that misrepresents the position of the most powerful man in the world on cuvil rights

 

Again easy. LBJ's entire legislative agenda ("The Great Society") helped marginalized people.

 

I do appreciate very much , QTR, not bringing Vietman into this discussion. The Vietnam War was mostly fought by the young, poor. That war legitimately spoiled much of the good feeling of LBJ's early accomplishments and hurt the people he most wanted to help.

[Tonyko]

Of course, all of those rumors have been around since Cruise was in "Risky Business" and Travolta was in "Saturday Night Fever." I heard the Will and Jada rumor right around the time they were married back in '97! No surprises here. If they don't want to be outed though, Alexis should have been more discreet, but as stated above, she wants the publicity and she thinks it is not that important that Jada is protesting the lack of diversity with the Oscar nominations when she can't even be open about her sexuality. Personally, what Will and Jada, and yes, Cruise and Travolta do in their respective bedrooms (unless it's trying to force unwanted sex on a hired masseur!) is nobody's business. JMHO.

TruHart1

 

I agree (to an extent) And for ME the litmus test is an easy one. Tom? Straight. (Think he's still hot btw, even in his 50's. Yah, demeted,whacko, perhaps, but STR8) Travolta? Gay. When shows like South Park outed them BOTH Tom was ALL over the press threatening suits threatening to boycott the press tour for his latest flick w the same parent Co as SPark's network unless the episode was pulled yada yada. And from Travolta's camp? SILENCE . (as, I believe there will be from Smith's camp) This aint the old days of Liberace suing a scandal sheet in the 1950's and WINNING cause how TF do they legally PROVE he's a fairy??? In this day and age of cell phones paper trails security cams cams you can hide in the tip of your dick satellite images that can read license plates it's nearly IMPOSSIBLE to keep anything secret no matter how much payoff money you have IF someone want to uncover the goods badly enough. (jees we even hada' hear Prince Charles tapped Cell Phone conversations while still married telling Camilla he wanted to be her Tampon:eek:) The ONLY way a celeb can feel secure storming the Bastille with protestations and litigations today is if they KNOW there aint nothing out there that proves otherwise. And the only way to know that is if it just ain't true

*when I said I agree "to an extent", I worked in the biz in LA and Will "does" have a slightly homophobic rep, not one that's seeped into influencing young fans, more "inside" the biz. But "if" a celeb DOES weild some influence, esp with young people struggling with their sexuality, and they espouse something that is in direct conflict with how they lead their private life, then they do deserve to be outed:rolleyes:

[+ WilliamM]

The ONLY way a celeb can feel secure storming the Bastille with protestations and litigations today is if they KNOW there aint nothing out there that proves otherwise.

 

And the only way to know that is if it just ain't true *when I said I agree "to an extent", I worked in the biz in LA and Will "does" have a slightly homophobic rep, not one that's seeped into influencing young fans, more "inside" the biz. But "if" a celeb DOES weild some influence, esp with young people struggling with their sexuality, and they espouse something that is in direct conflict with how they lead their private life, then they do deserve to be outed:rolleyes:

 

Let me try to understand better. Are you saying Will Smith should not be a target because his young fans do not know about his slightly gay reputation, slightly homophobic rep within the business?

[+ deej]

#donaldtrumpwantstobanghisdaughter

 

There is a forum for politics. Please respect that.