Stranger Things

[Sociotard]

Is it too much to ask for the people who make art I like to be paragons of virtue polite and law-abiding?  *sigh* I really want to see the next season, but if this is how they behave . . . the top-down reaction was probably too mild. (unless it was investigated and found to be baseless) Make them spend a time as outcasts to learn a lesson. If the powerful see that they can only be taken down when their star is on the wane anyway, that is a bad lesson.

 

https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/3/12/17109840/stranger-things-creators-accused-verbally-abusing-female-employees-duffer-brothers

[Pattern Ghost]

12 minutes ago, Sociotard said:

if this is how they behave

 

Which is really the big question. Right now, it's an accusation. I haven't seen anything on it except the article you linked so far. Perhaps there will be further investigation by the company, the press, or the accuser's lawyers? Until we have more info, I'm not going to worry too much about it.

[Sociotard]

Valid. I'm still trying to navigate the post-Weinstein era that is balancing "innocent until proven guilty" with "believe women". Where the new arena is less legal (where "beyond reasonable doubt" is often too high a standard of evidence for victims to meet) and more corporate (where they can fire you for any reason at all, and the barest evidence will suffice)

[Pattern Ghost]

In this case, I believe the accuser. I don't see a reason not to, especially since they risk getting blacklisted. But it's just one person's perspective. It could just be that the brothers are kind of hotheaded under pressure and snap at people when they shouldn't, and some people take that a lot harder. Doesn't make them bad per se, or the victim wrong. Just a matter of perspective and degree.

[zslane]

Many Hollywood directors and producers are infamous for being obnoxious, insulting, arrogant, and nearly impossible to work with. The studios put up with it so long as their movies make lots of money. It has been understood since nearly the dawn of the movie industry (and then television) that if you don't like the working conditions (or the disdain/abuse you might have to withstand), and you don't want to put up with it, then you should step aside and make room for any one of the thousands of others who will. It is a consequence of there being so few opportunities for so many who want them.

 

If every incidence of "verbal abuse" on a movie or tv set was to result in court cases or firings, half the productions in Hollywood would have to shut down. And it isn't just women who are being dressed down verbally on these sets; men get it too, believe me. Most of the screamers don't care what your gender is, they'll make you feel like garbage regardless. But maybe it will be the women, who are now feeling empowered to gang together against any sort of abusive behavior, who will instigate a change in the production culture of Hollywood. Even if they do, it will take quite some time. Institutionalized acceptance of this kind of thing is not easy to reverse.

[Lord Liaden]

Keep in mind that "innocent until proven guilty" is not a societal principle. It's a legal one. Presumption of innocence applies only to criminal cases brought before a court of law, as a protection for the individual accused against abuse of power by the state, placing the onus on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It carries no binding weight in the "court of public opinion," and can't be invoked to compel someone's social behavior to conform to that principle.

[Pattern Ghost]

7 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Keep in mind that "innocent until proven guilty" is not a societal principle. It's a legal one.

 

I'd argue that basic legal principles arise from societal principles, and that this is one of those. As a group, we believe in a certain level of fairness and impartiality in our legal system. Individuals don't adhere to it, as it goes a bit against human nature; people can be judgemental. And that's not a good thing. Which is why we develop societal norms and codify some of them into law.

[Lord Liaden]

But presumption of innocence isn't the principle behind civil law. The burden of proof is far smaller there, which is why so many criminal cases that the plaintiff loses migrate to civil court where they have a better chance of finding redress.

 

There's another societal principle which, while not exactly codified into law, does carry a lot of weight: "Where there's smoke, there's fire." Where you have multiple people accusing someone of the same thing, the presumption of guilt becomes more credible. It's the maxim underlying the #MeToo movement, which has already brought down several previously powerful men. I understand and accept that in a straight two-party "he said/she said" situation, skepticism and objectivity are prudent; but we can all name several recent high-profile cases where I daresay few of us would argue how the accused has been treated wasn't justified.

[Pattern Ghost]

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

But presumption of innocence isn't the principle behind civil law. The burden of proof is far smaller there, which is why so many criminal cases that the plaintiff loses migrate to civil court where they have a better chance of finding redress.

 

Burden of proof doesn't shift in a civil case. That's not the difference. There is still a presumption of innocence. The difference is between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "preponderance of the evidence." There's lesser burden of proof, but it doesn't move from the plaintiff to the defendant just because it's a civil case.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

There's another societal principle which, while not exactly codified into law, does carry a lot of weight: "Where there's smoke, there's fire."

 

One article citing two people who are ticked off at the accused doesn't make much smoke, though. I tend to believe that the brothers were in fact abusive jerks, because as zslane pointed out, it's very common in the industry. What level it rose to, how pervasive it was, how damaging it was, are all questions that bear further scrutiny.

[Sociotard]

3 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 I tend to believe that the brothers were in fact abusive jerks, because as zslane pointed out, it's very common in the industry. What level it rose to, how pervasive it was, how damaging it was, are all questions that bear further scrutiny.

And to what degree it was only directed to women.

[zslane]

The responsibilities piled on the shoulders of directors (and showrunners) when they take on big-budget tentpole films (or tv series) is mentally and emotionally punishing. I don't think human beings were meant to cope with that kind of thing over long periods of time; in that sense it is not unlike the psychological stresses of war. It should surprise nobody that the way some of them avoid a complete psychotic break and exploding violently is to release the pressure in frequent, but controllable outbursts. Most studio execs would prefer that to them going postal and burning everything down or just disappearing, both of which have been known to happen.

[Bazza]

What goes bump in The Upside Down. 

[Lord Liaden]

Poor girl just can't keep her hair.

[Tjack]

   Getting back to the digression....  Hasn’t the Trope/Cliche about Hollywood Producers, Directors and Actors ALWAYS been that they were screaming louts, bully’s and sexual predators?  This stuff goes all the way back to the Black & White era. The stories about Jack Warner of Warner Bros. alone have filled books. 
   Isn’t it a little disingenuous of society to say “Oh how horrible” now like it’s such a big surprise that rich & powerful men with the control over somebody’s livelihood would act this way?  
  And to take an unpopular viewpoint...I’m getting a little tired of the story of how some seemingly intelligent young actress puts herself into a dangerous situation with a known a$$hole and seems amazed when something awful happens.  This is like the many stories where someone climbs into the cage at the zoo with a large wild animal and gets mauled. The animal gets destroyed and said idiot goes on the morning news.

  At some point there has to be some level of personal responsibility.  If I’m driving down the road at night and someone dressed in black leaps in front of my car making a Tik-Tok video about scaring drivers then if they get hurt I’m the one charged and paying their hospital bills.  Gwynith Paltrow was the child of a movie director and an accomplished actress. Shouldn’t she have been clued in enough to to know that taking a late night meeting with Harvey Weinstein was a REALLY BAD IDEA!   Yes he’s a swine, but there’s somethings a smart person just doesn’t do.

  I agree that these behaviors must be dragged into the light, protested against, legal charges filled against....but please just stop acting surprised.

[Pattern Ghost]

I think there's a difference between acting surprised and demanding accountability. This has been going on since the start of the industry, as you said. Nobody's surprised. The thing that is different is that modern communication, especially through the internet and social media, makes it possible for all of the little voices to stand up and equal that one rich, powerful voice in the room, and demand accountability. What we're seeing is a shift in the power dynamic.

 

The rest of your post is victim blaming. You don't know what was going on in any of those starlet's heads. And Paltrow was a starlet at the time, regardless of her parents' past accomplishments. Emma is what launched her. From what I know of the situation, she handled Weinstein's advances in the moment. Then, Brad Pitt, who was in a position where he wouldn't face consequences, had a "talk" with Weinstein to ensure his future good conduct with Paltrow, as she had two more movies to make with Weinstein at that point. You're criticizing the actions of a 22 year old without actually knowing what was going on in her head, not the actions of a 49 year old Hollywood elite.

 

"Why did you put yourself in that situation?" may be a valid question, strongly depending on the context. "You shouldn't have put yourself in that situation," is a completely BS attack on a victim.

[Tjack]

1 hour ago, Pattern Ghost said:

I think there's a difference between acting surprised and demanding accountability. This has been going on since the start of the industry, as you said. Nobody's surprised. The thing that is different is that modern communication, especially through the internet and social media, makes it possible for all of the little voices to stand up and equal that one rich, powerful voice in the room, and demand accountability. What we're seeing is a shift in the power dynamic.

 

The rest of your post is victim blaming. You don't know what was going on in any of those starlet's heads. And Paltrow was a starlet at the time, regardless of her parents' past accomplishments. Emma is what launched her. From what I know of the situation, she handled Weinstein's advances in the moment. Then, Brad Pitt, who was in a position where he wouldn't face consequences, had a "talk" with Weinstein to ensure his future good conduct with Paltrow, as she had two more movies to make with Weinstein at that point. You're criticizing the actions of a 22 year old without actually knowing what was going on in her head, not the actions of a 49 year old Hollywood elite.

 

"Why did you put yourself in that situation?" may be a valid question, strongly depending on the context. "You shouldn't have put yourself in that situation," is a completely BS attack on a victim.

   While I may not agree with everything you’ve said, I respect your opinion and would defend your right to say it.

I’m not blaming the victims of an assault, I am insisting that we as concerned people teach our daughters to be aware of their surroundings, to understand that there are people in the world who would do them harm and to always be ready to fight back when some bastard tries to hurt them. We teach kids not to drive drunk, and the possible consequences if they do. How is this different?

   We have in the past raised generations who kept their heads in the sand and hoped it would all just go away.  That is on us, not them. When I was younger I remember there was a news story about a co-ed who was assaulted in the room of a college jock when she walked him alone back to his dorm because he was too drunk to walk, went upstairs, got him undressed to sleep and was attacked. He had no memory of doing it and would probably never done so of his own conscious volition.

  No modern young woman would put herself into such a dangerous situation anymore. This education must not only continue but go further. If we teach them not to climb into the lion’s cage, we can at least help alleviate some of the pain.

[Pattern Ghost]

I'm just going to say that you aren't considering the totality of the situation. That's a bit simplistic. I'm going to bow out before I get moderated out. That said, I know you aren't speaking from ill intent, and just ask you consider the whole situation. "Teach them well" hardly ever garnishes the intended results, for so, so many reasons that are beyond the control of the person attempting to do said teaching.

[Tjack]

51 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

I'm just going to say that you aren't considering the totality of the situation. That's a bit simplistic. I'm going to bow out before I get moderated out. That said, I know you aren't speaking from ill intent, and just ask you consider the whole situation. "Teach them well" hardly ever garnishes the intended results, for so, so many reasons that are beyond the control of the person attempting to do said teaching.

    I agree with you that my viewpoints are only as a small part in what must be a total re-education for men and women as well as boys and girls about how we treat one another in this world. But just because an idea isn’t a solution in and of itself doesn’t mean that it can’t have some value as part of a whole.  
       Peace & Long Life to you,  Ghost of the Pattern.

[dmjalund]

Let's start by putting these people in cages