Scrivener, your defense of Clooney seems to be that there are other celebrities who’ve done worse? That’s pretty weak given the fact that the people who’ve done those things HAVE been publically excoriated and made the butt of ridicule.
Guinastasia,
I see that you took my post as intended, as a tongue in cheek attempt to bring some levity to this over-weighty thread. I agree that it could be construed as misleading to juxtapose your words as I did.
My apologies for any confusion, and my hat is off to the lady with an intact sence of humor. It’s really what makes the sdmb so attractive, the ability to have a little fun while bantering about some serious ideas.
_Skillet__/========
So…Clooney has made one objectionable joke and had one over-the-top reaction of outrage (that have been mentioned) and that makes him a hypocrite and an asshole? That means I’m doomed…along with most of the human race.
I hate to think what people call those celebrities that repeatedly and habitually perform one or more of the actions on Scrivener’s list.
Not exactly. It’s more like, Clooney has made a bit of an ass of himself in public lately, but that’s still just a mess for his PR (if he has one) to clean up. Not even misdemeanor stuff. So why obsess over immature or boorish behavior (two examples only) while neglecting to consider: 1) the good as well as the bad & the ugly, and Clooney has done some admirable work; and 2) what really bad behavior is.
My list of bad celebrity behavior is rather silly and misguided, because it fundamentally misses this point: the real character-challenged public figures we should be bothered most by aren’t the silly (or worse) personalities in the entertainment and sports worlds, but those bad boys and girls in positions of real power who buy and sell influence and favors, cut deals, cheat on taxes and stocks, break laws and government regulations for profit, sell out their constituencies/workforces/pensioners, and so on.
But even within the narcissistic, insular world of mass entertainment and media, George Clooney’s recent mild hijinks pale in comparison to what others have done and all-too-often gotten away with (albeit sometimes paying an undisclosed court settlement).
Now, if Clooney continues to shoot his mouth off in controversial ways or begins to treat the people he works or lives with badly or returns to doing Batman sequels, then one could quite legitimately reassess his character. But by reputation, he’s far from being a Val Kilmer-type of jerk. In fact, what I’ve heard said (on one of those tabloid-TV programs, IIRC) is that none of his ex-girlfriends will go on the record to say anything negative about him, and in Hollywood, that’s as good a character resume as anything.
Notwithstanding the recent brouhaha, Clooney seems to be universally well-regarded, well-liked and admired by the men and women he has with whom he has worked and socialized. And then he helped a lot of people after 9-11. So yeah, I’ll defend him from the O’Reilly types who want to make an ideological mountain out of a personality molehill – but I’ve been more motivated to oppose them-- whose methods and single-mindedness I find objectionable – and to defend the overall reputation of a rare celebrity I admire, rather than to defend the admittedly unfortunate (if not really all that awful) incidents in question.
Thanks. I just wanted to let you know, in case someone says something.
I’ve heard half a dozen or so comics make jokes about Reagan’s alzheimers, including Dennis Miller and Robert Shimmel. And I laughed my ass off. Does this make me a bad person? Does it make them bad people?
Here’s a good question for you. If sometime in the next couple of months, Clooney is quoted as saying “Sometime aga I made an inappropriate joke about Charlton Heston’s illness. I now realize that it was wrong and I’m sorry I said it.”, would you forgive him? Or would you still be calling him an asshole?
Clooney is bit like Bogart. Both have somewhat limited range. But when they are in that range, they’re really good.
And we have to admit, Clooney is one suave mofo.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by spooje *
**I’ve heard half a dozen or so comics make jokes about Reagan’s alzheimers, including Dennis Miller and Robert Shimmel. And I laughed my ass off. Does this make me a bad person? Does it make them bad people?
**
Yes and yes.
**
Here’s a good question for you. If sometime in the next couple of months, Clooney is quoted as saying “Sometime aga I made an inappropriate joke about Charlton Heston’s illness. I now realize that it was wrong and I’m sorry I said it.”, would you forgive him?
**
Yes.
“It’s a lovely, eerie film that casts an odd, rapt spell.”
– Michael Wilmington, CHICAGO TRIBUNE
“It’s an example of sophisticated, challenging filmmaking that stands, despite its noticeable lack of emotional heft, in welcome contrast to the indulgent dead-end experimentation of the director’s previous Full Frontal.”
– Kenneth Turan, LOS ANGELES TIMES
“A mind-bender in the best sense of the word: The spell it casts follows you all the way home.”
– Peter Travers, ROLLING STONE
“I prefer Soderbergh’s concentration on his two lovers over Tarkovsky’s mostly male, mostly patriarchal debating societies.”
– Andrew Sarris, NEW YORK OBSERVER
“Soderbergh does a fine job creating a moody atmosphere of pervasive anxiety.”
– Claudia Puig, USA TODAY
“Visually astonishing and thoroughly admirable.”
– Andrew O’Hehir, SALON.COM
“In the Hollywood pantheon of recycled heroes, [Clooney] suggests a Clark Gable for the new millennium, without the raised eyebrow and rakish leer.”
– Stephen Holden, NEW YORK TIMES
“This is as elegant, moody, intelligent, sensuous, and sustained a studio movie as we are likely to see this season.”
– J. Hoberman, VILLAGE VOICE
“So beautifully made (everything in it is understated except the gorgeous good looks of its stars) and turns out to have such real cumulative power that it is worth holding out to the end.”
– Jonathan Foreman, NEW YORK POST
“The kind of smart film that has people arguing about it on their way out of the theater.”
– Roger Ebert, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES
“[Soderbergh] goes so far into the terrors and rewards of romantic love that he comes out the other side into the universal.”
– Ty Burr, BOSTON GLOBE
“Solaris is neither as effective nor as ambitious as Kubrick’s masterpiece, but it’s still a compelling cinematic experience for those who are willing to abandon themselves to the unforced, measured rhythms of an issues-based motion picture.”
– James Berardinelli, JAMES BERARDINELLI’S REELVIEWS
“It’s very thoughtful and it’s the kind of movie you have to discuss afterwards.”
– Richard Roeper, EBERT & ROEPER
“A hushed, haunted tone poem about love and loss.”
– Steve Murray, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION
“The film’s real appeal won’t be to Clooney fans or adventure buffs, but to moviegoers who enjoy thinking about compelling questions with no easy answers.”
– David Sterritt, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
“Pleasingly, Soderbergh does not pander much to expectations and more than once evokes Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey.”
– David Hunter, HOLLYWOOD REPORTER
“In the face of a lot of rageful movies, something as pure as Solaris is a heartful respite to a tender place. And in the pantheon of great movies, Soderbergh’s Solaris will soon takes its place.”
– David Poland, HOT BUTTON
“Soderbergh skims the fat from the 1972 film. What’s left is a rich stew of longing.”
– Carrie Rickey, PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER
“Finely crafted and executed, this is one of those rare movies that will get you talking after it’s over.”
– E! ONLINE
“What grounds Soderbergh’s film – and distinguishes it from Tarkovsky’s more mystical take – is the sensuality that exists alongside the anguish in Kelvin and Rheya’s love story.”
– Jason Anderson, EYE WEEKLY
“An absorbing, challenging, mostly well-acted change-of-pace space thriller.”
– William Arnold, SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
“A mysterious and powerful movie, much like the strange planet at the far reaches of the universe for which it is named.”
– Marjorie Baumgarten, AUSTIN CHRONICLE
“A shrewdly pared-down version that confines its focus to a single issue for the ages: the nature of romantic passion.”
– Rick Groen, GLOBE AND MAIL
“More concerned with overall feelings, broader ideas, and open-ended questions than concrete story and definitive answers, Soderbergh’s Solaris is a gorgeous and deceptively minimalist cinematic tone poem.”
– Michael Dequina, FILM THREAT
“What words cannot express, what Soderbergh himself scarcely seems to understand, Clooney transforms into genuine, graspable human feeling.”
– Wade Major, BOXOFFICE MAGAZINE
“A solemn, splintered meditation on lost love: a movie about personal space, in space.”
– David Edelstein, SLATE
“A thought-provoking exploration of the elusive nature of relationships.”
– Robert Denerstein, DENVER ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS
“A fluid and alluring sc-fi drama that hallows the mysteries of memory, love and yearning.”
– Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat, SPIRITUALITY AND HEALTH
“A case could be made that Soderbergh has taken navel-gazing to cosmic excess. But through his mastery of mood, his subtle powers of suggestion and the deftness with which he approaches both the film’s impressive technical challenges and its human cast, he creates a haunting mood that isn’t easily dispelled. Perhaps the best thing about “Solaris” is that it seems to be about a lot more than is immediately apparent. Not content to spoon-feed its audience, it attempts to engage our imaginations on an almost subconscious level.”
– Robert W. Butler, KANSAS CITY STAR
My favorite blurb:
“An earnest film of grand ideas and even grander ambitions… it’s easy to foresee chuckleheads lining up in droves to take turns pissing all over this one.”
– Sean Burns, PHILADELPHIA WEEKLY
Who didn’t like it? Oh, lots of chuckleheads, including Owen Glieberman of Entertainment Weekly, who gave O Brother, Where Art Thou? an “F” in his review.
About Solaris being a “box-office bomb,” several dozen fine films are released every year that I love but get no box office to speak of. Low grosses mean nothing in regards to quality. People who point to box office receipts to boost an opinion (good or bad) about a film are, well, let’s just say I don’t much trust their opinions.
You stay home. I’ll be first in line for anything he does. I’m a movie buff, and Clooney has more than proven that he’s now dedicated to quality, interesting projects. I don’t choose which films to see on the basis of how he tweaks the noses of people whose opinions I have no trust in or respect for.
Equipoise,
Gee, you seem to have forgotton THESE reviews:
“Its audacious ambitions sabotaged by pomposity, Steven Soderbergh’s space opera emerges as a numbingly dull experience.”
– Philip Wuntch, DALLAS MORNING NEWS
“Soderbergh seems capable only of delivering artfully lighted, earnest inquiries that lack the kind of genuine depth that would make them redeemable.”
– Glenn Whipp, LOS ANGELES DAILY NEWS
“Aloof and lacks any real raw emotion, which is fatal for a film that relies on personal relationships.”
– Jeff Vice, DESERET NEWS, SALT LAKE CITY
“Fiasco of infuriating pretentiousness and numbing incoherence.”
– Rex Reed, NEW YORK OBSERVER
“[Soderbergh] tends to place most of the psychological and philosophical material in italics rather than trust an audience’s intelligence, and he creates an overall sense of brusqueness.”
– Jonathan Rosenbaum, CHICAGO READER
“The most opaque, self-indulgent and just plain goofy an excuse for a movie as you can imagine.”
– Susan Stark, DETROIT NEWS
“Despite its undeniably pure and earnest intent, Solaris is equally undeniably an arid, dull affair that imposes and maintains a huge distance between the viewer and what happens onscreen.”
– Todd McCarthy, VARIETY
“There’s no emotional pulse to Solaris. With an emotional sterility to match its outer space setting, Soderbergh’s spectacular swing for the fence yields only a spectacular whiff.”
– Brent Simon, ENTERTAINMENT TODAY
“Comes across as less than a spontaneous work of the heart and more like a grim-faced stab at artistic importance.”
– Mick LaSalle, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
“One for the graduate students who know everything about movies except how to enjoy them.”
– Stephen Hunter, WASHINGTON POST
“Although it’s meant to be restrained and free of emotional hysteria, the result is a movie that pretty much lies dead on the screen for an hour and a half.”
– Desson Howe, WASHINGTON POST
“A serious movie with serious ideas. But seriously, folks, it doesn’t work.”
– Steven Rosen, DENVER POST
“Soderbergh, in essence, has come up with a plodding and far less psychologically arresting version of Ghost.”
– Owen Gleiberman, ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY
However, since I see that the Rotten Tomatoes round-up has “Solaris” pegged at 63% in the ol’ Tomato-Meter, I will happily alter my description of the movie’s critical reception from “panned” to “mixed.” Better?
Also, everyone who had a different opinion than YOU about this movie is labeled a “chucklehead?” Interesting…
Stephe96, I don’t recommend bringing Mick LaSalle onto your side. He is the worst critic I have ever read. Go through his archives and see what he hated / liked vs. the rest of the world if you don’t believe me.
The 9-11 fundraising whas one of the reasons I was a fan of Clooney, and I thought the ranting of O’Reilly against him was ridiculous.
Since my comment started up this shindig, I’ll comment on this. This thread was about Clooney, not Clooney compared to the rest of Hollywood, because compared to the rest of them Clooney is a saint. Your comparison assumes that I (or others) let the previous mentioned actors/celebrities slide despite their greater transgressions. I don’t. If you want to discuss the others, fine. Start a new thread, otherwise the discussion is about Clooney.
The OP reminded me of how disappointed I was when Clooney made his Heston comment. I liked Clooney because 1) I enjoy his movies and 2) He seemed to be very humble and gracious. Personally, I find the Heston comment to be in extremely poor taste, and simple minded (since he apparently couldn’t find another way to insult Heston without bringing up a fatal disease. I thought he was brighter than that). Personally, I found the comment to be so bad that I’m not a fan of his anymore. It’s a personal preference. Nothing more.
Well, it apparently is OK for him to make fun of other’s fatal disease, but it doesn’t apply to him (if the Stern comment is correct). That makes him a hypocrite, but him being an asshole is more subjective.
As for you? I don’t know you or any comments you have made, but if the shoe fits… 
Sure. He doesn’t seem to think it was inappropriate, though. That’s the whole point of this discussion.
I admire what he did for 9-11. I’m not an “O’Reilly type” since I think he is a butt head. Defend Clooney all you want, I have the right to not support him as an actor/filmmaker if I want. I just find it hard to let a comment like that go as I watch my grandmother slowly die of Alzheimers. Granted, my personal situation colors it somewhat, but it’s just not funny, and he doesn’t seem to sorry about saying it. To me that makes him an asshole. YMMV
Oh, I saw them, but I was disproving the notion that the movie was “critically panned” with critics (several well-known and respected) who praised it.
Much better. I wouldn’t have glanced twice at your post had you said that.
Yes, actually. 
Most of the bad reviews seemed to be from those who either were bored because, to them, the movie was too slow (as if all movies should move at breakneck speed) and/or “pretentious” (as if movies shouldn’t have thoughts and ideas), or those who are just too in love with the Tarkovsky version and think Solaris was a remake, instead of an interpretation of the novel, which is what it was (Lem liked Soderberg’s version). Then there are those who think it’s cool to knock Soderberg and Clooney because they’ve gotten too big for their britches, or some equally silly reason. (And no, I have no intention of culling through the bad reviews for cites.)
Have you even seen it?