What happens if someone just refuses to watch Chinatown because they think it’s boring? Do you burst into flames from the sheer ignorance of great cinema, jordanr2? 
I knew that, but, for a while, there were rumors he was headed that way, and at least one publication reported he actually was one.
As for the money deal: aren’t most actor’s pay negotiated without regard to how well the movie does in the box office? And, really, is the number of people who boycott significant enough to make a difference? Every time I’ve heard of a national boycott, I’ve never noticed the company hurting. To the point where I tell my Baptist friends that their Disney, Harry Potter, etc. boycotts are totally stupid.
Actually, “Hellcats of the Navy” was pretty entertaining, in an awful-B-movie starring-future-president-and-first-lady kind of way…
Bingo
Box Office definitely affects their NEXT payday, though.
Is there any evidence that they have tried this tactic? Is there a cite that they have pushed others to close on Sundays (crappy behavior) or do they simply put their money where their mouth is and give up one of the busiest days in fast food because they have certain beliefs (commendable behavior)?
A quick google search shows a few overly religious practices, but nothing to suggest that they want to force other businesses to close via blue laws.
I hated Ronald Reagan the president, but he was not a bad actor. See him in King’s Row, The Voice of the Turtle, or The Hasty Heart.
Why does it have to make a difference to the boycotted person? I will not pay to see a Mickey Rourke movie because he gave financial support to the IRA. I do not want any of my money, even though the amount is infinitesimal to him, going to Rourke (and definitely not to the IRA). It makes a difference to me, and that’s enough for me.
What Christian attitude are you referring to? Because none of my friends have voiced any particular reasons for avoiding Chik-fil-A other than the fact that they’re owned by Christians who close up shop on Sundays. Seriously, that’s it. No mention of how the owners spend money, whether they pay lobbyist in Washington, or anything of that nature. The simple fact that they know the owners are Christian and close up on Sunday is enough to keep them away. So maybe some of the people you know articulate their reasons a bit better but mine sure don’t.
How would they know unless they were to watch it?
I’d say it’s more that they’re more concerned with asserting a firm stance on a silly debate and thus appearing to be in the right morally speaking.
out of curiosity, have you seen Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired?
Well, this instance of Polanski’s behavior actually occurred three years after the release of Chinatown, so I’d find it odd that anyone might take that into account, but whatever floats your boat. Actually, after the 1977 incident, IMO, Polanski’s only made a few films worth watching so all this may be beside the point.
It’s intriguing that this logic isn’t applied to the films of someone like Leni Riefenstahl. Apparently an act of sexual violence whose victim herself is on board with Polanski’s release from future prosecution deserves more flak than aesthetic complicity with the Nazi regime, or so one would think from the comparative hue-and-cry over each filmmaker’s actions.
You know who didn’t drug and rape a child? The hundreds of other people who work on the film with him. I work in the industry and there’s hardly a production that likely has an unsavory character somewhere in the mix. As heinous as Polanski’s history is, there are a lot of other people’s livelihoods at stake in his films, not just his. It’s not like 100% of the money goes back directly into his pockets.
Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that Riefenstahl has been dead for seven years and directed only one movie (a nature documentary) within the past 50 years. I don’t believe that ever even saw wide theatrical release in the US. Her work aside from Triumph of the Will has been almost entirely forgotten by the general public. And her Nazi ties certainly haven’t been whitewashed; her association with the Nazis largely ended her career, and to the extent that your Average Joe or Jane even recognizes Riefenstahl’s name today then she’s known as the woman who made propaganda films for Hitler. People may not make a point of saying they’re deliberately avoiding her other films, but that’s because the subject doesn’t even come up. Her movies aren’t in the theaters, and I doubt they’re in many folks’ Netflix queues either.
If Riefenstahl has spent the last few years of her life directing films that went on to play at American multiplexes then you probably would have heard a lot of people say “I’m not giving a Nazi supporter any of my money!” But she didn’t, and there aren’t a lot of Riefenstahl film festivals for people to boycott.
Seriously, do you really find it surprising that no one is up in arms about the behavior of a dead director who was mostly inactive after 1938?
Agree 100%.
My husband is a 35 year veteran in the business.
He’s worked with amazing stand-up people, and has also worked with some completely effed’up jerks.
If a movie is good, I’ll go see it.
Well, I mean someone who’s seen it. I’ve already seen it and I don’t care to see it again just because it bored me.
Well, to me the basic issue is one of understanding, which is why I think people should see the Polanski documentary before trying to discuss the case. It seems a little odd that folks who would never have heard of Polanski were it not for this case get so very up-in-arms about it all; it just screams “recreational outrage” to me. I bring up the Riefenstahl example because even among cinematically-knowledgable people, i.e. those aware of both the Riefenstahl case and the Polanski case, the latter seems to be much more discussed.
Not surprising at all, but to me the ideal would be a cultural discussion of Polanski - taking into account his work, his biography, his deeds and their consequences - similar to that which has unfolded surrounding Riefenstahl. I can envision that happening sometime in the future, but for now the Polanski discussion is mostly just repetitious and irritates me. Do people really think they’re taking some profound moral stand by refusing to see his movies?
shrug to each his own. I can’t envision ever finding Chinatown boring, but at least you took the effort to see it, which is more than many of the anti-Polanski offenderati seem to be doing.
That’s because Roman Polanski had a new movie in mainstream American theaters within the past few months, one that’s probably still showing some places, so filmgoers have recently had to make a decision about whether or not they were going to give him their business. Recent developments in his case also put his name back in the news, and it remains uncertain what exactly is going to happen to him. No one could give Leni Riefenstahl money if they wanted to because she’s dead, there’s no question about what’s going to become of her because she’s dead, and while she was still alive then there was limited opportunity for even the biggest cinema buffs to go see a revival screening of Das Blaue Licht anyway.
Riefenstahl isn’t a currently popular topic of discussion because there’s not much left to discuss, and of what is left then none is new and most is purely academic. Outside an actual history or history of film course there’s little reason for most people to bother talking about her at all.
*Well, if it bothers you so much then you could easily stay out of it. No one forced you to engage with the subject in this thread, and the rest of us might be done talking about it already if you hadn’t decided to get involved.
*I have seen no indication that this is the case. Does every decision people make about how they spend their time and money have to be a profound moral stand?
Yeah, I do suppose I’m coming at the subject from an advantaged position, in the sense that most people are viewing Polanski and his deeds from a very limited perspective, so I’ll bow out on the debate. I do think the Riefenstahl example remains relevant, but I can see how given the fact that the stir over Polanski amounts to a current event, the comparison might baffle some.
No, but a lot of people seem to be approaching the decision as if it is one. I don’t care about The Ghost Writer because it looks like a pretty dull piece of work. A lot of people who in all honesty probably wouldn’t have even considered seeing it in the first place appear to be phrasing it as a moral stance.
You’re right. It’s fortunate that I have no moral obligation to support these people for creating a movie I have no desire to see, or this would present a quandary.
As Lamia said, Riefenstahl will become relevant when someone tries to tell me her movies are worth watching, and not a moment sooner. As far as my viewing decisions are concerned, she might as well not exist.
Congratulations, you have managed to write one of the most condescending paragraphs I’ve ever seen in this forum.