The plot, or at least the premise of the film, has been spoilt for me in the most bizarre manner possible when I read an article in The Atlantic, authored by Amanda Knox. As discussed elsewhere, I don’t care about spoilers, so still going to see the thing on Friday, hopefully, and don’t notice much of a difference in my attitude/extent of interest.
I guess this thread will make more sense for those who’ve read her op-ed, but to me it seems odd that she would object to her story taking on a life of its own. It is only fair that she may find it upsetting, but even her article acknowledges that she’s now a public figure who will continue to feature prominently in popular culture. Would it not make more sense to monetise it than try to fight the notoriety? Good article, though. |
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX (Post 2225664)
I guess this thread will make more sense for those who’ve read her op-ed, but to me it seems odd that she would object to her story taking on a life of its own. It is only fair that she may find it upsetting, but even her article acknowledges that she’s now a public figure who will continue to feature prominently in popular culture. Would it not make more sense to monetise it than try to fight the notoriety?
I really feel for her, because she's in a position where she can't win. Now, first of all, I will acknowledge that once someone becomes a public figure (by choice or not), you can't really keep people from making art that explicitly draws on your life (either the reality or the "mythology"). But in another site about this, I saw someone make some really disparaging remarks about her, basically saying that she's a "fame whore" because she's used her experience to leverage a career with a podcast and as a writer. So if she does nothing, other people make money off of her trauma and also with the added bonus of implicitly defaming her (because they can make "her" do whatever they want in their film). And if she does step up and demand a share of profits or do other things to directly profit, she's just "chasing her 15 minutes". Someone else went as far to suggest that she is just pretending to be upset and that this is actually a secret coordinated effort between her and Stillwater to raise both their profiles. I'm sure this dynamic is even worse for the loved ones of famous victims (like Sharon Tate) who have to see them depicted by artists with varying degrees of nuance or empathy. I don't find it odd at all that she objects. Suppose you were accused of a crime, spent time in jail, and went through all of that trauma, and then someone decided to use your actual life as the basis for a film, but then made some "fun" changes that make you a villain. And you get zero say in that portrayal and you also get zero share of the profits. If no one knew there was a connection, that would be one thing. But apparently the filmmakers and cast have been pretty open about it being based on her, so they have been using her name as part of the marketing. They get the best of both worlds (using her name as part of marketing, making profits from the film) and she gets the worst of it (no control over her own portrayal, no profits from the film). |
@Yoda, could the thread title kindly be changed to Takoma’s suggestion above? Thanks.
|
Re: Stillwater (spoilers, I guess)
i haven't read the thread, but I'm kinda lol'ing at "i guess."
:) |
Originally Posted by ynwtf (Post 2225725)
i haven't read the thread, but I'm kinda lol'ing at "i guess."
:D
WARNING: spoilers below
the fact that the film makes “Knox” a villain means discussing the real Knox/Kercher case is the antithesis of a spoiler, because the film does it differently.
Only reinforces the point that I just don’t get the obsession with spoilers. |
"I guess" is about right, because this story has been all over the place for days now, so it is a spoiler that's already effectively been spoiled.
|
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX (Post 2225728)
Only reinforces the point that I just don’t get the obsession with spoilers.
|
Originally Posted by Takoma11 (Post 2225702)
SPOILERS FOR STILLWATER, MAYBE??
Originally Posted by Takoma11 (Post 2225702)
I really feel for her, because she's in a position where she can't win.
Now, first of all, I will acknowledge that once someone becomes a public figure (by choice or not), you can't really keep people from making art that explicitly draws on your life (either the reality or the "mythology"). But in another site about this, I saw someone make some really disparaging remarks about her, basically saying that she's a "fame whore" because she's used her experience to leverage a career with a podcast and as a writer.
Originally Posted by Takoma11 (Post 2225702)
So if she does nothing, other people make money off of her trauma and also with the added bonus of implicitly defaming her (because they can make "her" do whatever they want in their film).And if she does step up and demand a share of profits or do other things to directly profit, she's just "chasing her 15 minutes".*
Originally Posted by Takoma11 (Post 2225702)
Someone else went as far to suggest that she is just pretending to be upset and that this is actually a secret coordinated effort between her and Stillwater to raise both their profiles.
Originally Posted by Takoma11 (Post 2225702)
I'm sure this dynamic is even worse for the loved ones of famous victims (like Sharon Tate) who have to see them depicted by artists with varying degrees of nuance or empathy.
Originally Posted by Takoma11 (Post 2225702)
Suppose you were accused of a crime, spent time in jail, and went through all of that trauma, and then someone decided to use your actual life as the basis for a film, but then made some "fun" changes that make you a villain. And you get zero say in that portrayal and you also get zero share of the profits.
I honestly don’t get it. Also the way you write above suggests she is automatically entitled to a share of profits - but not everyone mentioned/referenced/alluded to in a work of art is, and she is relatively low-profile compared to other people in similar circumstances. Why would she be entitled to profits? |
Originally Posted by Jinnistan (Post 2225734)
"I guess" is about right, because this story has been all over the place for days now, so it is a spoiler that's already effectively been spoiled.
|
Originally Posted by Takoma11 (Post 2225735)
I think it's very legitimate for people to want to go into a film, especially a thriller/mystery, not knowing a key plot point.
If people are so sensitive, they can steer clear of anything mentioning Stillwater if they haven’t seen the film, which is - surprise! - what I do in the rare cases I genuinely want to be surprised. Most people don’t seem to think what I wrote constitutes a spoiler, small though the sample size is. As Jinnistan said, the thing has been all over the media, including the BBC, can we really continue to see it as unspoilt? |
This reminds me of when Bandit Queen came out in 1994 about Phoolan Devi and she sued to keep it out of theaters because of how it misrepresented her life, and felt exploited by its director.
If you haven’t seen Bandit Queen, think of Australia’s recent Nightingale, but a little worse. |
Originally Posted by Wyldesyde19 (Post 2225863)
This reminds me of when Bandit Queen came out in 1994 about Phoolan Devi and she sued to keep it out of theaters because of how it misrepresented her life, and felt exploited by its director.
If you haven’t seen Bandit Queen, think of Australia’s recent Nightingale, but a little worse. This to me is relevant as it suggests no one owns information in this day and age, including about oneself. It might be a tad more debatable if one were a truly private citizen whose nudes went all over the place (which still happens), but as noted above, Amanda Knox is, for better or worse, a public figure. |
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX (Post 2225738)
I haven’t even seen the thing, but I don’t understand why the above is a spoiler. The film isn’t even about her but equally about the dad, Taken-style.
WARNING: spoilers below
in the film it turns out that the woman WAS involved in the murder
But this isn’t about profits, it’s about, again, restricting artistic expression. As we have discussed elsewhere, why is it fine to bend the sexuality of very clearly straight historical figures to make stuff like Ammonite, but not use creative license to turn Knox into an interesting villain? The Kate Winslet film Heavenly Creatures also used a real, notorious case, yet alleged the girls were lesbian lovers where there was zero evidence of that, and no one complained! Juliet Hulme/Anne Perry is herself a writer, so I guess she’s got a maturer take on it.
So what? These are random people online and they have a right to their views. The fact she’s even reading suggests she actually is interested in her public persona.
But that’s what happens with O. J. and whatnot, it’ll end up all over the place, including rap lyrics. That’s just life, that’s how notoriety works. These people got the short end of the stick, they became known for these events, even if it wasn’t their fault. Molly Bloom now has a Wikipedia page too, but she didn’t complain about Molly’s Game, though she is also unsympathetic there.
I honestly don’t get it. Also the way you write above suggests she is automatically entitled to a share of profits - but not everyone mentioned/referenced/alluded to in a work of art is, and she is relatively low-profile compared to other people in similar circumstances. Why would she be entitled to profits? I get that it's reality. I get that it's an ingrained part of art. I fully concede that I have watched (and enjoyed) many, many films that have done this very thing. I'm not saying they owe her money. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have made the film the way they made it. But I feel for her and her frustration. |
Originally Posted by Takoma11 (Post 2225877)
I was marking my post as possibly having spoilers for the film, not yelling at you about possible spoilers. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Because in my post I reference the fact that
WARNING: spoilers below
in the film it turns out that the woman WAS involved in the murder
|
Originally Posted by Takoma11 (Post 2225877)
I get that it's reality. I get that it's an ingrained part of art. I fully concede that I have watched (and enjoyed) many, many films that have done this very thing. I'm not saying they owe her money. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have made the film the way they made it.
But I feel for her and her frustration. I, Tonya. Yeah. I think that emotion, in all its unpleasantness, lies at the heart of entertainment. I firmly believe all art is inherently unhealthy in that way, as it often centres around pain, and people get off on watching/consuming it. But I digress. |
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX (Post 2225664)
I guess this thread will make more sense for those who’ve read her op-ed, but to me it seems odd that she would object to her story taking on a life of its own. It is only fair that she may find it upsetting, but even her article acknowledges that she’s now a public figure who will continue to feature prominently in popular culture. Would it not make more sense to monetise it than try to fight the notoriety?
Huge fan of Matt Damon, the movie gets decent reviews in the 2 places whose opinion I value & I will eventually get to the movie, which I expect to enjoy. :p |
Originally Posted by Stirchley (Post 2225931)
God, I hope not. So sick of Knox. She somehow seems so tacky, whether guilty or not.
Huge fan of Matt Damon, the movie gets decent reviews in the 2 places whose opinion I value & I will eventually get to the movie, which I expect to enjoy. :p I actually just got invited to a members’-only screening, so looks like I’ll see it tomorrow. Good news, after all that debate. |
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX (Post 2225901)
Yeah, well, can’t argue with that. It’s bizarre and unpleasant, of course. Which film was it, metafiction style, where the protagonist says, “You, the audience, are my torturers”?
I, Tonya. Yeah. I think that emotion, in all its unpleasantness, lies at the heart of entertainment. I firmly believe all art is inherently unhealthy in that way, as it often centres around pain, and people get off on watching/consuming it. But I digress. But also, I know someone who was "referenced" in a piece of art (to the point that everyone who saw it knew that it was meant to be her), and she was really devastated by it. I think it's a really challenging question when it comes to creating and consuming art. |
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX (Post 2225882)
Again, as a few months ago, I acknowledge I am in a state of perpetual PTSD from my work environment, and therefore snarl at people who least deserve it and read things as agressive when they weren’t intended as such. So that’s that out of the way.
I often put ALL CAPS SPOILER WARNINGS at the top of a post if I might say something outside of spoiler tags that could be construed that way. If I ever want to critique a fellow poster, it won't be in all caps. :) |
Originally Posted by Takoma11 (Post 2225946)
You're fine. It took me a while to realize that's what you thought I was doing in my post.
I often put ALL CAPS SPOILER WARNINGS at the top of a post if I might say something outside of spoiler tags that could be construed that way. If I ever want to critique a fellow poster, it won't be in all caps. :) lol. I misread it too then ;) AAAAAHhhh.... we are all coming together. *inhales (as long as none of y'all gots the covids* |
All times are GMT -3. The time now is 12:02 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums