Stillwater (spoilers, I guess)

Tools    





But they didn't just "add it," right? Because the idea that Knox and the victim were having a lesbian affair was something that was quite happily "reported" during her trial and given as a possible motive.

If anything, this supports the complaints Knox is making that the film is taking the seedy, demeaning rumors about her and making them the "truth" for the character based on her.
Yes, I see that logic, sure. It was probably also “reported” at the time of Parker and Hulme, but it was the filmmakers’ choice to include it, not the newspapers’ fault. Seeing as random (“sordid”) lesbian affairs are being added all over the place for no reason, it seems irrational to blame the media for one such directorial choice among many.

But ultimately the film is about the dad and his relationship with the French lady he lodges with, which can hardly be a point of criticism. After all, McCarthy described the premise as “What if you were Amanda Knox’s father”, not “What if Amanda Knox was guilty?” And he would know what his film is about, right?

It’s a pretty good, unusual film, nothing like Taken, and it has a real existentialist slant. Back to The Atlantic, which I generally love, this time, a different, review-like article. It closes with, “Would anyone have watched it if they hadn’t mentioned Knox?”

And I say yes, quite a few people would, it’s a perfectly good film and those kinds of question-statements sound bizarrely mean and vindictive, like Knox and co have skin in the film failing or just want it to. It’s looking like she’s going out of her way to criticise it and make it unsuccessful, which, guess what, is just generating more interest. She’s helping market the thing just by complaining.

Also, it’s perfectly natural to “bring a story home” by referencing a similar real-life case when marketing a film, or even another hit production to maximise chances of exposure. The Ben Aaronovitch fantasy book series Rivers of London was marketed as “What if Harry Potter grew up and joined the fuzz?”, and I don’t remember J. K. R. complaining.

This is a bit like the criticism levelled at the second season of Top of the Lake for not telling the individual stories of the female victims of human trafficking. Like if a film uses human trafficking or Knox as a plot point, it’s a priori signing an unspoken pledge to centre itself around their stories. But it’s an authorial choice, no?

A film rooted in how Knox feels frustrated and misrepresented would be so boring, especially as she had no agency in either her imprisonment or her release. It would not make a good story, less so one with an investigative slant.

Edit: apparently, I mean season 2 of Top of the Lake.



Yes, I see that logic, sure. It was probably also “reported” at the time of Parker and Hulme, but it was the filmmakers’ choice to include it, not the newspapers’ fault. Seeing as random (“sordid”) lesbian affairs are being added all over the place for no reason, it seems irrational to blame the media for one such directorial choice among many.
The filmmakers decided to use a rumor that was unfairly leveraged against Knox as a "reality" in their film. I'm not judging their choice, but I can certainly understand why Knox feels as if this is perpetuating a false narrative about her. If anything, when films are based on stories where we now know more of the truth, viewers will sometimes assume they are seeing "the facts". Again, this doesn't necessarily make the filmmakers guilty of anything, but it's crappy for Knox and I understand her frustration.

A film rooted in how Knox feels frustrated and misrepresented would be so boring, especially as she had no agency in either her imprisonment or her release. It would not make a good story, less so one with an investigative slant.
I don't think anyone, even Knox herself, was asking for a film about her and her frustrations.

But would it really have been so hard for the writers of the film to come up with a twist that wasn't literally taken from the tabloids at the time of the trial? Or not name-drop Knox in promotions? Or acknowledge her story as a starting point but make it really clear that they did their own thing with the premise?

Basically, it seems to me that there were plenty of things they could have done that would have had fewer crappy consequences for a real human being, and they just decided to do . . . none of them. That's not a judgment on them as artists, it's a judgment on them as people.



The filmmakers decided to use a rumor that was unfairly leveraged against Knox as a "reality" in their film. I'm not judging their choice, but I can certainly understand why Knox feels as if this is perpetuating a false narrative about her. If anything, when films are based on stories where we now know more of the truth, viewers will sometimes assume they are seeing "the facts". Again, this doesn't necessarily make the filmmakers guilty of anything, but it's crappy for Knox and I understand her frustration.



I don't think anyone, even Knox herself, was asking for a film about her and her frustrations.

But would it really have been so hard for the writers of the film to come up with a twist that wasn't literally taken from the tabloids at the time of the trial? Or not name-drop Knox in promotions? Or acknowledge her story as a starting point but make it really clear that they did their own thing with the premise?

Basically, it seems to me that there were plenty of things they could have done that would have had fewer crappy consequences for a real human being, and they just decided to do . . . none of them. That's not a judgment on them as artists, it's a judgment on them as people.
Well, for what’s worth, in narrative terms, I think it’s a natural move to make her guilty. It’s more INTERESTING. I wouldn’t call it a “twist” as I’d say the contemporary audience will almost go into the film expecting a certain shift in perspectives towards the end. That’s how many Gone Girl-style films work.

Reading reviewers as I always do post-viewing, and this extract from Variety caught my eye: “Is she guilty? We don’t know, but since the case directly echoes that of Amanda Knox, who was — unjustly — convicted of murder in Italy in 2009 after undergoing a kind of trial-by-world-tabloid-press, then exonerated by an Italian court in 2011, we assume, watching the film, that Allison is innocent. That means that Bill appears to be on a driven and honorable crusade.”

Referencing Knox is a good opportunity to, as they say in crap essays, “subvert the audience’s expectations” by making everyone assume the protagonist is innocent…. ‘Till she’s not. It’s a trick of sorts. I don’t disagree with anything you write above, and I certainly can appreciate her frustration on an intellectual level as well, but I don’t think it has anything to do with how good films/art are made.

Very much off topic, but I’m wondering if someone who happens to be involved in the arts or whose family is would have reacted differently than she, with a grain of salt, or, rather, an innate understanding that this is what stories are designed to do.

About a year ago, I read an interview of a Russian actress. Can’t think which one. I think she said she got a huge part, one she was really passionate about, as her father lay dying from cancer. And the part had a similar dynamic with a dying parent in palliative care.

Not only did she admit she felt that might have influenced why she got the part, but this actress also said she found it helpful - therapeutic - to have the part and the production in full swing.

It meant she could process the loss, but it also meant she was constantly observing herself and her reactions when it came to her father’s decline. Learning from her own body about what ongoing loss feels like and then trying to replicate it.

Not suggesting Knox should have done that, or should be expected to, but simply that she could have chosen to approach this situation differently. Perhaps as a rare opportunity to get a truly “outsider” glimpse of her case. It is a rare shot at attaining a certain catharsis, too, if only to let go as Bill suggests Allison should in the film and give up ownership of the narrative.

My point being, maybe the frustration is not irrational, but is it necessary to air it out? And to write an op-ed too, promoting oneself, like you’re seeking to outdo the blasted production? I don’t know.



This is a bit like the criticism levelled at the third season of Top of the Lake for not telling the individual stories of the female victims of human trafficking.
Did it have a third season? I thought only two.

Loved season 1. Season 2 was so bad; I could hardly believe how bad. Bailed out PDQ.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.



Did it have a third season? I thought only two.

Loved season 1. Season 2 was so bad; I could hardly believe how bad. Bailed out PDQ.
Maybe I mean 2. It was awful. I was shocked at the shift. I meant the one about human trafficking/surrogates. 1 was great, so unusual.

Yeah, you’re right, I mean 2. Thanks for flagging, amended above.



Well, for what’s worth, in narrative terms, I think it’s a natural move to make her guilty. It’s more INTERESTING. I wouldn’t call it a “twist” as I’d say the contemporary audience will almost go into the film expecting a certain shift in perspectives towards the end. That’s how many Gone Girl-style films work.

Reading reviewers as I always do post-viewing, and this extract from Variety caught my eye: “Is she guilty? We don’t know, but since the case directly echoes that of Amanda Knox, who was — unjustly — convicted of murder in Italy in 2009 after undergoing a kind of trial-by-world-tabloid-press, then exonerated by an Italian court in 2011, we assume, watching the film, that Allison is innocent. That means that Bill appears to be on a driven and honorable crusade.”

Referencing Knox is a good opportunity to, as they say in crap essays, “subvert the audience’s expectations” by making everyone assume the protagonist is innocent…. ‘Till she’s not. It’s a trick of sorts. I don’t disagree with anything you write above, and I certainly can appreciate her frustration on an intellectual level as well, but I don’t think it has anything to do with how good films/art are made.
I don't disagree that the story is more interesting (or at least more complex) if the daughter has some guilt/culpability. But what I am criticizing is the use of the same tabloid fodder as part of that guilt.

About a year ago, I read an interview of a Russian actress. Can’t think which one. I think said she got a huge part, one she was really passionate about, as her father lay dying from cancer. And the part had a similar dynamic with a dying parent in palliative care.

Not only did she admit she felt that might have influenced why she got the part, but this actress also said she found it helpful - therapeutic - to have the part and the production in full swing.

It meant she could process the loss, but it also meant she was constantly observing herself and her reactions when it came to her father’s decline. Learning from her own body about what ongoing loss feels like and then trying to replicate it.

Not suggesting Knox should have done that, or should be expected to, but simply that she could have chosen to approach this situation differently.
But isn't a really important and key difference here that this actress chose to be a part of this production? That she voluntarily engaged in this process knowing its parallels to her life?

Knox wasn't asked permission, she wasn't even given a heads up by anyone involved in production that they were making this story about her. There was a way to approach this process with compassion and the filmmakers chose not to.

What would you do in Knox's position? Being really honest with yourself, if someone made a movie that was implicitly about you and a real event/trauma that happened to you, and that included mirroring and reinforcing demeaning implications about things you didn't really do?



I don't disagree that the story is more interesting (or at least more complex) if the daughter has some guilt/culpability. But what I am criticizing is the use of the same tabloid fodder as part of that guilt.
But again, these are storytelling concerns. That part of the film only just clings onto any sort of believability, and to make
WARNING: spoilers below
Allison’s desire to kill Lina about anything except sexual/romantic attraction would just be impossible to ground
. In the ideal world, I agree, they could have moved away from the tabloids and come up with an incest plot, like long-lost sisters, or something.

But isn't a really important and key difference here that this actress chose to be a part of this production? That she voluntarily engaged in this process knowing its parallels to her life?
Yes and no. The broader point is that it’s up to you how you approach force majeure events. I agree, perhaps, that a heads-up might have been in order, but then again, it would prompt the kind of campaign she’s engaging in now, so why waste your breath? And then you have the added headache of, “Yeah, we asked her, but she said “no” and we did it anyway.”

What would you do in Knox's position? Being really honest with yourself, if someone made a movie that was implicitly about you and a real event/trauma that happened to you, and that included mirroring and reinforcing demeaning implications about things you didn't really do?
I’m thinking how to approach this one. If we’re talking highly personal parallels (but I’ll just go on record as saying I find it unhelpful that so many of these conversations inevitably resort to personalities and lived experience), I was born with an incredibly debilitating breathing condition.

I made a rule for myself to never talk about this on the internet because the one time I did, an armchair expert tried to challenge me about the condition and argue with me about whether it was or wasn’t stenosis. And no, it doesn’t have a name, it was just HELL. It meant, in short, that my throat was narrower than normal and I lived on less air than “normal” people until my teens. Think asthma on steroids, 24/7.

The reason I go into this, perhaps, bizarre detail is the doctors initially thought I would die as a baby (duh). My mother never got over it. She was very grateful to the legendary, decorated doctor who saved my life (double duh). She wouldn’t shut up about the whole thing. As long as I can remember, she’d randomly bring up all that **** at dinner and beyond. “When you were born sick”, “Doctor X saved your life,” etc., I find myself unable to replicate it. It was awful.

I anticipate that it can be argued it’s not the same as I’m not being accused of anything, but it’s far, far more complicated than that. It’s an immutable part of me that people (in this context, family, but also the broader social circle) draw on as a reference without my permission and against my very clearly stated explicit wishes.

If I ever were to get married, I’m very sure this would come during the wedding speeches on my side of the family. Do I have any control over that? No. Do I have any control over which random ****ing neighbour or drinking buddy gets to hear how sick I was when I was born? No.

Can I shut up my mother when she mentions it? Yes, I have and it’s mostly working. My point is that these things are outside our control. I don’t expect my mother, or anyone in the family or around it, to consult me before she brings it up.

I have no control over who finds out I had the condition I no longer have, had no role in acquiring, and so on. I’m still very ambivalent about whether to declare it on medical forms/private insurance, because even if it’s been gone for years, it’s a part of me. Then they start asking questions and it gets worse.

You can get bogged down in detail, such as that it has affected her too, so she may have a certain right to the narrative, but that detracts from the point I’m making.

Yes, there is a ****load of trauma, to do with a real event, the extent of my long-forgotten condition is exaggerated and used as a point of reference to praise the doctor, I’m reminded how I owe my life to her daily, and worse. Yes, the trauma is being reinforced, I guess.

But I ****ing ignore it, stay away, did all the extreme sports imaginable to show them I could. Even before the surgery I did ballet and headstands and aerobics. You just do it.

The referencing is out of your hands as a subject, and I stand by my view that writing op-eds and mulling over how unhappy you are with them is immature. It doesn’t instill any sympathy in me. It is not defamation, it’s just what you happen to be known for, and I’m sure that **** will come up at my funeral. “She lived a difficult life with her condition, BUT…”

Just get over it, it won’t stop. Really not sure I should have written/intended to write all of that, but there we go.



But again, these are storytelling concerns. That part of the film only just clings onto any sort of believability, and to make
WARNING: spoilers below
Allison’s desire to kill Lina about anything except sexual/romantic attraction would just be impossible to ground
. In the ideal world, I agree, they could have moved away from the tabloids and come up with an incest plot, like long-lost sisters, or something.
I just disagree. There are a lot of reasons why people decide to harm others (or stay silent with others are harmed). Romantic rivalry (also very cliche); financial motives; covering up a different crime; etc.

Yes and no. The broader point is that it’s up to you how you approach force majeure events. I agree, perhaps, that a heads-up might have been in order, but then again, it would prompt the kind of campaign she’s engaging in now, so why waste your breath? And then you have the added headache of, “Yeah, we asked her, but she said “no” and we did it anyway.”
It doesn't change the fact that asking was the decent thing to do, even if she said no. In fact, it shows a kind of cowardice that they did it this way.

I’m thinking how to approach this one. If we’re talking highly personal parallels (but I’ll just go on record as saying I find it unhelpful that so many of these conversations inevitably resort to personalities and lived experience), I was born with an incredibly debilitating breathing condition.
.
.
.
I anticipate that it can be argued it’s not the same as I’m not being accused of anything, but it’s far, far more complicated than that. It’s an immutable part of me that people (in this context, family, but also the broader social circle) draw on as a reference without my permission and against my very clearly stated explicit wishes.
.
.
.
Can I shut up my mother when she mentions it? Yes, I have and it’s mostly working. My point is that these things are outside our control. I don’t expect my mother, or anyone in the family or around it, to consult me before she brings it up.
But are any of the things being said about you lies? I think that's an important difference. And you say that it's mostly working when you ask your mother not to talk about it. Is anyone giving Knox the same courtesy? Nope.

Imagine a friend of the family started a rumor that she did a crystal healing ceremony over you when you were little and that's why you've gone on to be healthy. And imagine she trotted THAT story out, posting it on Facebook, etc. Maybe she changed your name in her retelling, but it's clear to everyone who she means. Surely you wouldn't stand by and let that happen, right? Wouldn't you at least have the desire to make a post of your own and clarify the truth? And wouldn't you have a right to be angry at that woman for spreading misinformation about you for her own benefit?

One of my first years of teaching, a parent accused me of throwing a desk at her child. (What actually happened was another child fell down, tried to grab the desk for support, and pulled the desk down on themselves and this other child, who happened to be sitting on the floor). If someone wrote a story, but publicly said it was based on incidents in my classroom, and then went on to show my stand-in physically abusing my students, I would take serious issue with it.

The defaming, inappropriate part isn't telling someone's story. The defaming part is adding fictional details that implicate someone in wrongdoing while tying that story to that real person's name.

And, again, I know that many, many movies/books do this, and I have enjoyed a lot of them and I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to make such art. But I really understand Knox's position on this and I think I would feel very much the same way if I were in her shoes.

EDIT: Also, you just shared a really personal experience, and now we're kind of talking about it. So if that makes you uncomfortable and you want to halt this part of the conversation, let me know. None of what I wrote above was meant to be hurtful, so please be upfront if it is.



I just disagree. There are a lot of reasons why people decide to harm others (or stay silent with others are harmed). Romantic rivalry (also very cliche); financial motives; covering up a different crime; etc.
Well, of course, I was being facetious in a way. It’s back to the question of shorthand which we’ve touched upon, I think, in the stereotypes thread. I just feel like the idea there was that they were incredibly close and it was an emotional, personal kind of rage. You could forego the obvious sexual part and do what Hannibal does, where two people are obsessed with each other with no known sexual history onscreen, but between you and me, I highly doubt McCarthy and the rest would have pulled that off, it’s not their brand. You’re right, of course, that they could have cleaned up their plotting and sought a better solution.


It doesn't change the fact that asking was the decent thing to do, even if she said no. In fact, it shows a kind of cowardice that they did it this way.
Yeah, you’re exactly right. I guess I have a tendency to empathise with cowardice more than many other human shortcomings, but of course it is.

But are any of the things being said about you lies? I think that's an important difference. And you say that it's mostly working when you ask your mother not to talk about it. Is anyone giving Knox the same courtesy? Nope.
Hmm, it’s the “mostly” that counts. And it’s an obvious difference that she’s expecting that courtesy from strangers who, harsh as that sounds, don’t care about her, whilst my mother does care about me.

Imagine a friend of the family started a rumor that she did a crystal healing ceremony over you when you were little and that's why you've gone on to be healthy. And imagine she trotted THAT story out, posting it on Facebook, etc. Maybe she changed your name in her retelling, but it's clear to everyone who she means. Surely you wouldn't stand by and let that happen, right? Wouldn't you at least have the desire to make a post of your own and clarify the truth? And wouldn't you have a right to be angry at that woman for spreading misinformation about you for her own benefit?
In a way, you’ve pretty much hit the nail on the head here. I am a committed lifelong secular atheist with a theology degree, so seems like I’d be on firm ground to deal with this one. There is a popular view that it was fixed because said doctor prayed. I mean, the above is an excellent example, spot-on, because yes, that annoys the hell out of me. Of course, it’s an ineffable thing, unlike Knox being or not being involved in murder, but I guess I just have to revert to the idea that it’s out of our control. As for your exact example, with crystal healing (I am again jealous of the students you teach, btw), yeah, I think I might have considered commenting on it, I guess, but I’d likely end up thinking there’s no reasoning with nutcases. I don’t think I would get into it, to be honest.

One of my first years of teaching, a parent accused me of throwing a desk at her child. (What actually happened was another child fell down, tried to grab the desk for support, and pulled the desk down on themselves and this other child, who happened to be sitting on the floor). If someone wrote a story, but publicly said it was based on incidents in my classroom, and then went on to show my stand-in physically abusing my students, I would take serious issue with it.
That’s very annoying. I’m always equally in awe of those helicopter parents and full of sympathy for those forced to interact with them. I suppose you are right, in terms of the added fictional details, but I feel it’s quite minor there and done in order to “sexily tie up” a story, as my journalist friend likes to say.

As with most of your teaching stories, the throwing a desk bit will stay with me. You must be mighty strong!

And, again, I know that many, many movies/books do this, and I have enjoyed a lot of them and I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to make such art. But I really understand Knox's position on this and I think I would feel very much the same way if I were in her shoes.
This is a great summation statement and I would say I do too, I just feel it’s a case where she’d do well to come to terms with it. But it’s up to her, for sure. I think it would have been perfectly reasonable to go on record saying she doesn’t approve of the film, a bit as people do with unauthorised biographies, but the op-ed, to me, just seemed a bit much.

EDIT: Also, you just shared a really personal experience, and now we're kind of talking about it. So if that makes you uncomfortable and you want to halt this part of the conversation, let me know. None of what I wrote above was meant to be hurtful, so please be upfront if it is.
Of course not. I wouldn’t have brought it up if I didn’t think you - or most people I talk to here - would be tactful about it. It is very much in the past, so again, I thought there was a certain parallel there with Knox. I’m used to it being discussed (heh), and I guess, as per my point regarding Knox a few posts back, I feel, in a paradoxical way, that it’s a useful, healthy thing to have it occasionally approached from different POVs. So I was speaking from experience when I suggested that if she could try to approach it externally, she might make peace with it.

I understand the implication that, in plain language, the film opens up the possibility for some people to start thinking Knox was/is guilty. That’s the basic issue, right? But look at the conspiracy theories thread we have here. This stuff is all over the place anyway. I highly doubt many people who didn’t think she was guilty will take away from the film that she was, and as for those that think she is guilty anyway, well, as above, it’s out of her hands.



The defaming, inappropriate part isn't telling someone's story. The defaming part is adding fictional details that implicate someone in wrongdoing while tying that story to that real person's name.
It annoyed me when the movie Ammonite was made speculating that British palaeontologist Mary Anning had a romantic relationship with a woman named Charlotte Murchison. There is not a shred of evidence that Mary Anning was gay & yet this movie made lesbianism a titillating theme.



It annoyed me when the movie Ammonite was made speculating that British palaeontologist Mary Anning had a romantic relationship with a woman named Charlotte Murchison. There is not a shred of evidence that Mary Anning was gay & yet this movie made lesbianism a titillating theme.
Exactly! I find it extremely annoying ad well, and that’s why I referenced it. It’s utterly idiotic and, unfortunately, increasingly common.

And yet, no one seems to regard that as “defaming” or at least being disrespectful to someone’s memory.



Exactly! I find it extremely annoying ad well, and that’s why I referenced it. It’s utterly idiotic and, unfortunately, increasingly common.

And yet, no one seems to regard that as “defaming” or at least being disrespectful to someone’s memory.
I knew someone somewhere had referenced this movie, but had no clue where or when. Thanks for this.

Dull movie & her family is long long gone so nobody to take offense, I guess.

Surprised nobody has made a movie speculating that Churchill or JFK were gay. I’m sure they were. Not.



It annoyed me when the movie Ammonite was made speculating that British palaeontologist Mary Anning had a romantic relationship with a woman named Charlotte Murchison. There is not a shred of evidence that Mary Anning was gay & yet this movie made lesbianism a titillating theme.
Speculating on the sex lives of real people is, of course, nothing new.

I suppose to me it's more upsetting when (1) the person is still very much alive and actively refutes the claim and (2) it's connected to something immoral (in this case a murder).



I knew someone somewhere had referenced this movie, but had no clue where or when. Thanks for this.

Dull movie & her family is long long gone so nobody to take offense, I guess.

Surprised nobody has made a movie speculating that Churchill or JFK were gay. I’m sure they were. Not.
You just wait for it…

Agreed.



Speculating on the sex lives of real people is, of course, nothing new.

I suppose to me it's more upsetting when (1) the person is still very much alive and actively refutes the claim and (2) it's connected to something immoral (in this case a murder).
Well, that’s the thing. I think it’s not about “speculating on the sex lives”, it’s the unfairness of the kind of speculation that’s being engaged in. I didn’t mean this thread, at least, as any kind of big political discussion. But I think that, given how outraged the LGBT community gets when someone is “straightwashed” (and I appreciate that that’s annoying), it should be accepted without question that someone can be equally outraged when the misrepresentation goes the other way, and that this emotion, too, should be seen as perfectly valid.

Remember you and I had what became an “Eminem appreciation debate” (sorry, couldn’t resist)? Same thing. I get a feeling from this website alone (was just reading the resurfaced Ellen Page thread) that people don’t admit that those who criticise real, historical figures’ sexuality being “bent” towards same sex attraction aren’t subjected to the same treatment as those that dislike homosexual figures being “straightwashed”. And I do understand the reasons for that, because homosexuality is still (supposedly) underrepresented, or at least that’s the argument.

But I do think in terms of discourse that’s kind of strange and should be called out. I honestly feel it is equally objectionable (I’m deliberately avoiding the idiotic word “offensive”) to produce work where people have same sex attractions when in reality they didn’t. Not because, as some like to cry out, there is anything wrong with being gay. But because it shouldn’t be thrust upon unequivocally straight characters or historical figures. That’s unsavoury.



But I do think in terms of discourse that’s kind of strange and should be called out. I honestly feel it is equally objectionable (I’m deliberately avoiding the idiotic word “offensive”) to produce work where people have same sex attractions when in reality they didn’t. Not because, as some like to cry out, there is anything wrong with being gay. But because it shouldn’t be thrust upon unequivocally straight characters or historical figures. That’s unsavoury.
Separate from the underrepresentation of LGBT+ character in film, I think that there's another reason why "straighwashing" is more objectionable.

When an LGBT character is rendered straight in a film, it is often with the purpose of making that character more "acceptable" to an audience. This is why so many queer characters have, historically in film, been effectively "neutered". They are allowed to exist, but they are wiped of any hint of actual sexual desire or activity.

It's also just much more likely that an historical figure would have hidden an LGBT identity, because it wouldn't have been accepted at the time. The idea that, I don't know, Lincoln was gay (or bisexual, or whatever) falls into a more probable space for me than the idea that Oscar Wilde was secretly straight. Know what I mean?

It's also true that having an historical figure be queer generates tension and conflict (by introducing a "forbidden love" element), while making a character straight doesn't.

While on the surface they are "equal and opposite" artistic choices (making a gay character straight; making a straight character gay), I think that they are choices driven by really different motives.



The Lincoln-is-gay theories haven't really panned out. The final straw was when Larry Kramer threw his towel in on his supposed massive history of American gayness that he never completed. And why don't don't people accept James Buchanan as the real gay American president given the unambiguous documentation? Because gay people don't want a crappy president to represent them.



On the Knox matter, I'm Team Takoma here. It's bizarre how common it is the belief that she was actually guilty of some kind of sexy orgy funtimes when all of that was just imaginary tabloid fodder. People still don't really even realize that. The crazy thing, to me, about her op-ed was realizing that the real murderer in the case was only sentenced to 16 years, versus her 25 years, before she was ever even convicted. And was just released to community service with no fanfare. The real telling part was Knox pointing out that the main headline on the murderer's release was "Murderer of Amanda Knox's roommate receives early release", to which Knox comments, accurately, that "my name is the only name that doesn't belong in that headline".


I commend Amanda Knox for speaking out. I got her back on this one. This was not "force majure", this was an injustice caused by some very culpable human beings in the Italian legal system, and perpetuated by many in the American media titilation industry.



On the Knox matter, I'm Team Takoma here. It's bizarre how common it is the belief that she was actually guilty of some kind of sexy orgy funtimes when all of that was just imaginary tabloid fodder. People still don't really even realize that. The crazy thing, to me, about her op-ed was realizing that the real murderer in the case was only sentenced to 16 years, versus her 25 years, before she was ever even convicted. And was just released to community service with no fanfare. The real telling part was Knox pointing out that the main headline on the murderer's release was "Murderer of Amanda Knox's roommate receives early release", to which Knox comments, accurately, that "my name is the only name that doesn't belong in that headline".


I commend Amanda Knox for speaking out. I got her back on this one. This was not "force majure", this was an injustice caused by some very culpable human beings in the Italian legal system, and perpetuated by many in the American media titilation industry.
Oh, I see that logic, who doesn’t, but this is plain common sense! Due to the aforementioned failings by the Italian legal system, she is the more famous of the three, any journalist worth their salt references the best-known figure, because that’s how you sell ****! Hence Trevor Jeo Engelson is known as Meghan Markle’s ex-husband. I honestly find it ridiculous that someone over the age of 15 would have a problem with that idea, regardless of personal circumstances.



Oh, I see that logic, who doesn’t, but this is plain common sense! Due to the aforementioned failings by the Italian legal system, she is the more famous of the three, any journalist worth their salt references the best-known figure, because that’s how you sell ****!
"Infamous" is not the same thing as fame, and when people, like Americans, have been inundated with tabloid details that turn out to be incorrect, then it isn't such an easy task to disabuse these notions years later. The significat part of Knox's op-ed is in the real-world implications of her infamy (which, not unimportantly, she had no responsibility for), her inability to forge intimate relationships with men due to these preconceived notions of her (fabricated) sex life.



Hence Trevor Jeo Engelson is known as Meghan Markle’s ex-husband.
I don't know who these people are, and I don't care.



I honestly find it ridiculous that someone over the age of 15 would have a problem with that idea, regardless of personal circumstances.
I find it hard to believe that anyone other than a 15 year old understands "fame" in these terms. Fame is not some kind of universal cure all that absolves all troubles. The fact of Knox's fame (which she did not seek) does not excuse these public abuses. Only some 15 year old would think that being famous would be the upside to being involved in a personally shattering global scandal.