Stillwater (spoilers, I guess)

I appreciate that that’s the argument you are making and I see its merits. I also remember that you’ve made it before and I say that not as a kind of pre-emptive judgment, but simply to show I remember who I’m talking to and the views they hold, which form part of the conversation’s context.

But I tend to be very careful about viewing any decision as political in the Foucaultian sense, i.e. the sense that not doing something corresponds to a similar shift in the power balance as doing something. I don’t think that’s the case and I think this is another one of those stealthily prescriptive concepts that have crept up on us.

I don’t dispute the idea that it is more likely that someone was secretly gay and forced to hide their sexuality than that an “officially” gay figure like Elton John had constructed a gay persona to, I don’t know, sell records. But then again, I find that latter hypothesis not improbable - not with regards to Elton John, but contemporary figures, sure! This was touched upon in the Ellen Page thread.

But regardless of the above, that wasn’t my point. I find the idea that how we approach and make art (fine, “commercial entertainment product”, whatever, it’s the same thing in this context) should depend on which groups are or are not misrepresented, sad and, frankly, scary. And I feel about this very strongly.

With regards to making someone straight to make them less objectionable, well, that’s what art/entertainment does all the time! People are made more eloquent, more beautiful, less mean.

Again, I find that preferable to the idea of a dubious kind of social engineering whereby we assume that if everyone is forced to engage with LGBT or otherwise underrepresented, marginalised groups via entertainment and the media, no one will end up having bigoted views and will instead grow to be “more tolerant”. This is simplistic and idiotic, and, more importantly, the whole point of a democracy or a so-called “liberal society” is that people retain the ability to hold, and come to hold, so-called “objectionable” views.

Triple LOL.

Here comes your legendary tone. “Famous” in the sense of “known to the general public without being googled”, not “famous” in the pop star sense. And I never said Knox’s fame was an “upside”, who cares and what does that have to do with anything? It is just a fact of life and yes, it is inconvenient for her, but, even if her kind of fame is infamy, it’s bizarre not to acknowledge that if I make my money writing and want my article to hit the “most-read” list, I’ll shove the infamous people in my headline.

As for her relationships with men, I mean, Jesus. It’s a competitive world out there, lots of people aren’t getting laid, let’s please not blame the newspapers.

Meghan Markle is Prince Harry’s wife and, perhaps more importantly when it comes to what we do here, she starred in Suits for about a decade.

Neither of which are "infamy", the precise distinction I made. A lot of problems in modern clickbait media is this inability to distinguish fame from infamy. Knox is not famous, she's infamous, and this is due to years of unfair and sometimes cruel coverage by tabloid media. Meanwhile the crucial facts of her case (the victim, the perpetrator) remain obscure because the Italian police decided not to make as much of a deal about them. That's a scandal in itself.


Please.


Surely regardless of any consideration.



*mee-owww*


Yeah, I still don't care.

You make precise distinctions, I don’t find them valid, important or relevant in this context. I anticipate a comment about how I “misunderstand things” and lack “analytical faculties”.

Well, that’s your business, although it seems peculiar you’d rather go to such lengths to reiterate your lack of interest than Google who she is. Looks like a statement to me, Oh, look at me, I have better things to do.

But more importantly, said journalists equally don’t care about what Knox or any subject has to say, because they’ve got a job to do, and that’s fair enough.

Perhaps you’ll care to decipher the onomatopoeic interjection above, as I don’t quite get what it’s for?

*What are you for, Mr Monroe?*

P.S. Once that woman got on TV and authored a so-called “New York Times best-selling memoir”, whatever that means nowadays, she became famous, not infamous, to your average truck driver.

Uh, well. There's something to be said for the inability to see the significance in the distinction I made as it is relevant to this issue. The distinction between fame and infamy here is hardly irrelevant in any legible context. Knox is more well-known (due to the salacious reporting) for her supposed sexual kinks which allegedly killed her roommate. It's an important detail that this is not true. Thus her infamy (sour reputation built upon this media fabrication) is invalid. This is precisely the issue. Amanda Knox is not famous for anything she consented to. Her infamy is based on a lie. This unrefuted fact is why we should not treat her as if she wanted this infamy all along, which is what a lot of her critics (including you) are suggesting by saying that this distinction is invalid.


Yeah, but I also have better things to do.


It's a Nuremberg-worthy excuse. At least for the average truck driver.

I don't think it's about how we approach and make art, I just think it is one element to consider when making art. Not quite the same thing.

Right, and that's a different motivation. It's also a motivation that has a built-in judgment, ie people are less likely to like or sympathize with a gay character.

I would argue that LGBT erasure is its own kind of "social engineering", where audiences are fed only one kind of protagonist. And that "protecting" audiences from LGBT characters because they can't cope with an LGBT protagonist is also . . . simplistic and idiotic.

That’s because we don’t “buy” that argument, rather than “not seeing” something that is objectively there. Not seeing a distinction is not the same as not seeing a lamppost, it’s a judgment call. In my original post several pages back, I directly acknowledged that Knox hadn’t consented to what she’s famous, or well-known, for (I don’t find the word “infamous” apt here). But I don’t find that relevant, either.

Zoë Roth, better known as the child from the “Disaster Girl” meme, hadn’t “consented” to fame, either, but no one cares, she is famous and hence has recently sold said meme as an NTF for 500 grand. Good for her, tough luck that Knox can’t do that. But that is not by virtue of the world or the tabloid media being nefarious, it just didn’t work out for her, and that’s nobody’s fault, but she doesn’t have a carte blanche to demand to be reckoned with.

As for her fame being based on a lie, well, to me she is famous as the sort of unfortunate person that found oneself in the middle of a *********, a bit like that poor HBO Max intern that sent out an empty test email. And the fact that I have that perspective shows she’s famous for different things, as far as different people are concerned.

Right, and how much weight does it carry? It is no more important than any other consideration so, understandably, it can on occasion be overlooked.

I would agree, totally, which is why it should be fine to make gay historical figures straight if the creator so wishes. That will be aimed at the audience that is interested in and welcomes that. LGBT characters will be aimed at the audience that welcomes them. Both things deserve to exist, and also, if someone decides not to focus on a historical figure’s homosexual preference in a biopic, you may call it deliberate exclusion, and perhaps that’s what it is, but maybe this filmmaker had always been fascinated by this person’s alchemy hobby and attempts to make gold in the basement, and they just don’t want to detract from that by focussing or even commenting on this character’s homosexuality.

This is not deliberate exclusion, this is an artistic choice to focus on one narrative and not become bogged down in another, which, in addition, is sure to get all the attention. There is nothing wrong or political about that. In an ideal world, I would even argue that it would be fine in said hypothetical film about an alchemist to have a single, one-line reference to them being into their same-sex best friend. But guess what, then someone is sure to complain that the homosexuality of the character should have taken up more space in the narrative and is being downplayed. You can’t win, and you resort to thinking, But the film is about alchemy… Ah, well.

By the way, you are having this discussion with a person who generally finds high-quality gay films sexier and more erotic than any straight romance film.

What are you not buying? The fact that she was innocent?

Yeah, tough luck she couldn't make an NFT out of the murder weapon she didn't use. Weren't you complaining about the fact that she wrote a book? That she tried to do her best with the unfortunate situation that was forced upon her? The problem is that despite her efforts, and directly due to the irresponsible tabloid coverage of her case, most people still believe in her debauchery. Hence "infamous".



It's the ******* fault of the Italian authorities who charged her despite exonerating evidence, and it's the fault of a hungry media eager to consume salacious news regardless of integrity. Maybe it might be the fault of the consumers of that media. Hmmm.


See? See how you shifted back to "fame" when I clearly called it infamy? Like there's no difference between the two terms? Hmmm.


Do you honestly expect me to believe that these are comparable cases? Whatever snark I've posted at you, this is much more insulting to me.

Agreed. Which is why most films do not feature LGBT main characters.

But I do think that telling the stories of specific people or of general demographics that have been untold can create interest and buzz. I would wager that most people, prior to the release of Hidden Figures (the book and the film) had no idea that there was a group of Black women mathematicians who played a huge part in the space race.

But there's a difference between not focusing on something and actually changing it to make an audience more comfortable, right?

I honestly think that "Ew, I don't want a gay person in my film!" is a really different motivator than "Oh, I'd love to see more LGBT characters in film!". And I think that a filmmaker who caters to the former is being a lot lazier and simplistic than someone who caters to the latter, again because you are implying a moral judgment about the character being gay.

With team Takoma/Jinnistan here. Knox never asked to be famous, nor infamous. She took her current job as a journalist to help ensure that what she went through wouldn’t happen to others. That’s not the same thing as seeking more fame or even embracing it really, so much as taking advantage of the recognition her name brings with it. She has a voice, one instantly recognizable due to the media slander. She’s using it for a greater good.

I am not buying the argument, as I said a few times before, that in this context there’s a legitimate distinction between Knox being “famous” and “infamous”. I think it’s the same thing that ultimately means some people at a random car wash will know who she is.

I most certainly wasn’t complaining, I merely pointed out that someone who’s appeared on TV and written a book that they then promoted is, by all accounts, famous and (and I prefer this term from earlier on in the discussion) a public figure who can’t expect to have the privacy that non-public figures enjoy.

Seeing as the media industry is alive and kicking since pretty much dawn of time, the hunger for salacious news is an integral human trait that ain’t going nowhere in the next millennium. So the hungry media and its consumers are, again, force majeure, such abstract things can’t very well be “at fault”.

I have repeatedly pointed out that I don’t accept the distinction as valid. To me it’s the same thing in this context, so I use the terms interchangeably.

Oh, now my turn to make an onomatopoeic sound, except it’s not my cup of tea. You can’t possibly know how insulting the snark you’ve aimed at me over the last few months has been, and, spoiler alert, very much indeed. I have repeatedly pointed out which comments I considered condescending and why, but you didn’t seem to think that was valid or worth acknowledging, instead of dismissing my feeling. No, that was written off as a problem with my “faculties”. Fascinating.

And it's kind of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

She either sits back and lets untrue, damaging stories circulate about her, unrefuted, OR she puts out her own version of events and get accused of fame-chasing.

Of course you are, and that’s fine, I’m so used to that.

It’s nothing personal, it’s just that I tend to agree with them.

Of course, and by no means did I imply anything personal. I meant that I’m used to people being against my POV.

Gotcha. I had a moment of *insert sad face* there haha

Ah, not at all intended, come on now.

The fact that they are two separate words, with a helpful prefix to designate their difference, might be a clue though.


We're talking about human behavior, and, more importantly, human responsibility. "God" is always a convenient excuse for irresponsible actions.


I don't believe that's an accurate quote.


Do you need me to point out how an HBO intern embarrassed for a day on twitter isn't comparable to a woman imprisoned for 4 years and internationally shamed for acts she did not commit? Has there been a made-for-TV movie about this HBO intern's sex habits? Is Matt Damon making a film that portrays this intern as a disinformation agent?

Too late. Wylde has sad face. Wylde very saaaaaad. 🙁