Stillwater (spoilers, I guess)

And again I repeat myself to note that in this context, in relation to Knox, I view the two words as perfectly interchangeable.

As I have already said elsewhere at least once, in relation to nepotism, force majeure DOES NOT mean “God” (see, Takoma, I’ve given up and joined the caps club). It means “circumstances outside one’s control”. There is a common legal and military definition of the term that means “unforeseeable/unforeseen circimstances”. See here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...orce%20majeure

I don’t know if you’re a committed theist or what, but the term is common in business contracts and doesn’t tend to refer to a deity.

Amasing not to acknowledge the above, really, seeing how you love to dispute definitions.

I never said it was, it’s the general air of the kind of comments you’ve been making.

I do not need you to “point out” anything, I’ve been trying to communicate to you for quite some time that your opinion and worldview is not the only one that counts and that every interpretation of events or ideas you put forward is a subjective one. My disagreeing with anything you say does not constitute my being wrong, but merely shows that we have a difference of opinion. But I doubt that, if you haven’t grasped that so far, you will now.

Just a quick note here, I think Jinnistan’s point about the HBO intern Twitter thing is that it’s a false equivalency in relation to the predicament of Knox.

I was describing my personal view that both these people landed in unfortunate situations and that it’s no one’s fault. I don’t think it’s relevant to compare the situations themselves, as I referenced the intern to illustrate how I view Knox’s predicament: she is merely a victim of circumstance, not anyone’s malice. Hence I find comments to the effect that she didn’t “ask” for fame beside the point. Like the intern, she didn’t ask for the situation but found herself in it.

That’s a fair point, and I certainly like discovering such untold stories.

Maybe. I don’t know. I don’t see why it has to be “Eww”. I thought we got here by thinking, Why is it necessary to sexualise a friendship? If anything, I think it will take away so much from the ability to portray deep, non-sexual relationships between people of the same sex if we keep thinking in those terms. The filmmaker will have to work a lot harder to communicate why these two people are close and care about each other if they don’t have a sexual relationship. It’s just more complex to my mind, it allows for more nuances.

But ultimately, I would revert to my point that both should be portrayed in equal measure.

There is no context to support your view. Knox is well known due to the salaciousness of the claims made by the Italian police, which have been deemed to be incorrect. Wide swaths of the public still judge Knox based on what they believe to be her debauched behavior. This is infamy, not fame. And the fact that even after Knox has published her own account correcting the record, we still have these widespread aspersions on her character prove just how tenacious infamy can be.


It doesn't really matter whether there's a God or not. The point that you're implying is that this is a force that is beyond human control. And that's wrong and stupid. Because humans are responsible for media decisions, editorial judgment and, as consumers, the discretion over that which we consume. The media is not a force of nature. When the media claims force majeure, they're admitting guilt to wrong-doing that they wish to deflect.


This isn't a matter of opinion. The comparison of Amanda Knox's predicament with that HBO intern was a poor and ill-conceived one for easily demonstrated reasons.

This is clearly not true. In Knox's case, the fault lies with the actual rapist/murderer and the Italian police who continued to prosecute Knox even after the actual murderer was caught and indicted. They ruined her life in ways that this HBO intern will thankfully never have to fathom.

I think that the many people involved in her situation committed acts of malice. I think that, for example, making up a non-existent sexual affair to sell newspapers is malicious. It's actually the perfect word for a lot of what was done to her.

But this isn't what we were talking about before.

Portraying an intimate same-sex relationship in non-sexual terms is really different than "making a gay figure straight".

I think that it's impossible to approach this comparison without acknowledging the very real world context that for years both fictional characters and real actual people were forced to hide their sexuality, and that LGBT+ people were intentionally villainized, marginalized, or outright excluded from both real and fictional spaces.

Taking a real gay historical figure and changing their sexuality to a straight one is an echo of this very real emotional (and sometimes literal) violence that was done to people for years and years.

There simply isn't an equivalent when it comes to making straight characters gay. No straight person was ever beaten to death and tied to a fence for their sexuality. No straight person was ever denied the right to work a certain job because of their sexuality. No straight person was ever sent to a conversion camp or chemically castrated because of their sexuality. There is no "equal and opposite" social pressure that applies to straight people being forced into a queer identity.

Not you and I, perhaps, but Stirchley and I certainly mentioned it, with regards to Mary Anning, now I’m rather confused. I mainly meant “we” as a thread, a group of people having a discussion. My train of thought arrived here from why McCarthy and co felt making Knox & Kercher lesbians would be “cool” in the first place: because films like Ammonite create a market for that kind of bending and contribute to an idea that LGBT “sells”, which may or may not be true. Also, this is not a dissertation, it’s hard to keep track of and record every step in the thinking process.

I see your point that the filmmakers, like the papers in the past, might have thought it would be more “sensationalist” and that the filmmakers would have been drawing on the papers that first reported they were lovers.

But I just think that this is now such a common thing to do - make a platonic same-sex relationship sexual in a film - that they might have equally been guided by “market considerations”, i.e. that lesbian affairs “sell”. I don’t think that it was intended as or is malicious, though I would certainly rather people took a break from sexualising friendships.

No disrespect intended at all on my part, but by now, I’m just really quite confused by this part of the conversation. As I said, in my view, bending historical figures’ sexuality either way in films is a bad idea, I see the logic behind why that would have a different emotional impact, but in my opinion, from the point of view of producing work (“commercial entertainment product”), they are equally undesirable.

When it comes to other bending, as with Bridgerton, it also ends up legitimately confusing people and leaving them with a view of the past unsupported by facts, I see no benefits in the former, nor in the latter.

That’s just how I approach it, I’m afraid, though I do understand very well why people disagree. I was trying to explain why people, myself included, find bending characters’ sexuality towards same sex attraction unhelpful when that wasn’t the case historically. And I simply don’t feel that referencing historical oppression in that case is relevant. But I’m certainly making no truth claims.

I feel it would be helpful for people to try and acknowledge that there are different takes on these issues, especially when it comes to film, and that this doesn’t make anyone “wrong”. Because the above few pages again seem to be about people explaining things “to me” so I didn’t “misunderstand” any longer, as I most obviously must now, if I dare have a different opinion.

That’s fine that you say that, but that is not “clearly not true”, that is not true in your opinion. Good for you, no issues with that, but please let’s just leave trying to prove yourself objectively right out of it.

Was gratified to see the below, Jinnistan, I think you need a reminder.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2227760#post2227760

P.S. How about you acknowledge your lack of understanding of what force majeure means, for a change?

Hi. It's worth pointing out that we're not talking about something subjective, like a film (like this one which neither of us has seen). We're discussing actual historical facts from a real life situation, and the blurring of these facts are precisely what is at issue.

It isn't an opinion to believe that "fame" and "infamy" are synonymous in the context of this case. It's an objective error. "Infamy", by definition, refers to reknown caused by disreputable acts. Murderers, rapists, theives, liars...these people are infamous for their behavior. The reason why context is so important in this case is because, due to the scandalous nature of tabloid reporting during the first few years of Knox's case, it was presented as truth that Knox was guilty of some kind of debauched behavior. Maybe not a cold-blooded murder, but someone whose taste in sex and drugs led to her being irresponsible over the life of her roommate. Now that the facts are clear, many years and appeals later, to still consider Knox "infamous" is to suggest that she was responsible for acting recklessly or disreputably at the time. There is no evidential basis for this presumption on her character. Other than the years of tabloid indoctrination which has informed many people about Knox's disreputable character. This is why it is ludicrous to suggest that "fame" and "infamy" are interchangeable here. It is not an opinion based in evident fact, and it is a rather perfect example of the profound long-term harm that Knox has had to suffer at the hands of....

The actual human beings responsible for committing this malicious defamation against Knox's character, most of which have largely ignored the follow-up responsibility to cover Knox's innocence with the same vigor as they applauded her shaming. This was not circumstantial, an uncontrollable act of nature that just happened to occur to here. There is plenty of human responsibility involved her, including the Italian police who first leaked fabricated reports to the press while for years burying exculpatory evidence and the news media which uncritically and irresponsibly perpetuated these falsehoods even after they were proven to be false and then finally neglecting to adequately cover her innocence. This is clear in that many people continue to assume that, while she may not have directly killed her roommate, somehow Knox, due to her unscrupulous appetites, indirectly put her roommate at risk. People continue to judge Knox and presume some degree of culpability where the record shows none exists.

It isn't merely an opinion about the real human responsibility of these actors. Describing it as force majeure is a lazy acquittal for these responsibilities, and doing so while continuing to preserve Knox's "infamy" is a double-slur against a woman who may have suffered enough, and for something that she, unlike the police and media and the tsking cheap seats, had absolutely no control over. It might be time for people other than Knox to start taking some responsibility for their endangering decisions and behavior.

Nope. It is true as a matter of fact, based on the case record. The decisions and behavior of the Italian police and tabloid editors is available for anyone to see. It factually happened that Knox was maliciously used for their mutually parasitic lust for headlines.

I know that it doesn't apply to human agency.

I get a greeting, how sweet. Hello to you too, stranger. I have, incidentally, seen it by now, but yes, we are not quite talking about the film itself.

Now, I don’t think we are discussing historical facts either, per se. I would hope you won’t argue with my ability to have my own take on what we were discussing, at least originally.

I feel the discussion is about the reading of Knox’s situation by Knox herself, the tabloids, McCarthy and others involved in the production, as well as you and I. I, at least, am discussing such possible readings, not “facts”. People can agree on facts but disagree on what they signify.

Okay. Cambridge Dictionary here.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...glish/infamous

Nothing about the word “infamy” suggests that you need to have been responsible for the bad or “evil” deed to be considered “infamous”. You merely need to be associated with one, as Knox is with murder. Nothing about describing Knox as “infamous” in relation to the Kercher murder in and of itself suggests she committed it. Hence we have Cambridge examples such as:

“Numerous solutions to this now infamous problem have been proposed.”

Now, the problem is famous, i.e. known for being difficult to solve. Hence it is described as “infamous”, yes, because being difficult to solve is perceived by people as “bad”, but this in no way implies agency or “responsibility” on the part of the problem for being a tough nut to crack.

Cambridge also notes “infamous” is synonymous with “notorious”, which doesn’t presuppose responsibility/guilt in any way, either. In fact, now that I’ve checked, the synonyms offered directly below “notorious” (link below) include “famous”, with a helpful clarification: “known and recognized by many people.”
“Famous” (examples): “She went from poor and anonymous to rich and famous.”

Which was exactly the point I have been making all along, i.e. that whether you use the word “famous” or “infamous” in relation to Knox, what you mean is that this is what she is known for, the Kercher murder story. Full stop. Nothing about responsibility or being guilty.

Link:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...lish/notorious

Another example from Cambridge English Dictionary on “infamous” in particular:

“Franklin Roosevelt spoke of Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor as “a day that will live in infamy.”

This means that the day of the Pearl Harbour attack, understandably, gets a bad press, but it doesn’t imply any “fault” or “responsibility” on the part of the day itself, Sunday 7th December 1941. I don’t think you or anyone would argue that the above sentence implies the day had anything to do with the attack, it might have equally occurred on the 8th. Yet the day is still infamous.

So that’s that out of the way.

Hopefully, the above addresses my usage of “infamous” in sufficient detail. I would also add, seeing as you quite reasonably appeal to context, that if I were to read a random hypothetical review of Whitney (2015), the midsection could go as something like this: “The film looks at the prodigy’s rise to fame. It also explores the singer’s turbulent relationship with Bobby Brown.” We know that, obviously, “prodigy” and “singer” are words that not only aren’t synonymous, but refer to completely unrelated concepts. Yet they, in this context, can be used interchangeably to refer to one and the same person, Whitney Houston. Which is exactly how I was using “famous” and “infamous”. Context, as you say, is everything.

Mine or anyone else’s use of language does not cause harm to Knox. It is her reaction to it that does.

“Malicious” is not the same type of word as “hot”, or, better still, “boiling”, which is a state usually attained by substances once temperature rises to a certain specific, quantitatively measurable degree/level.

“Malicious” is an adjective that requires human judgment for its application: it requires forming an opinion about whether or not someone who is described as having done something malicious was aware of the potential negative consequences, and whether they desired or intended them. Even if the Italian police simply decided Knox would be easier to jail, because she was young and so on, that only implies that they did so for the sake of convenience, not out of malice.

You cannot scientifically determine whether an act is “malicious” any more than you can scientifically determine whether someone “loves” someone or whether someone is “a bad person”. Hence, the term “malicious” cannot be described as “objective”.

I wouldn’t usually consider Investopedia an appropriate source for this, but just for the sake of fun, see below.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/forcemajeure.asp

“Force majeure also encompasses human actions, however, such as armed conflict.”

Now, yes, armed conflicts are inevitably perpetrated by groups of people, not individuals. But the above demonstrates, I would hope, that yes, indeed, the term “force majeure” can “[encompass] human actions”.

That's the problem. But we are, by necessity of discussing an actual event with facts that go against the grain of the media narrative that was erected around it. The problem is that the historical facts make it harder for someone to write-off the indignity and harm that was caused to Amanda Knox. So as soon as these facts get in the way of your preferred rendering of this history, they become irrelevant. Per se.


We can determine pretty thoroughly that the facts signify Knox's innocence and that the years of coverage painting her as a villain were grossly inaccurate. And so when McCarthy, by his own characterization, makes a film about "the Amanda Knox saga" that makes the character based on her into a villain, he is perpetuating this irresponsible media defamation.


Huh. Basic definition: "famous for something considered bad". So this suggests "nothing", huh?



Victims of infamous crimes are not referred to as infamous themselves. The Amanda Knox case is infamous, due to her defamtion by the authorities and media. Amanda Knox, the victim of defamation, is not infamous.



The attack is infamous, because of the decisions and actions of an infamous death cult then ruling Japan. No one with elementary school-level reading comprehension believes that FDR was assigning more blame to the day than to the Japanese military.


Damn, this gaslighting! "Why do you keep hitting yourself, Amanda?"

"Neglect of official duties" can be seen as malicious. When the Italian police had already imprisoned and sentenced the actual rapist/murderer in this case in 2008, while continuing to imprison and try Knox for the very same murder, this goes beyond a matter of convenience. It is criminal abuse and miscarriage of justice.


If you work in law, then you must surely be aware that "malicious intent" is commonly invoked in determining one's motive. If you have evidence that, say, the Italian police knew that Knox was innocent, yet continued to destroy her life for years after the fact, that amounts to a malicious disregard for her rights. They knew better and they did it anyway.


As your comment above demonstrates, it's clear that you find it acceptable to continue blaming Amanda Knox for the harm that was committed against her, and feel content to excuse the responsibility of those whose decisions and actions knowingly caused the harm in the first place. You can call that an opinion if you want. It says everything that needs to be said here.

I do work in law but am not a lawyer. But yes, I have seen “malicious intent” used in practice quite recently, actually. And yes, we actually even won a case more or less by citing and “proving” malicious intent. But guess what, it wasn’t actually malicious. The guy just wanted to make more money and blackmailed the client to up his fees. So his actions were motivated by convenience, as with the Italian police. I don’t actually believe that guy in my court case wanted to cause the client harm. It’s just the sort of **** you argue when you want to win a case, and sometimes it works.

I find that a perfectly acceptable truce, actually. So good that we’ve come to an understanding.

I think that the artistic choice to include same-sex relationships in films (even in cases where it goes against what is suggested by the historical record) is a bit different than what we are discussing with Knox, because in her case the sexual relationship was being offered up as a motive for a murder. Saying someone is gay is REALLY different from saying "Yeah, that person was in a gay affair which explains why they are a murderer!". It's inventing an untruth in conjunction with the implication of guilt that is malicious.

I don't mind at all your dislike of messing with historical figures in films, something that often bothers me as well. But I think that it is significant and important to acknowledge that one of those actions echoes a violent past toward LGBT people and that, in a way, it extends that harm.

The glut of same-sex characters/relationships is also directly tied to (again) a history of marginalization and exclusion of LGBT people and characters. I think that the number of "gay stories" is actually still relatively low, it's just that it feels like a lot compared to the dearth of stories from the last 100 years.

Bridgerton is such a light piece of fluff, I have hard time getting worked up over the idea that it's teaching people misconceptions about history. I mean, it includes covers of modern music as played by the orchestra in the film. I mainly confine my criticism of historical inaccuracy to films that push forward the whole "based on a true story" angle.

*bites tongue*


Cool. I think we've adequately clarified our respective positions here.

That’s fair enough. I was mainly talking about the film in this context, or, rather, thinking about it, which definitely wasn’t clear. Not the real event. But I still think that as far as such films go, in the film, it was a passable motive, Allison was shown to have really cared about the girlfriend, so I do see how that works as a narrative point. But I agree with your point above that they probably would have been better off coming up with a different motive.

Definitely not going to argue with that. Just tried to find first Shortbus, then Hold the Man, then, in desperation, Brokeback Mountain on either Prime or Netflix, just because I am writing something and wanted to get in the right headspace for that. None of them are there. Shank is, but it’s “currently unavailable”, whatever that means. That really is pretty insane.

That’s fair too. The music actually really jarred for me, maybe that’s partly why I’m so ambivalent on it.

I was a movie store clerk from like 2005-2008, and I can attest to the fact that films about gay people were thin on the ground at that time. Now, our clientele absolutely LOVED I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, but many of them made it a point to let me know that they were disgusted by us carrying Brokeback Mountain.

(If you're wanting something fraught, I'll just point out that Stranger by the Lake is available on Kanopy--not sure if that's something you can access or not).

I didn't think Bridgerton was anything amazing, but I find a lot of the criticisms of it a bit silly. I know we're repeating a discussion that you and I have already had, but I thought it was very much in the vein of something like A Knight's Tale, where the time period is used more as a way to get fabulous costumes and absurd plots on the table as opposed to being in any way intended as an accurate historical drama. Someone coming away from Bridgerton thinking England had a Black queen is just as silly to me as someone coming away from A Knight's Tale thinking "We Will Rock You" is an historical composition, or that courtly dances looked like raves.

Agree.

Never saw Bridgerton & have no desire to do so. Coppola’s Marie Antoinette was also absurd. Ditto The Favourite. And, yet, people seem to lap up this stuff.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

It is fluff, but I also don't think that it's a harmful type of "rewriting history".

I think that it's more the dramas that present themselves as true stories that are questionable in this regard.

And for the record, I do enjoy this kind of thing from time to time. Fluff isn't always a bad thing.

I see your point, but “harmful” is relative. As I said a few pages back, I think different people will have different ideas of what constitutes “harmful” and if one version of that is considered valid, then so should the others.

Personally, I find the majority of romantic films of all kind actively harmful, and I’m not being sarcastic or flippant. This is for a range of reasons, but mainly because that skewed perception of reality works to demonise people single by choice and also gives adolescents unrealistic expectations about the extent of attachment you might reasonably anticipate to feel towards another person.

But I don’t expect anyone to share the view and certainly don’t think it should affect the romantic films being made.