Stillwater (spoilers, I guess)

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.

SPOILERS FOR STILLWATER, MAYBE??

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.

i haven't read the thread, but I'm kinda lol'ing at "i guess."

__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear

Well, I haven’t even seen the thing yet. Was just about to reply to Takoma about the same, I don’t see anything I wrote above as much of a spoiler - anyone who’s seen the trailer knows “a young woman was accused of a crime”, there’s not even a reference to whether she did or did not commit it. If anything, *sighs, confused*.

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.

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.

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.

And that’s a despicable statement to make, but that’s the internet for you. Even 17-year-old Emma Raducanu is called a “pathetic whiny quitter” online because she didn’t smash Tomljanović. Knox really is a public figure, online hate is what happens. She didn’t choose it, but it’s just, I don’t know, how it is.

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 to 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.

Yet when you are Polanski and you say you don’t like Sharon being in Once Upon A Time…, people make the opposite conclusion and say that the film is definitely excusing pedophilia if it lets Sharon survive. People will always come up with the most irrational, idiotic criticisms to make.

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?

Thank you! My point exactly.

Well, the thread title does have a spoiler warning. I don’t know. It’s rather exhausting to be perpetually hounded for raising issues that don’t interest others. I wanted to discuss it, I spoiler-tagged it as I saw fit. If it’s not of interest, why get involved?

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.

That is similar. I suppose it’s just strange in an era where information doesn’t belong to anyone. I remember how Australia (?) recently tried to charge Google/Facebook/tech giants for hosting news from local news channels and backed off.

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.

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 .


I think that this is about the intersection of artistic expression and the way that art can have an impact on real people. I am very much in favor of artistic expression, but I also think it's not just an open-shut case of "art trumps people, sorry!".

I don't think Knox has the choice of whether or not she's interested in her public persona. From our point of view (as casual consumers of pop culture) she might not be an everyday name, but she's still on the receiving end of e-mails, letters, and other constant reminders of her experiences.

I fundamentally empathize with the idea of someone taking the most significant and tragic parts of your life, distorting the facts to suit their narrative preferences, and then profiting from it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Exactly, just as her complaining about the film is tacky. Which places are these?

I actually just got invited to a members’-only screening, so looks like I’ll see it tomorrow. Good news, after all that debate.

I think that, for me as a viewer, I also tend to give films a bit more leeway if they seem to be approaching their topic with some degree of empathy. That's obviously a personal judgment call that I make as a viewer, and I totally admit that I might give a film a pass while the topic of that film might find it hurtful or inappropriate.

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.

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.

OOOh hhaha. You typing that original first line of yours was a warning to us readers that YOUR post may contain spoilers? Too? Sorta??

lol. I misread it too then

AAAAAHhhh.... we are all coming together. *inhales (as long as none of y'all gots the covids*