Terry Gilliam: misogynist

Terry Gilliam signed the petition supporting Polanski back in 2009

Why does that not surprise me

I don’t doubt Terry Gilliam has been propositioned does that mean those woman haven’t been victims too. Or have never felt coerced into having sex

Or does he only judge these women on what he has experienced not what they have experienced - so he has the final word or what these woman are really like

Not surprised he signed the Polanski petition surely that won’t be excused

Terry Gilliam signed the petition supporting Polanski back in 2009. He is an established rape apologist, sadly.

It’s deflecting from the issue of the power imbalance, the accepted sexual assault of women and who is he to decide who is a victim and who isn’t was is there as a witness

I don't think so. I actually don't think the situation in Hollywood is particularly similar to some other situations where women get taken advantage of. And I don't see it as deflecting particularly either - for one thing in the general sense you can't understand of change a situation if you don't understand the way it works. Given that this is already behaviour that isn't really allowed but is difficult to prevent, cleaning it up would likely require dealing both with the people offering the bribes and the ones taking them, making sure both see it as unacceptable or at least something that might be socially risky.
And as for Gilliam, he was speaking from personal experience. He knows people who choose to play that game and has had offers himself. It would be kind of dumb for him to ignore what he sees going on in front of him.

many of the Monty Python crew managed to evolve in some way or another but he didn't.

Eh? He's a hugely successful and varied film director.

Whatsitthingy Why do you think he came off badly in this interview?

Won't anyone thing of the poor, ageing, white male?! I think he came off badly in this interview, but it's like someone taking a mike to a bunch of ageing old blokes, they're grumpy as feck. The famous ones are no different.
I've never got the reverence some people ( mostly men) have around him, many of the Monty Python crew managed to evolve in some way or another but he didn't...

Why do we have to accept them - from anyone?

I am not sure I do accept them. But I don't think that makes him a misogynist or a hateful person. He is who he is, he has an opinion, that has been his way of earning a living for decades!

Read it. digest it, tear it to shreds and move on. He isn't The Emperer of the World!

I also don’t believe we would accept these comments from others but because of who he is it’s hailed as some highly insightful and intelligent point he is making

How is Terry Gilliam deciding who is a victim and who isn't?

Like when discussing violence against woman and it’s pointed out women can be violent too

It’s deflecting from the issue of the power imbalance, the accepted sexual assault of women and who is he to decide who is a victim and who isn’t was is there as a witness

That but isn’t needed we hear it all the time

Why isn't that but needed, when it's true?

Pressed to soon ...

His response is yes it happens but ....

That but isn’t needed we hear it all the time x

Who by men.

No, by people who feel it is worth their while. The man thinks, I get sex and give away this role, that's a win for me. Some women will say, I get this role in exchange for sex, that is a win for me.

Neither cares that this has now created a situation where other women will be at a disadvantage if they don't want to trade sex for jobs.

That's why the boycott plan wouldn't work. Because all the women who want to be stars in Hollywood would never agree to stop playing the game. A good portion would be relieved, but there would always be some others who would see that as an opportunity to get ahead themselves.

Because that is the situation that has been created

Who by men. That some women may have chosen to have sex with directors (exchange their body for a part in a film or promise of one) is a power balance

We are aware of this he hasn’t pointed out anything new but his response

I know the exchange of sex happens but this isn’t an exchange that benefits women overall it benefits men the trade of women’s bodies that many men in power will take advantage of

It doesn't benefit women overall, you are right, but it does benefit the women who choose to exchange sex for roles/auditions. That's why these particular women choose to do it.

I am suggesting that those who feel they are victims are the ones to decide not those who are making a judgement on reputation (which those in more powerful positions can damage)

I know the exchange of sex happens but this isn’t an exchange that benefits women overall it benefits men the trade of women’s bodies that many men in power will take advantage of

The film industry can't function without women to play female roles.
I think there may already be a solution to that one.

It seems to me that humans as a species (in common with many animals) have two main strategies for survival. Compete or co-operate. And most individuals will go for whichever they instinctively feel is likely to succeed for them. Since men have most of the power, competing with other females and co-operating with males will, realistically, probably give most females the highest chance of survival within a patriarchy.

We do however have other strategies. One is to start our own game. It's great to see the film production companies that have been started by women.

Goose, I agree with your comment in response to mine. I don't think hardly any of this is consciously done. I think that is probably half the problem, which is why free and open discussion is so very important.

It's not the fact that some women offer themselves, it's the fact they they are in a position where they have to offer themselves to get a job)role whatever. It doesn't mean it's something they actually like doing - just they have to that is wrong.

Yes, that's only a starting place though, you need to think farther up the road.

Make a thought experiment about using a standard tactic of exploited workers. Make a compact and go on strike. The film industry can't function without women to play female roles. If all female actors agree not to participate in these kinds of "deals" or for that matter exploitative on screen materials, they would very likely prevail.

In reality, I think we all know this is unlikely to work. The question is, why?

my point was that Gilliam, in saying that the powerful have no incentive to give up their power and may well find new and creative ways of holding that power via 'identifying' as something other than who they are, is correct.

Well yes, I think that's quite true. His observation is accurate. I don't even think that behaviour is confined to people doing that with some deliberation, I think people naturally and often unconsciously move away from accusations that they are oppressors or guilty or need to shut up because of things they can't control.

It may be that it is a downside or potential danger around talking about structural oppression - maybe that is where it meets identity politics. Marxism has always tended to create an environment which demonises certain groups and elevates others even though in reality most people have no control over social structures, and little over where they find themselves placed within them. So the analysis itself becomes divisive rather than a tool to create solidarity among people. I read a biography of Dorothy Day a few years ago and she said something like this, that it influenced her move away from Marxism. So perhaps in identity politics and creation of these new categories what we are seeing are not only efforts to gain power, but a turning away from being seen as a sort of moral pariah class. Most people can't easily bear that, whatever the explanation for it, it produces psychological coping strategies.

It's not the fact that some women offer themselves, it's the fact they they are in a position where they have to offer themselves to get a job)role whatever. It doesn't mean it's something they actually like doing - just they have to that is wrong.

Yes, I agree youkidding, I'm not suggesting he's putting forward a feminist argument here. I think he's a man who can see the game for what it is and like many can articulate what that is, without the slightest intention of challenging it, however irritated parts of it may make him.

He seems to enjoy the power of the word-play more than wanting to get any point across unambiguously, in fact I think the ambiguity is part of the game,
I read it as:
Men have power,
Some men use that power to take what they want
Some men are given what they want because they have that power
Why blame men for doing what they can do?
And if you keep on blaming it all on men because you class them all together in the white supremest bag, then they will simply decide not to be white males. Gotcha
I don't think he wants to say what his own moral stance on that is, just that that is where the game is at right now. And I suspect seeing things as a game or seeing life as almost a satire itself may be part of his personality.

Regarding Me Too I think Germaine Greer has said something similar.

But this man comes across as someone who doesn’t understand structural inequality. It was all ‘political correctness gone mad’ and NAMALT.