Terry Gilliam: misogynist

[ACatWhoBinds]

In an interview with The Independent to promote his new film, Gilliam decided to talk about women as he was “so bored of talking about the film”.
He had some real gems.
Isn’t it a bigger problem that men are refusing to take responsibility for abusing women, and abusing their power? “No. When you have power, you don’t take responsibility for abusing others. You enjoy the power. That’s the way it works in reality.”
“There are many victims in Harvey’s life,” he adds, “and I feel sympathy for them, but then, Hollywood is full of very ambitious people who are adults and they make choices. We all make choices, and I could tell you who did make the choice and who didn’t”
Yeah, definitely the woman’s fault for choosing to be assaulted. Yikes
www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/terry-gilliam-interview-harvey-weinstein-victims-metoo-race-a9269136.html

That crosses my mind quite a lot of the time, Goosefoot

The flattening of things...

I can't understand the OP.

Yeah, definitely the woman’s fault for choosing to be assaulted. Yikes

Where did he say that?

“There are many victims in Harvey’s life,” he adds, “and I feel sympathy for them, but then, Hollywood is full of very ambitious people who are adults and they make choices. We all make choices, and I could tell you who did make the choice and who didn’t"

OP, where do you get the idea from that he said definitely the woman’s fault for choosing to be assaulted???

Because he is also laying blame on women

Hollywood isn’t the only place that men can abuse their power and for some women to fall into that trap. It’s playing down the MeToo movement and the importance of the movement

So he is in the position of informing us who is a victim .... oh ok

But it’s smart it’s smart, funny Terry so that’s ok

I haven't read the article because I cant get it to load, but from the quotes on the thread, it looks like he's saying very similar things to Ricky Gervais, actually.

The stuff about Hollywood being a place where men exercise power and women trade sexual access for things is a bit victim blamey for sure, but I read the focus on that as "Why should men give up their power willingly?" not as an advocation of that being right, but as a description of reality.

And, tbh, it's an argument I've read on FWR a lot, and I agree with it - men are at the top of the tree, what is their motivation to lose those privileges so that women can be liberated? It's one of the reasons I don't trust white knighting or male feminists - I don't think I've ever met a man who I believed was enthusiastic about giving up his power to improve the lot of women, which is precisely why so many men had a conniption fit at the Gillette ad and wave NAMALT around like a light saber.

Relevant to the topic - what was Gervais' Golden Globes speech like? I've seen a report about it but haven't seen a subtitled version so I don't know what the text was.

(I don't know who wrote the speech but it's reportedly criticised Hollywood's SJWs and their hypocrisy on a number of issues. Including Epstein and MeToo .)

Gervais ripped them to shreds, talking about how many perverts were in the room and so on. I enjoyed it, and actually, I thought he was relatively tame in terms of personal digs. I am reading that he's been accused of 'punching down' because the successful Hollywood elite in that room might have money but are still marginalised or some such bullshit. Frankly, if anything, he treated them with kid gloves and I am sick and tired of the pussyfooting. It was bloody refreshing to hear someone call perverts, perverts, and astounding that the very basic statements excoriating moral vacuums self serving and congratulating themselves for it, has to be couched in 'outrageous comedy' clothes.

Not that I have an opinion.

The stuff about Hollywood being a place where men exercise power and women trade sexual access for things is a bit victim blamey for sure,

But here is the thing, is it victim blamey if it's true? Is it really that hard to believe that there are some women who are quite prepared to trade sex for something like a great role in a film, even apart from pressures or expectations to do so?
Women aren't purer souls than men, some of them are not good or nice people, and don't care what the implications of that behaviour are for other women.
It's a small industry, and his point as I see it is that it attracts and gives success to the most ambitious and driven people. And people like that are not always nice and not always caring about metaphorically screwing over other people who might be better actors but are less willing to do anything to get a role.

So he is in the position of informing us who is a victim .... oh ok do you not think that many living inside the Hollywood bubble could identify men and women who make deliberate choices to further their career?

I know it within my profession... my private life too.

Some women did/do make that choice with men they knew would accept the transaction. Vice versa too, power corrupts after all.

That such a transaction is possible is as old as humankind. We need to educate both sexes to eradicate it.

We aren't talking about women who traded sexual favours for film rôles though, are we? We're talking about women who said no to that 'deal' and were sexually assaulted by a man who took what he wanted by force when it was not available on demand.

I'm not saying that women are purer souls than men. The fact that you have chosen to spin my statement that way indicates that you still haven't grasped the issues that get many of us exercised about this. Coercion is a complicated, not straightforward thing, and women who are subject to it may make 'choices' in that context that are detrimental to themselves and others. To suggest that I am positing the existence of women as 'purer souls' is completely missing that women are human beings, inherently more vulnerable physically than men, and part of a society in which men have engineered a gender system in which that basic biological difference has been used as a springboard to set themselves as the powerful players.

If a woman can only achieve what is classed as success in a system by trading her body for what a man is in a position to give her, then there is a clear and obvious power differential and this 'exchange' is not occuring in a neutral setting.

NearlyGranny
We aren't talking about women who traded sexual favours for film rôles though, are we?

But yes, we are. Women who have voluntarily traded sexual favours for film roles are being discussed too, and are included in much of the conversation. From the quote in the OP's post, it is surely clear that Gilliam is referring to these. That's why I can't at all understand the OP's strange conclusion which they reached from his words and I've asked them about this.

I'd be interested to see what other information the OP has in order for them to make their accusation.

I'm not saying that women are purer souls than men. The fact that you have chosen to spin my statement that way indicates that you still haven't grasped the issues that get many of us exercised about this.

I grasp what you are saying, I just think you are missing an important part of the picture. And it is absolutely about a sense that women cannot be as mercenary as men.
Yes, all kinds of women are caught up in a system in Hollywood where there are pressures and expectations that are unhealthy and unfair. This is not only caused however by men who demand sex for roles. If it were universally the case that no women were willing to make that exchange, it wouldn't get very far, no women would be in films? Not a likely outcome.

But it does not take that many who are willing to create a system where you either do it, or it makes things harder for you. In a small industry, highly competitive, where large numbers of newcomers are desperate to succeed, there are always new people who will go farther, who have more ambition.

That is not just men throwing women under the bus. It is people of both sexes who want what they want, whatever it means to anyone else, creating a transactional market that affects everyone.

The only way to ignore that some women are not only complicit but happy with this system, prop it up and participate in creating it because it gives them an advantage, is to believe some fiction that women do not have those kinds of behaviours.

I'm not having this discussion with you Goose, because actually, that's not the position I'm starting from on this thread. You took a small part of my post and are now trying to have the discussion you want to have. You can do that with any of the other people on the thread who have made that the big plank of their argument- 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. If you want to talk about that idea, go ahead, but I'm not in the mood to be pressed into a discussion defending a position I'm not arguing here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.