Maybe Zoot should go to Hollywood when he gets out! 
He should have gone there to begin with. No one would have noticed anything out of the ordinary, let alone illegal about his behaviour. Now it would seem rather bad timing.
But Hollywood IS where he did go, if You’re implicating Kevin, so the bad timing is very bad for a professional, since there timing is everything.
But perhaps he will be forgiven for what fixed says of his inability not to live up to his confusion between his roles on the screen and in real life. His brother thinks not, and he dismisses any justification based on his intimate knowledge
He was called a monster very way on. A book is coming out written by said brother, literally spelling out Kevin’s internal monsters covered by a repealing animus, who he has acted out from true early experiences, most notably from his monster of a father.
-My brother is a monster.
-Ok. Whose that on that picture behind you?
news.com.au/entertainment/ce … 4af0bc73d2
Dear lord. Thats a lost case.
Your point is actually very good, Sauwelios.
What if good actors of villain-parts are always on the deviant side? How could those that are in uproar now, in good conscience pay to watch a movie or series with a villain in it again?
Ive noticed the fact that Hollywood actors are as a rule murderously insane, we saw this in sparkling technicolor with their calls to assassinate Trump. Now we see how this plays out in their own lives.
Its a real question now. Do we close down Hollywood? It seems to be necessary, if the left wants to keep talking. But since Hollywood is their podium for talking…
The left.
What a character.
Yes. Absolutely pointless. Kevin Spacey is a great actor who has taken some great roles, but nothing he has done has rocked the world. Hes not responsible for anything more important or pressing than mild entertainment. As such, this entire conversation is pointless.
Personally, I think it’s a shame to ignore a lifetime of achievement because a person has done bad things. Assuming all is history and the good and bad are both in the past, neither can be wiped away. That’s my point here, that it is what it is, no amount of bad behavior makes his performances in movies like American Beauty or Se7en any less outstanding, for what they are - said mild entertainment.
Spacey is not a great actor, he is at best, average.
Any great actor should observe the cardinal rule of the craft-timing, and it is for that lack for which he is being chastized, and demoted.
I’m a primal level then , he failed. In this level, Booth may have been a car greater actor, as his timing was perfect. That they had no film at that time does.not diminish that.conclusion, if the argument were to hold.
John Gielgood ,Lawrence Olivier, Dame Judith Anderson,.Vittorio Gassman-.these were the great.actors
Maybe, but he’s a great villain!
“Nietzsche is no existentialist, for he ridicules long before its promulgation the existentialist faith that we are free to create ourselves and the existentialist morals that condemn as bad faith identification with one’s role. […] Europe is becoming more ‘artistic’: we believe now that we are free to make ourselves whatever we fancy, that we are at our own disposal as artists whose own best work is ourselves. Nothing is given by nature that cannot be altered by art–this is the belief characteristic of the two transitionary ages Nietzsche cites, Periclean Athens and modern America, democratic periods of cocky faith that I can become anything I set my mind to, that I am not bound to some level in a pyramid as earlier, benighted ages believed. American faith is not an indigenous growth; it began as a European faith transferred to non-European proving grounds: Baconian faith in man’s mastery over nature took practical shape in Locke’s teaching that America is wild and uncultivated, a waste given to the industrious and rational to be subdued and improved and turned into property. Contemporary American faith applies the Baconian faith in mastery over nature to the frontier of one’s own nature and in this form threatens to recolonize Europe. Nietzsche fears that the ancient Greek example, visible in all its consequences, foretells the modern future: this transitionary age may end as ancient Greece ended, with the ‘actor’ as the highest human form, with the Americanization of the globe.
[…]
The age of the actor poses a problem for the master-builder. Such builders–Plato, say, or Bacon or Descartes–have the perspective of millennia and aspire to create a new society; they are prudent legislators who found peoples. Any such aspiration today must face the fact that all people believe themselves capable of everything. Such a faith is the most unpromising for the builder whose projects require a very different fundamental belief: that worth derives from being a part of a whole, ‘a stone in a great structure.’ To become a stone, one has to become ‘solid’; only on the basis of this kind of faith can a new society be built in the ancient sense of the term society. ‘All of us are no longer material for a society: that is a truth whose time has come.’
Can material for a society be fashioned from modern humanity? Intimations of Nietzsche’s affirmative answer can be heard as early as Human, All Too Human: the cocky faith of the age of the actor must be countered with ‘true modesty’: ‘recognition that we are not our own work’ (HH I.588). Philosophy’s ignorance is consonant with the recognition that we owe our being to nature and history, that we are not our own work but belong, like stones, to a great structure of being and time. A new gratitude loyal to the earth can be built on this recognition.” (Lampert, Nietzsche and Modern Times, pp. 353-54.)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7TT4jnnWys[/youtube]
As a side note, Mozart was pretty lewd, man. Just listen to his operas.
They should all be redacted. All offensive notes censored.
Oh what about the Bible? God, raping Mary in her sleep?
All you rapists who own a Bible!! Shame!!
I have to admit he is not that great.
His most complete role by very far is American beauty. It now occurs to me that he may have been cast for that part precisely because of his sexual makeup.
Sauwelios, UrGod -
what do you thin about the whole issue that actors have throughout history been regarded as immoral, loose of standards, and have always been mistrusted with women and children?
This is overbearingly true in all cultures, except ours - somehow Hollywood has convinced us that actors are moral beings, examples role models.
The Usual Suspects. Great movie.
Who is next?
Hello Sauwelios,
I think that, on a philosophical level, the world is increased in value by creativity rather than in safety which only increases the number of units of average value. Eliminating Se7en for the sake of keeping young actors safe from an unwanted advance would deny the world a good movie WITHOUT actually making young men safer. If improving his character leads to the destruction of his creativity, which I don’t know how we could know.
It seems to me that a “good” character is not easy to define and thus might not even exist as an object with which we could trade creativity for. It is entirely possible for a man, defined as having good character, to pose a threat to young men. Socrates quickly comes to mind, followed by Plato, probably one of Socrates’ victims. In the news recently, former judge Roy Moore is accused by a few women of sexual misconduct with minors and even sexual assault. This same man fought for the Christian values of his community, thus perhaps considered by most as a man of “good” character.
It seems that the spirit of the protest is one that deals in absolutes. Is good character possible in the absence of will? Plato asked once who was the good man and compared such a being to a person with the ability to do either good or bad. Being good because of the incapacity for bad was not good at all. If so then even wishing for a good character for Kevin would still leave open the possibility of a moral failure here or there. Thus I wonder if even if we gave Spacey a good character if he would not attack a young man down the road. We have to assume he could for the very existence of good. Meanwhile, creating a reality where it would be impossible for Kevin to manhandle the young man would not only deprive us of Se7en (Creativity), but even of the possibility of good character.
Yes, but between the derivation of character and its newly revealed post structural similarity, moral appearance counts for much more, for the reason that there is no quick justification such as is evident in the use of characterization using literally reified, masks, correlating to the actual perceptions of content.
Although what You are saying is correct, it fails on the level of believability of the act being directly suggestive of who resides under the mask.
Modern theatre defines character through the use of action, proving an attitude, albeit a public one, of being superior to mere literal representation, through
the equivocation of the lines uttered with the corresponding acceptance of the masked character is displayed.
The mask in Greek Tragedy and the lines uttered definitely defined the moral content. The only structure it had, was a presumptive totality , without any doubt.
I voted the latter option. It seems we’re going to get some fringe benefits of Spacey’s outing as finally the Hollywood pedophile scandal is starting to drop. If Spacey’s movies didn’t exist and he never became an actor, Hollywood would still be Hollywood.
Just with a shittier body of work.
Omar made a really good point recently, I think it was Omar.
It is well known that Sokrates was a child molester, and Omar added that Plato was likely one of his victims.
Now, the thoroughly unsound and uncouth philosophy of Sokrates, as well as the absurdly cosmetic platitudes of Plato, can be understood as amounting to nothing more than a perverse mating call.
(I use the term child molester as that is the used term now for people with Sokrates’ sexual behaviour.)
So interestingly, the OPs question can be extended now. I think Sauwelios has resigned from ILP for now, and he tends to very much disagree with me about Sokrates, so I will include a disclaimer stating that I don’t expect S to agree. Buy I will post it anyway:
Would you choose
- Everything as it is
- Sokrates had never molested children, and Sokrates body of work doesn’t exist.
I would actually be tempted to choose option 2, not because of the (abject) child molesting but because of my judgment of Sokrates’ work as utterly abject and blasphemous against life.
Sure, and in a century or less a bunch of philosophers will be disregarded because they weren’t vegans. Seems like a dangerous game.