Have you heard of Tilly Norwood? She’s a beautiful young actress who is just starting to make her presence felt in Hollywood. She hasn’t been in much, but she’s already negotiating with talent agents to get bigger roles.
Naturally, that doesn’t sit well with real life actors and unions. There is already a concerted effort to prevent Tilly Norwood from being cast in anything beyond your typical AI slop content. I completely understand this sentiment. I don’t blame anyone who works in Hollywood for being concerned about this. However, having covered the rise in AI for years, I’m comfortable making this prediction.
Tilly Norwood will eventually be cast in major movies and TV shows.
Other AI actors like her will be cast, as well.
Traditional actors and actresses will hate it. A sizable chunk of the audience will hate it as well. But this is going to happen. It was always going to happen the moment generative AI reached a certain level of refinement. A big reason for that involves money, as tends to be the case in Hollywood and most other industries. But there’s another reason that’s worth highlighting.
Dollar for dollar, movies and TV shows are getting more expensive to produce. This isn’t just due to inflation, unions, and the “personalities” that tend to comes with Hollywood. The logistics involved with making media has become bloated and inefficient. We’re no longer in an era in which media can only go through certain channels, be it TV and movie theaters. Thanks to streaming media, as well as online content like YouTube and Tiktok, the competition for eyeballs has never been greater.
Unless you’re a big budget blockbuster with a massive distribution network, such as Disney or Warner Bros., it’s harder to make content that turns a profit. The scale, resources, and personnel required to produce a movie or show is such that it’s limiting. Add to that the general enshitification of streaming media and the current model for producing content just isn’t sustainable.
Generative AI, as much as it is derided, offers a significant cost advantage. On top of that, an AI actor or actress is less likely to get accused of harassment, arrested for public intoxication, or go on some anti-sematic rant during a routine traffic stop. And for certain Hollywood agents, you can’t put a price on that kind of assurance.
But the question remains. Will audiences accept AI actors? Will the content they produce actually be worth watching?
A lot of people will probably refuse to watch anything with Tilly Norwood or anything like her out of principle. But what happens when AI gets to a point where it’s hard to tell if a person is AI generated? There are already AI tools like SORA and Veo3 that make extremely realistic videos of people who look and sound real. This is one element of AI that is not in the distant future. It’s here and it’s evolving fast.
It’s not yet clear what kind of career Tilly Norwood will have. She may never show up in anything mainstream. But like it or not, she marks the first step in a new trend with AI. We don’t know where it will lead. Hollywood is already undergoing significant change. Technology like this is only going to accelerate that change in ways we can’t imagine.
These days, it’s easy to look back on old movies and TV shows you once found funny and cringe. Sometimes, it’s just part of changing trends. Sometimes, it’s just part of getting older. What you found hilarious when you were 10-years-old isn’t going to be as funny when you’re 40. It’s just a sad fact of life.
But then, there’s a movie like “Airplane!” And I submit that, in terms of comedies that have aged like the finest of wines, this movie is the gold standard.
I certainly understand that comedy and tastes are objective. I also don’t doubt that some people will watch a movie like this, not get the jokes, or take offense to it. But I would also argue that, while you can levy those kinds of criticisms about many comedies from that era, you can’t reasonably apply it to “Airplane!“
This movie isn’t just a classic comedy gem from the early 1980s. It’s one of those rare movies that takes a simple, but effective approach at being funny. It doesn’t try to be too smart for its own good. It doesn’t try to be too crude, so as only to appeal to a specific demographic and/or stoners. It just uses the basics of what makes good, endearing comedy and runs with it.
The story itself is not really that complicated. A traumatized ex-fighter pilot, Ted Striker, tries to win back his stewardess girlfriend, Elaine Dickinson, before she moves away and leaves him for good. He follows her to the airport, ends up on a plane with her to Chicago, and just happens to be there when disaster strikes and the flight crew falls ill. Along the way, some truly remarkable comedy gold ensues.
In essence, this movie is largely a parody of common tropes from that era regarding romance, war, and disaster movies. It also used the premise of a far more serious, less funny movie from 1957 called “Zero Hour!” But you don’t have to have seen that movie to appreciate plot, jokes, and comedy of “Airplane!” You just have to have the smallest semblance of a sense of humor.
It does get crude at times, but not so crude as to be juvenile.
It does get quirky with recurring gags, but it never overuses them.
It also gets more than a little suggestive at times, but not to the point where it needs to be rated R.
This movie came out before I was born. However, it was a movie my parents loved. Every time my mother watched it, she would keel over and laugh. I was only around nine-years-old when I first saw it. And even though some of the jokes flew over my head, I still found it funny.
Years later, when I rewatched it, I laughed even harder once I actually got the jokes. To this day, I can re-watch the movie any time of year and still find it hilarious. I still crack up at the scenes that involve speaking Jive. I still laugh every time Leslie Nielson says “And don’t call me Shirley!” And the autopilot steals the show every time.
While I wouldn’t go so far as to call “Airplane!” my favorite movie or even my favorite comedy, I can’t recall a single movie or TV show that has consistently made me laugh over the years. And at a time when so many other TV shows and movies are aging poorly, it just makes me appreciate “Airplane!” that much more.
So, for that, I thank David and Jerry Zucker, and all those involved in making this movie, for giving the world this timeless comedy gem. And if you haven’t seen it yet and are in the mood for some quality comedy, give “Airplane!” a watch. If laughter truly is good for the soul, this movie should give you plenty of nourishment.
This is a video from my YouTube channel, Jack’s World.
In this video, I explore the world of fame, fortune, and celebrity. And for people of a certain age, none achieved more of that than Michael Jackson. While his legacy in the annuls of pop culture might be a bit mixed these days, it’s hard to overstate just how big an icon he was.
But as monumental a figure he might have been, I strongly believe that NOBODY should ever be as famous as him ever again. That kind of fame might not even be possible anymore. But I feel it’s worth revisiting. Enjoy!
When an underdog succeeds, it’s worth celebrating. It’s a big reason why sports movies and superhero movies have so much appeal. Most audiences just love it when an underdog triumphs over daunting odds. And they love cheering with them when they ultimately succeed.
In that spirit, we should cheer the recent news surrounding the WGA strike that has been going on since mid-July 2023. According to the Associated Press, a tentative deal between the WGA and the major studios has been reached. While that doesn’t mean the strike is completely over, it marks a critical step in getting people back to work in an industry that was already reeling from the aftermath of the COVID-19 Pandemic.
As someone who loves movies, TV, and mindless entertainment as much as the next consumer, this is great news. This strike was bound to do more and more damage the longer it went on. We probably won’t know the full extent of that damage until a few years from now when we can look back at the impacts with the benefit of hindsight.
There’s also a personal element to this strike. I have multiple family members who work in the entertainment industry, mostly in the film and production side of things. They, more than most, felt the impact of this strike. Early on, a few even told me that this strike had the potential to last a long time. One even said they didn’t expect a resolution until late November. There was even a possibility it could continue well into 2024.
Thankfully, that no longer appears to be the case. This tentative deal, assuming it gets ratified, will provide some overdue benefits to the writers who play a big part in making the shows and movies we love so much. They deserve a deal that allows them to reap the fruits of their creative labor. You don’t have to look hard to find out just how much they were getting screwed over by a changing entertainment industry that studio executives and CEOs were exploiting to the utmost.
And therein lies an important lesson that’s worth highlighting, even as the strike comes to an end. This whole issue happened because the entertainment industry was changing. The old system that relied on residual income from broadcast TV and DVD sales just wasn’t going to cut it in an era of streaming media. The writers and actors behind some of these successful shows just weren’t getting the same share of the profits. And the studios were very much aware of this.
They could’ve adapted to ensure that those involved in the production could continue to be compensated fairly, even as consumers switched from traditional outlets to streaming.
They could’ve been open, honest, and transparent with the new economics of producing successful TV shows and movies in the post-COVID world.
They could’ve even explained why it was considerably difficult to pay generous residuals in a world of streaming media wherein profit margins were just too thin, if there even were profits to begin with.
But they didn’t. The executives, the CEOs, and those with the real power within these entertainment companies chose not to be proactive. Instead, they prioritized the price of their company stock and the investors who owned that stock. This is to be expected, as that tends to be the default reflex of publicly traded companies.
Call it callous in that it blatantly disregards the real work and toil of those producing the content.
Call it greed in the shallowest possible sense.
But at the moment, that’s simply how the incentives align in the entertainment industry, if not most industries in the global economy. There’s just too much money to be made by the rich and well-connected to do anything else. They are not going to do right by their workers unless they’re forced to, if not by law than by organized labor.
That may come off as cynical, but it’s also an important insight and one that every worker in every industry would be wise to remember. Because over the course of this strike, it quickly became clear how out of touch and callous these billionaire CEOs and executives were. They kept demanding that writers be reasonable with their requests. But at the same time, they were making hundreds of millions of dollars in salary and millions more in stock options.
These are not people capable of identifying with the life and struggles of working people.
These are people who might as well live on a different planet with respect to wealth, privlidge, and access.
Men Like David Zazlav and Bob Iger will never have to worry about paying a mortgage on time, falling behind on their bills, or ending up homeless because they cannot afford the outrageous rents in cities like Los Angeles and New York. So, how can we possibly expect them to empathize, let alone understand, the struggles of the writers and workers who help make their companies successful.
Most of these executives never set foot on a production stage, nor do they write or edit a single script. They just sit in offices, make demands/decisions, allocate money, and deal directly with investors whose primary focus is seeing a return on their investment.
And even if the company were to fail completely, these people would still end up with millions upon millions of dollars in their bank accounts. If they wanted to, they could never work a day for the rest of their lives. But those who actually work for them would be completely screwed.
It’s an unequal, unfair situation full of misaligned incentives. The executive and CEO class holds the power, the cards, and the money. They will not do the right things as a first recourse. They will only ever do what investors and their own self-interests incentive, by default. No matter how much money they have, they’ll keep trying to make more. And if that means screwing over their workers in any possible way, they’ll do it.
Remember that the next time labor issues come up. This doesn’t just apply to the entertainment industry, either. Any industry with a similar incentive structure will have the same issues. If there are rich, well-connected CEOs with shareholders to please, don’t expect them to prioritize workers beyond what they can legally and logistically get away with.
The only true counter to this uneven dynamic is that, despite all the power and money executives weird, they still need workers. They still need consumers. They still need to be credible in the eyes of the public to some extent. That kind of leverage is critical to maintain and appreciate.
Because the world will continue to change.
Every industry, from entertainment to making widgets, will continue to change with society and technology.
Those doing the work need to change with it because those with the money and power sure as hell won’t do right by anyone but themselves, unless they have to. And only those doing the work can make that happen.
Firstly, let me go on record saying that I fully support the WGA and SAG’s strike. I’ve said before that we should support them as they fight the very powerful, very well-funded Hollywood studios who profit from all their hard work.
The fact that both the actors and writers stand united in this strike for the first time since 1960 is promising. As I write this, pretty much every major movie production has shut down. The studios could only do so much without their writers, but they literally can’t do anything without their actors. That likely means highly-anticipated movies will be delayed, but it also means the people actually making those movies might actually enjoy some of the profits.
There’s a lengthy list of issues associated with AI and how it may impact the entertainment industry at large. I’m not qualified to go over all the particulars. So, here’s a video I found that should help break it down.
With that out of the way, the first part of that message goes to the actors. Their concerns about AI might not be as significant as the writers, but I strongly believe they’re not showing enough concern. And even if they don’t understand the true impact of AI, I hope they at least heed this critical message.
Do NOT under any circumstances sign away your likeness, voice, and persona to any studio without retaining some measure of control and an appropriate structure for long-term compensation.
Seriously, I don’t care how big a star you are or how well-off you might be. Do not give any studio, large or small, the right to use your voice and likeness at the moment. The current laws are not at all equipped to protect against the never-ending efforts by studios to exploit the hell out of any star, franchise, or intellectual property.
This is not a popular novel, character, or fairy tale for which copyright laws were intended to protect. This is your name, identity, voice, and brand. Giving any studio complete or even partial control over that right now is akin to giving every hacker on the Dark Web your tax returns and credit reports for free.
I don’t know when or if the law will ever catch up to this. Right now, your best bet is to make sure your next union contract addresses this issue and ensures at least some level of control. Because I promise the technology to fully render someone in a way that’s indistinguishable from reality is coming within our lifetime. You need only look at the current state of deep-fakes to appreciate why this is the time to act.
The second part of my warning is to the writers. They are definitely more aware of how AI technology could affect their livelihood. They’ve all seen how products like ChatGPT can write a movie script in seconds. That’s not to say it writes those scripts particularly well. Most reasonable people can still tell when a piece of writing is generated by AI. And no skilled writer or studio executive will mistake an AI written script for the real deal at the moment.
But therein lies the issue that I’d like to highlight. So, to the WGA writers striking right now, please heed my words when I offer this important message.
Plan for the long term with respect to AI. Because it will get better over time. And at some point, it’ll be better than you at almost every writing task.
This is not a dire prediction. I’m not trying to be overly fatalistic, either. When I say plan for the long-term, I don’t just mean get a binding contract that gets everyone back to work for another decade or two. I’m saying the writers striking right now need to think much furthe ahead.
Right now, AI products like ChatGPT are a long way from replacing skilled writers, but not as long as most people think. I’ve heard a number of writers and influencers scoff at AI, saying it’s nothing more than autocorrect on steroids. Some even call it a script blender, which just takes a bunch of data from other writers and scrambles it like a blender until it produces something that just seems original.
If that’s what you’re thinking, then I strongly encourage you to find a better source of information on emerging technology. Because writing off the ability of ChatGPT to write scripts is like writing off the first iPhone because it just looks like an iPod with a call feature. You’re not seeing the forest from the trees.
The current AI programs we have right now are limited, clunky, and crude. They’re very much akin to the early models of the iPhone in that they are in the early stages of refinement. You could definitely make the case that early versions of ChatGPT were basically fancier versions of autocorrect blended with your standard virtual assistant.
However, the latest version of ChatGPT is much more capable in terms of scale and ability. To simply call it a more advanced version of autocorrect is like calling a motorcycle a more advanced version of a kids’ tricycle. And it will continue to improve. That is the only certainty we have at this point with AI technology.
That’s not to say it’ll become sentient and go full-blown Skynet on the human race. In fact, AI doesn’t even need to achieve human-level intelligence to be just as capable as any writer or producer. It just needs to be refined, capable, and developed to a point where it can “think” about entertainment on a level that’s better than any human being ever has or ever will.
That kind of AI might not be feasible now. It might not even be feasible this decade. But make no mistake, it will likely happen in your lifetime. And the studio executives you’re up against now would love nothing more than to see this technology perfected so that the process of creating hit shows and movies is as automated as a modern assembly line.
It doesn’t matter to them if it means putting you, the actors, or the many crews on movie sets out of work. It just matters that it turns a profit in the short and long term.
That means that when negotiating with the studios, it’s not enough to just think 10 years ahead. It’s not even enough to think 20 or 30 years ahead. This may very well be your first and only chance to get something in writing that ensures writers will have some stake in the creative process moving forward. And if you fail to achieve that now, then rest assure the studios will screw you over the nanosecond an AI can write scripts as good as you.
Don’t let that happen.
Don’t let the studios screw you like that.
Get something in writing that ensures or at least complicates those efforts as technology continues to change entertainment.
But if I have one final message to the actors and writers alike, It’s this.
You cannot stop AI from affecting your industry.
We’re past the point of no return on this. The genie is out of the bottle. Like smartphones and electricity, the technology can’t be uninvented. You’re not going to convince the studios to just ignore AI moving forward. That’s like trying to convince horse-and-buggy manufacturers to ignore cars.
One way or another, you’ll have to find a way to co-exist with AI. I don’t claim to know how this will manifest in terms of a contract or some sort of legal protection. I just know that in the history of any industry, fighting new technology is a losing battle.
We’re still with you.
We still want you to succeed.
Just don’t assume that the AI you’re concerned about now is anywhere near as disruptive as it’s going to be.
Talking about issues like “cancel culture,” which I put in quotes for a reason, is often revolting.
Sometimes, though, we can’t avoid it. When it makes headlines, it’s like a massive traffic accident. We can’t look away. It’s just how we’re wired. It’s a problem that plays right into the flaws of human nature.
It affects us on an emotional level, appealing to tribalism and hate. It brings out the worst parts in some people. For others, it brings out a sense of greedy opportunism that is nothing short of exploitative.
This brings me to the ongoing saga involving Gina Carano, the new face of “cancel culture” after Disney fired her from “The Mandalorian.” She’s been making a lot of noise in the media lately, which is kind of ironic for someone claiming to be silenced or censored, but that’s beside the point.
However, a good chunk of that noise came out of her recent interview with Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire. Now, I’m inclined to believe that Gina is sincere in her statements. I’m also inclined to believe that she’s not a hateful person, even though her words and tweets tend to the wrong message.
Reasonable people can have reasonable discussions about how justified Disney was in firing her. Those same people can have reasonable discussions about the merits of “cancel culture” and how conservatives are viewed in the media. Those are discussions we should have.
The problem is that Ben Shapiro is not a reasonable person, for the most part, nor are many conservative-leaning blowhards like him. Gina herself might already know the kind of person he is, but I doubt she fully grasps the bigger picture of who this man is and why people like him are not true allies.
It’s fine to be a conservative.
It’s fine to disagree with major liberal talking points.
Men like Ben Shapiro take it several steps further and cross way too many lines. He’s as much a conservative as Bugs Bunny is a real opera singer. He’s nothing more than a mouthpiece funded by a couple of oil billionaires, who are also huge funders of the religious right. These are people who think the only women’s right that matters is the right to obey her husband and pump out babies.
These are not people you want to ally with.
These are not people who have the best interest of America, women, and Star Wars fans in mind.
They have an agenda and Gina is nothing more than a tool, as are her fans. However, I don’t expect anyone to just take my word for it. The YouTube channel, Some More News, actually went through the trouble of creating a one-hour video detailing why Ben Shapiro is not a serious person who should be taken seriously about anything, let alone real conservatism.
Please, I implore both Gina and her supporters to watch this video and think carefully about who they’re throwing their support behind. As multiple Star Wars movies have shown us, making a deal with the dark side rarely works out for anyone who isn’t already in power.
There are certain topics that I find difficult to talk about, but I’ll still make the effort because they’re worth discussing. That’s why I’ll write something about abortion or religion every now and then. These are serious, emotionally charged issues. There’s merit to discussing them.
I’m sorry, but I’ve yet to see a single discussion about “cancel culture” that has ever been productive. Some say it’s a threat to free speech and western values. Some say it’s not really a thing. I say both are wrong and both aren’t helping by making sub-par arguments.
Every few months or so, it starts trending and for bullshit reasons. Usually, what some bemoan as “cancel culture” depends heavily on their political affiliation. A conservative won’t see Colin Kaepernick being shut out of the NFL as cancel culture, but they’ll whine endlessly about Rosanne Barr getting fired from her show.
Conversely, a liberal will cheer when Lou Dobbs gets fired, but will make endless excuses for liberal celebrities who say objectively dumb shit. It always seems to boil down whether you’re politics align with whoever or whatever is canceled. It’s arbitrary, it’s petty, and it’s absurd. I really don’t have any other way to describe it.
Now, I could rant for hours about bullshit “cancel culture” arguments. However, I’d rather do something more productive with my time. I’d also prefer not to add to the whining. The only reason I’m bringing this up is because that’s all anyone has been doing since the story about Gina Carano broke.
If you’re not up to speed, consider yourself lucky. I won’t recount the details. The long and short of it is she got fired by Disney for some stupid tweets that mentioned the holocaust. Now, I won’t give my opinion on the contents of these tweets. Again, that’s not a productive use of my time or anyone’s time, for that matter.
However, I don’t want to bring this topic up just to rant about it. Instead, I’d like to use the ongoing whining about “cancel culture” to offer some perspective about what it is, what it isn’t, and why it matters. I could try to put it into words. Thankfully, people far smarter and more talented than me already have.
The following image that I found on Twitter sums it up nicely.
If that doesn’t get the point across, please see this helpful little image detailing the paradox of tolerance by Karl Popper.
In short, being tolerant is a good thing. Protecting free speech is a good thing. However, there are lines, limits, and context. Failing to understand them will only cause more outrage and whining. The world already has too much of that. Let’s not add to it.
Sometimes, just when you think things can’t get possibly worse, the universe finds a way to hit you in a way that reminds you otherwise. This year has been awful by so many measures. Between global pandemics and ugly politics, it really felt like 2020 couldn’t get more agonizing.
Then, we lost Chadwick Boseman.
Of all the good, pure, loving souls this year could’ve taken, this one definitely hurts. This hurts in ways that words just cannot properly articulate. I say that not just as a lifelong fan of Marvel and Marvel superhero movies or as someone who cheered the success of “Black Panther.” I say that as someone who respected the man since he showed his heart and acting talents as Jackie Robinson in “42.”
I’ll say it again. This hurts. When I saw this report, I didn’t want to believe it. I thought it had to be a mistake or some elaborate troll job. Sadly, it wasn’t. When the official announcement came down, I was in genuine shock.
I’m honestly at a loss for words here. Not since the death of Stan Lee have I been in such utter disbelief. I’d been bracing for Stan’s passing, given his advanced age. I never imagined that someone like Chadwick Boseman, a man of only 43 who seemed to have a bright career ahead of him, passing away. The fact he was able to keep working as he fought cancer is a further testament to his greatness.
For someone like Boseman, who set himself apart as such a paragon of how great Hollywood could be, it just isn’t fair. Absolutely nothing about this is fair. This man brought to life a character who resonated with millions. He rose to stardom for all the right reasons, making all the right choices, even as his own body failed him.
His loss will be felt for generations to come. Someone like Chadwick Boseman doesn’t come around often. At a time when Hollywood seems to be lacking in respectable role models, losing Boseman stings even more. I don’t know what else I can say, other than he will be missed a great deal. The world is an objectively worse place without him.
At the risk of ending this video on too much of a downer, here’s a clip of my favorite moment from Boseman. Now that he’s gone, these moments are all the more precious.
A while back, I speculated that improvements to computer technology would change how erotica romance was portrayed in mainstream movies. When I wrote that piece, I expected it to be a slow process. As long as there were actors and actresses willing to get naked for celebrity, I had a feeling it would be a while before this sort of thing became common.
Then, a global pandemic happened. Suddenly, Hollywood had to re-examine and re-imagine how it went about the sexy side of its business.
Now, this doesn’t count as prophetic on my part. It’s more a necessity. Hollywood still wants to make money. Audiences still want to see beautiful people hump on screen. Regardless of the current state of CGI, the market will deliver. A recent report from The Sun, indicated that studios were planning to use more CGI for sexy scenes, if only to limit the spread of the disease.
The Decider did another write-up of this story. It was light on the details, but it summed up the situation nicely.
The novel coronavirus pandemic may completely change the way sex scenes are filmed in Hollywood. According to The Sun, when California studios reopen on June 12, producers will have to rethink “close contact moments” in order to avoid transmission of COVID-19 between actors. A 22-page document from the film editors’ association reveals that these moments, including sex scenes and other intimate moments, must be “either rewritten, abandoned, or [produced using] CGI” in the months ahead. All that’s to say: get ready to see more digitally-edited butts.
Beyond the titillating details, I suspect this is one move that will have far-reaching impacts. Long after this pandemic has passed, this might end up being the catalyst that began a much larger trend in media. It won’t just change how Hollywood handles sex scenes. It could change the entire media landscape.
There was already a strong incentive to cut back on sexy scenes. Between the impact of the anti-harassment movement and growing concerns about depictions of sex in media, there’s a growing risk that sex scenes will attract all the wrong attention. Studios, being businesses, are aware of that and will look for an alternative.
CGI sex scenes are now the default. On top of that, there’s a strong incentive to improve the technology. Given the money these studios have at their disposal, as well as their corporate backers, there will be improvements. It may look cheesy at first, but that will change. Graphics technology is already nearing hyper-real levels.
Eventually, it’ll get to a point where CGI sex scenes are easier than the real thing. All they would need is permission from the actors. If a studio is willing to be extra shady, they might not even need that. They’d just scan the bodies of the actors and actresses. Then, they use CGI to do the sexy scenes. The actors and actresses involved never even have to be in the same room together, let alone get naked.
It could lead to a situation where studios, fearful of sexual assault accusations or disease transmission, avoid real-life sex scenes altogether. They’d leave that sort of thing for porn studios. It might even increase the number of sex scenes we get in cinema because with CGI, they don’t have to deal with actors, sets, or on-screen chemistry. Their only limit is processing power.
Now, will this be a good or bad thing for the movie business?
Will it be a good or bad things for sex scenes, in general?
It’s hard to say. Personally, I think most sex scenes in mainstream movies are only marginally sexy. You can usually tell when there’s a body double or when the sexy parts are being faked. When it works, it’s beautiful. It just rarely works in mainstream movies.
I’d like to see that change, but I don’t know if this will bring that change. It’ll be interesting to see. There will always be a place for real, non-CGI sex scenes, but I have a feeling they’re going to become increasingly rare in the coming years.
Recently, late-night talk host, Samantha Bee, took some time from her comedy news show to talk about sexual assault. That, in and of itself, isn’t too remarkable. Many women have been doing that since the anti-harassment movement began. However, Ms. Bee did something noteworthy with her message.
It’s a surprisingly balanced message from someone not known for having a good filter. If you haven’t checked it out, I highly recommend it. She doesn’t present it in an overly dire way, but the message it conveys is still serious.
In fact, the primary reason why the Kevin Spacey scandal made headlines had less to do with the victim he assaulted and more to do with him using that to come out as gay. Him using that incident to address his sexuality wasn’t seen as contributing to the anti-harassment movement. It was seen as him derailing the movement for LGBT acceptance by associating his sexuality with assault of a minor.
The victims for both Kevin Spacey and Bryan Singer never got a chance to have their voices heard. Unfortunately, that’s fairly common for male victims of sexual abuse. Mr. Crews has even addressed this on multiple occasions. Shortly after the Harvey Weinstein scandal broke, he provided a fairly lengthy explanation on Twitter that explain why few speak up and even few are heard.
Who’s going 2 believe you? ( few) What r the repercussions?(many) Do u want 2 work again? (Yes) R you prepared 2b ostracized?(No)(11/cont.)
His comments are gender-neutral, but Mr. Crews also mentions how men face unique challenges in confronting this issue. Make no mistake. Sexual assault against men does happen and there’s plenty of raw data to back it up. The way it’s talked about and thought about, though, gives the impression that it’s not as big a deal.
That’s a big reason why men like Mr. Crews don’t come forward with their experiences. In his own words, “The silence is deafening when it comes to men talking about this issue.” Even though he’s been fairly vocal on this issue, few outside Ms. Bee have given him a chance to tie those experiences into the ongoing movement.
This issue is personal for someone like Mr. Feldman because his friend and fellow child actor, Corey Haim, was also sexually abused as a young teenager. In his book, Coreyography, he talked about how they both struggled to deal with it. Drug abuse, which played a major part in Mr. Haim’s death in 2010, was a means of escaping the issue rather than dealing with it.
That’s understandable, considering the business they were in. Drug use in Hollywood isn’t just a long-standing part of the culture. It’s sometimes necessary, albeit for tragic reasons. It provides an escape for people like Mr. Feldman and Mr. Haim, one that’s much easier than coming forward and naming their abusers.
It’s the same issue women face when they’re victims of sexual assault. They’ll make a claim, but hesitate to name the abuser out of fear, shame, guilt, or willful disbelief. In Hollywood, especially, the people they deal with are rich and powerful. They have the resources to make anyone’s life, especially public figures like Mr. Feldman and Mr. Crews, extremely unpleasant.
On top of that, people who accuse a celebrity or public figure of such crimes are usually subject to major harassment as well. In that sense, staying silent is just easier. The anti-harassment movement has been trying to change that, at least for women, by providing them a platform with which to come forward. As a result, egregious crimes have been exposed and are actively being prosecuted.
However, those same efforts aren’t making much room for men like Mr. Feldman and Mr. Crews. They’re still in the same situation as they were before the anti-harassment movement began, trying to speak openly about a difficult issue and struggling to find support.
Why is that, though? Why are these men not allowed to stand on the front lines with the women who brought down Harvey Weinstein? There’s no easy answer to that. Chances are if you ask 100 people, you’ll get 100 different answers and at least 90 of them will sound like conspiracy theories.
I don’t claim to have a definitive answer, but I have reasonable suspicions and it has do with crafting a narrative. As an aspiring writer, I know a thing or two about narratives and why it’s so important to keep them concise. To some extent, the anti-harassment movement is an ongoing narrative that has to stay concise in order to pursue its goals.
Unfortunately, staying concise means ignoring or avoiding anything that might disrupt that narrative. In that context, Mr. Feldman and Mr. Crews are significant disruptions, albeit through no fault of their own or even those who champion the anti-harassment movement.
That’s because, for better or for worse, there’s this standard notion of how a case of sexual assault plays out. When most people close their eyes to imagine it, they probably don’t imagine someone like Terry Crews getting cornered in a crowded room. They probably imagine a scared young woman in a dark alley, crying out for help as some big, ugly, sadistic man abuses her.
Like any strong narrative, that notion conjures all sorts of powerful emotions. We feel anger, disgust, and sorrow for any woman who has to endure such an experience. We also feel seething anger towards any man who would do that to such a woman. The decent human being in us wants to help that woman and beat the snot out of that man.
If you reverse the genders in that narrative, though, it just doesn’t work. Those same decent people just can’t imagine a scenario where Terry Crews or Corey Feldman are cornered in a dark alley, assaulted by a man or woman, and suffer the same way. Even when they do, it doesn’t evoke the same feelings.
If anything, it complicates the narrative. These are supposed to be men. They’re supposed to be tough. Mr. Crews is a former football player. Mr. Feldman is a Hollywood star. We expect them to fight back. We expect them to not need our support the same way a woman would. To some extent, that assumptions demeans both men and women.
That doesn’t matter, though, because the narrative only works if it has that emotional resonance. People are more inclined to rally around a movement where they get to comfort an emotionally distraught young woman rather than a rich, imposing man. Like a movie where the sweet virgin schoolgirl escapes the masked serial killer, it’s more satisfying.
Moreover, it has to be satisfying to get people to rally behind it. This often come with a cost, which can really escalate if it goes too far. Some are already voicing concerns about the anti-harassment movement losing control of the narrative. Ignoring the abuse of men like Mr. Crews and Mr. Feldman only compounds those concerns.
Until the narrative changes, these men will still struggle to be part of the conversation. The piece with Samantha Bee is a good start, but it’s still an uphill battle. The idea of men being sexually abused is subject to a unique brand of stigma. That doesn’t make the suffering of the victims any less real, nor does it make crimes of the abusers any less egregious.
I don’t expect the anti-harassment movement to fully embrace Mr. Crews or Mr. Haim anytime soon, but so long as they keep making their voices heard, they’ll remind people that the narrative is still incomplete. Abuse, harassment, and victimization affects everybody, regardless of gender. When you prioritize justice for some over others, then that only creates more injustice for everyone.
Jack Fisher's Official Publishing Blog 