Bret Easton Ellis apologizes to Katherine Bigelow
Awwww, come on Ellis, don't wuss out.
Ellis is an internet troll [italic]par excellence.[/italic] He will find a little kernel - not even a kernel, a niblet - of truth in something, something that no one typically admits out loud - or will only admit anonymously on the internet - and he takes advantage of the vacuous nature of the blogosphere - the Warholian notion of something becoming important simply because a celebrity says it - to create a genuine media circus. It's like trolling as performance art. The stuff he says about Katherine Bigelow or Les Miserables or Matt Bomer or Glee isn't really out of line from the stuff I read on Datalounge, but when Ellis says it, it makes fifty online news and gossip sites.
There's something almost perversely admirable about Ellis's twitter. I admire its purity. A survivor. Unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.
No, wait, that's Ash's speech about the xenomorph...
|by Anonymous||reply 32||12/20/2012|
You can read *anything* on DL, it's full of trolls. Not being out of line with what you've read on DL isn't saying much. His "contrarian" anti-gay comments about Matt Bomer are unforgivable, like something the despicable Camille Paglia would say.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||12/17/2012|
If you believe the rumors that the Bomer attacks were the result of a personal feud, then the ensuing brouhaha was more a reflection of the hypocrisy of the media regarding their coverage of gay issues and their buttressing of institutionalized forms of homophobia than it was Ellis's personal views. Ellis took a kernel of truth - that Bomer would not be cast in the movie because he is gay - gave it an ugly dressing, and let the media do the rest of the work.
As trolling goes, it was unsurpassed.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||12/17/2012|
So you think he's playing 11 dimensional chess. Well that's an interesting theory, and it would make him better than a run-of-the-mill contrarian like Paglia who just says whatever she knows will piss people off for attention.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||12/17/2012|
I just read New York Magazine's review and, indeed, it seems to be unduly influenced by the filmmaker being a woman, as if the message which would have easily been seen as "fascistic" - the review's word, not mine - is easier to take given it comes in a film by a woman with a female protagonist. Blatantly, Edelstein finds this movie it raises so many objections to more palatable because of its feminine helping and that of the mission it portrays.
I have a problem with that. The movie and any sensationalistic and untrue attribution of Bin Laden's downfall and torture should be evaluated objectively; not given a freer ride because Bigelow and her leading player are women.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||12/17/2012|
It wouldn't be the first time that an attractive woman who makes a fascistic film gets a free pass from the critics.
Again, the effectiveness of Ellis's trolling is that it's based on the truth.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||12/17/2012|
Based on a sliver of truth. Ellis is one of the greatest trolls who ever lived.
11 dimensional chess?
He's not nearly smart enough for that.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||12/17/2012|
'trolling as performance art'? Closer to Yoko Ono's singing as performance art
|by Anonymous||reply 9||12/18/2012|
I had to check the early morning bumps to see if BEE was posting them himself.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||12/18/2012|
I just read the whole apology, and I didn't realize that on page 4 he identified himself as a gay man. Is this the first time he's done this?
[quote]But they ultimately revealed a much more layered sexism that, I guess I thought as a gay man, I could get away with since my supposed vitriol about Bigelow was coming from another “oppressed” class.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||12/18/2012|
[quote]It wouldn't be the first time that an attractive woman who makes a fascistic film gets a free pass from the critics.
My understanding is they don't get info from the guy they're interrogating until they start treating him like a human being. This according to the NY Times review.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||12/18/2012|
He's tweeting himself right out of a career. He forgets that he lives in a town where Katherine Bigelow's dog would get a better table at Tower Bar than he ever could (And the dog is probably a better tipper and has better manners). For a guy who writes about the same dated situations over and over, he needs to focus on his own oeuvre and stop trying to make his name appear in the she context of real industry talents.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||12/18/2012|
[quote]Ellis took a kernel of truth - that Bomer would not be cast in the movie because he is gay - gave it an ugly dressing, and let the media do the rest of the work.
First of all, he never said that The Powers That Be would not cast Bomer because he's gay. He said that Matt Bomer The Actor was, as a person, [italic]too gay[/italic] to play the role. There's no "kernel of truth" in the idea that gay people can't play straight unless you're coming from a viewpoint of homophobia.
I'd also like to hear what you think the "kernel of truth" was in his comment that watching Glee was like stepping in puddle of HIV. Please, enlighten us.
That's not to say that he doesn't occasionally, tangentially sideswipe a good point, but to excuse it by implying that he's smart enough to be doing it intentionally as some sort of social experiment is, at best, misguided. And even if he is doing it intentionally, most decent people would be hard-pressed to justify the implicit acceptance and spread of homophobia that accompany his comments.
Having said all that, Bigelow is getting a pass for this movie, but I doubt it's because she's a woman. We live in a world where people think shows like 24 are the way things should be. Even if a man had made this movie, it would still be lauded. I am, however, very glad that BEE finally bit off more than he can chew.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||12/18/2012|
"It wouldn't be the first time that an attractive woman who makes a fascistic film gets a free pass from the critics"
why don't you list the many, many incidents of an "attractive woman" director getting a "free pass"?
|by Anonymous||reply 16||12/18/2012|
R16 asks an excellent question. There are so few female directors, certainly none at Bigelow's level of success in the US. I don't get that "oh they all get a free pass" slam. It makes no sense.
Attractive female director? Ida Lupino. No free pass for her, that's for sure. Leni Riefenstahl? Umm... Nazi!
|by Anonymous||reply 17||12/18/2012|
I'd take him a lot more seriously if he'd ever written a truly important book. But his whole writing career has amounted to little more than pumping out second-rate Joan Didion knockoffs.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||12/18/2012|
My post @ r6 was a direct reference to Riefenstahl... one would hope that was communicated easily enough.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||12/18/2012|
Barbra Streisand and Sofia Coppola are nothing if not gorgeous. And Jane Campion's face could launch 1000 ships!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 21||12/18/2012|
R21 = really, really missing the point.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||12/18/2012|
Penny Marshall has 20 Vogue covers to her name!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 23||12/18/2012|
And rather than re-examining his point, R21 continues on the same tangent.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||12/18/2012|
Bret Easton Ellis is a dick.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||12/18/2012|
So, r19, you think that his "social experiment", if it was that, justified the resulting homophobia?
Regarding the tweets you quoted, are you being deliberately dense or are you just stupid? I realize that it's pointless arguing with a BEE fanboy, but don't insult our intelligence. The first tweet you quoted does in fact imply that Bomer is "too gay". You also conveniently forgot to quote these tweets:
[quote]I am NOT discriminating Matt Bomer because of his sexuality. Fifty Shades of Grey demands an actor that is genuinely into women. Get it?!? August 8, 2012 8:45 am via web Reply Retweet Favorite
[quote]Bret Easton Ellis @BretEastonEllis Bret Easton Ellis I think Matt Bomer is incredibly handsome and a good actor but I think he comes off totally gay in White Collar. And that is why no to CG...
And I'm sure there are others that you left out as well, but I'm also sure that you don't care about facts. No one is saying that he doesn't now and then say something that is true, but does it count if the message gets lost? Does it count if no one notices because they're too busy applauding his homophobia?
Finally, I'm waiting with bated breath to hear where the truth lay in his "puddle of HIV" comments. Please, do answer. I can't wait to hear what you could possibly have to say that doesn't revolve around excusing homophobia. "Haha, anything stereotypically gay or eff*eminate will give you HIV!! Haha! Because the gays all have AIDS!! Get it? Hahaha!" Fuck off, homophobe.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||12/18/2012|
First of all, you stupid tool, I never said the homophobia was justified. Stop trying to adjust my argument to suit your agenda. And the inference that he was "too gay" for the role is something that was articulated by the mainstream press, and, frankly, people like you. Ellis only implied it, but he never actually said it. You (and the media) are accomplishing Ellis's goal (which was revenge, not a social experiment) by articulating his tweets into the idea that an actor could be "too gay" to play a part. There's no particular reason for Ellis's tweets to have any power unless you give them power. You are the perfect tool.
As far as the HIV comment, it was a nasty, flippant, bitchy comment simply for the sake of making a nasty, flippant, bitchy comment. Trolling. It doesn't bother me because I don't give it any credence. But you, for some reason, need a misanthropic author to validate your lifestyle, so I'll let you deal with that on your own.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||12/18/2012|
So, OP, when are you gonna apologize for misspelling her first name?
|by Anonymous||reply 28||12/18/2012|
Katherine Bigelow is hot. I cannot believe this woman is 61 years old.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||12/19/2012|
She's hot, but that isn't why she gets work or is a good director.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||12/19/2012|
[quote]She's hot, but that isn't why she gets work or is a good director.
You must be really naive to think that her being hot didn't help her in her career... in Hollywood of all places.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||12/19/2012|
The New Republic on Bret Easton Ellis and Twitter
|by Anonymous||reply 32||12/20/2012|