I'm not very knowledgable about Frida Kahlo but I was a little nonplussed by the throwaway line about the film "Frida" and Harvey Weinstein. It seems like a guilt-by-association tactic. Its been a while since I saw it but my recollection is Julie Taymor's film doesn't seem to fall into trap that she claims of the other "fridolatry". It certainly doesn't portray her as a passive victim, but as an active creator of her life and art.
OK, let's get into the grays then. Did you read the article? She didn't put up with Weinstein to get to the point she was at before making Frida. She wasn't looking for fame with this particular film. She wanted to tell an important story. It was something beyond herself. "I did not care about the money," she says.
That aside, you do have a point. If people like Hayek would "just say no," and give up on their crazy ambitions this wouldn't ever happen. It's really that simple. That's what you are saying, right?
We are talking about sexual harassment here. How could nudity not be the problem? The fact that nudity in film is common allowed Harvey the pretense to demand full-frontal nudity, "the senseless scene," as Hayek described it.
The point I'm trying to make, apparently too subtly, is, how many nude scenes were coerced just like Hayek describes the one in Frida in order to satisfy the lusts of the male director/producer/writer just like this? It doesn't seem far-fetched, with all the revelations of sexual harassment coming out, that it's a lot of them.
Maybe it's so many that we should simply not tolerate nudity in films. If there was some way to certify that the nude scene wasn't "forced" then it would be OK, but if we accept that this was an act of force on Weinstein's part (Salma could have chosen not to do the movie, yet we all seem to agree this was still evil on the part of Weinstein), then how could that certification ever be done?
I'll probably get downvotes, but here goes: I liked the ad, it moved me, it didn't bother that it was from a big corporation (re the discussion below). What bothers me in ads, and in movies etc, is how the men can always be some regular looking man, sometimes even ugly, while the women always have to be very attractive. I know I'll get called on for being too P.C. for this but c'mon, does it always have to be a very attractive indian girl? Does Virginia Woolf need to be played by Nicole Kidman? Salma Hayek as Frida Kahlo? The biopics about men aren't always played by Tom Cruises.
Hacker Cinema
4 comments on Hacker News
I'm not very knowledgable about Frida Kahlo but I was a little nonplussed by the throwaway line about the film "Frida" and Harvey Weinstein. It seems like a guilt-by-association tactic. Its been a while since I saw it but my recollection is Julie Taymor's film doesn't seem to fall into trap that she claims of the other "fridolatry". It certainly doesn't portray her as a passive victim, but as an active creator of her life and art.
OK, let's get into the grays then. Did you read the article? She didn't put up with Weinstein to get to the point she was at before making Frida. She wasn't looking for fame with this particular film. She wanted to tell an important story. It was something beyond herself. "I did not care about the money," she says.
That aside, you do have a point. If people like Hayek would "just say no," and give up on their crazy ambitions this wouldn't ever happen. It's really that simple. That's what you are saying, right?
We are talking about sexual harassment here. How could nudity not be the problem? The fact that nudity in film is common allowed Harvey the pretense to demand full-frontal nudity, "the senseless scene," as Hayek described it.
The point I'm trying to make, apparently too subtly, is, how many nude scenes were coerced just like Hayek describes the one in Frida in order to satisfy the lusts of the male director/producer/writer just like this? It doesn't seem far-fetched, with all the revelations of sexual harassment coming out, that it's a lot of them.
Maybe it's so many that we should simply not tolerate nudity in films. If there was some way to certify that the nude scene wasn't "forced" then it would be OK, but if we accept that this was an act of force on Weinstein's part (Salma could have chosen not to do the movie, yet we all seem to agree this was still evil on the part of Weinstein), then how could that certification ever be done?
I'll probably get downvotes, but here goes: I liked the ad, it moved me, it didn't bother that it was from a big corporation (re the discussion below). What bothers me in ads, and in movies etc, is how the men can always be some regular looking man, sometimes even ugly, while the women always have to be very attractive. I know I'll get called on for being too P.C. for this but c'mon, does it always have to be a very attractive indian girl? Does Virginia Woolf need to be played by Nicole Kidman? Salma Hayek as Frida Kahlo? The biopics about men aren't always played by Tom Cruises.