site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   33053 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 19, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

10
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Alternatively, an actress who refuses the casting couch does not really want the role, and will be trouble on set. The casting couch is a quick and reliable way to see if actresses are biddable. Can you think of a better test to see if an actress is willing to do what the director asks her to?

I wonder what the corresponding task you should set a man is? Perhaps very similar.

I wonder what the corresponding task you should set a man is? Perhaps very similar.

Several hundred hours of grinding leetcode is plausibly more degrading...

Can you think of a better test to see if an actress is willing to do what the director asks her to?

This goes back to the OP's original observation about the principal-agent problem. Film is a collaborative medium; while it might be in the director's interest to have an actress who does whatever he or she says, it is not necessarily in the interests of the producers of the film.

it is not necessarily in the interests of the producers of the film.

This is why producers are the ones who run the casting couch, presumably. It is their money on the line, so they make the decision.

As Wikipedia says:

Predominantly male casting directors and film producers use the casting couch to extract sex from aspiring actors in Hollywood, Bollywood,[3][4] Broadway, and other segments of the industry.

Neither [3] nor [4] give any evidence for the claim "Predominantly". If there is a female producer or casting director using the couch, she is flying under the radar.

This is why producers are the ones who run the casting couch, presumably. It is their money on the line, so they make the decision.

I am talking about the production company .

Weinstein was the co-owner (with his brother) and founder of Miramax, the production company that made Sex, Lies, and Videotape, Pulp Fiction, Heavenly Creatures, Flirting with Disaster, and Shakespeare in Love. It was his money on the line.

I am talking** in general**, not specifically re Weinstein. The casting couch existed long before Weinstein was born. Plus, Miramax was owned by Disney for much of the time inquestion.

Producers are the usual people to run a casting couch, and they normally own a large part of the production company.

The casting couch was more common under the studio system, but I do not know if the movie moguls were the ones on top at the time: They were Louis B. Mayer at MGM, Jack L. Warner at Warner Bros., Adolph Zukor at Paramount, William Fox and Darryl F. Zanuck (at 20th Century Fox from 1935), Carl Laemmle at Universal, and Harry Cohn at Columbia.

If someone has to have sex with the new young starlets, I imagine the job, like most difficult things, is past off to the guy in charge. If you want something done, ask a busy person.

At most, that diminishes the principal-agent problem somewhat, rather than eliminating it. And, films have numerous producers and numerous production companies. Moreover, producers might raise money, but they do not necessarily, or even normally, put up the money.

Can you think of a better test to see if an actress is willing to do what the director asks her to?

How about something difficult that isn't immoral and which won't risk tanking your reputation and getting you into legal trouble?

Even if there's merit to the idea of giving actresses tests which are overkill relative to the actual demands of the job, for an executive to assert that this test must be sex is odd, clearly in danger of being motivated by sexual desire alone, and risky for business.

Parkinson suggested the following test to reduce the number of candidates for an attractive position:

Let us suppose that the qualities deemed essential are (i) Energy, (2) Courage, (3) Patriotism, (4) Experience, (5 )Popularity, and (6) Eloquence. Now, it will be observed that all these are general-qualities which all possible applicants would believe themselves to possess. The field could readily, of course, be narrowed by stipulating (4) Experience of lion-taming, or (6) Eloquence in Mandarin. But that is not the way in which we want to narrow the field. We do not want to stipulate aquality in a special form; rather, each quality in an exceptional degree. In other words, the successful candidate must be the most energetic,courageous, patriotic, experienced, popular, and eloquent man in thecountry. Only one man can answer to that description and his is the only application we want. The terms of the appointment must thus be phrased so as to exclude everyone else. We should therefore word the advertisement in some such way as follows:

Wanted– Prime Minister of Ruritania. Hours of work: 4 A.M. to 11.59 P.M. Candidates must be prepared to fight three rounds with the current heavyweight champion (regulation gloves to be worn). Candidates will die for their country, by painless means, on reaching the age of retirement (65). They will have to pass an examination in parliamentary procedure and will be liquidated should they fail to obtain 95% marks. They will also be liquidated if they fail to gain 75% votes in a popularity poll held under the Gallup Rules. They will finally be invited to try their eloquence on a Baptist Congress, the object being to induce those present to rock and roll. Those who fail will be liquidated. All candidates should present themselves at the Sporting Club (side entrance) at 11.15 A.M. on the morning of September 19. Gloves will be provided, but they should bring their own rubber-soled shoes, singlet, and shorts.

It is very hard to find a test that will distinguish the people who want the job from the people who really, really want the job. For an actress, the major issues that come up are a willingness to get naked on camera and pretending to engage in quite atypical actions (for some reason, this seems to be the sticking point for most actresses. They object to nude scenes, but not to killing people, defacing works of art, or jaywalking). How can you test if an actress is willing to do this? Some things come to mind but are significantly weirder than the casting couch.

Feminists will doubtless suggest that movies should not have gratuitous nudity. That raises the question as to whether the nudity is gratuitous or not. My guess is that Gwyneth Palthow's performance in Shakespeare in Love would have been received differently if she had worn more clothing, and thus Weinstein got the job done. Julia Roberts, who was supposed to get the role had a policy of keeping her top on. I could be completely wrong about this, but there certainly is a trend for more female nudity after a lull. We are now back to 70s-era levels of nudity in films, and especially in cable channels (or whatever they are called now), and possibly beyond that. Hollywood could be wrong, and perhaps more people would watch movies if there was less nudity, but "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." The same perhaps applies to morals.

Alternatively, an actress who refuses the casting couch does not really want the role, and will be trouble on set.

This makes the assumption that normal humans treat sex like ordinary financial transactions. This assumption is false.

This makes the assumption that normal humans treat sex like ordinary financial transactions. This assumption is false.

I don't think Hollywood actors are normal people. Asking the actress for money would not be the same kind of test at all. You need a test that will show that the actress is willing to do whatever it takes. Acting is weird, and people do things in movies that are very out of character, as people like watching strange things. Furthermore, directors think that they know best and want people who will do what they say.

Consider Ms Depp's recent show, The Idol, (which to be honest, I have not watched). My faith in humanity suggests that less than 1% of women would consider acting in that role. Much of modern film is probably indistinguishable from pornography on set at times.

I think that the casting couch is deeply immoral, but I understand why it reliably selects actresses who are desperate and willing to do anything to get and keep a role. There is a difference between understanding how something functions and approving of it.

The point is that plenty of people are willing to do "anything at all" as long as the anything at all doesn't involve sex. Sex is treated differently and you can't conclude much about unwillingness to do other things based on unwillingness to sleep her way into the job.

(And for nitpickers, no, I don't mean that people would be willing to murder to get the job.)

you can't conclude much about unwillingness to do other things based on unwillingness to sleep her way into the job.

Much of the difficult things that actresses are asked to do involve simulating sex. Hence Ms. Depp in the above post. Game of Thrones pushes the line a little beyond simulating at times. If actors were made fight other people with swords, joust (incidentally, the only jousting school is in LA. Can you guess why?), jump out of planes (with and without parachutes), and scale high buildings, cliffs, etc. then this might be analogous. Some actors actually do these things, and allegedly their movies are the better for it. You test actresses with sex as that is the thing they are most likely to balk at on the actual job.

For example, just today Joanna Lumley complained about nudity in movies.

you can't conclude much about unwillingness to do other things based on unwillingness to sleep her way into the job.

Much of the difficult things that actresses are asked to do involve simulating sex.

You can't conclude much about unwillingness to do other things, which includes simulating sex, based on unwillingness to sleep her way into the job.

Human beings aren't like that.

You can't conclude much about unwillingness to do other things, which includes simulating sex, based on unwillingness to sleep her way into the job.

Girls who are willing to sleep with people for roles are usually willing to simulate sex on screen. At least, that is what I am told. To be honest, I find the idea that there would be a strong correlation between the two things plausible. They both involve sex.

This kind of logic is not applied to any other activity one might simulate in a movie that I'm aware of. No one makes action mains win a real bare-knuckle fight (or throw one, depending on the script) to test their willingness to act out a fight in a movie. (Though I admit, it would be rather karmic if one of those exploitative directors got knocked out by a tryout).

I do not believe "it's just picking for willingness to follow instructions" is honest advocacy for the casting couch, not for a second. I'm sure next time you're looking for a job and your interviewer plays games with you "to test for proper attitude, flexibility etc." you won't buy that kind of shit.

I'm sure next time you're looking for a job and your interviewer plays games with you "to test for proper attitude, flexibility etc." you won't buy that kind of shit.

I was in a restaurant, where at the next table a group of lawyers were having lunch with a prospective candidate. All was going well until the senior lawyer said to the hire, "Everything looks good, but we like to be on a first-name basis in our firm, and we already have a Lisa. Would you consider changing your name?" The guy was playing games and as I am not a lawyer, I do not know what the right answer was. Interviewers play games. That is the entire point of interviews, as far as I can see. They exist to test the candidate.

Actors are regularly tested on their ability to plausibly act in sports movies. Sir John Gielgud could act, but all his thespian skills could not avail him when a tight spiral was required.

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats