Has anyone heard about the recent Shia LaBeouf incident?
In a nutshell, less than a year ago he ripped off an art installation by Marina Abramovic, wherein he invited people to sit across from him while he did nothing in response.
He now says a woman raped him during this art piece. He did nothing to ward her off, as that was the point of the show.
I'm not saying it wasn't rape, and I am loathe to victim blame in most cases, but... at what point do you just say "fuck art" and ward off the rapist?
(edited for title trigger warning)
The other artists involved have said they got her off him and threw her out. I can see it being ... traumatic/shocking enough that he didn't know what was happening at first.
I mean, I don't think he's said he didn't fight her off because of the art. He's said that afterwards he was just hurt and horrified.
What I find more difficult to understand is why the other artists threw the woman out rather than getting the police involved.
(Also, Abramovic has said she sees his art as something very different and unrelated to hers, for what that's worth. Not that I have any particular interest in him)
Yeah I haven't seen anything anywhere saying that he didn't defend himself because art.
Sexual assault is weird. It's just so surreal you don't know what to do. It's like a carjacking or a home invasion; some people are going to fight back, some people are going to run away, but the vast majority are going to go into a numb compliant shock.
I will say the number of people going 'if he got hard then he must have wanted it' or similar is really horrifying.
There's been a lot of scepticism about this - some newspaper websites have even put the word rape in scare quotes, which... I mean, okay, maybe it wasn't technically rape, but at best it was sexual assault.
There's also a huge amount of assumptions being thrown around about what actually happened. We don't know any sticky details - but people have been assuming he got an erection, and that if he did, that somehow makes it less violating. I don't have any strong feelings about Shia really; he seems like someone who had a bit of a fame-induced meltdown, which is hardly unique, but I don't know the first thing about him as a person. I do think the attitudes this is exposing in commentators and the media betrays some very nasty truths about how victims of sexual abuse are treated, particularly when they are perceived in some way to 'deserve' it.
(I don't mean in any way that you're guilty of perpetuating these attitudes, Hoopla, but it is a trend I've noticed on news sites in general)
Quote from: Demolition Squid on November 30, 2014, 04:20:55 PM
I will say the number of people going 'if he got hard then he must have wanted it' or similar is really horrifying.
There's been a lot of scepticism about this - some newspaper websites have even put the word rape in scare quotes, which... I mean, okay, maybe it wasn't technically rape, but at best it was sexual assault.
There's also a huge amount of assumptions being thrown around about what actually happened. We don't know any sticky details - but people have been assuming he got an erection, and that if he did, that somehow makes it less violating. I don't have any strong feelings about Shia really; he seems like someone who had a bit of a fame-induced meltdown, which is hardly unique, but I don't know the first thing about him as a person. I do think the attitudes this is exposing in commentators and the media betrays some very nasty truths about how victims of sexual abuse are treated, particularly when they are perceived in some way to 'deserve' it.
(I don't mean in any way that you're guilty of perpetuating these attitudes, Hoopla, but it is a trend I've noticed on news sites in general)
I'm especially disturbed by the "if he got an erection then he must have wanted it" line of reasoning, because it's such a parallel with "the body has ways of shutting these things down" type thinking. The body does what the body does; autonomic function like sexual arousal and pregnancy can happen
whether we want them to or not.
Fear and conflict also cause sexual arousal.
I hadn't heard about this at all, but since this is the internet, I wont let that stop me from offering my opinion.
He was probably in shock that someone attacked him. Adrenal dumps can really mess people up if they're not prepared for it, and most people aren't. I mean, there's a reason ambush tactics are frequently so successful.
Rape's probably too strong a term, but sexual assault isn't, and if he's feeling that violated...well I can see why he might use the term, even if it's not the best one to describe what happened. And yes, the erection thing is disturbing. Involuntary reactions are basic science...although given a lot of people are still struggling with evolution, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised.
From what little I've read, it sounds like there was penetration. So, yeah, rape.
Oh right, well then yeah, in that case, absolutely. Like I said, opinionating without knowledge :p
I haven't really been following this, but it should be interesting to see how the public reacts to it. Female-on-male rape isn't a very well-known phenomenon, and it directly contradicts a lot of stereotypes and commonly-held preconceptions about gender roles. I think it's pretty telling that so far they seem to be treating him not much differently from how they treat rape victims in general. There is definitely an element of sexism to the treatment female rape victims receive(Shia Labeouf probably hasn't gotten any threats, for example, or been told he was asking for it the way he was dressed), but maybe it isn't as significant to their ostracization as is often assumed. It seems apparent, to me at least, that the role of the rape victim is itself one that our culture views as intrinsically contemptible, and that people in general are trained to subject to scrutiny.
It's really simple: If someone has sex with someone else who hasn't consented, it is by definition "rape". Claiming that if it was rape, he wouldn't get hard, sounds a whole lot like "she wanted it".
My understanding of the situation was that the only way this event was allowed to transpire was precisely because Shia didn't resist. Because that was the point of the piece. People were "allowed" to do whatever they wanted, and he wasn't going to physically react.
My point wasn't that what transpired wasn't rape; it clearly was.
My question was, if a situation in an art installation becomes that uncomfortable, at what point does one reasonably pack it in and break the art wall?
I should have named the thread differently, because my interest isn't really in this particular story, but in this kind of situation.
When art turns into something horrible.
The not resisting argument only has foundation in the strange behaviour he's presented in the last year. Paralysed with fear or otherwise unsure how to act to exit a situation is an all too common scenario.
The reason he is facing unfounded ridicule and lack of support is mostly his peculiar behaviour over the last year.
He was in Lars Von triers Nymphomaniac (Part I is pretty well made and occasionally funny, part II is puerile garbage).
Over the last year he plagiarised other peoples work, then plagiarised the defences verbatim from other artists defending against accusations of plagiarism.
That was really only the start of some very bonkers behaviour which has led to widespread mistrust of Labeouf and this odd concept that everything he was doing was a publicity stunt somehow masterminded by Von Trier.
They might be right about all the weird stuff up until this, but I cant see anyone saying something as awful as this for a publicity stunt.
Quote from: Hoopla on November 30, 2014, 09:26:58 PM
I should have named the thread differently, because my interest isn't really in this particular story, but in this kind of situation.
When art turns into something horrible.
I believe if the intent is art, including a premeditated understanding that rape could occur, then its either entirely art without rape or, rape without it any longer being art.
The only reason I hold this belief is because the only alternative is that it is possible to have degrees and shades of grey where it both art and rape, which is not a concept I am willing to entertain at this point because it gives rise to the concept of any dark aspect being explored as performance art.
Sure there are loads of art concepts and statements that could be examined through murder but it's artistic value would be suspect.
Quote from: 🅵🅰🆄🆂🆃 on November 30, 2014, 09:33:29 PM
The not resisting argument only has foundation in the strange behaviour he's presented in the last year. Paralysed with fear or otherwise unsure how to act to exit a situation is an all too common scenario.
The reason he is facing unfounded ridicule and lack of support is mostly his peculiar behaviour over the last year.
He was in Lars Von triers Nymphomaniac (Part I is pretty well made and occasionally funny, part II is puerile garbage).
Over the last year he plagiarised other peoples work, then plagiarised the defences verbatim from other artists defending against accusations of plagiarism.
That was really only the start of some very bonkers behaviour which has led to widespread mistrust of Labeouf and this odd concept that everything he was doing was a publicity stunt somehow masterminded by Von Trier.
They might be right about all the weird stuff up until this, but I cant see anyone saying something as awful as this for a publicity stunt.
I don't see it as a publicity stunt at all, I see it as a misguided dedication to art.
Quote from: Hoopla on November 30, 2014, 09:36:34 PM
Quote from: 🅵🅰🆄🆂🆃 on November 30, 2014, 09:33:29 PM
The not resisting argument only has foundation in the strange behaviour he's presented in the last year. Paralysed with fear or otherwise unsure how to act to exit a situation is an all too common scenario.
The reason he is facing unfounded ridicule and lack of support is mostly his peculiar behaviour over the last year.
He was in Lars Von triers Nymphomaniac (Part I is pretty well made and occasionally funny, part II is puerile garbage).
Over the last year he plagiarised other peoples work, then plagiarised the defences verbatim from other artists defending against accusations of plagiarism.
That was really only the start of some very bonkers behaviour which has led to widespread mistrust of Labeouf and this odd concept that everything he was doing was a publicity stunt somehow masterminded by Von Trier.
They might be right about all the weird stuff up until this, but I cant see anyone saying something as awful as this for a publicity stunt.
I don't see it as a publicity stunt at all, I see it as a misguided dedication to art.
I don't either, but because the last year has been publicity stunts so the lad has been getting accusations that it is.
Quote from: 🅵🅰🆄🆂🆃 on November 30, 2014, 09:35:45 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 30, 2014, 09:26:58 PM
I should have named the thread differently, because my interest isn't really in this particular story, but in this kind of situation.
When art turns into something horrible.
I believe if the intent is art, including a premeditated understanding that rape could occur, then its either entirely art without rape or, rape without it any longer being art.
The only reason I hold this belief is because the only alternative is that it is possible to have degrees and shades of grey where it both art and rape, which is not a concept I am willing to entertain at this point because it gives rise to the concept of any dark aspect being explored as performance art.
Sure there are loads of art concepts and statements that could be examined through murder but it's artistic value would be suspect.
That's what I'm interested in though... what
is the line?
About ten years ago there was an "artist" in toronto whose method of art (initially) was to throw up neon shades of jello onto well known paintings.
A tad pedestrian, perhaps?
He then went on to skinning cats on video, in the name of making some sort of point about cruelty in the fur industry. He claimed the cat skinning was legitimate art.
I don't personlly think it is, I believe it crosses that line you're talking about.
But then... Sometimes I wonder. Can something horrible be art? I don't mean aesthetically horrible, or there would be no Group of Seven paintings. I mean like... skinning cats horrible.
The Zodaic Killers cryptography has this haunting aesthetic to it:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0uZf0dCIAAwQu_.png)
But that's not really what you mean. You're talking about the guy who murders everyone in the phone book who's name is a palindrome.
There is no boundary. Art is difficult enough to define without involving acts of cruelty and harm.
Quote from: 🅵🅰🆄🆂🆃 on November 30, 2014, 09:48:50 PM
The Zodaic Killers cryptography has this haunting aesthetic to it:
But that's not really what you mean. You're talking about the guy who murders everyone in the phone book who's name is a palindrome.
There is no boundary. Art is difficult enough to define without involving acts of cruelty and harm.
I think art's easy enough to define: stimulation with aesthetic intent. And atrocities can fall under this definition. Art, in our culture, comes with underpinnings of glorification, this attitude that to call something art is to somehow validate it, but I don't think that necessarily has to be the case. I think it arises from nothing more than semantic confusion involving blanket statements like "I love art" or "I support the arts". Because horrific acts can fall under the definition of "art", it becomes easy to accuse a patron of the arts of supporting morally reprehensible acts, and therefore necessary for them to defend themselves and art itself by employing the No True Scotsman fallacy. And nobody calls them on it, because art's not supposed to be logical, right? But a fallacy it remains.
Quote from: President Television on November 30, 2014, 10:00:11 PM
stimulation with aesthetic intent
I love this definition. I was trying to think of one which didn't amount to "it's pretty", but I've had a couple martinis, and probably shouldn't be posting at all.
Quote from: Hoopla on November 30, 2014, 09:08:33 PM
My understanding of the situation was that the only way this event was allowed to transpire was precisely because Shia didn't resist. Because that was the point of the piece. People were "allowed" to do whatever they wanted, and he wasn't going to physically react.
My point wasn't that what transpired wasn't rape; it clearly was.
My question was, if a situation in an art installation becomes that uncomfortable, at what point does one reasonably pack it in and break the art wall?
Can you link to a source for this? Because:
Quote"Nowhere did we state that people could do whatever they wanted to Shia during #IAMSORRY.
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/nov/30/shia-labeouf-collaborators-turner-ronkko-speak-alleged-rape-iamsorry-art-show
Basically, I haven't found anything, anywhere, that supports the claim that he didn't resist the assault because passivity was part of the performance. It seems a little far-fetched.
Yeah. I haven't commented because 1) I have a negative Shia bias, and 2) I haven't read anything about the performance, nor how it was designed, placed, or presented.
Quote from: Hoopla on November 30, 2014, 10:06:36 PM
Quote from: President Television on November 30, 2014, 10:00:11 PM
stimulation with aesthetic intent
I love this definition. I was trying to think of one which didn't amount to "it's pretty", but I've had a couple martinis, and probably shouldn't be posting at all.
I was so glad when I thought of it, because until then I'd basically been thinking along the lines you just specified, but that definition always failed when Dada came up. But intention of ugliness is still aesthetic intent, right? I figure it works.
Quote from: President Television on November 30, 2014, 10:17:23 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 30, 2014, 10:06:36 PM
Quote from: President Television on November 30, 2014, 10:00:11 PM
stimulation with aesthetic intent
I love this definition. I was trying to think of one which didn't amount to "it's pretty", but I've had a couple martinis, and probably shouldn't be posting at all.
I was so glad when I thought of it, because until then I'd basically been thinking along the lines you just specified, but that definition always failed when Dada came up. But intention of ugliness is still aesthetic intent, right? I figure it works.
Its good, It blurs the line on media intended for consumption and media created for artistic craft though and pushes it into the deeply subjective territory. For instance I find less and less artistic merit to computer games then once I did, but under this definition all media is art.
Quote from: 🅵🅰🆄🆂🆃 on November 30, 2014, 10:21:38 PM
Quote from: President Television on November 30, 2014, 10:17:23 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 30, 2014, 10:06:36 PM
Quote from: President Television on November 30, 2014, 10:00:11 PM
stimulation with aesthetic intent
I love this definition. I was trying to think of one which didn't amount to "it's pretty", but I've had a couple martinis, and probably shouldn't be posting at all.
I was so glad when I thought of it, because until then I'd basically been thinking along the lines you just specified, but that definition always failed when Dada came up. But intention of ugliness is still aesthetic intent, right? I figure it works.
Its good, It blurs the line on media intended for consumption and media created for artistic craft though and pushes it into the deeply subjective territory. For instance I find less and less artistic merit to computer games then once I did, but under this definition all media is art.
Eh. It covers art. There's no guarantee of quality.
Anyway, I thought we were talking about Shia LaBeouf and rape culture or something.
Is this conversation boiling down to "what is art"? Because if it is, the only rubric for defining art that I've used for years is "does someone think it's art? Then yes."
If the question is "is it going too far to be raped for art?" I guess my return question is what do you mean by "too far"?
Quote from: President Television on November 30, 2014, 10:31:36 PM
Quote from: 🅵🅰🆄🆂🆃 on November 30, 2014, 10:21:38 PM
Quote from: President Television on November 30, 2014, 10:17:23 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 30, 2014, 10:06:36 PM
Quote from: President Television on November 30, 2014, 10:00:11 PM
stimulation with aesthetic intent
I love this definition. I was trying to think of one which didn't amount to "it's pretty", but I've had a couple martinis, and probably shouldn't be posting at all.
I was so glad when I thought of it, because until then I'd basically been thinking along the lines you just specified, but that definition always failed when Dada came up. But intention of ugliness is still aesthetic intent, right? I figure it works.
Its good, It blurs the line on media intended for consumption and media created for artistic craft though and pushes it into the deeply subjective territory. For instance I find less and less artistic merit to computer games then once I did, but under this definition all media is art.
Eh. It covers art. There's no guarantee of quality.
Anyway, I thought we were talking about Shia LaBeouf and rape culture or something.
It seemed like we started off talking about that, but then I think it switched gears to a discussion of morally and ethically abhorrent acts in pursuit of art.
Maybe, but I think were still on topic, if not circling the definition of art too closely.
Quote from: Hoopla on November 30, 2014, 09:26:58 PM
I should have named the thread differently, because my interest isn't really in this particular story, but in this kind of situation.
When art turns into something horrible.
Harm is entirely where I can't engage. For instance the display of human bodies in germany, I think is fascinating to look at and intriguing from the point of view of anatomy, posture, musculatory systems which are really hard to draw, no one was harmed, the people were already dead and had donated their bodies to the science. Skinning cats to me seems like unnecessarily inflicting harm on a creature. It lessens the value of the piece to me.
There was another exhibit in Spain I saw over the summer where the artist would cut her hands repeatedly over the course of many months, always in the same place (some statement on repetition and authenticity in art) and another where she chews broken glass, again I couldn't engage, I guess I get the concepts but am repulsed.
Many interesting points in this thread.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 30, 2014, 10:09:55 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 30, 2014, 09:08:33 PM
My understanding of the situation was that the only way this event was allowed to transpire was precisely because Shia didn't resist. Because that was the point of the piece. People were "allowed" to do whatever they wanted, and he wasn't going to physically react.
My point wasn't that what transpired wasn't rape; it clearly was.
My question was, if a situation in an art installation becomes that uncomfortable, at what point does one reasonably pack it in and break the art wall?
Can you link to a source for this? Because:
Quote"Nowhere did we state that people could do whatever they wanted to Shia during #IAMSORRY.
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/nov/30/shia-labeouf-collaborators-turner-ronkko-speak-alleged-rape-iamsorry-art-show
QuoteOne woman who came with her boyfriend, who was outside the door when this happened, whipped my legs for 10 minutes and then stripped my clothing and proceeded to rape me."
His collaborators, British artist Luke Turner and Finnish artist Nastja Säde Rönkkö, said they had intervened as soon as they became aware of the incident and "put a stop to it".
The woman whipped his legs for ten minutes, stripped him, and raped him... before the other two were able to notice, and stop it. We can infer from this that at no time did Shia stop her. Possibly from shock, but he could have stopped her at any point during the whipping, but didn't. I doubt he anticipated it would go as far as it did... but I can't imagine having the commitment to art to sit it out until my collaborators came to rescue me.
I suppose this thread is the result of some sort of mix of incredulity and berserk hero worship on my part. Is this making any sense?
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2014, 12:47:18 AM
.
I suppose this thread is the result of some sort of mix of incredulity and berserk hero worship on my part. Is this making any sense?
Shia Lebouf as a
hero?
He's the Yoko Ono of his generation.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 12:56:35 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2014, 12:47:18 AM
.
I suppose this thread is the result of some sort of mix of incredulity and berserk hero worship on my part. Is this making any sense?
Shia Lebouf as a hero?
He's the Yoko Ono of his generation.
I can't imagine having
that much commitment to an idea, so I admire him in a certain sense.
Also, I like Yoko.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2014, 12:47:18 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 30, 2014, 10:09:55 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 30, 2014, 09:08:33 PM
My understanding of the situation was that the only way this event was allowed to transpire was precisely because Shia didn't resist. Because that was the point of the piece. People were "allowed" to do whatever they wanted, and he wasn't going to physically react.
My point wasn't that what transpired wasn't rape; it clearly was.
My question was, if a situation in an art installation becomes that uncomfortable, at what point does one reasonably pack it in and break the art wall?
Can you link to a source for this? Because:
Quote"Nowhere did we state that people could do whatever they wanted to Shia during #IAMSORRY.
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/nov/30/shia-labeouf-collaborators-turner-ronkko-speak-alleged-rape-iamsorry-art-show
QuoteOne woman who came with her boyfriend, who was outside the door when this happened, whipped my legs for 10 minutes and then stripped my clothing and proceeded to rape me."
His collaborators, British artist Luke Turner and Finnish artist Nastja Säde Rönkkö, said they had intervened as soon as they became aware of the incident and "put a stop to it".
The woman whipped his legs for ten minutes, stripped him, and raped him... before the other two were able to notice, and stop it. We can infer from this that at no time did Shia stop her. Possibly from shock, but he could have stopped her at any point during the whipping, but didn't. I doubt he anticipated it would go as far as it did... but I can't imagine having the commitment to art to sit it out until my collaborators came to rescue me.
I suppose this thread is the result of some sort of mix of incredulity and berserk hero worship on my part. Is this making any sense?
I don't know if you've ever been assaulted, but having the ideal reaction to it is pretty rare.
I feel like I should ask... if you heard this same story, but it was a woman being assaulted by a man, would you also be incredulous that she did nothing to stop the assault?
I am not accusing you of sexism, I am just wondering whether you have some mental models you might want to examine a little more closely, because I don't find it at all strange or confusing that he didn't resist the assault.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 01, 2014, 01:24:05 AM
I feel like I should ask... if you heard this same story, but it was a woman being assaulted by a man, would you also be incredulous that she did nothing to stop the assault?
I am not accusing you of sexism, I am just wondering whether you have some mental models you might want to examine a little more closely, because I don't find it at all strange or confusing that he didn't resist the assault.
I find it strange that anyone who was in an art instillation with two associates in the other room wouldn't at least call out for assistance, yes. Male or female.
This wasn't an alley, or a college dorm room. It was an
art instillation with two associates in the other room.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2014, 01:29:02 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 01, 2014, 01:24:05 AM
I feel like I should ask... if you heard this same story, but it was a woman being assaulted by a man, would you also be incredulous that she did nothing to stop the assault?
I am not accusing you of sexism, I am just wondering whether you have some mental models you might want to examine a little more closely, because I don't find it at all strange or confusing that he didn't resist the assault.
I find it strange that anyone who was in an art instillation with two associates in the other room wouldn't at least call out for assistance, yes. Male or female.
This wasn't an alley, or a college dorm room. It was an art instillation with two associates in the other room.
When you're being sexually assaulted or raped, a lot of the time you don't want to draw attention. It's an irrational kneejerk reaction, but you don't want anyone to see what's going on out of fear and shame, and that aversion is stronger than the rational knowledge that other people can get you out of your predicament. Yes, this does last for the entire duration quite a bit of the time. Hell, in my experience it can last for days, weeks, or years after the fact.
That last post of mine was pretty cold and unsympathetic. I've never been in a sexual assault, so it's impossible for me to theorize. Obviously.
It is a difficult scenario for me to visualize, which only illustrates how out of depth of knowledge I am. I'm truly sorry if I've offended, or inadvertently triggered, anyone.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2014, 01:29:02 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 01, 2014, 01:24:05 AM
I feel like I should ask... if you heard this same story, but it was a woman being assaulted by a man, would you also be incredulous that she did nothing to stop the assault?
I am not accusing you of sexism, I am just wondering whether you have some mental models you might want to examine a little more closely, because I don't find it at all strange or confusing that he didn't resist the assault.
I find it strange that anyone who was in an art instillation with two associates in the other room wouldn't at least call out for assistance, yes. Male or female.
This wasn't an alley, or a college dorm room. It was an art instillation with two associates in the other room.
A. One common effect of sudden threat on the autonomous nervous system is being unable to make a sound. Women are frequently asked "why didn't you scream?"
B. I'm not sure that any of us know what the acoustic properties of the room are, or what the environment his colleagues were in was like. Was there music? Was it noisy? Was the room soundproofed against street noise? Was it down the hall?
So I'm going to ask you the same question again: If it was a woman who reported being assaulted, beaten with a whip, and raped, in a closed room with other people in a nearby room, would you question the rape by asking why she did not scream or fight back?
Quote from: President Television on December 01, 2014, 01:36:48 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2014, 01:29:02 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 01, 2014, 01:24:05 AM
I feel like I should ask... if you heard this same story, but it was a woman being assaulted by a man, would you also be incredulous that she did nothing to stop the assault?
I am not accusing you of sexism, I am just wondering whether you have some mental models you might want to examine a little more closely, because I don't find it at all strange or confusing that he didn't resist the assault.
I find it strange that anyone who was in an art instillation with two associates in the other room wouldn't at least call out for assistance, yes. Male or female.
This wasn't an alley, or a college dorm room. It was an art instillation with two associates in the other room.
When you're being sexually assaulted or raped, a lot of the time you don't want to draw attention. It's an irrational kneejerk reaction, but you don't want anyone to see what's going on out of fear and shame, and that aversion is stronger than the rational knowledge that other people can get you out of your predicament. Yes, this does last for the entire duration quite a bit of the time. Hell, in my experience it can last for days, weeks, or years after the fact.
Yes.
It might sound weird, but rape, and sexual assault in general, is embarrassing. You are helpless and exposed and unwillingly obscene. Often the first response isn't outrage, or even fear, but humiliation.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 01, 2014, 01:43:27 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2014, 01:29:02 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 01, 2014, 01:24:05 AM
I feel like I should ask... if you heard this same story, but it was a woman being assaulted by a man, would you also be incredulous that she did nothing to stop the assault?
I am not accusing you of sexism, I am just wondering whether you have some mental models you might want to examine a little more closely, because I don't find it at all strange or confusing that he didn't resist the assault.
I find it strange that anyone who was in an art instillation with two associates in the other room wouldn't at least call out for assistance, yes. Male or female.
This wasn't an alley, or a college dorm room. It was an art instillation with two associates in the other room.
A. One common effect of sudden threat on the autonomous nervous system is being unable to make a sound. Women are frequently asked "why didn't you scream?"
B. I'm not sure that any of us know what the acoustic properties of the room are, or what the environment his colleagues were in was like. Was there music? Was it noisy? Was the room soundproofed against street noise? Was it down the hall?
So I'm going to ask you the same question again: If it was a woman who reported being assaulted, beaten with a whip, and raped, in a closed room with other people in a nearby room, would you question the rape by asking why she did not scream or fight back?
Initially, yes. But I was being glib without putting much thought into it, which was ridiculously insensitive. Again, I apologize. This entire thread was ill conceived.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2014, 01:52:56 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 01, 2014, 01:43:27 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2014, 01:29:02 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 01, 2014, 01:24:05 AM
I feel like I should ask... if you heard this same story, but it was a woman being assaulted by a man, would you also be incredulous that she did nothing to stop the assault?
I am not accusing you of sexism, I am just wondering whether you have some mental models you might want to examine a little more closely, because I don't find it at all strange or confusing that he didn't resist the assault.
I find it strange that anyone who was in an art instillation with two associates in the other room wouldn't at least call out for assistance, yes. Male or female.
This wasn't an alley, or a college dorm room. It was an art instillation with two associates in the other room.
A. One common effect of sudden threat on the autonomous nervous system is being unable to make a sound. Women are frequently asked "why didn't you scream?"
B. I'm not sure that any of us know what the acoustic properties of the room are, or what the environment his colleagues were in was like. Was there music? Was it noisy? Was the room soundproofed against street noise? Was it down the hall?
So I'm going to ask you the same question again: If it was a woman who reported being assaulted, beaten with a whip, and raped, in a closed room with other people in a nearby room, would you question the rape by asking why she did not scream or fight back?
Initially, yes. But I was being glib without putting much thought into it, which was ridiculously insensitive. Again, I apologize. This entire thread was ill conceived.
Well, it got us to talk/think about a touchy subject, the rape of a man by a woman, so it served some purpose.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2014, 01:52:56 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 01, 2014, 01:43:27 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2014, 01:29:02 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 01, 2014, 01:24:05 AM
I feel like I should ask... if you heard this same story, but it was a woman being assaulted by a man, would you also be incredulous that she did nothing to stop the assault?
I am not accusing you of sexism, I am just wondering whether you have some mental models you might want to examine a little more closely, because I don't find it at all strange or confusing that he didn't resist the assault.
I find it strange that anyone who was in an art instillation with two associates in the other room wouldn't at least call out for assistance, yes. Male or female.
This wasn't an alley, or a college dorm room. It was an art instillation with two associates in the other room.
A. One common effect of sudden threat on the autonomous nervous system is being unable to make a sound. Women are frequently asked "why didn't you scream?"
B. I'm not sure that any of us know what the acoustic properties of the room are, or what the environment his colleagues were in was like. Was there music? Was it noisy? Was the room soundproofed against street noise? Was it down the hall?
So I'm going to ask you the same question again: If it was a woman who reported being assaulted, beaten with a whip, and raped, in a closed room with other people in a nearby room, would you question the rape by asking why she did not scream or fight back?
Initially, yes. But I was being glib without putting much thought into it, which was ridiculously insensitive. Again, I apologize. This entire thread was ill conceived.
I consider it no waste. And it'd be pretty ridiculous of me to judge you for being unaware of the emotional subtleties of something you've never personally experienced. I think it's a surprise to everyone it happens to. Quite a bit more of the suffering occurs on a social level than on a physical one.
I'm outsourcing my judgement of the artist's assault to the fate of his character in FURY, as god intended. No spoilers please.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2014, 01:38:59 AM
That last post of mine was pretty cold and unsympathetic. I've never been in a sexual assault, so it's impossible for me to theorize. Obviously.
It is a difficult scenario for me to visualize, which only illustrates how out of depth of knowledge I am. I'm truly sorry if I've offended, or inadvertently triggered, anyone.
I don't understand it.
Reading more on it seems stranger and stranger. He didn't break from character for some hours after the rape. Including when his girlfriend, who had been down the line entered asking him about it because part of the exhibit was not to respond.
It probably wouldn't be much use but no police report has been filed yet either, considering this happened 8 months ago now it probably would be hard to find the woman, even if they have the video of her.
Quote from: 🅵🅰🆄🆂🆃 on December 01, 2014, 07:13:33 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2014, 01:38:59 AM
That last post of mine was pretty cold and unsympathetic. I've never been in a sexual assault, so it's impossible for me to theorize. Obviously.
It is a difficult scenario for me to visualize, which only illustrates how out of depth of knowledge I am. I'm truly sorry if I've offended, or inadvertently triggered, anyone.
I don't understand it.
Reading more on it seems stranger and stranger. He didn't break from character for some hours after the rape. Including when his girlfriend, who had been down the line entered asking him about it because part of the exhibit was not to respond.
It probably wouldn't be much use but no police report has been filed yet either, considering this happened 8 months ago now it probably would be hard to find the woman, even if they have the video of her.
If you were really looking for her, the "boyfriend" might be an easier lead, although I suspect he might be trained to manage such extraneous encounters in a manner that is neither fair, nor square.
So, I learnt something today which may help make sense of this.
Shia LeBouef was apparently raised in a fairly abusive household. As, in his father was a Vietnam vet with PTSD and was frequently verbally and physically violent, even pulling a gun on him at one point.
Yes, this is Wikipedia, but it's really, really hard to find specific information about the performance due to the internetabloids clickbaiting this story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_LaBeouf#Performance_art
QuoteLaBeouf, Rönkkö and Turner staged a six day performance in a Los Angeles gallery entitled #IAMSORRY, in which LaBeouf sat wearing a tuxedo and the paper bag, silently crying in front of visitors.[69][71] Attendees were allowed to enter one at a time, and invited to choose an item from a table of "implements" to take in with them, including a Transformers toy, an Indiana Jones whip, a bottle of Jack Daniel's, a pair of pliers, a ukulele, a bowl full of hateful tweets directed at LaBeouf, and a copy of Clowes's book The Death-Ray.[72][73] Time columnist Joel Stein, who spent three days waiting in line to see the performance, observed that LaBeouf "was immensely present," and that "he was whatever was projected upon him,"[74] while Kate Knibbs of The Daily Dot found the experience "genuinely disturbing", and "felt like I was further dehumanizing someone whose humanity I'd discounted."[75] The Daily Beast's Andrew Romano opined that "there was more going on in those few seconds than in a lot of contemporary art. LaBeouf's look-at-me Internet penance ritual had become an actual moment between actual people."[73]
Compare with, not
The Artist is Present, but
Rhythm 0:
QuoteTo test the limits of the relationship between performer and audience, Abramović developed one of her most challenging (and best-known) performances. She assigned a passive role to herself, with the public being the force which would act on her. Abramović placed on a table 72 objects that people were allowed to use (a sign informed them) in any way that they chose. Some of these were objects that could give pleasure, while others could be wielded to inflict pain, or to harm her. Among them were a rose, a feather, honey, a whip, olive oil, scissors, a scalpel, a gun and a single bullet. For six hours the artist allowed the audience members to manipulate her body and actions.
Initially, members of the audience reacted with caution and modesty, but as time passed (and the artist remained passive) people began to act more aggressively. As Abramović described it later: "What I learned was that... if you leave it up to the audience, they can kill you." ... "I felt really violated: they cut up my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away. It created an aggressive atmosphere. After exactly 6 hours, as planned, I stood up and started walking toward the audience. Everyone ran away, to escape an actual confrontation."[7]
As I said above, I have an irrational bias against Shia, but he seems to have genuinely embraced the spirit and purpose behind modern performance art, in which both viewer and viewed are actively engaged in the process, with each informing the other. The normal way we use the word "Art" really loses it's meaning when brought to levels such as this; it becomes existential, in the dictionary definition, rather than the philosophical, where the performance is tied to the artist's existence.
So in terms of the OP question, for the artist to call an end to the performance would be almost unthinkable.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 01, 2014, 12:32:10 PM
Yes, this is Wikipedia, but it's really, really hard to find specific information about the performance due to the internetabloids clickbaiting this story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_LaBeouf#Performance_art
QuoteLaBeouf, Rönkkö and Turner staged a six day performance in a Los Angeles gallery entitled #IAMSORRY, in which LaBeouf sat wearing a tuxedo and the paper bag, silently crying in front of visitors.[69][71] Attendees were allowed to enter one at a time, and invited to choose an item from a table of "implements" to take in with them, including a Transformers toy, an Indiana Jones whip, a bottle of Jack Daniel's, a pair of pliers, a ukulele, a bowl full of hateful tweets directed at LaBeouf, and a copy of Clowes's book The Death-Ray.[72][73] Time columnist Joel Stein, who spent three days waiting in line to see the performance, observed that LaBeouf "was immensely present," and that "he was whatever was projected upon him,"[74] while Kate Knibbs of The Daily Dot found the experience "genuinely disturbing", and "felt like I was further dehumanizing someone whose humanity I'd discounted."[75] The Daily Beast's Andrew Romano opined that "there was more going on in those few seconds than in a lot of contemporary art. LaBeouf's look-at-me Internet penance ritual had become an actual moment between actual people."[73]
Compare with, not The Artist is Present, but Rhythm 0:
QuoteTo test the limits of the relationship between performer and audience, Abramović developed one of her most challenging (and best-known) performances. She assigned a passive role to herself, with the public being the force which would act on her. Abramović placed on a table 72 objects that people were allowed to use (a sign informed them) in any way that they chose. Some of these were objects that could give pleasure, while others could be wielded to inflict pain, or to harm her. Among them were a rose, a feather, honey, a whip, olive oil, scissors, a scalpel, a gun and a single bullet. For six hours the artist allowed the audience members to manipulate her body and actions.
Initially, members of the audience reacted with caution and modesty, but as time passed (and the artist remained passive) people began to act more aggressively. As Abramović described it later: "What I learned was that... if you leave it up to the audience, they can kill you." ... "I felt really violated: they cut up my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away. It created an aggressive atmosphere. After exactly 6 hours, as planned, I stood up and started walking toward the audience. Everyone ran away, to escape an actual confrontation."[7]
As I said above, I have an irrational bias against Shia, but he seems to have genuinely embraced the spirit and purpose behind modern performance art, in which both viewer and viewed are actively engaged in the process, with each informing the other. The normal way we use the word "Art" really loses it's meaning when brought to levels such as this; it becomes existential, in the dictionary definition, rather than the philosophical, where the performance is tied to the artist's existence.
So in terms of the OP question, for the artist to call an end to the performance would be almost unthinkable.
Granted, and that is the level of commitment I admired earlier in the thread. I'm not sure I could uphold that, despite my love of art.
The art, to me, is more in the reactions than in the "artist", but it's definitely some form of union. It's interesting how quickly people devolve to heinous acts, if they think there is no comeuppance. Interesting, in that :horrormirth: sort of way...
I really couldn't go that far, either. I generally draw the line at "entertainment", although that has a pretty broad scope, as I've done my fair share of "confrontational" performances (back when I was a punker).
Quote from: 🅵🅰🆄🆂🆃 on December 01, 2014, 07:13:33 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2014, 01:38:59 AM
That last post of mine was pretty cold and unsympathetic. I've never been in a sexual assault, so it's impossible for me to theorize. Obviously.
It is a difficult scenario for me to visualize, which only illustrates how out of depth of knowledge I am. I'm truly sorry if I've offended, or inadvertently triggered, anyone.
I don't understand it.
Reading more on it seems stranger and stranger. He didn't break from character for some hours after the rape. Including when his girlfriend, who had been down the line entered asking him about it because part of the exhibit was not to respond.
It probably wouldn't be much use but no police report has been filed yet either, considering this happened 8 months ago now it probably would be hard to find the woman, even if they have the video of her.
He very probably was in shock, and just kept doing what he was doing because "breaking character" would involve thinking about and dealing with the experience.
Quote from: Faust on December 01, 2014, 07:13:33 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2014, 01:38:59 AM
That last post of mine was pretty cold and unsympathetic. I've never been in a sexual assault, so it's impossible for me to theorize. Obviously.
It is a difficult scenario for me to visualize, which only illustrates how out of depth of knowledge I am. I'm truly sorry if I've offended, or inadvertently triggered, anyone.
I don't understand it.
Reading more on it seems stranger and stranger. He didn't break from character for some hours after the rape. Including when his girlfriend, who had been down the line entered asking him about it because part of the exhibit was not to respond.
It probably wouldn't be much use but no police report has been filed yet either, considering this happened 8 months ago now it probably would be hard to find the woman, even if they have the video of her.
When I was raped when I was 15, I didn't tell anyone. I went on with my life, looking from the outside as if it never happened.
When I was sexually assaulted walking home a couple of years ago, I told almost no one. You wouldn't have known about it from talking to me the next day.
What's the use? To participate in a courtroom or media circus? To get all the salacious details pried out and laid on the table for the skeptics to view and judge whether my behavior was acceptable, or whether I asked for it? For everyone to question whether it was really rape, or whether I was a willing participant who simply changed my mind afterward (because all the judging and questioning and prying and blaming isn't worse than being raped is... not at all).
All that happens is that everyone wants to know why you didn't scream, didn't run away, or didn't fight back. And how, if you were
really raped, you can act so normal.
I talk about it now because I have some distance and a lot of therapy.
I guess, but when you have video evidence of the person that's pretty irrefutable evidence.
But I understand if he would not get any benefit from the media circus that would surround the court case and the negative attention the video evidence, so maybe just talking about it to the media is the best he can get.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 01, 2014, 12:32:10 PM
Yes, this is Wikipedia, but it's really, really hard to find specific information about the performance due to the internetabloids clickbaiting this story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_LaBeouf#Performance_art
QuoteLaBeouf, Rönkkö and Turner staged a six day performance in a Los Angeles gallery entitled #IAMSORRY, in which LaBeouf sat wearing a tuxedo and the paper bag, silently crying in front of visitors.[69][71] Attendees were allowed to enter one at a time, and invited to choose an item from a table of "implements" to take in with them, including a Transformers toy, an Indiana Jones whip, a bottle of Jack Daniel's, a pair of pliers, a ukulele, a bowl full of hateful tweets directed at LaBeouf, and a copy of Clowes's book The Death-Ray.[72][73] Time columnist Joel Stein, who spent three days waiting in line to see the performance, observed that LaBeouf "was immensely present," and that "he was whatever was projected upon him,"[74] while Kate Knibbs of The Daily Dot found the experience "genuinely disturbing", and "felt like I was further dehumanizing someone whose humanity I'd discounted."[75] The Daily Beast's Andrew Romano opined that "there was more going on in those few seconds than in a lot of contemporary art. LaBeouf's look-at-me Internet penance ritual had become an actual moment between actual people."[73]
Compare with, not The Artist is Present, but Rhythm 0:
QuoteTo test the limits of the relationship between performer and audience, Abramović developed one of her most challenging (and best-known) performances. She assigned a passive role to herself, with the public being the force which would act on her. Abramović placed on a table 72 objects that people were allowed to use (a sign informed them) in any way that they chose. Some of these were objects that could give pleasure, while others could be wielded to inflict pain, or to harm her. Among them were a rose, a feather, honey, a whip, olive oil, scissors, a scalpel, a gun and a single bullet. For six hours the artist allowed the audience members to manipulate her body and actions.
Initially, members of the audience reacted with caution and modesty, but as time passed (and the artist remained passive) people began to act more aggressively. As Abramović described it later: "What I learned was that... if you leave it up to the audience, they can kill you." ... "I felt really violated: they cut up my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away. It created an aggressive atmosphere. After exactly 6 hours, as planned, I stood up and started walking toward the audience. Everyone ran away, to escape an actual confrontation."[7]
As I said above, I have an irrational bias against Shia, but he seems to have genuinely embraced the spirit and purpose behind modern performance art, in which both viewer and viewed are actively engaged in the process, with each informing the other. The normal way we use the word "Art" really loses it's meaning when brought to levels such as this; it becomes existential, in the dictionary definition, rather than the philosophical, where the performance is tied to the artist's existence.
So in terms of the OP question, for the artist to call an end to the performance would be almost unthinkable.
That is terrifying; the art piece and the fact that she left a gun and a bullet on the table. I mean, was the gun set not to go off? What if someone had actually pulled the trigger? Holy shit.
I'm really glad Shia came forward with this, because it'll be very interesting to see how it plays out. The only actual time I've seen a story of female-on-male rape was an episode of Law and Order which... come to think of it, was probably based on a real case, but who knows when that particular case was.
Also really glad (not glad) to see that victim blamers aren't sexist!
Marina Abramović is, from what I've seen, fearless. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the gun was ready to go.
There are photos, btw, from that particular performance of hers... they are a little disturbing.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 02, 2014, 01:45:45 PM
Marina Abramović is, from what I've seen, fearless. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the gun was ready to go.
There are photos, btw, from that particular performance of hers... they are a little disturbing.
Holy shit, thats the broken glass eating, cuts herself woman I saw in spain. She was fascinating and as you say fearless, but I couldn't watch most of it.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 02, 2014, 01:45:45 PM
Marina Abramović is, from what I've seen, fearless. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the gun was ready to go.
There are photos, btw, from that particular performance of hers... they are a little disturbing.
She has publicly supported Shia's performance, so if you want a bit of appeal to authority... you couldn't do much better.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 02, 2014, 02:12:38 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 02, 2014, 01:45:45 PM
Marina Abramović is, from what I've seen, fearless. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the gun was ready to go.
There are photos, btw, from that particular performance of hers... they are a little disturbing.
She has publicly supported Shia's performance, so if you want a bit of appeal to authority... you couldn't do much better.
Hey maybe he will ditch movies to make art, who knows? He was sort of preemptively undermined by that Joaquin Phoenix stunt a few years earlier...
I think people are generally over celebs doing weird shit and calling it 'performance art' after the fact. Which, to a degree, I can understand... these people make squillions of dollars, are given free swag constantly, get the best seats, and then we're supposed to indulge them when the whim takes them to make performance art too?
I'd like a performance art show where people lined up at the door.
I'd like to do an album of Tom Waits covers.
I'd like to write a novel on a whim and know it will get published on my name alone. Not going to happen anytime soon.
My sour grapes have run me off topic here... luckily, this is my thread.
To play devil's advocate a bit, it must be horrifying to realize that you may well have peaked in your early twenties. Then you've got the huge amount of hate you generate just by having your face. Sure, again, you get the opposite sometimes and maybe that is nice... but in both cases, you've got a huge proportion of the people you meet in your day to day life who think they know you without ever having met you before. That must be a very alienating experience.
Sure, money helps blunt the sting of it - but I can't condemn someone for trying to pursue a career in art to find meaning in another way. I'm pretty sure I couldn't deal with being famous, it'd melt my brain.
I peaked in my 20s, and have a face many people loathe on sight. He made an astronomical amount of money from the Transformers movies alone.
It's hard to feel a lot of sympathy from this corner.
From the sound of it, he never really "wanted" to get into acting - it was something he did because he was "good" at it (for a given value of good of course) and because it paid the bills. When you look at his background, he looks a lot like most of the messed up comics out there - he wants to make people like him, because he has a very low opinion of himself, and he's good at acting as someone he's not to get them to laugh or play along, but doing that reinforces the idea that they don't like the "real" him...all of which is probably exacerbated by the celebrity status he has attained.
So maybe he did want to be an artist, all along.
Quote from: Cain on December 02, 2014, 02:30:09 PM
From the sound of it, he never really "wanted" to get into acting - it was something he did because he was "good" at it (for a given value of good of course) and because it paid the bills. When you look at his background, he looks a lot like most of the messed up comics out there - he wants to make people like him, because he has a very low opinion of himself, and he's good at acting as someone he's not to get them to laugh or play along, but doing that reinforces the idea that they don't like the "real" him...all of which is probably exacerbated by the celebrity status he has attained.
So maybe he did want to be an artist, all along.
Probably true. If he sticks with it, people will eventually mostly forget that he was an actor.
His biggest problem is that a good portion of the general population (those who know him, anyway) don't really care for him. But that could work in his favor in art. I mean, shit, look at that jackass who glues rhinestones onto skulls. People hate him, and he's "popular". He just needs to embrace the hate and use it to his advantage.
Just back here for a second:
QuoteAs Abramović described it later: "What I learned was that... if you leave it up to the audience, they can kill you."
That's ties into so many things it's quite notable. It's likely an understatement with that "can" as well, as it's likely only time that prevented it. It was pretty extreme after 6 hours to say the least and when everyone RUNS when it's over you can be sure as hell they know they've probably done something fundamentally wrong to the other person involved.
The other thing that I can't stop thinking about is that the gun was loaded and pointed within 6 hours. While I hesitate to put a timescale on it, gut feeling is that someone would fire the damn thing within 24. Not necessarily directly at her, but I wouldn't rule it out.
Possibly another thing here is the relative social status of "artists" (In that you're not a real one until wealthy) and how that plays into things. But I may be reading too much into that.
Part of me wants to believe that people only picked up the gun to see if they could get her to "break character"... this was an art crowd, after all, not a Friday night at the Bucket of Blood. But, then, perhaps my own personal prejudices are playing into that.
I wonder if there was security at either event?
Quote from: Cain on December 02, 2014, 02:30:09 PM
From the sound of it, he never really "wanted" to get into acting - it was something he did because he was "good" at it (for a given value of good of course) and because it paid the bills. When you look at his background, he looks a lot like most of the messed up comics out there - he wants to make people like him, because he has a very low opinion of himself, and he's good at acting as someone he's not to get them to laugh or play along, but doing that reinforces the idea that they don't like the "real" him...all of which is probably exacerbated by the celebrity status he has attained.
So maybe he did want to be an artist, all along.
At least he was good enough to consistently act as if he cared.
Shy Labuff is now the greatest human being that ever existed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0u4M6vppCI). I won't hear a bad word spoken about him
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 06, 2014, 08:43:11 PM
Shy Labuff is now the greatest human being that ever existed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0u4M6vppCI). I won't hear a bad word spoken about him
That was incredible. So incredible.
Actual Cannibal Shia LeBouf is the only thing that prevents me from destroying the internet these days.
Sooner or later, the laws of causality dictate that the best phenomenon ever has to occur.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 02, 2014, 02:34:46 PM
Probably true. If he sticks with it, people will eventually mostly forget that he was an actor.
Not after the last Indiana Jones movie. No way, no how.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 07, 2014, 03:16:08 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 02, 2014, 02:34:46 PM
Probably true. If he sticks with it, people will eventually mostly forget that he was an actor.
Not after the last Indiana Jones movie. No way, no how.
Holes in on my short list of favorite movies.
I watched a lot of the stuff he did as a little kid. Pretty much always liked him.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 07, 2014, 12:25:05 PM
Sooner or later, the laws of causality dictate that the best phenomenon ever has to occur.
If the best has not yet been, then will it ever necessarily become?
So over the weekend a video of Shia ostensibly freestyling hit the net. Now, a scant few days later there are charges that his freestyling was lifted from a 1999 song.
Calling it now: Shia is the ultimate troll.
Quote from: Hoopla on June 29, 2015, 07:49:41 PM
So over the weekend a video of Shia ostensibly freestyling hit the net. Now, a scant few days later there are charges that his freestyling was lifted from a 1999 song.
Calling it now: Shia is the ultimate troll.
I am full of hope.