What do they have in common with each other?
All three have been exposed as men who harm women, along with their histrionic narcissism and their inability to grasp why their actions are violent.
Exhibit 1: Marcel Aubut: our DJ! blogpost on complaints lodged against him. For decades people working with Aubut tolerated his preening ego. They were also conveniently indifferent to his sustained sexual harassment of hundreds of athletes, journalists, officials, lawyers, staff members, etc. etc.
After an investigation that unfolded quickly and efficiently, the Canadian Olympic Committee recognized that Aubut created a toxic environment through his abusive actions, and that its organization was negligent in not addressing the issue judiciously.
Three senior staff were punished for not handling the Aubut situation correctly. However, the abuser himself has yet to suffer any consequences for his behaviour, nor has he taken responsibility for the harm he did.
Exhibit 2: Sean Penn
Though Penn has been indefatigable in his efforts to establish himself as a saviour and a serious thinker, most recently as putative writer for Rolling Stone - he's still the same poseur previously known as a really *bad date*. Like George C. Scott, Penn has physically and mentally abused his partners. His explosive, violent temper and eggshell ego are epic. But he always gets a pass, because he's a privileged white man with connections and admirers.
One hopes when Charlize Theron abruptly ended their relationship, she made the point that she doesn't suffer violent men gladly and that he got off relatively lightly, having dropped the mask and ceased to amuse her with his malignant charade.
Exhibit 3: Gregory Alan Elliott
This summarizes why charges of criminal harassment were filed against him.
Now, let's get a few facts straight: Elliott is not on trial for having a difference of opinion with someone. He is on trial for criminal harassment. He tried repeatedly to contact Guthrie even after she had explicitly asked him to leave them alone. He monitored Guthrie's movements via Twitter, shadowed events she attended, and flooded any hashtag she participated in. He made it clear that he was following her every move by publicly commenting on her tweets, even after she had blocked him. He sent messages to people who interacted with her online, making it clear that he was observing everything she did.
Though the judge found the complainants' testimony honest and credible, the bar for proving malice aforethought and deliberate criminal intent was set very high because the women fought back against the bully's campaign of harassment. The tweet below addresses that perception; click on link to see how GAE supporters aka Men's Rights Activists and crusading gamegaters, responded.
His defence argued *honest* belief with regard to GAE's entitled sense that what he did was not wrong. That bar is set low, as with many sexual assault cases. Also, GAE's complete pattern of harassment and incitement to others to do the same, could not be entered into the record.
When he was acquitted, the judge made it clear the decision did not mean GAE was innocent of wrongdoing as charged. Yet, to borrow the words of Anne Thériault, GAE "mobilized his mob" to attack anyone who wasn't bellowing for his glorious vindication.
A reminder that, like predators Aubut and Penn, it's likely GAE's abusive actions won't be his last. This exposes what he does: he harasses women and claims that he is the victim.
It's also a chilling warning to women: patriarchy may appear to be in its death-throes, but men who have enjoyed privilege or aspire to it, will do anything to crush those they view as insubordinate or unwilling to meet their demands, and those who have the temerity to challenge them.
As some of us at DJ! painfully learned, this type of malevolence is not limited to a specific political ideology.
So on $2.50 Tuesday at a local second-run movie theatre, since I was in the vicinity to dispatch some banking business, I decided to go watch something.
_Words And Pictures_ seemed moderately interesting: Australian director Fred Schepisi; Juliette Binoche and Clive Owen in lead roles.
Unfortunately it is set in the USA, yet shot in British Columbia passing for New England. Thus it gets the Vegas treatment rather than a quieter, gentler interpretation of an intriguing narrative.
Consequently Owen reprises the Hemingway bombast he perfected in an earlier role. He plays Jack Marcus: a charming, erudite, passionate, verbose and inspiring high school teacher who is also a deceitful, enraged alcoholic.
Binoche is allowed to develop multiple dimensions of her character Dina Delsanto; she is also a painter (in real life!) and it is her work that she produces that is featured in the movie. It provides the script with some modicum of authenticity.
The students in this expensive, carefully groomed and pruned prep school are of "all sorts" though judiciously selected for their good looks; a vast palette of ethnic ancestries, all Benetton photo op-ready.
Yet it's ironic how it happens that the de-rigueur bully character - also a creepy nascent sexual sadist - turns out to be NOT the typical privileged WASP but a cocky young man who may be the only student that might be considered "semitic" (though not overtly identified as such) at the snooty private school.
He attempts to evade responsibility for his sexual harassment and stalking actions by framing a Black classmate for this particular vicious and vile prank. The denials and protests that he utters, claiming he's done nothing wrong sound EXACTLY like the excuses and justifications proffered by Cody Boast.
Boast is the frat boy of pallour on the right. He has received four convictions to date for his criminal actions. He is a serial predator; unless all the women who have been the target of his abuse and rage speak up, nobody knows the exact number of victims upon whom he has inflicted his vindictiveness and spleen.
The psychiatrist claims that if Boast continues with his treatment it would be unlikely that he will re-offend.
I disagree. He supplied an obligatory proof of *remorse* with regard to the harm he inflicted up one ex-girlfriend and her family, at the same time he had started a campaign of intimidation and cyber-bullying against another prey. He's learned much from these experiences; when his violent behaviour escalates, he will likely select new targets who won't have as much resources to push back as previous trophies did, and he will be much more efficient in disposing of evidence to avoid being caught.
But I digress. Here's my list (I can hear my co-blogger FH groaning) of things that ruined _Words and Pictures_ for me.
- Over-the-top dialogue. Less is more. The writer could learn a thing or two by watching films scripted by Noel Coward.
- Mediocre or atrocious lighting and cinematography. Scenes shot on some sets are fine, but otherwise, ugh. There's one scene in bright sunlight, outside Dina's studio that looks so amateurish for an Australian director of photography that makes me suspect he delegated it to a gaffer.
- Owen's hammy performance should have been reined in; he's capable of nuanced and powerful characterization. _Croupier_ and many more.
- Actors cast in secondary character roles are excellent but sadly they are given crummy, cliché lines to spout.
- Inconsistencies and implausible details that make you go ... what? For example: a chi-chi private school that can afford to hire an art instructor whose paintings command stellar prices has only a cramped, ill-equipped studio for honours students? The spiteful pornographic caricatures produced by the criminally-stalkerish student are briefly flashed upon the screen and appear to be devoid of genitalia.
There's more, but those are the highlights of points that undermined the movie's credibility and otherwise high-end qualities.
On balance, it's a better-than-average movie, if one is not vulnerable to the situations depicted. I found that parts of it were painful to watch; it could be extremely triggering for women who have experienced intimate relationships with alcoholics and/
or men afflicted with entitlement delusions: expecting and wanting their emotional needs and sexual demands to be met.
There's been a flurry of excellent resources that have been suggested, with regard to this phenomenon: "A deeply disturbing portrait of male entitlement", "Nice guys, the friend zone and sexual entitlement" and "Men aren't entitled to women's time or affection" are some good items to read on the topic.
