At 3/1/13 04:10 AM, Protagonist wrote:
Who, Spike Lee? You mean the bitter asshole who called people racists for not understanding the ending to his stupid movie? Yeah, I hardly think anything he says is credible.
No self respecting human being should watch most of what is on television. That doesn't mean his behavior on the program isn't patronizing. How is the use of ebonics and changing his mannerisms supposed to appeal to people any more than just being relaxed and casual would?
Not black people, but BET yes. BET is full of stereotypical black people, and barely any self respecting person would watch a channel that glorifies the stupid shit that BET does.
BET is lowest common denominator trash, but it's also not the only interview he's acted like that in. In fact, whenever the interviewer is not a white person, he speaks in that fashion and makes certain gestures like the black pride salute. My point being, you don't find it a little condescending to change your mannerisms based on the racial background of the person you're talking to? That said mannerisms might imply that the person acting like that believes people who look different surely must BE different, and so the only way to relate to them is to act something other than 'normal'?
You obviously don't live in the city, which is full of people who act ghetto (not black, note the word ghetto). He'd probably just shrug it off, but guessing isn't plausible, and assuming isn't either. Now you're just pulling stuff out of nowhere and claiming it as fact.
I lived in Ridgewood, Brooklyn before moving here to Phoenix. In Ridgewood, which is mostly a polish neighborhood, there were plenty of white kids that would dress like popular hip-hop stars and sling around racial slurs and ebonic slang like there was no tomorrow, and plenty of rich white kids up here in Phoenix do the same thing, and it's just as stupid. If I went up to a kid in Ridgewood and started talking with a faux Slavic accent, they'd immediately get offended and tell me to shut up. The ironic thing is that my family and I came here from Ukraine, I just don't talk that way and don't have any accent. If I did that just to try and fit in, it would be patronizing to them and make me look like an ignorant dick.
If someone is invading another persons personal space, then yes they have the right to.
Look, I'm not saying dealing with the paparazzi is fun and painless, but they were 50 feet away from the guy and he walked up to them and smacked them. That's not really his 'personal space'
If you have restraint thenn good for you, it doesn't make you a better person Or justify your point. It just means you're more patient. You have also never dealed with the paparazzi, I doubt a couple of beggers and angsty teens are as annoying as stalkers with cameras.
Security is more than angsty teenagers. It's drunks and gang members in inner-city areas in Phoenix who don't take kindly to being told "Stay away from here." "Don't do that" "You need to leave". There are regularly fatal or near fatal knife fights in the Mesa Ampitheater bathrooms. People in this city have had their heads cooked from the sun and will do damned near anything.
Confidence is having an inflated ego. Yet if a man who wasn't famous said that, it would have nothing to do with ego?
No, there's a solid difference. Confidence relies upon the ego, but there is certainly such a thing as too much. Saying "I have forced people to talk about slavery in a way they haven't for over thirty years" in an interview about a pretty standard action film you made is a good example of that.
How assumptive. I've worked 3 summers in a row with the mentally challenged at a boarding house, I am no ableist.
It was a poor choice of words, I will admit though. You're overly sensitive.
No, my tone doesn't translate through text very well. I was being facetious while pointing out how you phrased that, that's all. Much in the same way I'm being facetious in calling Tarantino autistic: obviously I'm not a doctor and diagnosing the guy through my television screen. It's just a quip about his rather exaggerated behavior.
There is no one best director, I never said that Tarantino was either. Drive is a very emotional film, but it is also very slow and boring. I don't mean that in the sense that it lacks action Or blood, because obviously not every movie needs that. But Drive isn't a very good example, at least in my opinion.
I'd never attempt to claim that there is a "best director" either. That's counterproductive to the progress of film. I'm just pointing out that the quality of Tarantino's films,whether good or not, bear no relevance on his behavior outside of them really, and the discussion of what his films add to the curriculum really belongs in a separate discussion on it's own. I picked drive as an example because for being a rather standard boilerplate crime thriller (not unlike Pulp Fiction or Jackie Brown), it's level of technical prowess on display by the director and the emotional themes in the film could be considered to be a great deal above the norm in the industry.