Few things are less courageous than voyeurism. It is destructive. It is furtive. It is manipulative. It is exploitative. It poses no physical danger to the perpetrators and a lot of permanent, physical danger to its victims because of the social and professional stigma that the illegal pictures or videos obtained from the voyeurism conveys on them. It causes everything from unemployment to homelessness to harassment, stalking, rape, murder, social isolation, chronic, debilitating depression, and suicide. It is about people abusing power to harm the vulnerable. It is nothing that a superhero, or even someone who has a fundamental understanding of human decency at all, is supposed to do.
That's the address of a Forbes article that talks about "Samaritan."
Nobody who put cameras in the shower at the Good Samaritan Haven in Barre, Vermont was doing it from emotional trauma; that voyeurism happened to me and to every homeless person who was there during the MONTHS that I was there because the conglomerate has deliberately and relentlessly publicized the idea that I'm a slut who deserves whatever happens to me, and because the conglomerate doesn't care who else is getting hurt as long as I'm getting hurt.
Most people are also probably not ever going to know that my being called a slut WAS WHAT CAUSED ME to be repeatedly victimized by voyeurism and not the other way around.
"People are sniffing hard on what we're doing"; that's a quote from the article, about the movie. In other words, this is going to be another movie that exploits me while it portrays the people who have let me and a lot of other people be vicitimized for years without doing anything to try to stop it as not being that bad because sometimes they feel some guilt, which they don't worry about whenever they can convince themselves that I'm a slut or a b---- or a golddigger or a liar or whatever else it is that why tell themselves and each other all day, every day.
The conglomerate has deliberately brainwashed an entire generation of people to think that voyeurism is normal.
I also think that the description of what the movie "Stronger" is going to be about is bad and also typical of Hollywood, even though Bold Films seems to think that it, Bold Films, is independent.
"we've shifted the emphasis on that one for the character's personal growth and less on his rehabilitation. So now it's become a love story with the circumstances as the backdrop and that love story makes it more emotional, more character driven and also, we believe, makes it more universal."
That's a quote from the article.
The Boston Marathon bombing as a backdrop for the personal growth of a Hollywood actor. Less emphasis on rehabilitation. The love story makes it more emotional, more character driven, and more universal.
I don't know how to talk about how offensive that way of thinking about the Boston Marathon bombing is. The tragedy of other people is not an appropriate backdrop for cinematic posturing, but that exploitation is typical of Hollywood. People who were permanently physically and psychologically injured by the bombing don't have a choice about whether or not they emphasize their rehabilitation every day; neither do their friends or family or anyone else who is an integral part of their lives.
More emotional. A fictional love story will make the Boston Marathon bombing MORE EMOTIONAL for audiences. He SAID that?
More character driven. He means more interesting? It's more interesting when a goodlooking actor is in love with someone onscreen while exploiting other people's tragedy than it would be to think of all of the people who are affected by that tragedy as individual people? Those people are all just a crowd, like so many crowds of people who get killed or injured all over the world every day; is that what he's saying?
More universal. Bombings and shootings are getting to be universal, as is the lack of real concern about them which many powerful and privileged people seem to have.
When I have argued against the death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, it's not because I didn't understand the consequences of what he did. It's because I have thought that he didn't.
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, March 6, 2016 @ 9:25 a.m.
