The Jeffrey Wells Thread
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
On the other hand, it’s healthy to have a space to communicate one’s thoughts, feelings, and life experience -and when you cast a net this wide there are just always going to be a few who take any free reign of attention to harmful extremes
- furbicide
- Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:52 am
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
It has its uses, sure, but I have for a long time strongly suspected that (through a combination of character limits, prevailing tone, immediacy and the ease of dogpiling etc.) there is something specific to Twitter that generally brings out the worst in people and dumbs down public discourse. Relatively high-profile provocateurs/shitposters like Wells are just the tip of the iceberg; I've seen similar dynamics play out between acquaintances with less than 100 followers, who I feel sure would never be such arseholes in the real world (or on a platform in which more nuanced, less immediate responses are possible, like this one). And, as BrianC says, all this irrelevance and overreaction just gets amplified and pored over – and then it gets fed into the press in both form (e.g. tweets in news pieces) and content. It's like the world's worst reality show.
- tenia
- Ask Me About My Bassoon
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
There is a dual issue with Twitter : the content and the visibility offered to it, all this in an era in which people think that because they CAN say whatever thoughtd cross their mind, they SHOULD.
But Twitter only offers a limited space favoring over-simplified posts, which in turn get quick over-simplified reactions, all this while everyone kind of tries to maximise their audience. And there is also the hashtag trending, some of the most polemic ones actually being sent trending by those retweeting them all while ranting AGAINST them (I read a study about the story of how an anti-semitic hashtag trended in France, and yup, it was 99% coming from those denouncing the hashtag).
And of course, even the most good-willed people end up discouraged from having a longer discussion there because it's just so cumbersome to try and expand properly each POV than they'll either give up or end up requiring over-simplifying them, leading to heating discussions that could have been more neutral elsewhere.
What could go wrong ?
In this regard, Trump's use of Twitter for instance seems to me to actually be the purest use of the platform : over simplified cheap-and-quick hot-takes potshots, followed by tons of over-simplified answers from both sides. That's why I mostly use Twitter to follow indie labels announcements, ads, etc, because it's actually a very fitting use of Twitter limited space of expression, but also a much more relaxing (and possibly useful) one.
But Twitter only offers a limited space favoring over-simplified posts, which in turn get quick over-simplified reactions, all this while everyone kind of tries to maximise their audience. And there is also the hashtag trending, some of the most polemic ones actually being sent trending by those retweeting them all while ranting AGAINST them (I read a study about the story of how an anti-semitic hashtag trended in France, and yup, it was 99% coming from those denouncing the hashtag).
And of course, even the most good-willed people end up discouraged from having a longer discussion there because it's just so cumbersome to try and expand properly each POV than they'll either give up or end up requiring over-simplifying them, leading to heating discussions that could have been more neutral elsewhere.
What could go wrong ?
In this regard, Trump's use of Twitter for instance seems to me to actually be the purest use of the platform : over simplified cheap-and-quick hot-takes potshots, followed by tons of over-simplified answers from both sides. That's why I mostly use Twitter to follow indie labels announcements, ads, etc, because it's actually a very fitting use of Twitter limited space of expression, but also a much more relaxing (and possibly useful) one.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
I’m not saying I like Twitter, just pointing out that the existence of its platform combined with human nature, and how we are responding to it, will beget this kind of behavior. We’ve had numerous trainings on the age of technology (and how it’s altering our brain chemistry) due to cyber bullying, since all our kids are listed as ‘at risk’ for bullying in their IEPs, and there is something different that happens in the brain unconsciously that makes one feel like posting something is not the same as screaming it to the world because one only sees their phone or device in front of them (an oversimplification). It’s a bit like road rage where you’d find little overlap between those who honk their horns and lose their tempers on the road vs those who would exhibit verbal aggression in real life- because the car is viewed as a safe space where a part of the honker believes that their actions don’t elicit the same weight of harm or consequence. So on the one hand, yes Twitter is naturally going to have a lot of people- including normally cordial folks- spewing frustrating stuff, but on the other hand, this is simply the direction we’re going, and if we eliminate this platform for expression it’ll just come out in another space using a similar tool. I think tenia has good points on how its specific limitations may contribute to this pattern you’re noticing, yet I also think that it may just be because it’s what most people are using to express their thoughts and yeah, a bar has certainly been set to use it to regurgitate impulsive thoughts rather than think them through!
- tenia
- Ask Me About My Bassoon
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
To nuance my view a bit, because I understand your points and share some of them : I think one of the issue is that absolutely nothing is done on Twitter to allow the better of ourselves to express, so we're down to our cognitive biases and usually, they're just not very good.
So as you wrote, it's bound to attract what we often get, though fortunately, Twitter isn't all like this.
And I guess that's also why Twitter has replaced FB in the place where to find the polemic or the indignation of the day : because its limited space of expression makes it just so much easier to end up writing something that had to be dumbed-down, or because it looks like the place to write pointless stupid thoughts nobody cares about and that would have otherwise been filtered out by your brain but it's just so quick and easy and seemingly without consequences to take out your phone from your pocket, write a tweet in 60 sec, and be done with it.
And that's really my deeper issue with Twitter : we humans are very easily guided by what we're given, so when such a platform appeals to our worst cognitive and behavorial biases, we just dive deep in it.
So as you wrote, it's bound to attract what we often get, though fortunately, Twitter isn't all like this.
And I guess that's also why Twitter has replaced FB in the place where to find the polemic or the indignation of the day : because its limited space of expression makes it just so much easier to end up writing something that had to be dumbed-down, or because it looks like the place to write pointless stupid thoughts nobody cares about and that would have otherwise been filtered out by your brain but it's just so quick and easy and seemingly without consequences to take out your phone from your pocket, write a tweet in 60 sec, and be done with it.
And that's really my deeper issue with Twitter : we humans are very easily guided by what we're given, so when such a platform appeals to our worst cognitive and behavorial biases, we just dive deep in it.
- Mr Sausage
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Canada
The Jeffrey Wells Thread
Wells’ Morricone takedown wasn’t posted on twitter. Twitter is just where many are going to respond to him. Whatever the problems with twitter are, I don’t think they’re responsible for this.
- Brian C
- I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
So Wells posted a mildly dismissive obit of a famous dude ... the exact same logic I used above still applies, no?therewillbeblus wrote:I don’t know why the freakouts are aimed at his opinion when the real issue is to make an obit and then roast the dead to elevate the self, which he just did to Shelton and probably has for a while. That’s what I care about, his disrespectful attitude to the man not his opinion on the art. It’s a natural consequence to get flack from people on social media when you send a provocation out into the internet stratosphere, by making a socially inappropriate statement condescending a beloved artist on the day he dies.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
I think we are talking about different things - my initial sentence validated your point, and then I went to also validate that, regardless of what one cares about his opinion, that he has the right to, it's reasonable to become irritated and respond emotionally to one's act of being disrespectful to the worth of a dead person. There's no reason to eulogize someone by focusing on their mediocrity, even if you believe they were not a strong artist, unless you are being provocative- and if you are being provocative on a public platform, you are inviting impassioned responses of those offended. I agree that it's silly to get upset over his opinion, but he is inviting people to get upset over the way he chooses to minimize the worth of the dead in his obits. Some people believe it's a moral responsibility to respond to that kind of public disrespect, and some may also not consider the essence of that comment as "mild" even if his artistic dismissals are. So I agree with you that investing in shaming him for holding a different artistic opinion is puzzling to start now, though the issue for me is not about his artistic opinion but appreciating that people can respond on similar platforms to not allow perceived disrespectful comments go unscathed. I'm not personally going to social media and doing that, but I can understand why people would from that angle of his general attitude not specific feelings. We are in agreement on the linked comments that go after his opinion though.
Last edited by therewillbeblus on Wed Jul 08, 2020 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:29 am
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
I'd say he's more than deserves any bile sent his way.
- Brian C
- I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
Well, in a sense, yes ... his career should have been over when the Vinessa Shaw stuff came out. And as such, I wouldn’t normally defend him.Orlac wrote:I'd say he's more than deserves any bile sent his way.
I guess I’m this case I simply disagree with the distinction that TWBB and others are making, between expressing the opinion of an artist’s worth and being “disrespectful” by expressing it in an obit. Either way, it all just boils down to not being appropriately fawning in a subjective opinion. He wasn’t even all that harsh!
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
I think I agree with you, but to play with things certainly it shows an idiocy on Wells' part to not realize this is a moment when people are going to be emotional on the topic of the artist and to give it a week.
-
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 7:23 pm
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
Now Wells is playing victim in his comments section. Either that or he has a sadomasochistic fantasy involving Guy Lodge. It's difficult to say.
Here is the original argument on Twitter.
https://mobile.twitter.com/GuyLodge/sta ... 1319611392
Here is Wells' version in a H-E thread.
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2020/07/ ... rn-scolds/
Here is the original argument on Twitter.
https://mobile.twitter.com/GuyLodge/sta ... 1319611392
Here is Wells' version in a H-E thread.
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2020/07/ ... rn-scolds/
Guy Lodge: What a brand!
HE: You guys really love to gang up and give lone contrarians a beating.
Jessica Kiang: You’re wrong and horrible!
HE: And you should try showing some basic manners toward a fellow scribe.
Guy Lodge: Say that again.
HE: Morricone was okay but he wasn’t on Franz Waxman or Max Steiner’s level.
Guy Lodge: Say that again!
HE: Sorry but he wasn’t on Steiner’s level. Or Tiomkin’s.
Jessica Kiang: You’re horrible!
Guy Lodge: Say that again! What a brand!
HE: I’m not gonna say it again.
[Lodge cold-cocks HE — HE staggers backward, falls to the pavement.]
Guy Lodge: Keep that shit stowed. (Looks skyward). I love you, Ennio!
- Mr Sausage
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
He was quite condescending, tho’, wasn’t he? There were an awful lot of digs and insults.Brian C wrote:Well, in a sense, yes ... his career should have been over when the Vinessa Shaw stuff came out. And as such, I wouldn’t normally defend him.Orlac wrote:I'd say he's more than deserves any bile sent his way.
I guess I’m this case I simply disagree with the distinction that TWBB and others are making, between expressing the opinion of an artist’s worth and being “disrespectful” by expressing it in an obit. Either way, it all just boils down to not being appropriately fawning in a subjective opinion. He wasn’t even all that harsh!
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
Yeah I don't know if I'm being clear- I'm simply trying to offer a possible counter to the "why start now" logic, with the example that some people feel that responding to the attitude in context (eg. timeliness) that it's being professed, is the moral issue. Not letting something get to us and turning the other cheek is a fine personal motto, and yeah he maybe wasn't "all that harsh" to one's subjective interpretation, but emotions are not based on an objective logic, and everyone has the right to their stances- which directly answers the "why start now" when the "why" is elicited by another's point of view that can differentiate between the two. That's a good point about this rooted in one's own opinion on what is an acceptable range of "appropriately fawning" and this would be easier to chalk up to one's desire to project their version of respect for obits if the fawning was on a neutral to positive scale, but making negative comments on the day of one's death makes it challenging, and begets a clearer answer to the "why."
- Lemmy Caution
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:26 am
- Location: East of Shanghai
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
It definitely has a what did the Romans ever do for us? vibe to it.willoneill wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:54 pmIf it were true that only these movies sum up Morricone's career (which they definitely don't), that would still be an amazing career.Maurice Micklewhite wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:16 amhis whole career rests upon his scores for Sergio Leone‘s spaghetti westerns (A Fistful of Dollars, For A Few Dollars More, Once Upon A Time in the West) and, more recently, his score for Quentin Tarantino‘s The Hateful Eight. Plus the scores for Gillo Pontecorvo‘s The Battle of Algiers, Bernardo Bertolucci‘s 1900 and Terrence Malick‘s Days of Heaven (along with Leo Kottke).
- Brian C
- I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
Sure, and to be clear, I think his whining after the fact is in bad faith, which I why I made sure to call out his "thin-skinned defensiveness" in my original comment. Like a lot of professional trolls, he''ll willingly stir the pot (or at least willfully avoid understanding that's what he's doing) and then fall back on a persecution complex when he succeeds.
You're being clear enough, but do we really have to pretend that participating in an online stampede over these comments has anything to do with a "moral issue", real or perceived? It's not like the overwhelming vast majority of the complainers are going to take offense if someone takes some shots at Wells on the day he bites it - the only principle I see in action here is "I liked Morricone and that guy wasn't reverent enough." Do you feel the reaction would have been substantially different if he had waited a couple days or a week?therewillbeblus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 12:39 pmYeah I don't know if I'm being clear- I'm simply trying to offer a possible counter to the "why start now" logic, with the example that some people feel that responding to the attitude in context (eg. timeliness) that it's being professed, is the moral issue. Not letting something get to us and turning the other cheek is a fine personal motto, and yeah he maybe wasn't "all that harsh" to one's subjective interpretation, but emotions are not based on an objective logic, and everyone has the right to their stances- which directly answers the "why start now" when the "why" is elicited by another's point of view that can differentiate between the two. That's a good point about this rooted in one's own opinion on what is an acceptable range of "appropriately fawning" and this would be easier to chalk up to one's desire to project their version of respect for obits if the fawning was on a neutral to positive scale, but making negative comments on the day of one's death makes it challenging, and begets a clearer answer to the "why."
Plus, even if we want to make "be nice to the dead" a real moral thing, it seems extremely limited as a moral principle anyway. At any rate, people see moral issues in all kinds of crazy things.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
I just saw it as evidence of Wells’ doubly bad taste in both preferring some of his choices over Morricone and feeling compelled to say such right when the man died. I understand the dilemma, as I didn’t like the career output of someone who died recently and kept it to myself as I saw others who did grieving at their loss. It’s not hard. In a week, when it’s not fresh, have it. But like the most basic decorum in the world is to wait. The world is never, ever aching for a hot take on someone’s death
-
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:58 pm
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
Of course, it could all be simple envy at people who've become rich, successful and admired, unlike his warrior/lover/samurai/poet/rumblehogger/aspect-ratio-arbiter self.
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
The issue is that Wells is exploiting a man's death by advertising his trademark "contrarian opinions." It would feel just as tacky if he had been like "use the code RIPENNIO today only to save 15% on Hollywood Elsewhere's official 'Ennio Morricone Is Great!' mugs"
- Brian C
- I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
Yeah, I definitely agree it’s *tacky*. But it’s Jeff Wells we’re talking about.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
I'm not musing about what the reaction would be in a couple days or a week, or defending the mass of posters who are operating under the principle of "I liked Morricone and that guy wasn't reverent enough." Apparently I'm not being clear because I've repeatedly said I agree with you there. I just said that I could understand that socially inappropriate timeliness being the moral issue, if that is what the stampede was about, even though it's not in some of those comments which I agreed I don't get, if you look back to my original comment. I'm also not "pretending" anything, because I do believe that people do this over perceived moral issues... And to your last sentence, yes exactly, but you said "why start now" and my response to you was that there is a "why" (which can contain those moral issues people see "in all kinds of crazy things") even if you dub those 'whys' to be limited or crazy- that doesn't mean there isn't a "why." None of this really matters, domino just explained what I'm trying to say.Brian C wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:53 pmYou're being clear enough, but do we really have to pretend that participating in an online stampede over these comments has anything to do with a "moral issue", real or perceived? It's not like the overwhelming vast majority of the complainers are going to take offense if someone takes some shots at Wells on the day he bites it - the only principle I see in action here is "I liked Morricone and that guy wasn't reverent enough." Do you feel the reaction would have been substantially different if he had waited a couple days or a week?
Plus, even if we want to make "be nice to the dead" a real moral thing, it seems extremely limited as a moral principle anyway. At any rate, people see moral issues in all kinds of crazy things.
- How rude!
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:36 am
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
"The world is never, ever aching for a hot take on someone’s death":
1) Trump in America
2) Johnson in England
Collective bowel movements are being painfully held back for the demise of 'Covfefe' Donald and ' Piccaninnies' Boris.
1) Trump in America
2) Johnson in England
Collective bowel movements are being painfully held back for the demise of 'Covfefe' Donald and ' Piccaninnies' Boris.
- hearthesilence
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
- Location: NYC
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
I don't get why people continue to read this jackass. It's just a colossal waste of their time.
- dustybooks
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:52 am
- Location: Wilmington, NC
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
I dunno, his absolutely wild rant about the planet Jupiter someone posted honestly made my day.
-
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 7:23 pm
Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread
Now Wells seems to believe that his behaviour regarding Morricone's death would be approved by Siskel and Ebert.
Wells has posted an imagined text conversation featuring the three writers.
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2020/07/ ... f-the-90s/
HE to Siskel and Ebert in heaven: Those politically correct college students of the late ’90s are now in positions of power and running the show. You wouldn’t believe what’s happening today at the N.Y. Times, for example. And that p.c. culture has become extremely censorious and punitive. They’re meting out punishment to transgressors and contrarians, and the ultimate p.c. punishment is called “cancelling’ — they’ll murder you on a digital platform called Twitter and get you fired if you persist in saying the wrong thing…so in the film realm if you depart from the officially sanctified view of this or that topic according to, say, Guy Lodge or Jessica Kiang, you’ll get beaten up by the mob. You could even be forced to drive for Uber or work in fast food if you’re not careful. And you know what else? Many of the smartest big-time critics are just going along with this. Because they’re mice…because they’re afraid of standing up. It’s not that different from the Commie witch hunts of early to mid ’50s. [Thanks to Jordan Ruimy for passing along clip.]
Ebert text from heaven, just received: “Let’s say, for example, that you’re not as much of a fan of the great Ennio Morricone as others. That might brand you as being less perceptive than you should be, but you are absolutely entitled to say that without dodging punches.”
Everyone knows that Wells is unhinged. What makes this post especially galling is that Wells pestered Ebert about the aspect ratio for "Shane" prior to Ebert's passing: http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2013/04/ ... -required/
This was soon after Ebert had stepped back from his duties to focus on his health. As Glenn Kenny writes, "In case no one in your private life has bothered to take you aside on this, here's the problem: had you made your request to Ebert at the beginning of your crusade, and really there's no reason why you ought not have, since you were announcing sending e-mails to strangers left and right, and Ebert is someone you have a more credible professional connection with (I'm being generous here), that would have been fine. Commendable even. To put up a quasi-hectoring request after he announces another potentially grave illness, you surely must understand, reeks of crass opportunism. Or trolling, as they call it. Anyway, as you were. This is gonna be QUITE a shit show."
Wells has posted an imagined text conversation featuring the three writers.
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2020/07/ ... f-the-90s/
HE to Siskel and Ebert in heaven: Those politically correct college students of the late ’90s are now in positions of power and running the show. You wouldn’t believe what’s happening today at the N.Y. Times, for example. And that p.c. culture has become extremely censorious and punitive. They’re meting out punishment to transgressors and contrarians, and the ultimate p.c. punishment is called “cancelling’ — they’ll murder you on a digital platform called Twitter and get you fired if you persist in saying the wrong thing…so in the film realm if you depart from the officially sanctified view of this or that topic according to, say, Guy Lodge or Jessica Kiang, you’ll get beaten up by the mob. You could even be forced to drive for Uber or work in fast food if you’re not careful. And you know what else? Many of the smartest big-time critics are just going along with this. Because they’re mice…because they’re afraid of standing up. It’s not that different from the Commie witch hunts of early to mid ’50s. [Thanks to Jordan Ruimy for passing along clip.]
Ebert text from heaven, just received: “Let’s say, for example, that you’re not as much of a fan of the great Ennio Morricone as others. That might brand you as being less perceptive than you should be, but you are absolutely entitled to say that without dodging punches.”
Everyone knows that Wells is unhinged. What makes this post especially galling is that Wells pestered Ebert about the aspect ratio for "Shane" prior to Ebert's passing: http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2013/04/ ... -required/
This was soon after Ebert had stepped back from his duties to focus on his health. As Glenn Kenny writes, "In case no one in your private life has bothered to take you aside on this, here's the problem: had you made your request to Ebert at the beginning of your crusade, and really there's no reason why you ought not have, since you were announcing sending e-mails to strangers left and right, and Ebert is someone you have a more credible professional connection with (I'm being generous here), that would have been fine. Commendable even. To put up a quasi-hectoring request after he announces another potentially grave illness, you surely must understand, reeks of crass opportunism. Or trolling, as they call it. Anyway, as you were. This is gonna be QUITE a shit show."