Jump to content
Gracii Guns

The morality of the artist

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

@Angelica @Len Cnut What's Kirk Douglas accused of doing?

Just googled him. 101years old and looking grim af. If I ever look like that kill me.

Raping a young Natalie Wood.  Repeatedly.  I don't know the full details, Angelica could probably tell you better, little Heat Magazine queen that she is :lol:, but uh, I think it was something like she did that shit under the auspices of her mother in exchange for work in the industry. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

@Angelica @Len Cnut What's Kirk Douglas accused of doing?

Just googled him. 101years old and looking grim af. If I ever look like that kill me.

 

One of the longest running rumors in Hollywood is that he was the perpetrator of the rape that Natalie Wood suffered when she was 16 (it was so brutal she had to be hospitalized for significant blood loss). It dates back to the 50’s and has been alluded to in various biographies but he’s never been formally accused publicly. Wood’s sister Lana has stated that she’ll confirm the identity of Natalie’s attacker upon his death....so we’ll see I guess. 

There have also been rumors he assaulted Jean Seberg but I’m less familiar with the sources of those. 

Edited by Angelica
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Wood’s sister Lana has stated that she’ll confirm the identity of Natalie’s attacker upon his death....so we’ll see I guess.

Why wait until his death?  If it is him surely that means he's gotten away with it.  Mind you at 102 he's sort of gotten away with it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Raping a young Natalie Wood.  Repeatedly.  I don't know the full details, Angelica could probably tell you better, little Heat Magazine queen that she is :lol:, but uh, I think it was something like she did that shit under the auspices of her mother in exchange for work in the industry. 

 

And her mom let the studio cover it up, lest the public view her as ‘damaged goods’.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Len Cnut said:

Why wait until his death?  If it is him surely that means he's gotten away with it.  Mind you at 102 he's sort of gotten away with it anyway.

He could deny it and sue her? I don’t know. It’s not like Lana’s word would be enough to charge him with anything. Him being 102 has presumably seriously narrowed the field of other possible suspects though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Angelica said:

He could deny it and sue her? I don’t know. It’s not like Lana’s word would be enough to charge him with anything. Him being 102 has presumably seriously narrowed the field of other possible suspects though.

His estate could just as easily sue her after the fact, couldn't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Len Cnut said:

His estate could just as easily sue her after the fact, couldn't they?

True. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Angelica said:

True. 

I agree with Leonard. Never, ever, wait. Always dob them in ASAP. Her mother sounds like a vicious cunt. It's heartbreaking a mother of all people could do that. What's it all about? This fucking planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I agree with Leonard. Never, ever, wait. Always dob them in ASAP. Her mother sounds like a vicious cunt. It's heartbreaking a mother of all people could do that. What's it all about? This fucking planet.

Look at it from the mothers point of view.  its the 1950s, a pretty puritanical era...and you're gonna take your 16 yr old budding actress girl to take the stand to testify against one of the most famous well recognised beloved actors of the day, how do you think that'd work out?  That would've been the end of it for Nat', she would've been the rape girl forever, no one probably would've fuckin' believed her, then to take the stand, up against prosecutors, peoples whoose job it is to tear to bits the testimony of even seasoned criminals and people who know the system and all that shit...and you're gonna put this little girl up against them?  Think about the nature of the rape too, violent, to the point of hospitalisation, imagine Natalie going over the details of that shit in front of a court.  That shit is harrowing and spirit crushing in any day and age but then way back in the 1950s, where sex wasn't even like talked about, to go through all that shit, its bad enough you have this awful dehumanizing experience and then the very social structure that is supposed to mete out justice requires you to first stand up in public, the eyes of the world on you and justify that shit, prove it, prove that shit happened to you, like you're the fuckin' criminal, going through all the fuckin' details, reliving that shit in minute detail, its probably hard enough to even go back to that place in your head without some prosecutor picking the shit to pieces, making you out stupid or a liar or a whore.

OR...you keep your mouth shut, put a lid on it all and help so the kid gets a fuckin' career and a money and some kind of a fuckin' life to live, of course that shit don't make up for nothing but it seems to me, from a mothers perspective, I could see how they might reach the conclusion that taking on Spartacus ain't the fuckin' best course of action.  I cannot begin to imagine what fighting that shit would've done to Nat, it would've been the end of her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I agree with Leonard. Never, ever, wait. Always dob them in ASAP. Her mother sounds like a vicious cunt. It's heartbreaking a mother of all people could do that. What's it all about? This fucking planet.

Oh I agree completely. If it’s him, there’s no reason to wait. If it’s someone else, Douglas has been dogged by this rumor for over half a century and she could’ve cleared his name. It makes no sense on either front. 

Her mother was by my most accounts a legitimate monster - https://www.google.com/amp/s/variety.com/2001/more/reviews/natasha-the-biography-of-natalie-wood-1200469640/amp/

edit - there’s no reason for Natalie’s sister to sit on this. Natalie had plenty of reasons to keep quiet as Len says and her mother most likely set her  up with whoever ended up attacking her. 

Edited by Angelica
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Look at it from the mothers point of view.  its the 1950s, a pretty puritanical era...and you're gonna take your 16 yr old budding actress girl to take the stand to testify against one of the most famous well recognised beloved actors of the day, how do you think that'd work out?  That would've been the end of it for Nat', she would've been the rape girl forever, no one probably would've fuckin' believed her, then to take the stand, up against prosecutors, peoples whoose job it is to tear to bits the testimony of even seasoned criminals and people who know the system and all that shit...and you're gonna put this little girl up against them?  Think about the nature of the rape too, violent, to the point of hospitalisation, imagine Natalie going over the details of that shit in front of a court.  That shit is harrowing and spirit crushing in any day and age but then way back in the 1950s, where sex wasn't even like talked about, to go through all that shit, its bad enough you have this awful dehumanizing experience and then the very social structure that is supposed to mete out justice requires you to first stand up in public, the eyes of the world on you and justify that shit, prove it, prove that shit happened to you, like you're the fuckin' criminal, going through all the fuckin' details, reliving that shit in minute detail, its probably hard enough to even go back to that place in your head without some prosecutor picking the shit to pieces, making you out stupid or a liar or a whore.

OR...you keep your mouth shut, put a lid on it all and help so the kid gets a fuckin' career and a money and some kind of a fuckin' life to live, of course that shit don't make up for nothing but it seems to me, from a mothers perspective, I could see how they might reach the conclusion that taking on Spartacus ain't the fuckin' best course of action.  I cannot begin to imagine what fighting that shit would've done to Nat, it would've been the end of her. 

It's all a big nothing. Echoes in the abyss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Seriously?!  Fuck.  I never knew that, which one, the blonde bird or the other one?  Dont say the fuckin’ one with the beard! :lol:  Wait, no, says ‘she’.

Who, the Chili Peppers?

Yes. They have the Motley Crue yoo dude totally awesome boneheaded way about them

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Yes. They have the Motley Crue yoo dude totally awesome boneheaded way about them

They do but they're kinda self aware and comical about it.  And more than that the music is what matters and musically they are fuckin' brilliant, Frusicante is a G (massive Hendrix fan too btw), Flea is again, a prodigy with that bass.  And they are earnest about their obssession with funk music, I don't mind boneheaded-ness and stupidity, music should be fun too as well as many other things. 

Brilliant band though, to me, especially those early albums.  Funk meets Punk.  i love their airy fairy effette hippie ramblings too.  i love the overblown silliness of it, it makes more sense if you're into George Clinton or Parliament or Sly Stone, it makes more sense with that context.

Edited by Len Cnut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

They do but they're kinda self aware and comical about it.  And more than that the music is what matters and musically they are fuckin' brilliant, Frusicante is a G (massive Hendrix fan too btw), Flea is again, a prodigy with that bass.  And they are earnest about their obssession with funk music, I don't mind boneheaded-ness and stupidity, music should be fun too as well as many other things. 

Brilliant band though, to me, especially those early albums.  Funk meets Punk.  i love their airy fairy effette hippie ramblings too.  i love the overblown silliness of it, it makes more sense if you're into George Clinton or Parliament or Sly Stone, it makes more sense with that context.

I never liked them, but I had a friend who did. ''Give it away give it away give it away now''. I thought it was all a bunch of cobblers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I never liked them, but I had a friend who did. ''Give it away give it away give it away now''. I thought it was all a bunch of cobblers. 

Come to that, how do you feel about Funk, don't think I've ever heard you mention it, aside from obviously James Brown, arguably the principle architect of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Come to that, how do you feel about Funk, don't think I've ever heard you mention it, aside from obviously James Brown, arguably the principle architect of it.

You have answered your own question. I love James Brown and the JBs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

They do but they're kinda self aware and comical about it.  And more than that the music is what matters and musically they are fuckin' brilliant, Frusicante is a G (massive Hendrix fan too btw), Flea is again, a prodigy with that bass.  And they are earnest about their obssession with funk music, I don't mind boneheaded-ness and stupidity, music should be fun too as well as many other things. 

Brilliant band though, to me, especially those early albums.  Funk meets Punk.  i love their airy fairy effette hippie ramblings too.  i love the overblown silliness of it, it makes more sense if you're into George Clinton or Parliament or Sly Stone, it makes more sense with that context.

Funnily enough, I prefer their later records but I am not a fan of funk, really. But yeah, Frusicante is amazing. Just so beautiful and simple solos. And great on backing vocals (Otherworld is a good example).

Edited by SoulMonster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, downzy said:

Nope to almost all of this.

200.gif.3ea80cf2efeb32d62717200627e5e9e2.gif

This is the woman who as assaulted in the video: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleo_Rocos

She was not a no-name actress meant to play a role here.  Nor was she "in" on the joke.  If you can watch that video and think she enjoyed it or was apart of the shtick, good lord, I don't know what to tell you.

Why should we let any decade be?  That's nonsense.  Should we excuse other bad behaviour because they were simply a sign of the times?  

I didn't watch it closley.  f I was mistaken, I apolgize. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Angelica said:

It’s also worth noting Kiedis, Smith and Balzary had all been convicted of sexual battery a few  months before this was filmed.

Labelling anyone a SJW because they find *something* offensive is as dumb and reductive as any knee jerk reaction you’ll get from the biggest pearl clutching purity patrolman on twitter. There is no context in which that video isn’t fucked. 

I went back and edited my post, after rewatching the video, if it wasn't an intentional "skit" then yes, that was pretty bad. :(

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read in The Mirror site that BBC dropp the MJ music, cause this doc about M Jackson accusation's..  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardings the Peppers video, yes it's disgusting and thanks God nobody would get away with that nowadays but I don't think it would be fair to attack (or "cancel") them for that since it was like hundreds years ago and they have definitely changed musically and personally. That shit from the video fits perfectly with their 80's image of hyperactive-sex obsessed dumbasses but they have changed and matured a lot since then. You can tell the difference of a song like Party on Your Pussy with one like Snow. I remember in a 2014 Argentina show when at one point Flea told the wild audience to stop touching women inappropriately and keep their hand in their pockets. That's pretty telling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't any of the blokes knock the wanker out?

And why are the Peppers always in the buff? Every time you see them they have, what they'd say where I live, nee clays on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Why didn't any of the blokes knock the wanker out?

And why are the Peppers always in the buff? Every time you see them they have, what they'd say where I live, nee clays on. 

Why was Iggy Pop?  Mysteries for the ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×