A comment asked why people already suspected him of SA, but it was deleted. However, I had already written up a response so I figure I'll share it here anyways for anyone who might be similarly...
Exemplary
A comment asked why people already suspected him of SA, but it was deleted. However, I had already written up a response so I figure I'll share it here anyways for anyone who might be similarly wondering the same.
At one point, about five years ago, I had a harem of about 10 women, whom I would rotate in addition to one-night stands and random casual encounters. But shagging - incessant as it was - no longer seemed to have the required calming effect. I was on the brink of becoming sufficiently well known for my carnal overindulgences - with lapdancers and prostitutes, to say nothing of all the women who didn't sell sex for a living - to cause me professional difficulties. There's nothing especially peculiar or odd about my erotic predilections. It's the scale of my sexual endeavours that causes the problems, not the nature of them. I just like girls, all different ones, in an unsophisticated, unevolved way, like a Sun reader or a yobbo at a bus stop in Basildon, perhaps because, at my core, that's what I am. I'm a bloke from Grays with a good job and a terrific haircut who's been given a Wonka ticket to a lovely sex factory 'cos of the ol' fame, and while Augustus Gloop drowns and Veruca Salt goes blue, I'm cleaning up, I'm rinsin' it baby!
I haven't always treated women well - more than one relationship has collapsed because of my infidelity - but to this day I feel a fierce warmth for women who have the same disregard for the social conventions of sexual protocol as I do. I love it when I meet a woman and her sexuality is dancing across her face, so it's apparent that all we need to do is nod and find a cupboard.
When I came back from Asia, I was much more comfortable around women, and my sexuality had morphed forever from bewildered innocence into something more complex and rapacious. Once my career as a comedian and TV presenter started to pick up, I began to have loads of encounters after gigs. As my sexual appetite grew, I found myself engaged in an increasingly desperate quest to satisfy it. I became so open to suggestion that when someone asked me if I'd like to go to an orgy, I didn't think twice before accepting this invitation.
It was to rescue me from these kinds of grisly scenarios that John Noel sent me to KeyStone. And I'm glad he did. One day I had to write a victims' list - a litany of the women I'd wronged as a result of my sexual addiction. I felt like Saddam Hussein trying to pick out individual Kurds.
The BBC has apologised to staff who felt they could not speak up with concerns about Russell Brand's behaviour because he was seen as "too influential" and they felt he "would always get his way and therefore they stayed silent".
The apology came as the BBC published the findings of an internal review into Brand's time as a presenter for BBC Radio 2 and 6 Music between 2006 and 2008.
The investigation considered eight complaints, two of which were made while he worked for the corporation.
One of those, which related to him urinating into a cup and behaving aggressively during his Radio 2 show, was registered formally at the time, and the BBC has now admitted it was "not dealt with effectively".
The BBC launched the investigation after separate allegations in 2023 from several women who accused the 49-year-old actor and comedian of rape, sexual assaults and emotional abuse.
The review also found that Brand had consensual sex with a competition winner from his 6 Music show on BBC premises.
Speaking to the review team, that person said that while what happened was consensual, they now felt "Brand had abused his position and taken advantage of them".
Channel 4, where Brand also worked as a presenter, released its own internal review findings in March 2024. Its boss apologised to a former employee after the probe found it had not investigated a "serious" complaint made against the star in 2009.
Brand has been interviewed three times by police since September 2023.
In November 2024, the Metropolitan Police sent the Crown Prosecution Service a file of evidence, but prosecutors have not yet decided whether to bring charges.
Another staff member said they had raised concerns informally about Brand's conduct in 2006 and 2007, the report said.
Someone else alleged that Brand "tucked his fingers down their trousers and underwear and pulled them towards him" in a corridor while on set of a BBC radio production, but did not complain at the time.
Staff members who were "most closely" involved in his shows described his behaviour in general as "promiscuous or out-of-control", but said they did not "witness anything non-consensual or potentially illegal".
Another complaint was made to the BBC about an incident in Los Angeles in 2008.
Brand is alleged to have followed "Olivia" into a bathroom and shown his penis to her moments before he began pre-recording his radio show.
The woman, who was not a BBC employee but worked in the same building, did not complain at the time, thinking "she would not be believed".
Thanks for pulling this all together. I do want to add that enjoying sex, even with multiple partners (individually or at the same time) is not in and of itself morally wrong. Sex addiction,...
Thanks for pulling this all together.
I do want to add that enjoying sex, even with multiple partners (individually or at the same time) is not in and of itself morally wrong.
Sex addiction, however, which is what these quotes together illustrate, can be incredibly harmful to oneself or others. Anyone who thinks they might have a sex addiction should talk with a qualified and licensed therapist for diagnosis and a treatment plan.
One of the most common diagnostic criteria for many mental illnesses is that the behaviors negatively impact your life or the lives of those around you.
Finally, in support of victims, it is incredibly important to point out that addiction is not a valid excuse for harming someone. If you've been harmed by someone with an addiction, don't excuse it on their behalf. Those with an addiction, especially a long-term one, know they are harming others and still refuse to get treatment or help. You can blame their behavior on the addiction, and even continue to love them, but don't ever believe the lie that it's your responsibility to stay with them through it all.
You deserve the best life possible, and when someone doesn't want to change, they won't. Don't wait so long for change if they are making zero effort. Your life, safety, and happiness are more important than their continued addiction and abuse.
Well said. And yeah, I didn't mean to imply sex with multiple partners is inherently bad/immoral, or that sex addiction inevitably leads to becoming a rapist, or anything like that. So I hope it...
Well said. And yeah, I didn't mean to imply sex with multiple partners is inherently bad/immoral, or that sex addiction inevitably leads to becoming a rapist, or anything like that. So I hope it didn't come across like that.
However, in Brand's case in particular, I think that reading between the lines of his biography and the article he wrote about it, he comes across as a total narcissist who was actually inadvertently admitting to far more than just having a relatively harmless sex addiction problem. Even his suggesting that he can tell when women want to have sex with him by the look in their face, and all it takes is a nod to head somewhere nearby to have sex with them, is pretty telling, IMO. That doesn't strike me as the kind of thing a person who takes no for an answer would say. Not to mention the fact that even well before these charges there was a pretty clear pattern of him having serious anger issues, and making inappropriate sexual advances towards women in the workplace.
Also Wiki Pre 2023 Allegations In a 2006 interview, Dannii Minogue said Brand had sexually harassed her after she appeared on his TV show. She described him as "a bit of a vile predator", adding:...
In a 2006 interview, Dannii Minogue said Brand had sexually harassed her after she appeared on his TV show. She described him as "a bit of a vile predator", adding: "I certainly don't think he has cured his sex addiction." She said that Brand "wouldn't take no for an answer" and "throughout the whole interview he kept making shocking remarks that I can't even repeat".[22][198]
In 2007, on Brand's BBC Radio 2 comedy show, he called former Jim'll Fix It host Jimmy Savile and asked to meet him. Savile answered that that would only happen if Brand brought along his sister if he had one. In response, Brand joked, "I've got a personal assistant [...] and part of her job description is that anyone I demand she greet, meet, massages, she has to do it. She's very attractive, Jimmy."[199] When he asked Savile what she should wear, Savile replied he would "prefer her to wear nothing".[199][200] The exchange between Brand and Savile was featured in the 2023 Channel 4 Dispatches documentary Russell Brand: In Plain Sight.[201]
From 2006 to 2008 Brand received five complaints while he was a BBC radio host and presenter of both sexual misconduct and unprofessional workplace behaviour.[202]
In 2014, former girlfriend Jordan Martin said Brand had committed sexual assault and physical and emotional abuse during their six-month relationship in 2007.[203][204] She accused Brand of assaulting her at the Lowry Hotel in Salford when he became angry after discovering she had spoken to an ex-boyfriend.[204]
While filming a programme with Brand in 2018, Katherine Ryan reportedly made remarks to Brand, indicating he was a "sexual predator"; these remarks were not broadcast.[205]
I followed enough British media that I heard about most of this at the time, not sure about the ones with Savile
Forgetting Sarah Marshall is a fantastic movie though, and I think I will continue to enjoy it, but also being mindful when I share it with others.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall is a fantastic movie though, and I think we should still be able to enjoy it. I will continue to enjoy it, but also being mindful when I share it with others.
I'm personally not on board with this take, especially since it's right after his conviction for something as horrendous as rape and sexual assault. While in one sense, no one can stop anyone from...
I'm personally not on board with this take, especially since it's right after his conviction for something as horrendous as rape and sexual assault. While in one sense, no one can stop anyone from enjoying these films but I question HOW can anyone enjoy these films knowing what Brand did prior to these films. It's not like he's a tax cheat or a thief, the dude was on a 6 year rape and sexual assault spree. How can one enjoy these films knowing what was done and not experience some form of disgust every time Brand is on the screen?
Obviously there are levels to this and I'm not saying people are irredeemable or these films can't be enjoyed again, but for me, his rightward shift and his general shitiness doesn't really give me any hope that he'll work his way to make up for this.
My answer to this is I'm not going to let someone take away what little enjoyment I can get from things, especially when you consider this is not an isolated incident and the people who play these...
I question HOW can anyone enjoy these films knowing what Brand prior to these films. It's not like he's a tax cheat or a thief, the dude was on a 6 year rape and sexual assault spree. How can one enjoy these films knowing what was done and not experience some form of disgust every time Brand is on the screen?
My answer to this is I'm not going to let someone take away what little enjoyment I can get from things, especially when you consider this is not an isolated incident and the people who play these characters have lives and some of those people are shitty people. I don't watch something expecting that everyone in it is an angel. If the expectation is that I can't watch something because someone somewhere in it did bad things, then realistically no one should watch anything ever, because most likely there's someone involved in most films or shows that is a piece of shit, especially when you consider how many people are involved in the production of them.
I can enjoy them because he's not anything but a character on the screen to me. I think of it like this. In a world where AI can generate accurate video depictions of things (like people not having two right feet or such), none of the people in that video exist or are real, they're all fictional creations on a screen. The actor in our real world case is merely a vehicle for portraying a character in a way that we had no means of otherwise producing.
Now there's another problem beyond that which is, money may go into the pockets of the actors who play those characters if you continue to consume that content, but this has several levels to it and a lot of it is just guessing and feeling out what feels right or doesn't. I don't know all of the business levels of who gets paid what whenever I watch something, just like people streaming music on Spotify don't generally know what the artists get paid or anyone else involved in the productions of that music, or if Joe Rogan is getting small slices of every listen to every song you listen to on there.
There's a point where I have some reasonable guesses when significant financial impacts are made from my consumerism and in those cases I will try to factor in ethical concerns surrounding production of that content, but beyond that I'm not going to fool myself into thinking I'm making a difference in what seems like smaller cases while boosting my ego about it and at the same time remaining willfully ignorant of other situations because I happened to not be reading the news when someone else got exposed for doing something bad. Essentially I see it as, if I'm not compiling a list of every single person who has sexual assault allegations, domestic abuse, fraud, cheating, stealing, lying etc., and then using that to influence every decision I make, then I'm simply randomly choosing to apply a standard to things based on what happens to cross my periphery at any given time, which just seems pointless. Granted I know I probably still do that for larger things, like if Russell Brand was making a new movie, I probably would steer away from it as I feel that has a bigger impact than not watching a movie made almost two decades ago.
It's really about balancing what positives I can keep in my own life without contributing negatives outwardly where I can avoid it. It turns out that if you really consider most of your actions thoroughly, there's very little you can do that doesn't contribute negatively to something somewhere.
Ok so I understand what you're saying but this isn't the point I'm making and maybe I wasn't being clear enough so apologies in advance if my tone is overly combative or conveys a sense of...
Ok so I understand what you're saying but this isn't the point I'm making and maybe I wasn't being clear enough so apologies in advance if my tone is overly combative or conveys a sense of frustration.
If the expectation is that I can't watch something because someone somewhere in it did bad things, then realistically no one should watch anything ever
This would be absolutely insane to argue and I was never arguing this. Honestly, when people bring this type of argument up, it feels like a straw man that completely obfuscates the point and the question that I'm trying to raise.
Maybe I need to be more explicit but my comment was specifically about watching Brand's films when someone has knowledge of the horrid crimes that he has committed, nothing more. There was no extending this to other situations and can be summed up only as "We learned today that Brand is a convicted rapist and I don't know how people would want to watch his films after just learning this."
My personal perspective has never been "you need to evaluate everyone involved in a massive piece of media" : that's fucking insane and that type of moral grandstanding is for terminally online idiots who need to touch grass lol. My point question has always been what do you do when you know?
In your case, you seem him as a character and the man is a vehicle for that character as well as a desire to keep what little joy you can get from things. I don't agree entirely with that view but understand your perspective and that's enough for me to basically leave it at that.
I will say for me, sources of joy, particularly in media, are always evolving. Brand may be unique but to me, isn't anything remarkable so relegating him to the dustbin of my mental history, the way I did with Kevin Spacey, the way I may do with the band Zulu, the way we should do with Woody Allen isn't that difficult because there are always other sources of joy.
I get it, I'm on a Gaiman boycott myself. I support folks who just plain don't feel good about any movie with Brand in them anymore. Further, because of respect for your response, I am reminded...
I get it, I'm on a Gaiman boycott myself. I support folks who just plain don't feel good about any movie with Brand in them anymore. Further, because of respect for your response, I am reminded that I need to be more careful in how I phrase things [comment edited, thank you], and to be more mindful if I ever suggest watching movies together with friends and family in the future.
how
Again, I have no intention of refuting your assessment nor trying to convince you, but perhaps offering a perspective that you're not obligated to share or condone.
(a) Brand was hired for a side role. Brand was not part of the production team, he didn't write the film, he didn't cast anyone. He's portraying an unlikable character: his scenes are skippable without really affecting the overall story. To me, and again I respect a difference of opinions, most people didn't know when this movie was made, and I'm okay with fast forwarding the bits with him in it with a note of "yeah a bad person was cast here but we can skip those scenes". So, (a) it was a minor role.
(b) I like cultural update notes on films: it gives honour to how our values evolve over time, and give me a hopeful reminder that even if some of these bad people "got away" with something at the time, and/or that complaints at the time would not have been taken seriously, history will judge them for it precisely because we're doing better as a collective whole. Along that line, I can still enjoy Gone With The Wind, noting that Clark Gable is a rapist who plays Rhett, a rapist. So, (b), I think keeping works with an added note of "we now know more" is a better response than deleting the work altogether or keeping silent about its problems.
I have much more complicated feelings about watching a Tarantino film, say, or a Polanski. Or music written by artists who back dictatorships. When someone makes something, it makes it way worse that the maker is someone who has done evil things. I do, again, see your point, because I also find it difficult to listen to songs sung by certain artists after knowing things about them.
100% on board with this. I think context is key and how can we demonstrate where we've come if we erase/edit away things we now find uncomfortable or now deem offensive. To take an absurd (but...
I think keeping works with an added note of "we now know more" is a better response than deleting the work altogether or keeping silent about its problems.
100% on board with this. I think context is key and how can we demonstrate where we've come if we erase/edit away things we now find uncomfortable or now deem offensive. To take an absurd (but personally honest) example, history needs to know about horrors of Chumbawamba's Tubthumper and the terribleness of the late 90s pop music trends so leave that shit up for people to hear as they please so I don't have to listen to a whole unironic Chumbawamba inspired indie subgenre next year when the late 90s come back in full force.
When someone makes something, it makes it way worse that the maker is someone who has done evil things
Yea this was my specific point, it's like how do people respond when they know. Brand is meaningless to me but there have been a lot of musicians who did mean something to me that I can't really get on board with anymore. Like I constantly wrestle with The Smiths because Morrissey is pretty scummy (side note, JPEGMafia has had some weird takes recently but at least he's wrestling with it).
So yea, I appreciate your thoughts and expected a good response. Tildes is pretty small so it's easy to recognize users who will give thoughtful responses so I appreciate you taking the time to give your perspective.
How dare you!? 90s pop was the best decade of pop!!! 90s era Boy Bands and Girl Groups were the goddamn best! And I still regularly get down to 90s pop playlists, even ones that include the...
horrors of Chumbawamba's Tubthumper and the terribleness of the late 90s pop music trends
How dare you!? 90s pop was the best decade of pop!!! 90s era Boy Bands and Girl Groups were the goddamn best! And I still regularly get down to 90s pop playlists, even ones that include the one-hit-wonders like Tubthumper, Mambo No 5, and I'm Too Sexy! ;)
Listen, in this political climate and in this economy, some of us are perfectly fine with getting knocked down and not getting up again. I, for one, am easily kept down and want a nap.
Listen, in this political climate and in this economy, some of us are perfectly fine with getting knocked down and not getting up again. I, for one, am easily kept down and want a nap.
Sorry, but You Get What You Give when you Steal My Sunshine. It's almost Closing Time so I can't say More Than Words in response, but The Impression That I Get is you missed The Sign that This Is...
My response to the magnificent effort on this comment. My response to the playlist you put together. Only kidding as my beef with 90s music is pretty limited to Chumbawamba and Los Del Rio/Bayside...
My response to the magnificent effort on this comment.
Only kidding as my beef with 90s music is pretty limited to Chumbawamba and Los Del Rio/Bayside Boys. Like I'm full into the 90s indie revival this week with bands like Momma dropping a new album today and this single from Sydney Sprague being on repeat
I feel a bit like Norm McDonald when he said that he always hated Oscar Pistorius, even before he murdered his wife, just because he seemed like an asshole with those unfairly efficient leg...
I feel a bit like Norm McDonald when he said that he always hated Oscar Pistorius, even before he murdered his wife, just because he seemed like an asshole with those unfairly efficient leg prosthetics. Except I'm not funny.
I always disliked Russel Brand because something about his face really makes me want to slap him. That was literally it.
Then I found out he has a youtube channel talking about esoteric bullshit. Then I found out he also talks about how the war in Ukraine is actually the fault of the US who provoked Russia and manipulated Ukraine, which apparently has no agency and no other reason to want to separate itself from Russia as much as possible.
So he does actually badly want to be slapped. It's not just me being shallow. Everything is in balance, and nothing posted in this thread is surprising.
A comment asked why people already suspected him of SA, but it was deleted. However, I had already written up a response so I figure I'll share it here anyways for anyone who might be similarly wondering the same.
From the man himself:
And this isn't the first time there have been accusations made against him either. See, this BBC summary of their internal investigation from earlier this year: BBC apologises for culture of silence over Russell Brand
Thanks for pulling this all together.
I do want to add that enjoying sex, even with multiple partners (individually or at the same time) is not in and of itself morally wrong.
Sex addiction, however, which is what these quotes together illustrate, can be incredibly harmful to oneself or others. Anyone who thinks they might have a sex addiction should talk with a qualified and licensed therapist for diagnosis and a treatment plan.
One of the most common diagnostic criteria for many mental illnesses is that the behaviors negatively impact your life or the lives of those around you.
Finally, in support of victims, it is incredibly important to point out that addiction is not a valid excuse for harming someone. If you've been harmed by someone with an addiction, don't excuse it on their behalf. Those with an addiction, especially a long-term one, know they are harming others and still refuse to get treatment or help. You can blame their behavior on the addiction, and even continue to love them, but don't ever believe the lie that it's your responsibility to stay with them through it all.
You deserve the best life possible, and when someone doesn't want to change, they won't. Don't wait so long for change if they are making zero effort. Your life, safety, and happiness are more important than their continued addiction and abuse.
Well said. And yeah, I didn't mean to imply sex with multiple partners is inherently bad/immoral, or that sex addiction inevitably leads to becoming a rapist, or anything like that. So I hope it didn't come across like that.
However, in Brand's case in particular, I think that reading between the lines of his biography and the article he wrote about it, he comes across as a total narcissist who was actually inadvertently admitting to far more than just having a relatively harmless sex addiction problem. Even his suggesting that he can tell when women want to have sex with him by the look in their face, and all it takes is a nod to head somewhere nearby to have sex with them, is pretty telling, IMO. That doesn't strike me as the kind of thing a person who takes no for an answer would say. Not to mention the fact that even well before these charges there was a pretty clear pattern of him having serious anger issues, and making inappropriate sexual advances towards women in the workplace.
Also
Wiki
Pre 2023 Allegations
In a 2006 interview, Dannii Minogue said Brand had sexually harassed her after she appeared on his TV show. She described him as "a bit of a vile predator", adding: "I certainly don't think he has cured his sex addiction." She said that Brand "wouldn't take no for an answer" and "throughout the whole interview he kept making shocking remarks that I can't even repeat".[22][198]
In 2007, on Brand's BBC Radio 2 comedy show, he called former Jim'll Fix It host Jimmy Savile and asked to meet him. Savile answered that that would only happen if Brand brought along his sister if he had one. In response, Brand joked, "I've got a personal assistant [...] and part of her job description is that anyone I demand she greet, meet, massages, she has to do it. She's very attractive, Jimmy."[199] When he asked Savile what she should wear, Savile replied he would "prefer her to wear nothing".[199][200] The exchange between Brand and Savile was featured in the 2023 Channel 4 Dispatches documentary Russell Brand: In Plain Sight.[201]
From 2006 to 2008 Brand received five complaints while he was a BBC radio host and presenter of both sexual misconduct and unprofessional workplace behaviour.[202]
In 2014, former girlfriend Jordan Martin said Brand had committed sexual assault and physical and emotional abuse during their six-month relationship in 2007.[203][204] She accused Brand of assaulting her at the Lowry Hotel in Salford when he became angry after discovering she had spoken to an ex-boyfriend.[204]
While filming a programme with Brand in 2018, Katherine Ryan reportedly made remarks to Brand, indicating he was a "sexual predator"; these remarks were not broadcast.[205]
I followed enough British media that I heard about most of this at the time, not sure about the ones with Savile
It's always the ones you
leastsuspect.relevant onion article: https://theonion.com/nation-could-have-sworn-russell-brand-was-already-convi-1850849838/
Yeah no that article is accurate
Forgetting Sarah Marshall is a fantastic movie though, and I think
we should still be able to enjoy it.I will continue to enjoy it, but also being mindful when I share it with others.I'm personally not on board with this take, especially since it's right after his conviction for something as horrendous as rape and sexual assault. While in one sense, no one can stop anyone from enjoying these films but I question HOW can anyone enjoy these films knowing what Brand did prior to these films. It's not like he's a tax cheat or a thief, the dude was on a 6 year rape and sexual assault spree. How can one enjoy these films knowing what was done and not experience some form of disgust every time Brand is on the screen?
Obviously there are levels to this and I'm not saying people are irredeemable or these films can't be enjoyed again, but for me, his rightward shift and his general shitiness doesn't really give me any hope that he'll work his way to make up for this.
My answer to this is I'm not going to let someone take away what little enjoyment I can get from things, especially when you consider this is not an isolated incident and the people who play these characters have lives and some of those people are shitty people. I don't watch something expecting that everyone in it is an angel. If the expectation is that I can't watch something because someone somewhere in it did bad things, then realistically no one should watch anything ever, because most likely there's someone involved in most films or shows that is a piece of shit, especially when you consider how many people are involved in the production of them.
I can enjoy them because he's not anything but a character on the screen to me. I think of it like this. In a world where AI can generate accurate video depictions of things (like people not having two right feet or such), none of the people in that video exist or are real, they're all fictional creations on a screen. The actor in our real world case is merely a vehicle for portraying a character in a way that we had no means of otherwise producing.
Now there's another problem beyond that which is, money may go into the pockets of the actors who play those characters if you continue to consume that content, but this has several levels to it and a lot of it is just guessing and feeling out what feels right or doesn't. I don't know all of the business levels of who gets paid what whenever I watch something, just like people streaming music on Spotify don't generally know what the artists get paid or anyone else involved in the productions of that music, or if Joe Rogan is getting small slices of every listen to every song you listen to on there.
There's a point where I have some reasonable guesses when significant financial impacts are made from my consumerism and in those cases I will try to factor in ethical concerns surrounding production of that content, but beyond that I'm not going to fool myself into thinking I'm making a difference in what seems like smaller cases while boosting my ego about it and at the same time remaining willfully ignorant of other situations because I happened to not be reading the news when someone else got exposed for doing something bad. Essentially I see it as, if I'm not compiling a list of every single person who has sexual assault allegations, domestic abuse, fraud, cheating, stealing, lying etc., and then using that to influence every decision I make, then I'm simply randomly choosing to apply a standard to things based on what happens to cross my periphery at any given time, which just seems pointless. Granted I know I probably still do that for larger things, like if Russell Brand was making a new movie, I probably would steer away from it as I feel that has a bigger impact than not watching a movie made almost two decades ago.
It's really about balancing what positives I can keep in my own life without contributing negatives outwardly where I can avoid it. It turns out that if you really consider most of your actions thoroughly, there's very little you can do that doesn't contribute negatively to something somewhere.
Ok so I understand what you're saying but this isn't the point I'm making and maybe I wasn't being clear enough so apologies in advance if my tone is overly combative or conveys a sense of frustration.
This would be absolutely insane to argue and I was never arguing this. Honestly, when people bring this type of argument up, it feels like a straw man that completely obfuscates the point and the question that I'm trying to raise.
Maybe I need to be more explicit but my comment was specifically about watching Brand's films when someone has knowledge of the horrid crimes that he has committed, nothing more. There was no extending this to other situations and can be summed up only as "We learned today that Brand is a convicted rapist and I don't know how people would want to watch his films after just learning this."
My personal perspective has never been "you need to evaluate everyone involved in a massive piece of media" : that's fucking insane and that type of moral grandstanding is for terminally online idiots who need to touch grass lol. My point question has always been what do you do when you know?
In your case, you seem him as a character and the man is a vehicle for that character as well as a desire to keep what little joy you can get from things. I don't agree entirely with that view but understand your perspective and that's enough for me to basically leave it at that.
I will say for me, sources of joy, particularly in media, are always evolving. Brand may be unique but to me, isn't anything remarkable so relegating him to the dustbin of my mental history, the way I did with Kevin Spacey, the way I may do with the band Zulu, the way we should do with Woody Allen isn't that difficult because there are always other sources of joy.
I get it, I'm on a Gaiman boycott myself. I support folks who just plain don't feel good about any movie with Brand in them anymore. Further, because of respect for your response, I am reminded that I need to be more careful in how I phrase things [comment edited, thank you], and to be more mindful if I ever suggest watching movies together with friends and family in the future.
Again, I have no intention of refuting your assessment nor trying to convince you, but perhaps offering a perspective that you're not obligated to share or condone.
(a) Brand was hired for a side role. Brand was not part of the production team, he didn't write the film, he didn't cast anyone. He's portraying an unlikable character: his scenes are skippable without really affecting the overall story. To me, and again I respect a difference of opinions, most people didn't know when this movie was made, and I'm okay with fast forwarding the bits with him in it with a note of "yeah a bad person was cast here but we can skip those scenes". So, (a) it was a minor role.
(b) I like cultural update notes on films: it gives honour to how our values evolve over time, and give me a hopeful reminder that even if some of these bad people "got away" with something at the time, and/or that complaints at the time would not have been taken seriously, history will judge them for it precisely because we're doing better as a collective whole. Along that line, I can still enjoy Gone With The Wind, noting that Clark Gable is a rapist who plays Rhett, a rapist. So, (b), I think keeping works with an added note of "we now know more" is a better response than deleting the work altogether or keeping silent about its problems.
I have much more complicated feelings about watching a Tarantino film, say, or a Polanski. Or music written by artists who back dictatorships. When someone makes something, it makes it way worse that the maker is someone who has done evil things. I do, again, see your point, because I also find it difficult to listen to songs sung by certain artists after knowing things about them.
100% on board with this. I think context is key and how can we demonstrate where we've come if we erase/edit away things we now find uncomfortable or now deem offensive. To take an absurd (but personally honest) example, history needs to know about horrors of Chumbawamba's Tubthumper and the terribleness of the late 90s pop music trends so leave that shit up for people to hear as they please so I don't have to listen to a whole unironic Chumbawamba inspired indie subgenre next year when the late 90s come back in full force.
Yea this was my specific point, it's like how do people respond when they know. Brand is meaningless to me but there have been a lot of musicians who did mean something to me that I can't really get on board with anymore. Like I constantly wrestle with The Smiths because Morrissey is pretty scummy (side note, JPEGMafia has had some weird takes recently but at least he's wrestling with it).
So yea, I appreciate your thoughts and expected a good response. Tildes is pretty small so it's easy to recognize users who will give thoughtful responses so I appreciate you taking the time to give your perspective.
How dare you!? 90s pop was the best decade of pop!!! 90s era Boy Bands and Girl Groups were the goddamn best! And I still regularly get down to 90s pop playlists, even ones that include the one-hit-wonders like Tubthumper, Mambo No 5, and I'm Too Sexy! ;)
Listen, in this political climate and in this economy, some of us are perfectly fine with getting knocked down and not getting up again. I, for one, am easily kept down and want a nap.
Sorry, but You Get What You Give when you Steal My Sunshine. It's almost Closing Time so I can't say More Than Words in response, but The Impression That I Get is you missed The Sign that This Is How We Do It. In the Meantime, I’ll Be There for You until you learn The Way and become One of Us. Whoomp! There It Is. MMMBop?
My response to the magnificent effort on this comment.
My response to the playlist you put together.
Only kidding as my beef with 90s music is pretty limited to Chumbawamba and Los Del Rio/Bayside Boys. Like I'm full into the 90s indie revival this week with bands like Momma dropping a new album today and this single from Sydney Sprague being on repeat
;) ❤️
I'm also partial to Get Him To The Greek
unironically my reaction to reading this title on Tildes
I feel a bit like Norm McDonald when he said that he always hated Oscar Pistorius, even before he murdered his wife, just because he seemed like an asshole with those unfairly efficient leg prosthetics. Except I'm not funny.
I always disliked Russel Brand because something about his face really makes me want to slap him. That was literally it.
Then I found out he has a youtube channel talking about esoteric bullshit. Then I found out he also talks about how the war in Ukraine is actually the fault of the US who provoked Russia and manipulated Ukraine, which apparently has no agency and no other reason to want to separate itself from Russia as much as possible.
So he does actually badly want to be slapped. It's not just me being shallow. Everything is in balance, and nothing posted in this thread is surprising.