Steven Spielberg: Hollywood Buffoon

[drslash]

Steven Spielberg in a fit of conscience resigned (http://people.aol.com/people/news/now/0,10958,364602,00.html) from the Boy Scouts of America board because of BSA's exclusionary policies. I won't be holding my breath waiting to hear Steven Spielberg bash Castro as the communist dictator, oppressor, and murderer that he is when he visits Cuba (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/10/31/state1942EST0215.DTL) next week.

[Steve]

OK, he resigned in a hissy fit from the board of an organization that he couldn't even trouble himself to learn their membership requirements before joining the board?

Moron!

[drslash]

Originally posted by stevent
OK, he resigned in a hissy fit from the board of an organization that he couldn't even trouble himself to learn their membership requirements before joining the board?

Moron! Steven Spielberg was well aware of the BSA's membership requirements. He is (was) an Eagle Scout. He has been involved with scouting to a large extent until he quit. He used to send personal letters to Scouts congratulating them on earning their Eagle Scout award. He just used his high profile position to publicly bash the BSA. I, for one, will not spend another dollar on his films.

[Steve]

Actually, that information changes my opinion, somewhat.

I see nothing wrong with a person wrestling with a matter of conscience and then going back against something they've believed in their entire life.

If people can't change, then society can't, either.

[RRedline]

Originally posted by drslash
He just used his high profile position to publicly bash the BSA. I, for one, will not spend another dollar on his films. And just like the BSA will continue practically unaffected by his leaving, Steven Spielberg will not be any less rich because you choose not to support his films. :)

Perhaps he stayed in the BSA in an attempt to get them to change their minds? Have cases of members being kicked out or people not being allowed in happened several years ago or is this a moer recent phenomenon? If it is the latter, then that would explain why he remained in the organization for so long. I don't think it is really fair to call him a moron for it. His leaving shows his disapproval, and your not buying his movies shows your disapproval of his disapproval. It's all perfectly fair AND legal.

By the way, this has to be said. Why a re-release of E.T.? That needed to be done about as much as the original Star Wars trilogy needed new special effects. Argh!

[RRedline]

Originally posted by stevent
Actually, that information changes my opinion, somewhat.

I see nothing wrong with a person wrestling with a matter of conscience and then going back against something they've believed in their entire life.

If people can't change, then society can't, either. Thank you! People certainly do change their opinions on things, especially when they are open-minded enough to consider other people's opinions. I have changed my mind at least partially on several topics just from reading the fine posts on these forums.

[Steve]

RRedline, to address one of your questions, about the seemingly recent phenomenon of people publicly leaving the Scouts and other groups due to sexual orientation:

I believe that it's only been within the last 10 to 15 years that being homosexual has become de-stigmatized enough for many people to out themselves. Although there have always been openly-gay people, I'm sure they have been far outnumbered by those who stayed in the closet to protect their families, careers, even their very lives.

We see more protests against such policies because more people are comfortable confronting those policies.

[RRedline]

Originally posted by stevent
We see more protests against such policies because more people are comfortable confronting those policies. Exactly! And that's what Steven Spielberg is doing. That doesn't make him a "buffoon" as the title of this thread suggests. It's not like he is sueing them or trying to force them to change their stance. He was unsuccessful in persuading them to alter something that he feels is unjust, so he decided to leave the organization. There is nothing wrong with standing up for something you believe in. After all, isn't that what the BSA are doing?

[ethics]

If Spielberg is a bufoon for doing what he believes in, then I guess I am a complete asshole. ;)

[ShinyTop]

Ya know, Spielberg is an entertainer, just as Streisand and others. If we take their political leanings to mean anything shame on us, not on them. The fact that they have a built in audience for their statements of politics certainly does not mean we have to listen to them. I still like Streisand and think she sings beautifully. I don't confuse that talent with political acumen. And I don't with Spielburg either.

[drslash]

Originally posted by ethics
If Spielberg is a bufoon for doing what he believes in, then I guess I am a complete asshole. ;) So by his silence about Cuba we can assume he approves of Fidel Castro and how that country is run? He will gladly sell his movies to that scummy country (not the people, their suffering is not their fault) and say nothing? Will he use a high profile event with news coverage to say anything against Cuba to allow for maximum exposure to his views? The fact that he even goes to Cuba speaks volumes to me. Calling him a Buffoon is probably an insult to buffoons. I would rather use Ethic's choice but, I try to keep the name calling somewhat clean.

[ethics]

Originally posted by drslash
So by his silence about Cuba we can assume he approves of Fidel Castro and how that country is run?

Quote from the article: In regard to human rights, Spielberg spoke about how the Boy Scouts of America's policy of barring gay troop leaders prompted him to end his lifelong affiliation with the organization.

"For me the greatest value of scouting was scouting created opportunities for me to become proud of myself," he said. "And, maybe most importantly, it was through the Boy Scouts of America, as I was trying out for a merit badge in photography, that I actually discovered my passion for filmmaking."

He considered himself a passionate advocate of scouting, he said, "until the Supreme Court case of (James) Dale vs. the Boy Scouts of America (in 2000, which upheld the group's right to exclude gays), where I realized something that I really had not been very aware of -- that you could be black, white, you could be Hispanic and Asian, Native-American, Jewish, Catholic, Islamic, but you couldn't get into the scouts if you were gay. And I know it's tough just being a kid trying to find acceptance, trying to accept yourself."

Moreover, he emphasized, "I just have to say that quitting the Boy Scouts was probably one of the most painful experiences I've ever had to endure. But they are wrong and you are right. We are right -- supporting causes like the Human Rights Campaign isn't difficult and it's not even brave. It's mandatory because every day, we wake up in a country that presumes basic liberty and freedom."


This thread is not about what he didn't say but what he did say. I totally agree with him 100%. He didn't like the policies, he quit, in which he calls quitting 'painful'. The reason he didn't quit before is because, like me, he wasn't aware of the BSA policies towards gays and atheists.

I'd rather people voice their concern like Spielberg did, than the mindless babble from Streisand and Sarandon.

Your problem was that he didn't say anything against Cuba and this makes him a hypocrite? I disagree with that logic. If I were speaking on something that personally concerned me, and I quit a group that was dear to me, like BSA was for Spielberg, I am not sure if I follow why Spielberg had to do with Cuba.

[Sunriser13]

Originally posted by ShinyTop
The fact that they have a built in audience for their statements of politics certainly does not mean we have to listen to them.

No, it doesn't mean we have to listen, but that "built-in audience" sometimes means that a point is publicized far better than without them. I certainly don't make my decision on any issue based on what some "star" says, but I am still glad to see that not only is an interest taken in what's going on around them, but they are talking about it in such a way that people will be exposed to these issues.

However, it is then up to the individual to further his or her education, not accept blindly what this person's opinion is.

[drslash]

Originally posted by ethics
...I am not sure if I follow why Spielberg had to do with Cuba. If you have looked closely and read everything you would see that Spielberg used a public forum to bash the BSA and yet he will be going to Cuba, presumably to make money under the guise of cultural exchange. Will we hear anything from him about his disagreement with Fidel Castro's policies? If we don't hear anything, does he approve of Castro's policies?

Come on Ethics, get with it. This is my third post in this thread saying the same thing.

[jfcjrus]

This man produces/directs some pretty decent films that entertain me and my family.
Entertain.
He's good at it.
I (we) never hung our beliefs on his.

He made a decision based upon what he thought was right, in his experience in this life. He's doing what he belives in. Good for him.
Yup, it's interesting what he believes in.
But, I afford him no more import regarding his opinion than anyone else posting in this forum. Interesting, perhaps. But, nothing more than that.

In my opinion, the Boy Scouts are a private orgainization, entitled to their own rules. Don't like it, go elsewhere.

Personally, I was more interested in Ethics statement;
"If Spielberg is a bufoon for doing what he believes in, then I guess I am a complete asshole."

The chalenge prompts me to come up with a convincing argument that Spielberg is wrong. ;)

But I cannot.
Regards,

[ethics]

Originally posted by drslash
If you have looked closely and read everything you would see that Spielberg used a public forum to bash the BSA and yet he will be going to Cuba, presumably to make money under the guise of cultural exchange. Will we hear anything from him about his disagreement with Fidel Castro's policies? If we don't hear anything, does he approve of Castro's policies?


He makes movies, man, he is not a politician. BSA experience was personal to him, his trip to Cuba is business.

Besides, I am not so sure that Cuba is the demon that the US paints them. If they were, they would be officially wiped from the map.

[drslash]

Originally posted by ethics
Besides, I am not so sure that Cuba is the demon that the US paints them. If they were, they would be officially wiped from the map.
:huh:

From the usually pro Cuba Leftwatch.com and others:
http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000039.html
http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000078.html
http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000075.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1230078.stm

[drslash]

Originally posted by ethics
...his trip to Cuba is business.

All the more reason to say that he is a hypocrite. He is willing to over look the repressive regime in Cuba to make money. Sheesh.

[ethics]

Originally posted by drslash
All the more reason to say that he is a hypocrite. He is willing to over look the repressive regime in Cuba to make money. Sheesh.

Let's wait till he goes there and comes back. Many have had their eyes opened after trips like this, minus the Jane Fonda's of this world.

[Sunriser13]

Hold up, drslash. You ask all these questions about what Spielburg will do once he is in Cuba; do you expect someone here to tell the damn future??

This trip is <i>intended</i> as a non-commercial educational exchange with cinema students, first and foremost.

Don't forget, Spielberg is the man who made "Schindler's List" and let an entire generation who didn't have a frigging clue know of the atrocities committed during WWII. Film can indeed be a powerful medium not only to inform, but even to bring about change...

A person who is known world-wide as an entertainer may well have a better chance than any politician at exposing the problems of a society.

[Techie2000]

He's a filmmaker that's his job. Let that be seperate from his political leanings. As far as resigning from the BSA, it is his right. If he no longer agrees with what they are doing, then he has every right to resign. I think the publicity is continuing to tarnish the reputation of the BSa, and that Spielberg may have resigned more so to <i>avoid</i> the politics that is starting to surround the BSA and its actions which could end up tarnishing the reputation of Mr. Spielberg himself.

[drslash]

Originally posted by Sunriser13

A person who is known world-wide as an entertainer may well have a better chance than any politician at exposing the problems of a society. Ok, I'll wait and see. Like I said before, I won't be holding my breath waiting for him to say that it was a big mistake for him to have gone to Cuba. Just for kicks, I'll make a prediction that he says the the 40 plus year trade embargo (imposed on them because Castro confiscated private property and has not made reparations for) is the cause of the plight of the Cuban people. If he renounces Castro and his regime and places the blame for the plight of the people squarely on the communist system, I'll give him the dancing banana!

[drslash]

Originally posted by Techie2000
I think the publicity is continuing to tarnish the reputation of the BSa,... While the intention for this thread was to show once again the hypocricy of the Hollywood left, I'll reserve judgement until I hear some comments from Mr. Spielberg regarding his trip.

As for the recent publicity affecting the BSA, since the court ruling in 2000 our BSA Council has never had better support financially from the community. Donations are up and the local United Way Chapter will give our BSA Council $186,000 this year.

[ShinyTop]

I guess I am missing something here. Why are we expecting political statements from Spielburg when he returns? He is going there for their movie industry. If he comes back and makes negative comments I imagine it would have negative effects on the people he visited or who sponsored him. I think waiting to hear negative reports is futile and therefore the purpose of waiting is just to say look at the liberal media weanie.

If your plan is to quit watching his movies depending on his politics I would surely expect you are checking on the politics of all people in all entertainment you watch. If not, this is surely hypocrisy.

While I think I am a little liberal in some social issues I find myself siding more and more with conservatives. And yet I still am able to watch entertainment and sport without requiring the people I watch to agree with me. Hell, I do not even require my family agree with me on every issue and yet I still sit and sup with them.

I find it curious that people demand entertainment figures agree with their politics or I will spite them by not watching the best movies, the best sports teams, or listen to good music. I think the best offense to these people believing they should harangue us with their politics is to go "ho, hum, who the hell are you?"

[drslash]

Originally posted by ShinyTop
I guess I am missing something here. Why are we expecting political statements from Spielburg when he returns? He is going there for their movie industry. If he comes back and makes negative comments I imagine it would have negative effects on the people he visited or who sponsored him. I think waiting to hear negative reports is futile and therefore the purpose of waiting is just to say look at the liberal media weanie.

If your plan is to quit watching his movies depending on his politics I would surely expect you are checking on the politics of all people in all entertainment you watch. If not, this is surely hypocrisy.

While I think I am a little liberal in some social issues I find myself siding more and more with conservatives. And yet I still am able to watch entertainment and sport without requiring the people I watch to agree with me. Hell, I do not even require my family agree with me on every issue and yet I still sit and sup with them.

I find it curious that people demand entertainment figures agree with their politics or I will spite them by not watching the best movies, the best sports teams, or listen to good music. I think the best offense to these people believing they should harangue us with their politics is to go "ho, hum, who the hell are you?" I really don't expect to hear anything from Steven Spielberg except leftist trashing of American policies towards Cuba. I would rather that entertainers not use their high profile to enter the political arena but it’s a free country. It is a preference I have, maybe I am alone that way but nevertheless, it is the way I am. If I hear something I don't agree with or see blatant hypocrisy, I'm not going to sit on the sidelines of the political arena either. I don't seek out the politics of entertainers; I found both of the articles linked in the first post during my normal course of reading news. I only linked to the People article because I could not find the original article I read. I don't read People magazine. I am so out of touch with popular culture as it is. I go to a movie once in a while, rent a movie now and then but I watch no network primetime programming. For an entertainer to catch my attention about their politics they are taking a high enough profile about it to show up on the radar. Again this is fine, I just am exercising my right to criticize them how I see fit.

One of the main things I like about sports entertainment is that it is almost totally devoid of politics. I don't want my opinions about a football player to be shaded by his politics, I want my opinions about him based on whether or not he knocks the snot out of his opponent or not. :)

I don't demand or require an entertainer's politics to agree with mine. My preference is that I would rather not know the politics of entertainers. If someone puts their views out in the public domain and I think they are being hypocritical or being "in your face about it" I'll do the only thing I can do by not patronizing them. I too do not agree with all of the views of my family and friends but I don't find them hypocritical or "in my face". If I did, I would talk to them about it, let them know what I think. I can do that face to face with them. I can't do that with Steven Spielberg.

I've tried to analyze and figure out why I don't like politics intertwined with entertainment and sports. I think it is that I am so cynical when it comes to regular politicians that I don't want to be cynical about so many others. I dislike the behavior of politicians but have come to expect it. I don't want to dislike others. With politicians you have to, more or less, wade through their views so you can arrive at a point to make informed choices at the polling booth. Too often I find myself looking at my choices on the ballot and holding my nose as I vote. I would rather just leave that stuff in its own dark corner of the closet. I think I know myself well enough that if I were as cynical about everybody else as I am about politicians, I would have no friends and just be a lonely curmudgeon.

[ethics]

Originally posted by Sunriser13

Don't forget, Spielberg is the man who made "Schindler's List" and let an entire generation who didn't have a frigging clue know of the atrocities committed during WWII.

Color Purple and the life of "colored". Saving Private Ryan. Did ANYone here, outside the vets who saw combat, have a totally different perspective on the D-Day of Normandy?

It blew me away (no pun intended) as to how graphic, captivating, devastating, and mesmerizing something like that can be. No one, imho, came close in showing something that Spielberg did there.

[DSL Dan]

A person's ability to make a movie, sing a song, hit a baseball, etc., does not qualify them for more political insight than anyone else. In fact, I think it is just the opposite. These people live in such a rarified atmosphere that I doubt they have any concept of what are average Americans' priorities. If you think George Bush Sr. looked goofy years ago at that supermarket checkout, try to imagine old Stevie in the same situation.

[ethics]

Originally posted by DSL Dan
A person's ability to make a movie, sing a song, hit a baseball, etc., does not qualify them for more political insight than anyone else. In fact, I think it is just the opposite.

PRECISELY!!!! :thumbsup:

Which is why his personal experience with BSA has a lot of hold and his political view on Cuba is more or less taken with a grain of salt, or should be. :)

[Sierra Mike]

I have very little to add to this conversation, except the following:

Steven Spielberg ran over my foot with his baby carriage when I was stepping out of Sharp's in Manhattan sometime in 1999. He apologized.

His wife is incredibly hot, much better in real life than in the movies.

This has nothing to do with his stance on Cuba--much like his stance on the BSA is irrelevant to that same issue.

End AAR.

SM

[drslash]

Originally posted by ethics
Which is why his personal experience with BSA has a lot of hold and his political view on Cuba is more or less taken with a grain of salt, or should be. :) He turned his personal experience with the BSA in to a public political statement at a public event with news coverage. How hard is that to understand!

[ethics]

Originally posted by drslash
He turned his personal experience with the BSA in to a public political statement at a public event with news coverage. How hard is that to understand!

Easy, actually. His personal experience was sought after, he offered it.

His political stance on Cuba should not even be sought after.

[drslash]

Originally posted by ethics
Easy, actually. His personal experience was sought after, he offered it.

His political stance on Cuba should not even be sought after. I'll partially agree with you on the second point, IMO he should not even be going to Cuba. Since he is, that in itself ensnares him in a political situation.

[ShinyTop]

Flame away, but I see nothing to gain from our present boycott of Cuba. I think letting tourists go there, sharing the benefits of our culture would be more likely to get a government change when Castro dies. It's a shame that making a realistic move like lifting the sanctions and boycotts of Cuba would be viewed as soft on communisim, a boogey man that should be laid to rest in this hemisphere. Our country should now be bigger than this.

[ethics]

Originally posted by drslash
I'll partially agree with you on the second point, IMO he should not even be going to Cuba. Since he is, that in itself ensnares him in a political situation.

I'll partially agree also, he shouldn't be going to Cuba to film anything. Plenty of other places on earth he can do the job.

I'll also agree with Shiny's post up top.

[DSL Dan]

If it makes us feel better, why don't we just declare victory over Castro and unleash U.S. capitalism upon the poor little island? After all, what has he accomplished in nearly a half-century? He certainly has failed to export whatever the hell sort of political unrest he dreamt of way back when.

We've won, and now all that remains is for McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, and Pizza Hut to drive the final nails in the coffin. The coup de grace will be Havana's first Walmart. ;)

[drslash]

Yes, capitalism will allow the island nation to flourish and the people will have a higher standard of living. They might even get their computers back and be allowed to freely communicate through out the world. Check this out:
Cuba Bans PC Sales to Public (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51270,00.html) (I'd really like to know what Justin's opinion on this is)

The strangle hold by Castro on speech in Cuba is deplorable. This has much more to do with problems in Cuba than economic problems. What do you value more in this country, your econmic freedom or freedom of speech?

It's a shame that making a realistic move like lifting the sanctions and boycotts of Cuba would be viewed as soft on communisim, a boogey man that should be laid to rest in this hemisphere. Our country should now be bigger than this.The embargo was imposed because Castro confiscated private property of many US citizens and businesses. When the property is returned or compensation for the property is given, that will be the right time to remove the trade embargo. Would you rest after 40 years if this government took land from you without compensation?

[ShinyTop]

You make the case much simpler that it is. The previous government was a dictatorship that took property from citizens and gave/sold rights to American companies at the expense of the citizens of the country. Did legitimate companies and individuals lose property? Yes. Did many lose property gained through bribes and donations to dictator? Yes. After a period of time trying to determine fair decisions on land is like giving the country back to the Indians since it was theirs, noble idea, but impractical.

That being said, if the country changes to a democracy the voters decide who gets what. I am not prepared to allow the dictatorship and rule by the wealthiest return, are you? That'w why Castro had such a fertile field to plow.

[jfcjrus]

Originally posted by ShinyTop
You make the case much simpler that it is. The previous government was a dictatorship that took property from citizens and gave/sold rights to American companies at the expense of the citizens of the country. Did legitimate companies and individuals lose property? Yes. Did many lose property gained through bribes and donations to dictator? Yes. After a period of time trying to determine fair decisions on land is like giving the country back to the Indians since it was theirs, noble idea, but impractical.

That being said, if the country changes to a democracy the voters decide who gets what. I am not prepared to allow the dictatorship and rule by the wealthiest return, are you? That'w why Castro had such a fertile field to plow.
Well said, sir.
Many folks either do not know, or choose not to know, how this all started.
Applying what we believe now, to what we believed then, is disingenuous. Or, put another way, why, exactly don't we (USA) have a diplomatic relationship with Cuba today?
Is the line so defined, in the sand, that we leave no doors open?

A tough row to hoe, politically.
Too bad. It's a beautiful Island, populated by a generous people, stuck on the shitty end of the stick.

When's the last time these 'political leaders' talked, bye the way? Are egos in the way? Surely a resolution could have been reached, after all this time.

This 'Cuba' situation is a textbook failure in USA Diplomancy, to me. They should have reached some sort of accord years ago.

Just my opinion.
Regards,

[drslash]

Surprise! Surprise! Steven Spielberg slams the US (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021105/ap_en_mo/cuba_people_spielberg_2) regarding the trade embargo and I don't see him quoted as saying anything about Cuba's repressive totalitarianism.

[ShinyTop]

He is still a movie person. Why listen? But as I said above I agree with him so it would not be honest to slam him now. Did he say good things about the current regime? Not that I heard.

[drslash]

Originally posted by ShinyTop
He is still a movie person. Why listen? But as I said above I agree with him so it would not be honest to slam him now. Did he say good things about the current regime? Not that I heard. How can anyone not be critical of a broken and failed communist regime that keeps the people's living standards nearly in the gutter, unless you have your own political agenda that is hard left-wing. The plight is Castro's doing and not the United States.

I'll ask you, what's worse, the embargo that was brought on by Cuba itself or Cuba's policies of repression that results in no free speech and jail for dissenters? If the embargo was dropped tomorrow there would still be no free speech and Castro and his regime would just become richer than they already are.

In my book, anyone that is not explicitly critical of Castro is implictly supportive of his regime. So, in the final analysis, Spielberg doesn't like one policy of the BSA and basically calls the BSA un-American. Freedom to associate with those of your own choosing is totally American. And you have Cuba, a country that is run by a dictator, that couldn't be further from American values and ideals and Spielberg bashes the USA over the embargo while making no mention of wholly anti-freedom policies of Cuba. Spielberg is a self-righteous hypocrite and a buffoon.

[ShinyTop]

The best way to turn the tide in Cuba, to guarantee it goes the democracy route is to free up the embargos and let its people see what it is missing.

I agreed with the embargo when there was a world wide communist threat. I do not think the embargo is punishing Cuba's people for any crime they are committing or any threat Castro is to the US.

Spielburg is entitled to his beliefs, one of them is that the BSA is too restrictive. To my knowledge, he did not say they did not have the right to those beliefs, a big difference. Withdrawing support is his right and is at least as American as having a restricted mebership by belief in a god.

I fought for our country in Vietnam and server 26 years total in war and peace, regular, reserve, and national guard. I too believe the embargos have served their usefullness and should be put aside. Many others in this forum agreed. Are we all unAmerican? Or does Spielburg have to answer to a higher standard given his popularity?

[jamming]

Sorry Shiny, your all un-American ;) If the Communists gave some indication of a desire to address these issues, I could see working on relaxing the embargo, which we have all ready done at two different times. However, unilateral elimination of he embargo is not something that we should support. I just think of those Jet Fighter's that downed two private airplanes in the 90's, who were flying outside the Cuban Airspace, all aboard both were killed. Castro is a bastard whether we are reasonable or not, so I can see giving up after he dies, but not one second before.

[ethics]

Jim, are you saying Cuba is Communistic?

[jamming]

Internally for their citizens yes they are, in the tourist zones it is more like capitalism for the State.

[Sunriser13]

At a news conference, Spielberg expressed his dismay at the U.S. policy.


"I personally feel that this embargo should be lifted," he said. "I do not see any reason for accepting old grudges being played out in the 21st century. It does not make sense to me that my country will trade with North Korea and China but not with Cuba."

Doesn't exactly sound like a "slam" to me, just a reasoned comment that describes a question many of us have...

[drslash]

Originally posted by Sunriser13
Doesn't exactly sound like a "slam" to me, just a reasoned comment that describes a question many of us have... Many people have questions about Castro's tight fisted totalitarianism. In my judgement, the Castro regime does not deserve to have the embargo lifted. If Castro allows free speech and dissension without jail, I would be all for lifting the embargo.