A Few More Thoughts on Apologies and Amends

This is the post that I meant to post one New Year's Day, which jumps off a little from my earlier post about celebrity apologies. It isn’t about sexual harassment or assault, but it is about so-called “cancel culture” and making apologies/amends. This time, I’m looking more at words. In the context of celebrity, you see it most often with old tweets that resurface. Again, the situation is very different than looking at the abuse brought to light in the MeToo movement, but there are similarities in how these things often play out. Something bad comes out about someone’s past, people react, and the person responds, often badly and more to try and mitigate consequences for themselves than anything else.

When it comes to this sort of situation, I feel readier to talk about redemption/restitution than I am when we’re talking about people who’ve been confronted by allegations in the MeToo movement. First of all, it’s less likely that these are situations where someone committed a crime against another or messed with someone’s career for the sake of gratifying their own power (not to diminish the power of words; I’m just stating how I feel about this.) Second, I know that we as people can evolve throughout our lives in terms of our belief and understanding. I may never have “joked” about beating a hypothetical gay son (Kevin Hart) or rape/pedophilia (James Gunn,) but my attitudes have changed greatly over the years, on a range of subjects. Growing up, I learned homophobia along with my religion, and and when I was 11, I wrote a “novel” (which was maybe 20 pages long?) in which the circumstances of the Antebellum South were flipped (white slaves, Black masters) and I thought I was being so profound. I didn’t hurt anyone’s body or anyone’s livelihood, but I’m sure that, at various times, my words and attitudes hurt feelings. As I became better informed and more sensitive to others’ experiences, I didn’t simply flip a switch and become “woke.” I know I still say things and believe things that are afield from what they ought to be. I’m sure I’ll never be done improving my understanding of my fellow human beings.

To bring this back around to apologies, “old tweets” scandals similarly often disappoint when it comes to how celebrities respond when their past words are dug up. We see a lot of “it was a long time ago” and “humor is about pushing boundaries,” and of course there was Shane Gillis’s offer to apologize “to anyone who was actually offended” (emphasis mine.) Again, there’s often little effort to engage with why it matters that these things were said and more a desire to hurry everyone along and move past this. I have yet to see a celebrity in this situation who’s given what I'd consider a “Dan Harmon apology,” one that makes me go, “Okay, they really get it.”

In light of this topic, I’ve been thinking about how to apply it to myself, to acknowledge past problems without sweeping them under the rug or making excuses for them. While, to my reasonably-confident reflection, there aren’t any statements from my past that rival the sort of “jokes” I’ve brought up here, that doesn’t mean I can’t recognize times when I’ve erred. So, since it feels appropriate with the new year, I’d like to begin an annual tradition of addressing some old posts on this blog. I don’t know how many there are in total, and I’m sure I’ll continue to uncover new ones as my thoughts continue to evolve, so my plan is to look at twelve a year.

I decided not to delete the old posts, even though I realize that some things I’ve written can be offensive. There’s an argument to be made either way, but I came down on the side to leave them up – nothing ever fully goes away on the Internet anyway. Instead, I’m going to leave the posts as they are (mostly – I have one exception, which I include below) but add a disclaimer recognizing the issues with it.

To be honest, many of the posts in this round weren’t necessarily problematic when they were written (maybe I’m going easy on myself for this first go-around.) The majority of them deal with celebrities who were since accused of sexual harassment or assault, but I do have some where I very truly wrote about opinions that I now realize were ill-informed or where I made excuses for someone else’s problematic areas because I wanted to be less critical of them. I’ve linked all the relevant posts in this write-up, and my 2020 disclaimers will be shown here as well as placed at the start of each individual post itself.

House of Cards review (06/24/14) - I wrote this review in 2014, before the allegations against Kevin Spacey came out. I remember it was a hard one for me to process initially, because I’d been a big fan of Spacey, and I had a kneejerk reaction to half-want to make excuses. It was a short-lived reaction, but that doesn’t make it better. Since then, I’ve taken more care to interrogate my responses to allegations against people I’ve liked. As for Spacey, he’s one that I’ve really been unable to watch at all since I came to terms with the allegations; I can’t see his face without thinking about what he did to Anthony Rapp and the others. 

2017 Tony Awards review (06/12/17) - Again, I wrote this review before I knew about the allegations against Kevin Spacey. Here, it’s particularly gross that Spacey’s hosting duties include a closet joke, when he in fact didn’t come out until he wanted to control the narrative after being accused of trying to assault a 14-year-old boy, giving fuel to homophobes who equate gay men with pedophilia. Way to throw the community under the bus, creep.

Top Five Performances: 2017 Tony Awards (06/20/17) - Rounding off my old write-ups involving Kevin Spacey. I didn’t know he was such a predator when I wrote it, but it still makes me cringe to look back on it now. As much as we might like to associate talent with being a decent human being, that obviously isn’t the case, and Spacey’s talent doesn’t make up for his crimes.

Favorite "Characters": Jonathan Van Ness - Queer Eye (05/22/19) - This is the one instance where I did edit my original post. Jonathan Van Ness came out as non-binary some time after I did this write-up, and so I’ve changed some of the language to better align with his identity. While he’s said he still uses he/him pronouns (among others – he seems open to all the pronouns,) I took out words like “guy” and “man” and adjusted accordingly.

"That Old-Time Racial Insensitivity" - Buster Mondays (05/25/15) -

I get that my opinion on the level of racism in Buster Keaton’s films isn’t really helpful or welcome. While I do still think that the racism in Buster’s movies, for the most part, isn’t as egregious as some of the material I’ve seen in other films from that era, that doesn’t particularly matter. “Not as racist as it could have been,” as a designation, serves no point beyond me wanting to feel better about liking Buster’s work in spite of its occasional racist content. This was an unnecessary post, and it’s clear I went easy on Buster because I’m such a fan of his work. 

Top Five Roles: Lee Pace (04/08/15) - I paid lip service to this in the write-up, but it should have been said more strongly. Lee Pace shouldn’t have played either Calpernia in Soldier’s Girl or Roy in The Fall. His talent doesn’t negate the fact that a trans actress and a disabled actor should have been cast in these roles and lost opportunities because Lee Pace was cast instead.

Top Five Roles: Johnny Depp (08/13/15) - Johnny Depp was one of my favorite actors once upon a time. I thought he was fantastically-interesting and creative. Even though it had been a while since I’d really loved any recent work of his when I wrote this post, and it was even later that I heard the allegations against him, it was still a rough one. I don’t know whether he was doing the same shit back in the day or if it was only in recent years, but it both makes me mad and saddens me that some truly great roles have been tainted for me.

X-Men review (12/12/15) - I was a fan of Bryan Singer for a number of years, and although his was a case where I did hear about allegations against him years before MeToo and TimesUp, I’m sorry to say that I bought into his counter claim, that allegations against him were lies motivated by homophobia. I believed that the accusations of abuse were attempts to tear down an openly-gay director, and so I continued to watch his films without guilt for many years.  It wasn’t until a more recent article came out detailing allegations against him from multiple accusers that I really faced up to it.

X-Men: United review (01/08/16) - Bryan Singer again. This was the first film of his that I ever saw, and I really loved it. Singer is one whose films I have a hard time watching now, and, since X2 is the film I probably have the fondest memories of, it’s the one that was the biggest bummer to lose. Obviously, the worst thing about predators like Singer, by far, is what they did to their victims, but another thing about them that sucks is that their crimes retroactively taint things I really liked.

X-Men: Days of Future Past review (06/17/14) - I really enjoyed Days of Future Past when it came out and, regrettably, welcomed Bryan Singer’s return to the X-Men franchise. Once again, it sucks that a film has been soiled by the presence of a powerful predator. 

X-Men: Apocalypse review (06/09/16) - One more Bryan Singer X-Men movie. Even though the overall MCU and the DC TV shows have definitely upped the ante for me when it comes to superhero media, I enjoyed this franchise for a good many years, but I have a hard time watching any of Singer’s films now. At least we still have First Class and Logan.

Bohemian Rhapsody review (12/21/18) - Okay, so the whole second half of my added disclaimers for the year are basically a requiem for my fandom of Bryan Singer. This is the only Singer film (yes, Dexter Fletcher took over after he was fired, but Singer is still the credited director) that I saw after the TimesUp-era rumors started resurfacing. Even though, as I’ve said, these were far from the first allegations I heard against Singer, I was far more ready to listen to them this time. In light of that, I was uncomfortable with the idea of seeing Bohemian Rhapsody, but I still saw it. If I were doing this again today, I’d hope I would choose not to see the movie.

Doctor Who: Series 12, Episode 1 – “Spyfall: Part 1” (2020)

I skipped the usual Sunday Who Review because I knew this episode was coming up later in the week (note: though I’ll keep the Sunday Who Review tag, I’ll move my Doctor Who posts to Mondays for the rest of the season, to give me more space to digest the episodes before writing them up.) Doctor Who is back! Last season was a little lackluster for me, but, while this episode still has some of the same issues, it definitely kicks off the new season with a bang.

The Doctor and co. get called in by MI6 to help investigate the mysterious murders of a number of intelligence agents from all over the world. Their mission takes them across continents, involves secret codes and fun spy gadgetry, and features the gang putting on their best duds to infiltrate a swanky party and corner their prime suspect.

The first half of this globetrotting Doctor-Who-does-James-Bond story is fun, with some cheeky sendups, good creepy moments, and Who antics with a splash of spy savoir faire. I enjoy everything about Yaz and Ryan hamfistedly attempting to be spies, and who wouldn’t love the Doctor in a tux at a casino-themed birthday party, playing snap at the blackjack table?

We don’t know much about our aliens du jour yet. Thus far, tbey’re pretty shadowy, which isn’t exactly out of the ordinary for this era of the show (see also, those floating rags from “The Ghost Monument” and the Thijarians from “Demons of the Punjab” – we’ll see if these guys wind up being more like the former or the latter.) They give good menace but don’t leave a lot to hold onto. Fortunately, we also have tech mogul Daniel Barton (played by Lenny Henry,) who seems somehow connected to the mystery that surrounds them. “Evil tech billionaire” is getting to be a trope in genre fiction, but Henry plays it well and keeps the character interesting.

The episode features a couple other notable guest stars. Stephen Fry shows up for a hot second (someday, all the British actors I love will have wound up on Doctor Who,) and Sacha Dhawan gets a more substantial role as O, a former MI6 agent with ties to the Doctor. Dhawan isn’t a stranger to the Whoniverse, having previously played classic Who’s first director, Waris Hussein, in An Adventure in Space and Time, but this is the first time he’s appeared on the show proper, and he does a terrific job. For those keeping score, Dhawan is the fourth History Boy to appear on Doctor Who, and already, he’s given James Corden’s Craig a run for his money as my favorite yet!

Admittedly, the episode garners a lot of good will from fine guest stars, winking spy references, and the fact that it’s been so long since we had any new episodes. That doesn’t negate some of the wonkiness in the plot, however. Like many Chibnall stories, it feels a little half-baked at times and doesn’t always hang together. And while I’m of course thrilled to have the Doctor back on my screen, I feel like she doesn’t get the chance to be as fully impressive as I know she can be, which is frustrating. Thirteen consistently brings the Doctor’s quirkiness and sense of wonder to the table, but while I know she’s entirely capable of being every inch the wandering little hero that her predecessors were, it seems she doesn’t always get the opportunity to do so.

That said, the final scenes have me thoroughly excited for part 2, so the episode most certainly delivers on that front. I’m trying to remember the last time a cliffhanger in a Who two-parter got me so hyped, and honestly, it might go all the way back to “The Pandorica Opens” in series 5. Not that there haven’t been good ones since then, but this is major, “shouting at my TV and hand-flapping” major. Hopefully, part 2 makes it pay off while tightening up the looser aspects!

A Few Thoughts on Celebrity Apologies

I wound up hanging with friends for New Year’s Eve last night and didn’t get a chance to post. Here’s yesterday’s, and if I get a chance, I’ll put today’s up before I go to bed tonight.

In the two years since the Harvey Weinstein scandal, when countless allegations of sexual harassment have been brought into the open, Hollywood and many other arenas have developed a thriving cottage industry in powerful people getting “MeToo’d” (I hate the use of that phrase as a verb.) We’ve all heard this song before. Accusations, sometimes numerous, frequently stomach-churning, always horrible. Response, ranging from denial to apology. Possible repercussions, such as getting fired from a position of power, a tour getting canceled, or being replaced in a movie by Christopher Plummer. Period of isolation. Return to prominence, quietly at first but growing louder and more entitled at every turn. A frenzy of reactions, split between “So you’re just letting him back in?!?” and “He’s already served his sentence!!” (even though shockingly-few of these predators have faced any type of criminal accountability.) Wash, rinse, repeat.

It’s a thoroughly-disheartening cycle, and I could speak at length on any stage of it. Today, though, I want to look particularly at the “response” step, because I feel it’s critical when looking at the later question of how/when it’s appropriate to talk about redemption. How alleged sexual harassers and predators respond to accusations against them tells you pretty much everything you need to know that where this person’s head is in terms of genuine remorse or a desire to make amends. And, unsurprisingly, the overwhelming majority of it is entirely unencouraging.

First, of course, even though the title of this post is about apologies, I do have to bring up those who don’t even pretend to apologize. Already, there are some old chestnuts in here. I believe women, but the women accusing me are all liars (James Franco.) I’ve always treated women with the utmost respect! (Brett Kavanaugh.) If I was going to sexually assault someone, it wouldn’t be an uggo like that! (President Trump.)

But then, there are those who apologize, or more accurately, “apologize.” Because, far and away, most of these aren’t really apologies. They’re excuses and handwaving disguised by a contrite expression, quite possibly said in such a way that makes it sound like they’re the real victim. These “apologies” don’t have anything to do with offering restitution for the pain, trauma, and humiliation these prepetrators caused, they’re all about putting on a sad face for a bit in the hopes of mitigating any consequences for themselves. Weirdly enough, not many of them even contain the words “I’m sorry.” But boy, do we have “apologies” in every shade. I’m sorry if you were offended/got the wrong impression (Morgan Freeman.) That’s not me, not really (Dustin Hoffman.) By the way, is this a good time for me to tell you I’m gay? (Kevin Spacey.) It was a different time (Harvey Weinstein.) But no one told me I couldn’t masturbate in front of my colleagues! (Louis C.K.) Have this cinnamon roll recipe! (Mario Batali.) And on, and on, and on.

To be honest, during the last two years, I’ve only seen one apology that seemed more like an apology instead of damage control. One. Yes, in fairness, I’ve not read every single word from every accused sexual harasser/predator out there, but as you can see, I’ve read a lot. And one apology that feels honest is way too few. That solitary apology, no quotation marks necessary, was from Dan Harmon. He’s been the only one, for me, that has seemed to really engage with what he did. He doesn’t speak in vagueries and he doesn’t contort his syntax to put the onus of the victim’s misperception of his innocent intent. He doesn’t make excuses. He speaks specifically about what he did, why it was wrong, how it hurt the victim, and how he screwed up his own life because of it. Most significantly he confesses, “I certainly wouldn’t have been able to do it if I had any respect for women.” He talks about how he lied to himself at the time and told himself that his behavior was because he was in love, but in his apology, he faces up to the fact that it was inherently sexist and categorically wrong.

That, I think, is what an apology looks like. It doesn’t change what Dan Harmon did, but it shows that he recognizes how awful it was and the ugliness that fueled it. It shows his willingness to accept the repercussions his actions had for him and his readiness to engage with being a better person. Most of all, it shows how entirely his victim didn’t deserve how he treated her. It demonstrates guts as well as heart, and to me, it signals someone who’s started to work toward redemption, rather than lying low for ten months and then expecting to be welcomed back with open arms.