The venue issued a statement
Oh no oh no a movie actor said things that don’t comport with gender ideology. How will we cope?
A cinema in Massachusetts has apologised to the audience at a special screening of Jaws and a Q&A with its star, Richard Dreyfuss, who reportedly made a number of sexist and transphobic comments.
I have a feeling the sexist comments would have flown way under the radar if it hadn’t been for the “transphobic” ones. We all know that men who claim to be women are persecuted a BILLION times more than any sniveling bitches are.
No transcript of the event has been released, but social media posts suggest that he called Streisand a “genius” but that he didn’t listen to her as she was “a woman, and woman shouldn’t have that power”.
Call me crazy but I think I detect a little self-mockery and more than a little provocation along with the sexism there. I think it’s performative sexism, which, yes, is tiresome, but it’s not all that tiresome. I suspect it wouldn’t have drawn the slightest attention in the absence of the vastly more important “transphobic” comments.
Deadline reports that he also said “you shouldn’t be listening to some 10-year-old who says they want to be a boy instead of a girl”. The Boston Globe reports that he continued by saying that allowing such young people to transition “was bad parenting and that someday those kids might change their minds.”
That’s the real issue, isn’t it. The women bit is just throat-clearing, and an alibi. The real issue is Our Trans Siblings.
However, a video from the end of the event indicates that many audience members did remain and were highly appreciative of the actor, who cautioned against a decline in critical thinking to considerable applause.
Shut up shut up shut UP. Those audience members don’t matter. It’s only the ones who stomped out crying and bleeding who matter.
On 27 May, the venue issued a statement, saying they were “aware of, and share serious concerns, following the recent event with Richard Dreyfuss”.
They continued: “The views expressed by Mr Dreyfuss do not reflect the values of inclusivity and respect that we uphold as an organisation. We deeply regret the distress that this has caused to many of our patrons.”
Stop doing this. Nobody ever do this any more. Stop endorsing and agreeing with and pampering and inflating their ridiculous tantrums.
“We regret that an event that was meant to be a conversation to celebrate an iconic movie instead became a platform for political views,” it continued. “We take full responsibility for the oversight in not anticipating the direction of the conversation and for the discomfort it caused to many patrons.”
The statement concluded: “We are in active dialogue with our patrons about their experience and are committed to learning from this event how to better enact our mission of entertaining, educating and inspiring our community.”
They might as well be Trotskyists writing a mash note to Stalin after months of torture, not grown-ass adults who run a move theater. The sulking and screeching of the Outraged Moviegoers is a trivial matter and does not merit all this shoe-licking.
The Guardian includes a phot of Dreyfuss from Jaws, but I prefer that other, earlier role.
I had just finished reading a news article on this, not a single quote in the entire piece; just accusations of sexism and homophobia.
I too had hoped to find a video of Dreyfus’ shocking behavior, but all I know is he said the Bad Things. He also tottered out in a dress, which was kind of weird. He reminded me of grampa Clint talking to the empty chair.
Duddy Kravitz?
Curt in American Graffiti.
I wonder if George Lucas will do some editing of American Graffiti to make Curt the one who shot first?
Oh, thanks! I was surprised to see on lookup just now that American Graffiti was 1973 and Duddy Kravitz 1974.
His son Ben posted a blog entry / article about the fuss. (Possibly paywalled, sorry.)
https://www.calmdownben.com/p/richard-dreyfuss-ben-dreyfuss-fake-news
I’m always surprised to see that American Graffiti is more than 50 years old. Thanks for the link!
J.A. – shot first?
#5
A Star Wars Episode IV reference: Han Solo (Harrison Ford) in the Tatooine bar scene. In the original version, Solo shoots the bounty hunter Greebo, under the table. In the later remastered versions, Lucas tried to edit the film to show Solo shooting second, supposedly in self-defence. In the first, Solo shot in cold blood; in the second he stays the hero.
It has now become film industry shorthand for editing or refilming a scene to change the story, or remove an awkward scene/character trait. Many fans were not happy with Lucas for the change.
Does Lucas even have the rights to American Graffiti?
George Lucas “fixed” the first Star Wars movie so that in the confrontation in the bar, the bounty hunter Greedo shoots first, and Han Solo shoots second, rather than Solo shooting pre-emptively, as it was originally released. Basically Lucas monkeyed around with stuff in a way many fans didn’t like. Han Solo was made to be more squeaky clean and less of a thug.
Ohhhh, thanks both.
I understand your point–the Guardian article makes it sound like it’s a comment they deem “transphobic” that the theater is apologizing for. But from other reports I’ve seen, apparently he spent just about the whole time making cranky political comments, including quite a few homophobic remarks (as has been noted, there’s no transcript or video, so all we can go by is hearsay, but apparently Dreyfuss has gone a bit around the bend lately). If the event had been billed as “A Night with Crazy Uncle Richard”, well, caveat emptor–I mean, you don’t go to a Trump rally to hear tales about Atlantic City real estate. But given that it was a screening of Jaws, and he was there as the star of the movie to answer questions about the movie, I can see why people became upset, and why the theater felt the need to apologize (even if the tone of the apology was a bit cringy).
As if support for transing children and putting them on a lifelong, medicalized path of sexual dysfunction and sterility isn’t “political.” I’m sure that the offended patrons would have been quite happy if Dreyfus had been repeating their talking points from the stage.
Short of being mindreaders, they would have had no way of knowing that a) Dreyfus would have brought up that subject, and b) that any theatregoers would have been upset by his doing so, or that c) other attendees would have expressed approval. Think of all the “political” topics that the venue’s management wouldn’t have dreamed about being aplogizing for. Abortion rights, opposition to the Jan. 6 insurrection (or Trump in general), global warming (which at least would have tied into sharks), BLM, immigration liberalization, etc. Would organizers have been trying to placate anyone that comments about any of these issues might have offended? No. They would have expected any such “offendees” to take their lumps. They would have defended Dreyfus’s comments and his right to make them. But not for this. Essentially they are saying that Dreyfus, and those agreeing with him, are in the wrong, and that he should have known better than to bring up the subject at all.
You’d think they were tracking down cases of food poisoning from contaminated licorice or something, and that there were people who were sick and dying as a result. (Yeah, I’m sure there were some people who were sick, though I’m guessing that they were sick before they arrived….) The theatre management obviously feel they have to go through this performative charade because they are scared shitless of being accused of having failed in their duty to shield their patrons, not from tainted refreshments, but from from supposedly “toxic” ideas that would make them feel uncomfortable, distressed, or even unsafe. But is it the theatre’s duty to do this, though? Does everybody crossing their threshold have to agree without reservation on some list of approved stances? Are they going to institute surveys before their next event? Wouldn’t want to have the poor fragile flowers they’re hosting to brush up against somebody with an opposing opinion that they’re going to brandish like a loaded gun. Somebody’s feeling might get hurt. GRAB HIM, HE’S THINKING THE WRONG PRONOUNS! SOMEBODY MIGHT DIE!! HE WANTS TO GENOCIDE ALL THE TRANS FOLK!!!
Is it wrong to cause anybody “discomfort” at any time? (Never mind that we’re talking about the celebration of a movie in which people are DISMEMBERED AND EATEN ALIVE. And which demonizes sharks for doing what sharks do.) Or is it only certain stances which are taboo? I’m also guessing that the theatre is not busy tracking down those patrons who supported Deyfus’s comments; as Ophelia noted, those people don’t count. But why don’t they? Why do the feelings of people who are in favour of mutilating children (even their own) matter more than those of people who don’t think that this is a good idea?
Those who were offended exercized their right to leave. They also have the right to complain, and to not patronize the establishment ever again, and to get others to do the same. All well and good. They also have the right (perhaps even a responsibility) to GROW THE FUCK UP. Nobody is obligated to take your offendedness seriously, or do anything about it whatsoever. Which is what makes the theatre’s histrionic over-reaction to somebody expressing an opinion that someone else might disagree with so disgustingly craven. It takes a large dollop of masochistic self loathing to agree with people who are prepared to punish you for doing nothing at all that was wrong. It’s not the theatre’s job to screen guests for ideological purity, and ensure their patrons are never challenged or upset. After all, do they show movies, or just charge admission to a completely blank, completly inoffensive, completely empty screen? There are lots of people who, offended by what they are showing, they would cheerfully ignore, or to whom they would politely suggest to (essentially) fuck off and get a life. Well these people they’re now scrambling to mollify should be told (politely, or otherwise) to fuck off and stop ruining lives. If they can’t see that what they’re actually supporting is the ruination of children’s lives, then their moral compass and ethical judgements are so out of calibration that they’ve got much bigger problems to attend to than being “offended” by Richard Dreyfus. To encourage their belief that they are in the right is a Bad Idea, but one that the theatre is entitled to. Wouldn’t want to be on the Wrong Side of History, would they?
Given this additional information, I’m prepared to dial back my comment above a notch or two. Sometimes I do shoot first and don’t bother asking questions at all. Maybe I need George Lucas to help me clean up my act and save my image after the fact. RETCON ON COMMENT #12, STAT!
YNnB,
To be fair to you and Ophelia, the way the story is framed it sounds as if the issue is the content of the remarks, and specifically the support ”transphobic” content, when really it’s just that Dreyfus’s was being incredibly rude to his audience.
Ya just not doing what he was there to do is a different story. Not political, just rude and entitled.
What an incredibly silly thing to apologise for.