-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Gawker: Here's what's missing from Straight Outta Compton - The women Dre beat up
- Thread starter bananafactory
- Start date
- Status
Vincent Alexander
Member
You guys are crazy who think there should be no reason to be surprised this isn't in the movie. There are TONS of biopics with this kind of stuff in it. Hell, I just watched one on Jimi Hendrix on Netflix, and he was smashing women with phones.
Too true. Not sure how I feel about it, but I think you're absolutely right.
brianmcdoogle
Member
I haven't seen Straight Outta Compton, but I'll speak generally on movies and biopics.
Movies can be truthful without being entirely true.
Jake LaMotta wasn't exactly like Raging Bull, and with Scorsese's editing and sound mixing, it manipulates the audience greatly. Lawrence of Arabia excise a lot of stuff about history and the man. Amadeus is a complete fabrication and a supposed smear job on Salieri. Quiz Show has to invent things for narrative purposes. The Social Network misses a great deal of interesting and provocative details on the creation of Facebook and Zuckerberg himself. And, so on.
Movies aren't fact, nor should they be, and that extends to documentaries. I know it isn't considered his best, but Errol Morris touches upon his in Standard Operating Procedure, about how a single photograph is a snap judgement and moment in time that isn't necessarily reflective of the truth. Heck, his "masterpiece" documentary that freed an innocent man from jail (The Thin Blue Line) was controversial because critics and fellow documentarians objected to his use of reenactments. Joshua Oppenheimer's The Act of Killing was criticized as well.
Movies are snapshots, abridged recollections and reframings and recreations of moments. Even something as long as Lanzmann's Shoah isn't the end-all-be-all of the Holocaust on film.
What this article does is at least remind people that there's more to a story than what is shown on screen, and if that reminds people of this simple basic fact, that's good. But it isn't film criticism, and shouldn't be taken as such.
Movies can be truthful without being entirely true.
Jake LaMotta wasn't exactly like Raging Bull, and with Scorsese's editing and sound mixing, it manipulates the audience greatly. Lawrence of Arabia excise a lot of stuff about history and the man. Amadeus is a complete fabrication and a supposed smear job on Salieri. Quiz Show has to invent things for narrative purposes. The Social Network misses a great deal of interesting and provocative details on the creation of Facebook and Zuckerberg himself. And, so on.
Movies aren't fact, nor should they be, and that extends to documentaries. I know it isn't considered his best, but Errol Morris touches upon his in Standard Operating Procedure, about how a single photograph is a snap judgement and moment in time that isn't necessarily reflective of the truth. Heck, his "masterpiece" documentary that freed an innocent man from jail (The Thin Blue Line) was controversial because critics and fellow documentarians objected to his use of reenactments. Joshua Oppenheimer's The Act of Killing was criticized as well.
Movies are snapshots, abridged recollections and reframings and recreations of moments. Even something as long as Lanzmann's Shoah isn't the end-all-be-all of the Holocaust on film.
What this article does is at least remind people that there's more to a story than what is shown on screen, and if that reminds people of this simple basic fact, that's good. But it isn't film criticism, and shouldn't be taken as such.
All people are saying is that it shouldn't be a shock when the movie is about NWA and not specifically about Dre.
bananafactory
Banned
Im not really familiar with Gawker, this I think is the first thing I've read on their site.
I just thought it was an article and viewpoint worthy of sharing.
Exactly. It takes away from how serious the history is with dre, when its Gawker doing it solely for hits, after the movies out. Not to say that its not an important issue, but it would be different of Al Jazeera or someone was covering this, and not..
gawker..
Angelus Errare
Banned
I give this thread about 3 more pages before people start talking about how they lost respect for Tim Cook/Apple for hiring Dre, something something rap music sucks, something something something rap culture, something something black leaders need to speak out something something Beats suck something something never buying an apple product again, a few threads later "John Lennon is the best beatle!"
stufte
Member
Hey, I like my Beats.
DietRob
i've been begging for over 5 years.
It's not that they are wrong. They are right. But it's stuff everyone already knows and they are simply bringing it up for the clicks since it's a hot topic right now.
Not newsworthy stuff. IMO
Angelus Errare
Banned
Might want to log off GAF, a bunch of people who use Apple earbuds are about to tell you how horrible you are and how you don't really like music.
RastaMentality
Banned
Dee Barnes isn't a gawker writer though, is she? Maybe the outlet could've been better but I think it's good she's mentioning it. A lot of people didn't know.
That tends to happen, yes, but it shouldn't make you completely uncapable of talking about what he committed.
DietRob
i've been begging for over 5 years.
You don't think Gawker is paying her for her story. Again not that she's wrong, it's just opportunistic.
bananafactory
Banned
I didn't know anything in the article prior to reading it, so I found it very informative and eye opening. But I agree the intent on the part of Gawker is probably disingenuous
John Kowalski
Banned
truly horrible, don't you like music? you must not like it obviously
But his flow is completely different based on who's writing for him.
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
Well bitches ain't shit so...
Of whom?
Angelus Errare
Banned
It's hard to talk about rationally when a bunch of people say nonsense like that. Point in case the last Dr. Dre thread. People were legit arguing there was a difference between Lennon and Dre and that difference ultimately ended up being "Lennon came a hippy", like that means a thing, much like Dre Lennon was a habitual woman beater. But for some reason people pulled excuses left and right while at the same time doing the same dog and pony show about being unhappy about Apple acquiring Beats because Dre beat a woman, and some other thinly veiled nonsense that had nothing to do with anything other than "They let an ex rapper and "gangster" (which he never was) into the executive board of my favorite company the world has ended!"
Dre is a dick for beating Dee. He did some half assed apology via letter then indirectly apologized in Rolling Stones a few days ago, he also paid Dee Barnes...in an out of court settlement...AFTER she told them she wouldn't sue if Dre produced her album. My point is if anyone is screaming out "Fuck Dre/NWA" while at the same time being a Beatles and/or John Lennon, go play in traffic.
With that stated...what should/could he do that will appease the masses? Me personally I think he should become a hippy like Lennon. Shit worked wonders.
i hope you're wrong. but know you're right.
hodayathink
Member
Drug use (and dealing) seems to be fine. So is adultery, for the most part. It's anything worse than that that will usually get swept under the rug.
Vincent Alexander
Member
Exactly. She isn't, though in the end it doesn't matter. I don't care who published story, or for what reasons. Getting the information out there is what is important, and if the means isn't hurting anybody...why not? It seems more crazy that people are offended by Gawker publishing this story than the act itself committed by Dre.
DietRob
i've been begging for over 5 years.
What? It's opportunistic of Gwaker to go out and solicit Dee for an interview to speak on things already in the public record.
Didn't think it was hard to understand. And of course it's not in the movie, why would it be? Someone else brought up that he produced it. He's not going to put that in. But is that a reason to trudge up old news.
I dunno that's for GAF and Gawker to decide I guess.
I'm a kill you muthafucker!
Vincent Alexander
Member
Just because something is in public record doesn't mean it is well known publicly. I honestly had no clue about any of this so it was an interesting read to me.
But yeah...I agree. No way he was putting it in the movie.
nah uh, temper temper
On topic:
Dee Barnes is only famous for getting the shit beat out of her by dre. Seeing that the movie is out and he has a new album, might as well get into the limelight.
dream
Member
Maybe it's because sometimes we have to let things go because we should believe that people can change, especially when we've gone nearly 2 decades without any word of Dre smacking his women around.
Again, I am replying to the posts inside this very thread, largely those that are making the 'that's what Biopics do' argument.
bananafactory
Banned
Are we turning this around on a victim now?
As much as I can understand you, it doesn't happen in this thread. And even if it would happen, you shouldn't defend like that.
And its opportunistic of her to use Gawker to get her story heard and its opportunistic of Dre to whitewash his past with a biopic.
In this whole bunch of oppurtunism, I choose to listen to the woman that was brutally beaten up. Basic human empathy and all that.
dream
Member
It's interesting that Dee Barnes doesn't mention that she offered to not sue if Dre produced her record.
Angelus Errare
Banned
This is nonsense, how else was she going to get her story heard? Talking to news station is "How to get your story heard 101".
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I'd completely forgotten about that wrinkle until you just now brought it up. Damn.
DietRob
i've been begging for over 5 years.
Like I was saying some things are best left swept under the rug.
A bunch of people that saw that movie never knew this stuff about NWA. There are kids graduating college now who were *born* after NWA broke up. Dre is "trudging up old news" by making the biopic at all. Pretty reasonable for a media outlet to recognize that people are interested in NWA and Dre right now and cater to that interest. The piece itself is long and thoughtful and interesting, it's not some hit piece or whatever.
Not at all, but its no coincidence on the timing of Gawker fishing for clicks.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Bubble Metropolis
Member
This movie is about not-good-people who made their name making music about proudly being not-good-people. People can excuse the violence, the drug dealing, etc., due to their environment and people can be fans of their art because the group gave a landmark and insightful view into what caused them to be not-good-people, but at the end of the day they're just not-good-people.
I read recently an article encouraging the boycott of this film due to Ice Cube never apologizing for his history of misogynistic lyrics, and insisting upon using the same crass language today that brought him fame in the first place. I'm not saying that article has no reason to exist, nor that Dee Barnes has no right to remind people of her side of the story, but Gawker and other e-tabloids bringing it up in an attempt to turn people away from the film, if not NWA's work as a whole, seems ludicrous because the group's entire body of work is a manifestation of evil elements. Reminding people that Dr. Dre habitually hit women isn't, or at least shouldn't, push people over the edge of tolerating him when they tolerate all the far more evil parts of the NWA story that they don't even attempt to hide.
Maybe it will push some people away from the film. Maybe this is the one thing they can't tolerate out of all the bald-faced evil the group celebrated. But personally I'm just shruggin'.
I don't see that it's a stretch to understand that any article that is written with the intent to negatively critique or attack a film, whether that be justified or not, is also dissuading people from seeing the film even if that is not explicitly stated. It's certainly not promoting the film.
I read recently an article encouraging the boycott of this film due to Ice Cube never apologizing for his history of misogynistic lyrics, and insisting upon using the same crass language today that brought him fame in the first place. I'm not saying that article has no reason to exist, nor that Dee Barnes has no right to remind people of her side of the story, but Gawker and other e-tabloids bringing it up in an attempt to turn people away from the film, if not NWA's work as a whole, seems ludicrous because the group's entire body of work is a manifestation of evil elements. Reminding people that Dr. Dre habitually hit women isn't, or at least shouldn't, push people over the edge of tolerating him when they tolerate all the far more evil parts of the NWA story that they don't even attempt to hide.
Maybe it will push some people away from the film. Maybe this is the one thing they can't tolerate out of all the bald-faced evil the group celebrated. But personally I'm just shruggin'.
I don't see that it's a stretch to understand that any article that is written with the intent to negatively critique or attack a film, whether that be justified or not, is also dissuading people from seeing the film even if that is not explicitly stated. It's certainly not promoting the film.
Motivate this claim, that this article ran "as an attempt to turn people away from the film". Where in the article does she say people shouldn't support the film? The strongest thing she says is "Straight Outta Compton transforms N.W.A. from the worlds most dangerous rap group to the worlds most diluted rap group.", which isn't so much a moral claim as it is an artistic one. She doesn't say "you shouldn't see this movie" she says ~"this movie is weak".
Foutrologue
Banned
R.I.P Nate Dog :-(
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked