Beverly Hills, CA – This morning, Brett Ratner submitted his resignation as a producer of the 84th annual Academy Awards to Academy President Tom Sherak. Ratner then issued an open letter to the entertainment industry in which he explained his decision.
“He did the right thing for the Academy and for himself,” Sherak said. “Words have meaning, and they have consequences. Brett is a good person, but his comments were unacceptable. We all hope this will be an opportunity to raise awareness about the harm that is caused by reckless and insensitive remarks, regardless of the intent.”
Good. And I appreciate that he took it upon himself to step down. Doesn’t make it right, but it’s a start.
The fact that yesterday the Academy was supporting Ratner and now they are saying “he did the right thing” by stepping down is bullshit.
Good. I can’t see why they bothered choosing him in the first place.
They definitely got some MEMBERS’angry phone calls. This is also very humiliating for Sherak who earlier supporting Ratner and calling him an old friend. This whole thing is a mess that could’ve been avoided to begin with. What were they thinking when they hired this guy is beyond me.
Good. Oscars aren’t meant for the youth. Have a mature, polite awards show which celebrates cinema rather than mocking it.
It requires a mature audience who sees the mature films they nominate and not children and teenagers.
@James Francis McAnderson
AMEN!
I said it on the other, earlier thread so I’ll say it again here. Twice.
Hurray, hurray!
So who’s going to host then? I can’t imagine Eddie will stay.
I dunno, Antoinette, but you’re not alone in thinking that. Jeff Wells posed the same question.
But what kind Supreme Royal Douchiest of Douches would Murphy have to be if he stuck with Ratner and quit too?
“I stand by my buddy’s use of the word ‘fag’ ” — is that really what he wants to say? Because that’s what resigning as host will mean.
I don’t see it happening. In fact, brace yourself. I’m expecting him to stay — and to make some really off-key remark about this on stage.
Omg, cue the awkward moments. What could happen is that the new producer could fire Murphy so it looks better for him and his career.
I agree with you Ryan but at the same point I don’t really see how it could work out for Murphy without Ratner. Ratner chose him and gave him the job in a silly PR move for Tower Heist. Now the film is also a big BO disappointment, I don’t see why the AMPAS would want to stick with him. Plus I also don’t see what kind of producer would agree to step in now without having a say on who’s is going to be presenting. That would be kind of a big “creative” compromise.
I don’t agree with this line of thinking at all, Eddie Murphy is a professional and a real movie star, one of the highest grossing in history. There is no reason for him to even give the appearance of objecting to the outcome of this situation by quitting and no reason for a new producer not to be willing to work with him.
But what kind Supreme Royal Douchiest of Douches would Murphy have to be if he stuck with Ratner and quit too?
I didn’t mean it in terms of sticking with Ratner. That’s who he was working with on it. Now that resets the whole thing. Plus the reaction people have had will now have an inadvertent side effect of stifling Murphy. I was looking forward to Eddie Murphy at his irreverent best. He can’t do that now and neither can anyone who replaces him. It’ll have to be a show where the host just introduces people and never says anything that could possibly be taken the wrong way. That’s a waste of Eddie Murphy, imo. For that kind of nicey nice bland they need someone like Jimmy Fallon.
“I don’t really see how it could work out for Murphy without Ratner”
I don’t see how it could work in the first place. Couldn’t resist.
It needed to happen. Best to get it over and done with.
If the BOG had guts, it would recognize that Tom Sherak is not very competent and is a terrible leader of AMPAS. He has all sorts of misguided notions that seek to make the Academy “relevant” and he pusues strategies toward that end. It led to the selection of Ratner. How he could have been chosed is astonishing. His track record is one of appalling mediocrity. If he cannot produce a creditable film, how can he produce the awards show? Sherak’s initial defense of Ratner was quick and not thought through.
Sherak’s selection of Dawn Hudson is another case in point. Her background in indie films was not a compelling qualification to warrant her selection. She purportedly has been quoted as wanting to broaden the AMPAS membership, and it appears that people very new to the industry was being invited to fit various social profiles. Then too, look at the invitation to Russell Brand. Would anyone claim that he is an important member of the British film industry? Then ask the next question and what is your answer?
I imagine the BOG will fire Hudson with a year or so, and she will be gone, leaving a heap of damage.
Sherak’s poor decisions are piling up. He is failing the Board, the Academy and film lovers everywhere.
I do find it somewhat ironic that the Academy has forced the ouster of Brett Ratner over his insensitive remarks about gay people, when this same Academy had members stating that they wouldn’t vote for Brokeback Mountain because “John Wayne would be turning over in his grave.”
That said, this was absolutely the right decision. Brett Ratner is a most comprehensive douchebag, and he needs to learn (like all seven year-olds) that words have meanings and consequences, and that maybe it’s better to just keep your mouth shut.
So be it. Time to move on.
good! the world does not have a place for a bigot douchebag like him. damage has been done, he has to pay the price. i’ll not watch a single film of his from now on
He should of came forward but I know that would have never have happened because a lot of theses film makers and actors have a lot of pride in their careers and they have to protect their “fame”. I think resigning was the right thing for Ratner, I don’t know how this is going to affect his future, but I am sure he’s going to be fine. Does this put a scar on himself? Sure it does, it hurts not only him but his character as well. People shouldn’t say things that are not meant to be said he put the cherry on the cake on that Q &A of Tower Heist. I still think he’s a douche bag….
A new topic would be, now that Ratner is gone who is going to take over as Producer. And will the new Producer keep Eddie Murphy as host? Or drop him? More than likely he’s going to drop him from it.
Murphy is toast now.
If comedy is king, they should consider Judd Apatow as producer and Seth Rogen as host.
all the political correctness makes me want to puke. It was just a silly joke with a word that had no power, till the people who overreacted to it GAVE it power by doing so.
Why is Ratner being punked out of the job he is a great fit for?
If comedy is king, they should consider Judd Apatow as producer and Seth Rogen as host.
Right. Because James Franco worked out so well.
VVS–because you reap what you sow.
what did he sow? He made an innocent joke.
VVS –
The point is, he was fired because he was representing the AMPAS, not because he used the word behind closed doors with his buddies.
Also, why shouldn’t there be political correctness in our society? Aren’t we better than calling each other every name under the book? Is is so bad that we as a society carry ourselves with dignity and class??? God forbid.
The point is, he was fired because he was representing the AMPAS, not because he used the word behind closed doors with his buddies.
Ah. So he should have stayed in the closet. Which must mean that expressing yourself out in the open should be avoided. Okay. I see where I was confused before. It’s about the pretend face you show the world so that you’ll be accepted. So since he was presenting AMPAS he couldn’t be himself. They should have an Oscar producer runner-up in case the winner cannot fulfill her/his duties due to saying the wrong thing or naked pictures or something. Then it won’t be such a big deal. Or maybe McG was the runner up?
Antionette – I have a very simple question for you. Would you be fired for using such language at your job? Yes or no?
I also don’t want to come off as the language police – Lord knows I haven’t been completely discreet in my judgement.
I just don’t believe that type of behavior in any work place is ever acceptable.
Probably. But was he “at his job”? I didn’t think this happened while he was working on the Oscar telecast. I thought he was “representing” Tower Heist at a Q&A or something like that. Or was it an AMPAS function? If it wasn’t at an AMPAS function or when he was working for them, then to me it’s the same as an average person being fired for something they said on facebook or twitter on their own time. I’m against that too. I’ve said it before. You don’t have to agree with me. I just want people to understand that either you’re a person who allows people their liberties or you’re not. You can’t say ‘Well that guy can say what he wants but he should do it behind closed doors’ and then get angry when someone else thinks gay people should stay closeted. It’s the exact same thing. Either you support freedom of expression or you don’t. It’s that simple.
You’re right – he wasn’t at an AMPAS function, he was at the Q&A for “Tower Heist”. However, he is still “representing” the Academy as the known producer. I hope you would agree with me that this is a special circumstance.
Also, I remember a few months ago when a teacher in Arkansas (?) was fired for saying that the only way he will wear a ribbon of some sort is if “All the fags kill themselves”. This was on his Facebook.
Was it wrong for the school to have fired him for such indiscretions? I suppose that is where we would disagree.
I do respect your opinion, and I’m trying to look at this from all sides, but I personally have zero tolerance on this matter.
Yesterday Sherak supported Ratner because he was ‘a good man’ and had gay friends (LOL!), but today he thinks the comments were unacceptable. OMG, the Academy needs to fire its pr people. Really! Other than that, I’m hoping for a producer who can keep the integrity of the awards and doesn’t want to turn them into the MTV Awards. And I believe Eddie will go, but what about Billy coming back? This IS the right time for the Academy to bring him back. This will be a good moment to actually mute down the bad publicity Ratner created. And I’m so glad Ratner’s out because he would have been awful. We all know that. He simply doesn’t have good taste. He would have turned the Oscars into a silly version of the MTV Awards. And the guy really had some foes now. I’m sick of people like Ratner.
Hate speech is not a liberty and I’m tired of people acting like it is.
There’s a lot of hypocrisy in the past few threads. Seriously are you venting now, with a chance of forgiveness later or have you completely killed and buried Brett Ratner? A poor choice of words on his part, for which I doubt he meant he meant as interpreted ‘ rehearsing is for homosexuals, who I don’t like by the way…’
It’s silly to think he meant it that way. It’s also stupid that he said it that way. If it’s not in his vernacular maybe he was mimicking Spicolli, the Sean Penn character in FTARH. I quote Airplane on a daily basis and haven’t really given it a second thought about whether my words are now redundant, hurtful or both. Hopefully people still name their daughter Shirley.
Woody Allen – didn’t he marry his 5yo babysitter? Posts here are gunning for his picture to be honored.
Same for Polanski, who raped a young girl with a champagne bottle. Carnage is being touted
Put it into perspective, everyone done something stupid. Let’s acknowledge his stupidity and look forward to less stupidity (and better films)
I think Sherak should call Bill Condon right now. Condons Jackman show ran as smooth and comfortable as i can remember, and he knows Eddie Murphy from Dreamgirls, so there you go.
Political correctness saves lives.
Actually I believe that the Academy won’t hire a new producer and will go with Don Misher alone.
@ Mattoc, I can tell you why I don’t have a problem with Polanski & Woody Allen. First of all, Woody Allen hasn’t committed a crime. He could marry whoever he wants to if it’s legal. And in his case it is. In Polanski’s case – it’s not to us to judge him. We don’t know all the circumstances and I’m tired of people turning Polanski into a target just because they think they are entitled to judge him. In the case of Ratner it’s a person who uses his speech to insult people. Not simply gays, but all his statements are tactless and idiotic, degrading and disrespectful to people and whole communities. And in his case it’s all in front of press. I don’t care if he thought it or didn’t. He did it, which means that he thought it was all right to do it. Which shows no respect to people who don’t believe they can be laughed about and insulted only because of sexual orientation (or religion). And yes, I don’t want such a person to be associated with the Academy Awards because I want the Oscars to be special and to be respectful and I don’t trust such a person. So yes, I believe everybody has the right to be angry.
@Zooey…We don’t know all the circumstances? Polanski was convicted in a court of law. He is a fugitive from justice. We know the circumstances.
Woody Allen is too shy to host the Oscars, in my opinion.
The problem with the Oscar telecast is they just keep trying too hard. They need to remember why they have a ceremony to begin with, and go from there.
ALSO….this is the best thing that ever happened to Ratner….everyone is talking about him like he’s Spielberg or Ridley Scott, or anything other then a hack director who uses his position to proposition and sleep with young actresses probably daily.
Ya know I’m gay and I realize that people say things and stuff runs out of their mouths unchecked. At first when I heard this I really didn’t react all that crazy ya know. I think sometimes we do overkill on politically correct. But I just watched The View and listened to Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters and now I’m pissed. Barbara Walters stated that she didn’t think that Mr. Rattner needed to resign. She implied it was rather silly for this too happen to him. That he probably didn’t mean to actually offend anyone. Ms Goldberg on the other hand went into a dissertation on how the word “fag” means a cigarette in England and originally referred to a bundle of wood or sticks. That was her justification. Now I’ve listened to this group of women go crazy over other racially and unflattering terminology used by different people and they get their panties all wadded up but “fag” was ok for them. Hey Tracy Morgan certainly didn’t have to leave his show after making some rather crude remarks. You know in this country if you’re going to be politically correct then don’t pick and choose. Ms Walters and Ms Goldberg should know better. Implying that he didn’t mean anything by it, and he might not have; but that’s not the point. The point is that in this country the word fag is an unflattering and unkind comment used to identify a gay man. It’s used as a bullying weapon and demeaning to another human being who might not even be gay. Damn I wasn’t gonna even get into this until I listened to these two supposedly enlightened women making excuses for Mr. Rattner and then trying it make it sound like it was completely acceptable.
Thanks, Nic V.
You’re so right. I’m utterly baffled by that ridiculous argument: “Faggot? isn’t that just a bundle of wood?” NO, it isn’t. We are not living in medieval England.
The Womyn of the Vewe in felaweshipe wel koude laughe and carpe… but they are nothing but a gaggle of clucking dimwitted fools if they think “fag” is anything in modern parlance but a crude disparaging slur against gay men
– yes, even in high school slang it’s replusive.
Whoopie Goldberg needs to put down her 14-volume edition of the OED and check out the common current definition of “fag” at the authoritative source for modern usage: UrbanDictionary.com
THAT. That right there is the definition that gets over 3000 enthusiastic ‘thumbs up’ from the very people who now sling around “fag” in its slangy evolution.
10,300 people at UrbanDictionay.com approve this definition:
fag
yeah, kids today, they’re well aware of the “bundle of wood” origins of faggot. They love this definition too:
@Nic V.
what Tracy Morgan said was truly disturbing and he deserved to be punished for it.
What Ratner said was completely innocent and harmless. It’s the same thing with the backlash that Stewart and Depp got after referring to paparazzi shots as rape. Obviously they didnt mean that it was truly rape, but that it was an invasion of their private space. It’s an exaggeration. It’s human to use exciting words to get your point across. Should every burn victim be outraged by everyday use of the word “burn?” Because according to that logic, it’s very insensitive for people who do not what it’s like to be burned.
People should have the intelligence and the ability to discern when something is said in jest, and when something is said with dark intention. The lack of that ability is evidence of something very unstable in a person’s psyche.
It’s human to use exciting words to get your point across.
I’m leaning more and more towards Nick Ray’s exciting description of you and your attitude as a steaming pile of shit.
Look, VVS, you’re never gonna change, so your precious attachment to using “fag” is not under threat. You’re free to run around spewing crude insensitive language among all your pals who think it’s ever so cool.
But you’re outnumbered here by people who aren’t so callous and cruel, you’re overruled by by the Academy’s decision, and one day we hope people like you will be seen by most of civil society as glaring relics of selfish stubborn idiocy.
“People should have the intelligence and the ability to discern when something is said in jest, and when something is said with dark intention. The lack of that ability is evidence of something very unstable in a person’s psyche.” -VVS
Do you personally know that Ratner isn’t a gay-basher when he goes home? How do you have any idea that it was in jest.
Colin Biggs. You’re right that I don’t know whether he harbors any ill feelings toward homosexuals. Just as you don’t know how many members of the AMPAS who stone him in public go home and make worse comments in the privacy of their home or think in the confines of their head.
What I do know is that the comment was about rehearsal, not a statement on homosexuality, and cannot justifiably be taken as such by anybody with a rational frame of mind.
I always found the critical community and Oscar-files’ relationship with Brett Rattner somewhat wierd. A very talented student out of NYU who never found any critical respect. More on that here: http://bit.ly/pE2lJ0
Brett Ratner is a macho shit head….anyone who knows him, knows this. I’m sure some of his best friends are “fags”….you can believe he thinks he’s more of a man then they are.
As for The View….I’d like to see what Whoopie Goldberg would have thought about it if he’d carelessly used the “N” word instead. There are also five definitions for the word nigger which have nothing to do with race, so what.
I’d like to add “slut” to the trifecta of offensive words, but no one really gives a shit about offending women, do they?
Thanks Michelle. Right on target.
“The lack of that ability is evidence of something very unstable in a person’s psyche.”
see, in my view, anybody like Michael Richards or Mel Gibson or Brett Ratner who have this kind of vocabulary percolating so close to the surface that offensive words bubble out spontaneously — that’s not a blunder, that’s not a gaffe…
…it’s evidence of something very sick, disturbing and unstable in their psyche.
You’re equating Mel Gibson’s comments with Brett Ratner’s. That says all. Things aren’t black and white like you seem to think they are. And the scale of 1-10 includes more than just 1 and 10.
VVS, You have a pretty weak grasp of the English language if you think naming 3 people in the same sentence is the same as “equating” all three of them.
What they have in common is a screwed up psyche that allows their mouths to spit out words that they know sound hateful to millions of people. They exhibit different degrees of mental screwed-up-edness, but yeah, I think all three of them are mentally off-kilter.
I’m a foul-mouthed fuck. I cuss way too much. I’m brutal and harsh as hell when I express myself in anger. That’s obvious, right?
But there are some words, I don’t say, not ever. Because I never let myself get in the bad habit. It’s not hard to avoid hurting people. It only takes the desire and willpower and a smidgen of fucking consideration, VVS.
(that’s not to say my psyche is rock-solid stable, because lord knows I’m a mess. But one thing I’m not is a casual bigot.)
And guess who’s also GTFO of the show.. http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2011/20111109.html
Why is no one focusing on how AMPAS is being mismanaged? Sherak is presiding over a debacle. Bad decision after bad decision. Will he not be held to account? It is no longer fruitful to debate whether Ratner’s comment was innocent or malicious.
@VVS
The comment was about rehearsal… fine. But if he had said rehearsal is for _____ (general slurs, like the n-word, etc.)
the focus of that sentence turns to the noun. Looking at that from an English 101 p.o.v. you’re still wrong. This was never about rehearsal and everything to do with a hate word.
@Colin. The focus of the comment is on rehearsing. Not the word fags. His comment was equivalent to saying “I don’t see the value of rehearsal.” But he said it in terms most people my age talk. It is everyday language. It is not meant to be offensive. Just because somebody chooses to be offended by it, does not make it offensive.
I’m upset he doesn’t think rehearsing is a necessity. It gives freedom in performance. But other than that, I don’t see a reason to be upset about anything else he said. Because that’s about the only thing he said.
Just because somebody chooses to be offended by it, does not make it offensive.
er…
Just because somebody chooses to be offended by it, does not make it offensive.
oh I see — it’s entirely up to the person speaking to assess whether what he’s saying is offensive or not. Makes no difference who’s actually offended. Just so long as the dickwad talking thinks it’s cool.
VVS, the fact that Ratner and yourself and other people consider a word that is a homophobic slur “everyday language” really doesn’t make anything better. Continued use of a word with undeniably offensive connotations in a negative context is not okay — even if someone was joking or just not thinking when they used it, as Ratner obviously wasn’t. That kind of thoughtlessness and lackadaisical attitude toward the word is not part of the solution; it is part of the problem. Just because somebody chooses to not be offended by it, does not make it inoffensive.
He’s not calling anybody a fag. You can’t make up reality. He’s downplaying the importance rehearsal has for him.
Let me tell you this VVS. If you ever post any comments slinging around the word ‘fag’ in any context beyond this discussion, all those comments will be deleted as offensive. Because it will offend me and it will offend too many of our readers.
So Don’t Do It. That’s the rule around here. Say what you want around all your fag-slang slinging buddies. But you won’t be doing it around it here.
Your use of ‘fag’ is offensive, and your defense of it is borderline offensive too.
And that’s the attitude the Academy has about Ratner. Get used to it, pal.
The word has evolved. That’s very true. It’s a word that’s evolving right out of existence in polite considerate circles. Your continued insistence that it’s ok makes you look like an asshole to almost all our readers.
Er, vvs, the definition of an offense, is basically, that is offends someone, right? Yet, you claim that is has no bearing whatsoever. That is strange stuff. Maybe you should refrain from this discussion…you know, Ratner-style.
VVS, I sincerely doubt you’re younger than me–I’m 22–and no one I associate with uses that word. It’s a slur. And if I call you a ridiculous homophobe, don’t take it offensively, I don’t think it is.