Question Fans: what are your thoughts on Joss Whedon now?

[Synch]

Do you know cast members then ?
If so what have they been told ?

I read those comments on social media (Instagram mostly) between them and Joss inner circle. It seems they had a great time in London (Joss finished The Nevers on Sunday Nov 8).

 

[gwenogjones]

The thing is - and I'm not saying this specific to Joss - but there are very few people in the world who would have no one who is on good terms with them or has a good impression of them. There are few people who would have no one to defend them. But the fact that they are on good terms with some people, that they are friends with some people, does not mean they are not bullying and abusing others. In fact - it's pretty much a hallmark of an abuser, to be charming and friendly with everyone else - that way no one believes the victim, because they couldn't believe this person would do that, they had always been lovely to them. How may times does someone get arrested fro murder and the newspapers run a story from the neighbour about how 'they never would have guessed it, he seemed such a nice family man'?
Having people come out and say 'well, he never did that to me' only means that he never did that to them not that he never did to anyone.

So Joss can have had wonderful relationships with the cast of the nevers, that does not preclude him being a bullying arsehole on the set of Justice League. And he can have got on very well with X, but that does not preclude him from harassing or intimidating or belittling Y.

And again, this isn't specific to Joss - this is true of everybody. But people with more power have more opportunity to abuse that power and he is quite a powerful figure in Hollywood these days.
We know there are a fair amount of stories of him behaving badly, we know there are people to whom he apparently never behaves badly. People will have different thresholds for what they think are acceptable behaviour. Perhaps whatever happened to Ray Fisher is something that plenty of people here would shrug of as no big deal if it happened to them - but it was a big deal to Ray Fisher, and just because he has different expectations of professional behaviour to someone else doesn't make him wrong.
Sometimes people change their minds after the fact - they go along with something when they are in the middle of it, and then later look back at think 'hang on, that really wasn't OK.'
Sometimes people change their minds over time - they shrug off the first thing, and the second thing ... and then start noticing a pattern and then look back on other behaviours that were possible warning flags and so by the time the work/ relationship is over they have a different opinion to the one they stated when they were just starting out.
That doesn't mean they're making it up, or cashing in or trying to get attention - it means they have more data, or have had more time to think, or are now not in a position where speaking out could damage them.

If people in a brand new working relationship with Joss have a positive view of him and feel he treated them well, then that's great and hope it doesn't change. But their experience does not undermine the experiences of people who have known and worked with him for longer and seen a different side to him.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

I think there’s probably a middle ground between what both Joss and James have said 😂 I don’t really buy James’ ‘Joss hates Spike’ when Spike gets a HUGE arc (for me to the detriment of Buffy’s character) and his role almost takes precedence in S7

James did become part of Joss' inner circle on the Buffy set and was part of the cast members who would go over to Joss' house and stuff so that incident, whilst unprofessional, obviously did not put James off, plus we don't know if Joss later privately apologised for it.

and then gets second billing in Angel despite it being clear there wasn’t really a role for his character throughout S5. I think Joss probably did feel irritated when Spike became The Fonzie of the show but I don’t think he hated his character as much as James thinks. Of course James’ knows more than me though so just my opinion on the basic facts 😂

Spike was basically the life support machine in Angel. Apparently the only reason why Angel got a Season 5 was on the proviso that Spike was brought over, hence why the network heavily advertised his return despite it meant to be a surprise to the audience.

but it was a big deal to Ray Fisher

And here comes the issue with this, some people like to play the victim. In the interview with Fisher, he talked about how he was "informed" this happened or that happened rather than actually witnessing it himself. He was annoyed his script suggestions weren't adopted, his role was reduced, just because he's black doesn't mean it was because of racism and that is the crux of the whole situation. Joss can be a dick to people that's well established. It's unprofessional but Hollywood is it's own environment and has an underlying cesspool of bad behaviour. However, there is a difference between being a dick to people and being a racist. Black actors and actresses shouldn't be mollycoddled just because of their skin colour. Fisher was an actor on set who's paid just to say his lines and put in a good performance, not to insert his opinion in the script.

Also here's a comparable to your "it's a big deal to Ray Fisher": Below is a video of what's known as "Punchgate" from the final series of Celebrity Big Brother UK version. The video shows the "incident" and it shows the fallout. Watch it and decide for yourself whether Roxanne Pallett was justified with her accusations.

 

[gwenogjones]

I'm not watching Big Brother.

Not least because what you appear to have posted is an edited version to show a particular story about a show - which is already edited to show a particular story. Go watch the Charlie Brooker screenwipe about editing Big Brother. It's not real.

However: Yes, sometimes there's two sides to every story, sometimes someone is lying (I think you think this lady is lying - she's certainly lying about being a celebrity), and sometimes someone really did do something wrong. That goes without saying.

But accepting that something is a big deal to a complainant should not be a controversial stance to take. You don't have to agree it was a big deal, you just accept it was to them. And then the powers that be can investigate the meat of the matter and come to a conclusion - with the caveat that the person with the most power is at an advantage during the investigation and the lower down you are the more likely you are to be disregarded, because the world is not perfect and the powerful protect each other.

However to decide that because something happened on big brother which proves ... something (I mean for god sake, all big brother proves is how low some of the calibre of humanity is) therefore we should not assume that a person making a complaint feels they have a genuine grievance just empowers the people abusing their authority to continue getting away with doing so.

 

[Faded90]

I'm not watching Big Brother.

Not least because what you appear to have posted is an edited version to show a particular story about a show - which is already edited to show a particular story. Go watch the Charlie Brooker screenwipe about editing Big Brother. It's not real.

However: Yes, sometimes there's two sides to every story, sometimes someone is lying (I think you think this lady is lying - she's certainly lying about being a celebrity), and sometimes someone really did do something wrong. That goes without saying.

But accepting that something is a big deal to a complainant should not be a controversial stance to take. You don't have to agree it was a big deal, you just accept it was to them. And then the powers that be can investigate the meat of the matter and come to a conclusion - with the caveat that the person with the most power is at an advantage during the investigation and the lower down you are the more likely you are to be disregarded, because the world is not perfect and the powerful protect each other.

However to decide that because something happened on big brother which proves ... something (I mean for god sake, all big brother proves is how low some of the calibre of humanity is) therefore we should not assume that a person making a complaint feels they have a genuine grievance just empowers the people abusing their authority to continue getting away with doing so.

This lady on Big Brother is the extreme example of someone lying for attention. She used to be an actress (this incident basically out the kibosh on her career) where one of the other male contestants was shadow boxing and she then went around the house telling all of the housemates that he’d repeatedly punched her in the ribs.

I wouldn’t like to use her as an example as she was a complete lunatic and I’d like to think certainly not a common occurrence and I’d hate to tar other victims with the Same brush

 

[The Bronze]

The Big Brother example here is important. It shows someone who would viciously lie and was confident that they would be believed and face no consequences. Despite being surrounded by cameras.

Point is you don't know who you're dealing with. That goes for accuser and accused. It's why reserving judgement and evaluating evidence is always important.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

Not least because what you appear to have posted is an edited version to show a particular story about a show

This is what the actual show makers showed to the woman in her interview about the matter. It shows the main points of the matter: the "incident" itself, her going around accusing Ryan Thomas of beating her up, and the effect her lie was having on him.

However: Yes, sometimes there's two sides to every story, sometimes someone is lying (I think you think this lady is lying - she's certainly lying about being a celebrity), and sometimes someone really did do something wrong. That goes without saying.

It clearly shows she was lying. The "incident" took place in a room full of other housemates. She's going around telling them that he repeatedly punched her in the ribs, were they even aware that the "incident" she's talking about is the one they were all in the room for?

The point is that someone shouldn't be automatically believed just because they're a certain gender or colour. Accusations should be taken seriously, they should be investigated thoroughly, and EVIDENCE should be presented to back up an accusation. Ray Fisher's "evidence" seems to be "I was "informed" this happened by that person and I was "informed" that happened by another person etc."

Hearsay is not evidence yet it doesn't stop people getting offended.

But accepting that something is a big deal to a complainant should not be a controversial stance to take. You don't have to agree it was a big deal, you just accept it was to them.

The "incident" was clearly a big deal to Roxanne Pallett. The issue is that it could've had dire consequences for an innocent man. She's going around saying he beat her up, she's turning on the tears, she's making out like she's a victim, and yet he had done nothing wrong. His career and life could've been ruined based on her seeing the "incident" as a big deal. Who knows what would've happened to him if the whole thing hadn't been caught on camera.

And then the powers that be can investigate the meat of the matter and come to a conclusion - with the caveat that the person with the most power is at an advantage during the investigation and the lower down you are the more likely you are to be disregarded, because the world is not perfect and the powerful protect each other.

Power is relative. In the court of wokeism which is operating at full force this year, being a straight white male means you're the lowest of the low. Amber Heard accuses Johnny Depp of domestic violence, he loses two major franchises, she gets a pat on the head for being "brave" alongside endorsements. It turns out that she is actually the abuser, she even tells him nobody will believe him because he's a man and she's a woman, she keeps her job whilst Johnny Depp is still cast out into the cold within Hollywood.

Ray Fisher accuses Joss Whedon of racism, his "evidence" basically consisting of "I was told this happened", Because Fisher is black, all the SJWs are clamouring to "cancel" Whedon. I think it's very telling that, despite going woke, WB hasn't publicly denounced Whedon's "racism".

However to decide that because something happened on big brother which proves ... something (I mean for god sake, all big brother proves is how low some of the calibre of humanity is) therefore we should not assume that a person making a complaint feels they have a genuine grievance just empowers the people abusing their authority to continue getting away with doing so.

What the big brother example proves is that just because someone FEELS like they have a genuine grievance doesn't mean there actually is a genuine grievance. Pallett genuinely believed what she was say was true even though it clearly wasn't.

People can feel however they want, but when those "feelings" have the potential to negatively impact someone else then FACTS and TRUTH should be the only deciding factor and feelings should be taken out of the equation. As we see in the Big Brother example, Pallett FELT like she had a genuine grievance, but the truth is there wasn't one. Her lie, because factually it is a lie, could've negatively impacted the life and career of an innocent man.

This lady on Big Brother is the extreme example of someone lying for attention. She used to be an actress (this incident basically out the kibosh on her career) where one of the other male contestants was shadow boxing and she then went around the house telling all of the housemates that he’d repeatedly punched her in the ribs.

I wouldn’t like to use her as an example as she was a complete lunatic and I’d like to think certainly not a common occurrence and I’d hate to tar other victims with the Same brush

Women like her and Amber Heard make it harder for genuine victims to be believed and unfortunately the level of scrutiny victims face in order to ascertain the validity of their claims is necessary because of liars like Amber Heard and Roxanne Pallett. "Believe all women" is a fanciful notion that assumes that a woman won't lie, clearly that is not the case. "Believe all women" leaves innocent men at the mercy of vindictive and malicious women.

Jussie Smollett faked a hate crime. He got found out. If he'd pulled the stunt this year, would he have gotten away with it because he's black and therefore his false claim of being racially targeted should automatically be believed?

The Big Brother example here is important. It shows someone who would viciously lie and was confident that they would be believed and face no consequences. Despite being surrounded by cameras.

Point is you don't know who you're dealing with. That goes for accuser and accused. It's why reserving judgement and evaluating evidence is always important.

Exactly.

 

[Btvs fan]

James did become part of Joss' inner circle on the Buffy set and was part of the cast members who would go over to Joss' house and stuff so that incident, whilst unprofessional, obviously did not put James off, plus we don't know if Joss later privately apologised for it.




Spike was basically the life support machine in Angel. Apparently the only reason why Angel got a Season 5 was on the proviso that Spike was brought over, hence why the network heavily advertised his return despite it meant to be a surprise to the audience.




And here comes the issue with this, some people like to play the victim. In the interview with Fisher, he talked about how he was "informed" this happened or that happened rather than actually witnessing it himself. He was annoyed his script suggestions weren't adopted, his role was reduced, just because he's black doesn't mean it was because of racism and that is the crux of the whole situation. Joss can be a dick to people that's well established. It's unprofessional but Hollywood is it's own environment and has an underlying cesspool of bad behaviour. However, there is a difference between being a dick to people and being a racist. Black actors and actresses shouldn't be mollycoddled just because of their skin colour. Fisher was an actor on set who's paid just to say his lines and put in a good performance, not to insert his opinion in the script.

Also here's a comparable to your "it's a big deal to Ray Fisher": Below is a video of what's known as "Punchgate" from the final series of Celebrity Big Brother UK version. The video shows the "incident" and it shows the fallout. Watch it and decide for yourself whether Roxanne Pallett was justified with her accusations.

Going over isn't being part of the Inner circle its just sucking up to the Boss.
By all accounts they all did it except for SMG who couldn't be bothered , it was just for the Musical and ended after that. James himself is the biggest self promoter of that and was kind of called out on it by Alexis at the Buffy reunion and you could tell James was aware of that when talking to him. But regardless that's not being part of an inner circle by any stretch.

The grabbing thing was back in S2 after School Hard. Its evident when Spike is back on in Halloween he's toned down quite a bit.

BTW James has also said that he thought Joss was the one who leaked his Michelle Tractenberg letter and was angry at being called Angels angeneau which he considered is Hollywood speak for being a pretty boy.

Tbh Joss was never a huge fan of Spike. He used the character because of his popularity but that's it.

In case you've not noticed there are actors Joss uses again and again for different shows/movies. James wasn't one of them.
That includes a Midsummer Nights Dream with Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof.

As for Angel S5, Joss originally just tried to get JM on as just reoccurring but it was JM who said no its full time or nothing.
And it wasn't just Spike. They also did a soft reboot with a lighter atmosphere which were other conditions.

 

[TriBel]

As an "older fan", my thoughts on Whedon now are the same as they were before "now". Zero; Zilch; Nada. I couldn't give a bugger inasmuch as it doesn't impact on my enjoyment/understanding of his work. I could give an extra-textual bugger if I knew the facts but I don't so I won't. I can see the point in speculating about a fictional work (harmless) but not about real lives (can be harmful).

@Spanky - I presume you mean Stepin Fetchit?

 

[TriBel]

@Spanky - Yeah...I know something (a very tiny something) about the stereotype but I can't remember whether I've actually seen it in action. Despite the fact I was "woke", a SJW and PC before these terms became pejoratives, I don't have a problem with Mr Trick because of his name: the "trickster" is an important figure in African-American culture.

(From Wiki) "Modern African-American literary criticism has turned the trickster figure into an example of how it is possible to overcome a system of oppression from within. For years, African-American literature was discounted by the greater community of American literary criticism while its authors were still obligated to use the language and the rhetoric of the very system that relegated African Americans and other minorities to the ostracized position of the cultural "other." The central question became one of how to overcome this system when the only words available were created and defined by the oppressors. As Audre Lorde explained, the problem was that "the master's tools [would] never dismantle the master's house."

Mr Trick kinda reflects the text back at itself (as do Rona and Robin Wood). The problem lies (as Lorde intimates above) with whether you can use a stereotype to deconstruct a stereotype or whether the process actually backfires and reinforces the original. IDK.

Sorry mods...double post - please merge if possible. Ta...

 

[Btvs fan]

@Myheadsgonenumb less a letter and more a poem that James had written. Michelle had devolvoped a crush on James so James had written a poem in response. JM believed that it was Joss who leaked it.
That's basically real life backstop of why Dawn and Spike have no more scenes together after Beneath You

For more information click on this link

OK, we have to talk about that song James Marsters wrote for Michelle Trachtenberg

Honestly, at this point in time, only so many tweets can elicit from me a strong, visceral reaction. We are constantly smothered in everyday horrors to the point of, if not normalization or desensitization, at least a level of "well this is life now" numbness as a coping mechanism. So when I say...

www.syfy.com

 

[gwenogjones]

Michelle had devolvoped a crush on James so James had written a poem in response.

I know this is getting off topic, and we're not supposed to - but what you've written above isn't in the article, but if it's true - I think it sort of changes the framing of the whole thing. I mean, of course Michelle had a crush on James, her and every other girl her age, in the world, at the time. The difference between her and - for example - me is that she actually knows him and works alongside him. But if she had this crush and the song is a response to that then (and I'll admit I've only read the extracts in the article, so I may be missing something much worse, in which case I hold my hands up and admit I'm wrong) it sort of comes across more as a gentle let down than a predatory act. Maybe not the most sensible thing for him to do, maybe not professional, and something in this day and age anyone with half a brain would give a hard swerve to - but essentially the song is 'it's not that you're not beautiful, but you're too young and by the time you're old enough you won't want me so it's not gonna happen - but don't worry, there is better out there waiting for you.'

Yes absolutely what he should have done is just not address the situation. But I find it very easy to put myself into Michelle's shoes at the time, if the situation was as you described it, and this poem/ song essentially says 'no' but without hurting her pride or making her feel silly or treating her like a daft girl with a crush, whilst recognising that's what she is. It's inappropriate but well intentioned (though I can also imagine it backfiring and a young girl seeing it as a reason to keep on pressing her point). He shouldn't have done it, it was stupid, it was inappropriate - but he isn't actually a creep.

However if it was written apropos of nothing, then it is pretty damn creepy. I must admit that when I worked out his wife is essentially the same age as Michelle I was bit creeped out, especially as I think she had been a fan. I know if I'd met James in my teen years I would have been more than willing to sleep with him and had I somehow managed to accomplish that I would have definitely felt like the cat that got the cream and not a person who had been taken advantage of. Teenagers do and want things that are not good for them, and it is why we put the onus on adults to draw the line and why we condemn the ones who don't, even when said teenagers are adamant it's what they want. I managed to be simultaneously creeped out and jealous when I saw how young his wife was - a mixture of 'sigh - that could have been me!' and 'ew - that could have been me!'

But it seems like the poem was the end of it as far as him and Michelle was concerned.

I'm also unclear on them not working together in s7 - whether that was due to Michelle's crush or James' response to it. Or both. Whether the crew were trying to protect Michelle or if it was just a complication they didn't want to have to deal with on a tight schedule.

Anyway - back to Joss ...

 

[Btvs fan]

I know this is getting off topic, and we're not supposed to - but what you've written above isn't in the article, but if it's true - I think it sort of changes the framing of the whole thing. I mean, of course Michelle had a crush on James, her and every other girl her age, in the world, at the time. The difference between her and - for example - me is that she actually knows him and works alongside him. But if she had this crush and the song is a response to that then (and I'll admit I've only read the extracts in the article, so I may be missing something much worse, in which case I hold my hands up and admit I'm wrong) it sort of comes across more as a gentle let down than a predatory act. Maybe not the most sensible thing for him to do, maybe not professional, and something in this day and age anyone with half a brain would give a hard swerve to - but essentially the song is 'it's not that you're not beautiful, but you're too young and by the time you're old enough you won't want me so it's not gonna happen - but don't worry, there is better out there waiting for you.'

Yes absolutely what he should have done is just not address the situation. But I find it very easy to put myself into Michelle's shoes at the time, if the situation was as you described it, and this poem/ song essentially says 'no' but without hurting her pride or making her feel silly or treating her like a daft girl with a crush, whilst recognising that's what she is. It's inappropriate but well intentioned (though I can also imagine it backfiring and a young girl seeing it as a reason to keep on pressing her point). He shouldn't have done it, it was stupid, it was inappropriate - but he isn't actually a creep.

However if it was written apropos of nothing, then it is pretty damn creepy. I must admit that when I worked out his wife is essentially the same age as Michelle I was bit creeped out, especially as I think she had been a fan. I know if I'd met James in my teen years I would have been more than willing to sleep with him and had I somehow managed to accomplish that I would have definitely felt like the cat that got the cream and not a person who had been taken advantage of. Teenagers do and want things that are not good for them, and it is why we put the onus on adults to draw the line and why we condemn the ones who don't, even when said teenagers are adamant it's what they want. I managed to be simultaneously creeped out and jealous when I saw how young his wife was - a mixture of 'sigh - that could have been me!' and 'ew - that could have been me!'

But it seems like the poem was the end of it as far as him and Michelle was concerned.

I'm also unclear on them not working together in s7 - whether that was due to Michelle's crush or James' response to it. Or both. Whether the crew were trying to protect Michelle or if it was just a complication they didn't want to have to deal with on a tight schedule.

Anyway - back to Joss ...

I was just giving you the full story of what the situation was about. Like you say its hard to tell either way. Though did you watch the music video in the link, that's not great ?
But the point was James thought it was Joss who leaked it

His current wife was a fan of the show she was 19 at the time. I think he'd dated Mercedes Mcnab during S4 before this but can't be sure. Also heard he'd dated Amber Benson too at one point.

 

[TriBel]

@Spanky - You guys have much history with blackface over there?
To the best of my knowledge - no.* We had a programme called "The Black & White Minstrel Show" in the 60s (does what it says on the tin), which deliberately drew on the American tradition. It kinda got cancelled (the singers lost their black faces) in 68 - then came back and was permanently cancelled in 78. The BBC are a bit embarrassed about it. 🙄 I think drag and class were more central to Music Hall (your Vaudeville?) than race. Also, our racism or racial attitudes tends to be associated with imperialism and colonialism more so than slavery. I'm not excusing the UK's role in slavery - it's just that for most it didn't have an immediate or obvious impact on everyday life.

*I've just checked and there was blackface but very fringe. From the brief extract I've just read, it allowed us to laugh at our Englishness without being too threatening. That's kinda interesting because the comedian Lenny Henry (now Sir Lenny) stared on The B&WMS. He's actually Black British and he performed that function then.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

@Myheadsgonenumb

But whether this lady is lying has no bearing on other victims and certainly none on Joss Whedon! SOME people lie that's not news - but if we assume all people complaining are lying we only enable predators and abusers. Count me out.

You're missing the point. It's the comparison of a person going around saying that another person is guilty of something and making a public spectacle of it whilst the truth is very different. How do you know Fisher isn't lying or that he hasn't interpreted and exaggerated something out of proportion like Roxanne Pallett did on Big Brother? It's a little suspect that Fisher's claims seem to be based on stuff he was "informed" about rather than things he's actually witnessed. Also the fact that WB haven't denounced Whedon's "racism" is also kind of telling, especially as they've recently gone "woke" and hired one of the marxist founders of BLM to create programme to be put on air.

There's a difference between assuming all people making accusations are lying and not blindly believing someone's claims just because they're a certain gender or colour. I think Fisher is playing the race card a little bit,

Going over isn't being part of the Inner circle its just sucking up to the Boss.

How many employees get invited over to their boss' house if their relationship is nothing more than strictly work related? By inner circle I don't mean in a confidante way, but that JM was more in Joss' good graces than others, hence why he got an invite alongside Alyson Hannigan and some others whilst other cast members didn't.

In case you've not noticed there are actors Joss uses again and again for different shows/movies. James wasn't one of them.
That includes a Midsummer Nights Dream with Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof.

With the exception of Amy Acker, not a lot of the Whedon actors have been used over and over again in the way that Tim Burton tends to cast Johnny Depp in almost all his movies.

As for Angel S5, Joss originally just tried to get JM on as just reoccurring but it was JM who said no its full time or nothing.
And it wasn't just Spike. They also did a soft reboot with a lighter atmosphere which were other conditions.

Spike was still a condition that the network stipulated if Season 5 was to go ahead

Also heard he'd dated Amber Benson too at one point.

JM starred in a movie written by Amber Heard (which she also starred in) where I think their characters became lovers but I don't think the actually did date in real life.

The only cast member Amber did date was ironically Adam Busch who played Warren Mears.

 

[gwenogjones]

JM starred in a movie written by Amber Heard (which she also starred in) where I think their characters became lovers but I don't think the actually did date in real life.

I heard they were dating at the time they made the film. (Chance - it certainly used to be on youtube in its entirety, not sure if it still is.) But I heard it from the internet - so not a remotely reliable source.

With the exception of Amy Acker, not a lot of the Whedon actors have been used over and over again in the way that Tim Burton tends to cast Johnny Depp in almost all his movies.

Nathan Fillion - firefly, Buffy, Dr. Horrible, Much Ado
Alexis Denisof - Buffy, Angel, Dollhouse, Much Ado, The Avengers

He used Alan Tudyk in Dollhouse (which was in itself a vehicle for Eliza Dushku), And I think wasn't J August Richards in Agents of Shield? Of course Felicia Day he met through Buffy and cast in Dr. Horrible and used in Dollhouse.

He doesn't use all the actors again and again - but he certainly has a stable of go to, favoured actors and James doesn't seem to be one of them.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

@Spanky - You guys have much history with blackface over there?
To the best of my knowledge - no.* We had a programme called "The Black & White Minstrel Show" in the 60s (does what it says on the tin), which deliberately drew on the American tradition. It kinda got cancelled (the singers lost their black faces) in 68 - then came back and was permanently cancelled in 78. The BBC are a bit embarrassed about it. 🙄 I think drag and class were more central to Music Hall (your Vaudeville?) than race. Also, our racism or racial attitudes tends to be associated with imperialism and colonialism more so than slavery. I'm not excusing the UK's role in slavery - it's just that for most it didn't have an immediate or obvious impact on everyday life.

*I've just checked and there was blackface but very fringe. From the brief extract I've just read, it allowed us to laugh at our Englishness without being too threatening. That's kinda interesting because the comedian Lenny Henry (now Sir Lenny) stared on The B&WMS. He's actually Black British and he performed that function then.

That may be why some people pick up on things others don't. I mean growing up I remember seeing halloween costumes like it (and much worse). It was a very common occurrence here. I think you learn to spot it when others not exposed to it gloss over it. Sorta like pop culture references...

 

[DeadlyDuo]

@Myheadsgonenumb

I'm not missing the point. I'm disagreeing with you. Proof that one person lied, in my opinion, does not mean we should not take all accusations seriously and give support to those making complaints. otherwise people won't ever dare complain.

I've already said that accusations should be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly to ascertain the validity of such claims. However, automatically believing something just because it was said by a person of a certain colour or gender will only lead to trouble with innocent people being labelled as something they're not. Labelling someone as racist is serious yet is something SJWs are very fond of at the moment. Fisher's "evidence" seems to be that he was told this happened or that happened by a third party, he never actually witnessed these "incidents" himself, he was just "informed" about them.

In my view that is not enough to label Whedon as a racist because the evidence is not there. The fact that WB have also not denounced Whedon's alleged "racism" also says a lot.

I heard they were dating at the time they made the film. (Chance - it certainly used to be on youtube in its entirety, not sure if it still is.) But I heard it from the internet

Glad you knew I meant Benson and not Heard.

He doesn't use all the actors again and again - but he certainly has a stable of go to, favoured actors and James doesn't seem to be one of them.

There's probably a sliding scale of favouritism rather than a specific in/out. JM wasn't as close to Whedon as others but he also wasn't as distant as others.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

From what I understand, part of the impetus to make "Once More with Feeling" was that James used to bring his guitar to these get-togethers at Joss' house.

 

[Synch]

From what I understand, part of the impetus to make "Once More with Feeling" was that James used to bring his guitar to these get-togethers at Joss' house.

It seems all started during the filming of Fool For Love around Fall 2000 with regular Sunday noon/night Shakesperian sessions. Marsters, Head, Acker (obviously later on since her casting was around Spring 2001), Benson and her sister, Benz, Denisof and writers and other members of the Mutant Enemy. There are many details inside Amy Pascale's book.

The whole Much Ado About Nothing was a reflection of that era.

Fun fact: Joss helped Minear with Billy episode in exchange for his presence in those readings.