Jared Leto as Lennon's killer

This is the place where you can vent whatever's on your mind. Feel free to go off on extended rants or brief blurbs about whatever's rocking your world.

Moderators: D. Phillips, Jake

vitas
GLONO Board Kingpin
Posts: 605
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 8:00 pm
Location: chicago

Post by vitas »

I agree wtih D. I'm actually pretty interested in this film. I've watched a few documentaries on Chapman and found the whole event and the events that lead up to the sad affair to be quite fascinating.

As for "uglying up" attractive actors... I'm all for it. Just as long as they can act. If not, who cares. There is a need to draw folks in for the box office... and Hollywood is notorious for risking the quality of the film for the matinee idol draw. Still, if the person can act, it should be an issue. Afterall, Johnny Depp is one good looking motherfucker. If people didn't get past his looks they wouldn't have realized that he's one of the best actors we have in America.
Barabajagal
GLONO Board Maniac
Posts: 1461
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 10:15 am
Location: Not quite close enough to say Chicago

Post by Barabajagal »

I don't know guys. "Nut/nobody obsessed with Catcher in the Rye. Nut/nobody obsessed with John Lennon. Nut/nobody kills John Lennon, found with copy of Catcher in the Rye." Anything else we really need to know? How the nobody got nutty? Big whoop.

Leeetle bit different from the guy who took over his country as fascist dictator, made an impressive attempt to take over the world, responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people.
vitas
GLONO Board Kingpin
Posts: 605
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 8:00 pm
Location: chicago

Post by vitas »

actually... both were failed artists. hitler a painter. chapman a musician. that's one similarity. so, do we dismiss a nut because the level of accomplishment in atroscity isn't significant enough? it's interesting to see what makes someone snap and go over the edge. now put a vapid teen queen like lohan in a tube top while you're at it and you've got box offic gold.
D. Phillips
GLONO Team Member
Posts: 2898
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 7:00 pm

Post by D. Phillips »

The Hitler reference is not meant to draw a comparison between the two men, but to point out that discussing the act without acknowledging the perpetrator is rediculous. C'mon, I expect more from you.
Barabajagal
GLONO Board Maniac
Posts: 1461
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 10:15 am
Location: Not quite close enough to say Chicago

Post by Barabajagal »

D. Phillips wrote:The Hitler reference is not meant to draw a comparison between the two men, but to point out that discussing the act without acknowledging the perpetrator is rediculous. C'mon, I expect more from you.
And I shall endeavor to live up to your expectations, sir! (But you made that analogy, nonetheless).

"Discussing the act" is one thing. Making a movie about the pathetic jerk who never did anything except shoot Lennon aggrandizes him (exactly the result he sought) whether it portrays him accurately or not. He's a nutjob, end of story. Who cares what "drove" him?

It's a bit like that heroin movie wuith Leto and Jennifer Connelly. It was a decent film that showed the downside of "h" but the fact is, as sad as it was, seeing a couple sexy famous people shoot up (then having trippy film effects and playing cool music) glamorizes it.
D. Phillips
GLONO Team Member
Posts: 2898
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 7:00 pm

Post by D. Phillips »

I didn't find ANYTHING about Requiem for a Dream to be glamorous. I'm a little shocked you did!

And why would we, people who care about art, even discuss limiting what is appropriate subject matter? And ti dismiss mentally ill people as "nut jobs" is bizarre too.

Remove the names and tell me honestly it's not the least bit intriguing to explore how idoltry turns to obsession and ultimately to violence. I guess we better stop making psychological thrillers.
D. Phillips
GLONO Team Member
Posts: 2898
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 7:00 pm

Post by D. Phillips »

My thoughts on this in longer form.
Alias
GLONO Board Pimp
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 9:51 pm

Post by Alias »

K, so D.P. I read your article (quite impressive article stemming from a fly by the moment debate) plus this thread and I still don't get the point of making a motion picture about this guy.

Yes, I understand he murdered Lennon and doing so change the genre of what rock & roll could've been etc, but seriously me knowing about this guy's life, his idiosyncracsies and/or the beginning of his obsession is not going to provide any beneficial substantial insight about this type of mental illness.

I mean, seriously what really is the point of knowing these details; its not going to be a standard or blueprint to recognize potential other obsessive fans. The guy was mental inept like millions of other people have been and are today. It's not going to provide any eureka moment or relevance to John Lennon's death. No matter what factors were involved the bottom line it was a senseless death regardless of Lennon's fame/otherwise.

I gathered people aren't advocating ignoring MDC's existence or his place in history, as oppose to there's no need to waste millions of dollars or be innudated with useless information about him...all that's important is he's the man who killed John Lennon, end of story.
D. Phillips
GLONO Team Member
Posts: 2898
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 7:00 pm

Post by D. Phillips »

all that's important is he's the man who killed John Lennon, end of story.
Says you. These are some pretty definitive statements being thrown around about a film nobody's even seen yet.

So, was it OK to make the film "I Shot Andy Warhol" or "Missippi Burning" or any other film based on actual events that happen to focus on psychopathic behavior? Is it safe for a film about John Wilkes Booth? What about Lee Harvey Oswald? Why would Chapman be off-limits?
Alias
GLONO Board Pimp
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 9:51 pm

Post by Alias »

D. Phillips wrote:So, was it OK to make the film "I Shot Andy Warhol" or "Missippi Burning" or any other film based on actual events that happen to focus on psychopathic behavior? Is it safe for a film about John Wilkes Booth? What about Lee Harvey Oswald? Why would Chapman be off-limits?
Umm, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, all those films were completely useless, except for Lee Harvey Oswald because of the supposed conspirarcy theory. Mississippi Burning has no relevance to this discussion seeing its about Civil Rights etc, not obsessive fans.

How about you explain to me what satisfaction you're going to get knowing details about this guys life? I mean do you seriously think dissecting this mental case is going provide insight of what makes these people tick?
Post Reply