Cool News
Ron Howard Discusses THE STRANGE ADVENTURES OF H.P. LOVECRAFT!!
Merrick here...
The LA Times sat down with Ron Howard; their conversation touched on Howard's first comic-to-film adaption: THE STRANGE ADVENTURES OF H.P. LOVECRAFT from Image.
"It very cleverly uses H.P. Lovecraft in a fictional way, but there's some loose biographical elements. But it certainly has the flavor and the tone of Lovecraft," Howard told me during an interview for an upcoming story on a different topic. "The character is a very young Lovecraft."
[EDIT]
The comics present a somewhat timid writer transformed by cosmic creepiness into a reluctant player in the machinations of ancient evil. The young action-hero vision of Lovecraft feels not that far removed from the new-look detective in the Guy Ritchie version of "Sherlock Holmes" or perhaps a not-so-distant relative to the occult-savvy characters portrayed by Johnny Depp in the period pieces "From Hell" and "Sleepy Hollow."
...reveals The Los Angeles Times HERE, which goes on to talk more about what Ron is up to.
I'm kinda bummed that I never caught up with these titles when they were issued as comics, and now ordering them online seems a bit expensive...if they can even be found at all. Anyone out there taken a look at these yet? How are they?
[EDIT]
The comics present a somewhat timid writer transformed by cosmic creepiness into a reluctant player in the machinations of ancient evil. The young action-hero vision of Lovecraft feels not that far removed from the new-look detective in the Guy Ritchie version of "Sherlock Holmes" or perhaps a not-so-distant relative to the occult-savvy characters portrayed by Johnny Depp in the period pieces "From Hell" and "Sleepy Hollow."
-
+ Expand All
-
First time ever!
-
Heheheh.
-
Hope Howard can pull it off... Lovecraft for the big screen is a toughie.
-
that merrick doesn't use a speelchicker
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC4RToo6XeI
-
Especially in the subject title. This site definitely needs an editor. Good job, Merrick.
-
I can't think of a director who could better translate to the screen a shitty comic book bastardization of H.P. Lovecraft's work.
-
I liked the books, but he DOES have a hand full of good movies. Lets hope he isn't in A&D/Davinci mode.
If he did a direct lovecraft adaptation he would be in for it from the fans.
Great producer though if not only for Arrested Dev. He gets a free pass.
-
...I might be into this. But...pass.
-
You know, the Ron who directed great Americana like 'Gung Ho' and 'Parenthood.' Where the hell did he go?
-
... is a pastiche Outer God I think.
-
Sep 25, 2009 10:57:26 AM CDT
Finally got Lovecraft, now you just need the Lost Boys III story
by juansanchez
The MGM story, the Iron Man 2 footage and all the rest slashfilm already has.
-
Just adapt a Lovecraft story, or set something in the mythos world. Making Lovecraft a character in his own universe has been a bad idea since August Derleth first did it. The only times I've seen it work are in Shea and Wilson's Illuminatus Trilogy and the Planetary comics.
-
He's pretty much the epitome of vanilla. This material requires a dark edge. HPL was a fucked up individual. Since we have recently been talking about Cronenberg, his take on Naked Lunch was superb and we could use that type of feeling for this. Frankly, Opie isn't up to the task. We'll get a watered down movie of the week version from him.
-
The 2 new scifi movies debuting this weekend...
Pandorum *and8 Surrogates...
Pthhh-guess I'll have to head over to CHUD or Empire or something...
Cthulhu Phtagn! -
He pretty much already did it with In The Mouth of Madness.
-
Sadly, like most movie sites, there are relatively few comments. The talkback is really the only thing aicn has going for it.
-
You might as well complain that Thomas Jefferson et al. owned slaves, while still writing the document that claimed all men are created equal.
Cut the man a break. He was a gifted horror writer, not a progressive humanist with ideals of racial equality. -
... or heard are the HPLHS stuff like "Call of Cthulhu" and their badass radio shows.
-
Sep 25, 2009 11:07:36 AM CDT
Yeah - without the talbacks there'd be no reason for AICN
by juansanchez
well, talkbacks and depressing Rambo 5 news.
-
then you need to lighten up. Racist. Who gives a shit?! He's dead!
-
...well, there's the old school Dunwich Horror with Dean Stockwell. Not very true to the story but has a banging Les Baxter soundtrack. Really, one of the best horror movie soundtracks ever. Dagon was all right, if you take into consideration the no money/bad actor thing. The Haunted Palace (I know, title from Poe but based on The Strange Case of Charles Dexter Ward) rocks for a Corman number. Price is wonderful and Lon Chaney Jr. and Elisha Cook are fine. Reanimator and From Beyond are okay, though they are missing most of the Lovecraft feel. Don't care for the Call of Cthulhu folks. Their movies and in fact all the fan based movies, from the remake of Dunwich (with Combs and Stockwell) through all the others are just too leaden in their pacing and too amatuerish in their production to work as horror. Sorry, because it's clear their intentions are good but you need more than that. There's an Italian director, whose name excapes me at the moment, who has made some creepy Lovecraft riffs in the last few years. Not good, but okay. Last one was Colour From the Dark. One called Shunned House.
-
...looks pretty bad, really. The books weren't great and we've added homogenized Howard. Shake well before viewing.
-
You complain when every post in here is a LINK to another site and you also complain that the writers are somehow compromised by Hollywood friendships when they have direct access to information.You bitch that there aren't enough behind the scenes set reports and interviews and then you bitch when Harry's DVD column is late because he's traveling doing the very things you bitch that there aren't enough of.You gripe that there isn't enough info and scoops on upcoming movies and then you piss and moan when there are multiple threads about movies you claim to have no interest in, but somehow manage to never shut up about your lack of interest in, such as THE GREEN HORNET.And yes, the Talkbacks are the main reason for AICN. No other site gives such free reign to the pornographic, racist, homophobic and puerile rantings of adolescents, delayed adolescents, and perpetual adolescents who hate everything including the site who allows them to express that hate.Did I leave anything out?
-
Ron Howard directs..
Aaaayyyyyyyyyyy -
...were doing, instead of another Fly retread...
-
...Stuart Gordon and Brian Yuzna get $200 million to play around with. They're the only ones who have ever made a watchable Lovecraft film.
-
Reanimator is utter sweetness and From Beyond almost captures that same magic. So, yeah, them or Cronenburg.
-
The Corman films he did. His first major feature was about a whorehouse operating out of a morgue, and was Michael Keatons first major role. Gave John Candy one of his best roles in Splash (always remember him handing out copies of Penthouse shouting, "They printed my letter!"). The oral sex car accident in Parenthood. So Howard may have become synomonous with bland, but I think he could still delve into his wicked side.
-
...where they did the same sort of fictional/nonfictional thing with Charles Fort. Always thought that one would make a good sort of steampunk X-Files if it was ever made into a movie.
-
"Product of his times" or no, Lovecraft's racism was not mild and is not easily overlooked. It was a deeply ingrained aspect of his character, and found frequent, disturbing expression in his writings (as did his deep-seated anxiety over sex and women). One can certainly appreciate Lovecraft's literary merits and influence on the genre without embracing every individual story or condoning his personal views or agenda -- the way one can appreciate Leni Riefenstahl's filmography, for example. But again, racism is not an incidental aspect of Lovecraft or his fiction -- it's a recurring theme of significance. To gloss over this fact and whitewash his character, even in a fictionalization, seems somehow dishonest. And yes, I DO complain about the sanitized depiction of historical figures such as Thomas Jefferson and Christopher Columbus. Their positive accomplishments might inspire us to wish they were other than they were ... but we walk a fine line when we reimagine history sans the offensive bits. In short, I think people who are uncomfortable with this project have a legitimate basis for complaint. At the very least, debate ought not be stifled with juvenile insults and broad-brushed dismissals.
-
I'm not a hater of Ron Howard. I think I stand in the minority of people that liked Cinderella Man (liked does not mean loved, but it wasn't bad). There's always the classics like Apollo 13. I don't usually assume something will be bad because he's directing it, wouldn't even say I'm getting a bad feel about this... but still, it's not the material I'd want in his hands. He just doesn't feel like the right guy. He's been trying to take on more darker material, and I'm all for that (as long as the material is good) but he's not my pic for this. Yes Cronenberg and Fincher and Del Toro are all people I'd love to see do this (and I hope a project like this doesn't pose any problems with getting a Mountains of Madness directed by Del Toro down the road) but I think a no name would make me more excited than Howard. Hope I'm wrong, but I really am missing the fit here.
-
That would have made more sense with Ron Howard attached, right?
-
When he was balls deep in Adrian Barbeau. Serious, the mojo is gone. What was the last half way decent thing he did?
-
christ,why the fuck del toro or some other horror filmaker,wont do a fucking Lovecraft movie? based on his stories,and not just using his atmopshere in their own movies.
i want an awesome 100% lovecraft movie from a talented director who gives a fuck about his vision,and not just a sold out hack like Howard.u hear me Hollywood? -
it is fact.
-
lovecraftian movie imho.the scene with the zombie monsters in the pit,is still shivering.
-
Sep 25, 2009 12:24:27 PM CDT
I love the people who don't like Lovecraft because he was racist
by sardonic
George Washington had slaves so I guess we should just disregard everything he did right? After all he was just a good for nothing racist. And it's not like the time period had anything to do with it.
-
bwahahahahahahahahahaha. It was financed by the Gay channel for real. HFS, the only thing that worked was Spelling actually. Quite convincing as an Innsmouth girl, dig?
-
I don't mind the idea of a Lovecraft character in a Lovecraft world, but you can't leave those things out. They are a complex and inescapable dimension of his writing.
-
Sep 25, 2009 12:32:57 PM CDT
Red Ned Lynch, nice to see the Les Baxter love...
by shut the fuck up donny
I watched Dunwich Horror a few years back on cable, and felt the soundtrack was by far the best element of the film, to the extent it was the strongest tool available to maintain any real sense of tension, horror, or dread in the film.
-
... the same way I read books like Heart of Darkness, which is terribly racist but fascinating in how it lays bare the nature of it's racism. He's dealing with the fear of the unknown and how that unknown , the dehumanized other, creates this magic effect with how the characters perceive reality.
-
Sep 25, 2009 12:58:37 PM CDT
I CUNT EVEN BELIEVE THAT THE TOPIC OF RACISM IS BEING DISCUSSED.
by the green gargantua
Get over it Panther X, or be confined to shitty, contemporary, politically correct authors for the rest of your life. Shit was written decades ago. Guess you will need avoid Edgar Rice Burroughs too while your at it. You wanna know what bad for black people? The fucking Yin Yang twins! HFS. When will my grand tentacled lord rise from the depths and destroy you all? Wake the fuck up already!!
-
Some of my favorite writers were alcoholics, drug addicts, and/or homosexuals. Lifestyles or beliefs that I don't personally share or agree with. I can still appreciate their work though. Pobody's nerfect.
-
wtf?
-
Anybody that trashes Ron Howard's work, clearly doesn't know what good movies are anymore. Ron Howard is a fantastic film maker and one of my favorite directors. He's made excellent films over the years..."Splash", "Coccoon", "Appollo 13", "A Beautiful Mind", "Willow", etc. In fact, he's one of the best film makers around today. I really am looking forward to this, "H.P. Lovecraft" story. This will be better than his Da Vinci Code series.
-
You mention George Washington, whose history with slavery is complex. That his racism was comparatively "gentle" (manifested in his general good treatment of his slaves, acknowledgment of their humanity, and provision for their freedom and education following the death of his wife) does NOT excuse it. And it should not be whitewashed or erased from history. But one may observe, over the course of Washington's life, an encouraging trajectory. That is, he seems to have come to believe that slavery was wrong, and wrote and acted accordingly. If he didn't do a complete reversal and fly past the finish line of egalitarian enlightenment, he was at least moving in the right general direction. There's certainly no evidence that he feared or hated blacks. These last points are important, because they stand in stark contrast to Lovecraft, who internalized racism to the degree that he could write poetry such as this: "When, long ago, the gods created Earth / In Iove's fair image Man was shaped at birth. / The beasts for lesser parts were next designed; / Yet were they too remote from humankind. / To fill the gap, and join the rest to Man, / Th'Olympian host conceiv'd a clever plan. / A beast they wrought, in semi-human figure, / Filled it with vice, and called the thing a nigger." This is unfortunately typical of Lovecraft's attitude towards non-Whites. His writings are filled with hatred for miscegnation and the "polluting" of the White race and Aryan culture by biologically inferior, evil-by-nature throwbacks. Lovecraft lived long enough to observe Hitler (also a "product of his times?") and the lead-in to the Holocaust and WWII, and although he found Hitler "crude," he wholeheartedly sympathized with what he viewed as a completely legitimate yearning for cultural purity. But Jews fared better than blacks. In his own words: "I can't regard the Nazis with that complete lack of sympathy shewn by those who take popular newspaper sentiment at face value. By the way -- it's hardly accurate to compare the Jewish with the negro problem. The trouble with the Jew is not his blood -- which can mix with ours without disastrous results -- but his persistent & antagonistic culture-tradition. On the other hand, the negro represents a vastly inferior biological variant which must under no circumstances taint our Aryan stock. The absolute colour-line as applied to negroes is both necessary & sensible, whereas a similar deadline against Jews (though attempted by Hitler) is ridiculous." Lovecraft didn't advocate violence, and probably wouldn't have endorsed outright genocide ... but his worldview clearly passes beyond "benevolent superiority" and into righteous loathing. I'm not unentirely sympathetic to Lovecraft's literary admirers; there's a potency to his language and vision that's undeniable. By our deepest nature, we thrill to the evocation of unnatural forces bent on our destruction, stalking the darkness just outside the light of the campfire. It's a primal fear, and Lovecraft is very good at conjuring it up. The problem is that this "fear of the other," in both Lovecraft's life and his writings, is intrinsically linked to notions of race, immigration and culture, with "pure" Aryan civilizations constantly under siege by swarthy, sub-human outsiders with tainted blood. There is NO practical difference, so far as H.P.L. is concerned, between the horrors of fish-men, frog-men and Chinamen -- with the exception that the latter is both better-disguised and more plausible. The destruction of forgotten cities by mutant hordes is directly paralleled in his work by depictions of the destruction of American cities by vile immigrants. I'm hard-pressed to find a contemporary of Lovecraft's stature whose writings are offensive to a similar degree. And I am unable to write off his critics as petty reactionaries.
-
u gotta love these boys.
-
to Tolkien too.There are a lot of people who believe that he was racist and that his racism is clearly depicted in his famous books.what do u have to say about this?
-
Is timely news well reported.That's it.That's all.We've been telling Harry this since the site started but apparently it's too much to ask. Funny how every OTHER movie news site on the internet is able to accomplish this seemingly simple goal.But as others have pointed out, AICN is all about the talkbacks, even if they aren't threaded as we have been begging for since time began.
-
Stop wasting cash on tripe shit like this. He wrote some amazingly cool and blasphemously creepy stuff! I bet 99% of talkbackers haven't even glanced at his stories. That, and you have your heads so far up your own ass you won't/can't see anything but shit.
Get off yer high horses, trolls. -
and worry not, they do not discriminate the flesh they devour.
HA HA HA HA. -
All the promise on the surface, none of the satisfaction one could hope for.
-
Sep 25, 2009 2:26:09 PM CDT
I WANT AN ANTHOLOGY WITH THE COLOR OUT OF SPACE, SHADOW OVER INN
by carlthormark1978
The Call of Cthulhu. Lovecraft mostly wrote short fiction and I'd rather see an anthology rather then have those stories padded out.
-
Sep 25, 2009 2:27:52 PM CDT
I don't feel that Admonisher or I fall under trolling here.
by neosamurai85
Unless I'm mistaken he hasn't objected to a Lovecraftian story on the grounds that Lovecraft was a racist. This isn't like the classic, 'you should boycott Polanski because he rapes teh girls' rant (oh god, I hope I'm not going to trigger one of those). Were we talking about a simple adaptation of a Lovecraft story like Montains of Madness or perhaps even the frequently racist “Call of Cthulhu” I’d argue that Lovecraftian imagery can be secularized from his particular racial beliefs to be used for the larger topic of the general unknown. It is after all a mixture of his racism and his apparent sexual anxiety (the latter being something Giger has made a career out of). Perhaps more accurate term might be to use his stories and imagery to create an unknown without advocacy. After all, regardless of it being Stoker or Kipling (“shoot into the brown” anyone?) or Conrad, the unknown and the other are rooted in race and sex as well as nationality and beliefs, but I’m digressing. My point is, I’m not opposing, nor do I think Admonisher is, the making of adapting a Lovecraft story to film, but that is not the case here. This is instead a personification of Lovecraft himself, and we’re both arguing rather reasonably that a film about Lovecraft (realistic of fantastic fictionalization) would be irresponsible if it excluded a fundamental part of his character and inspiration for his work from its subject matter. Imagine a story about Oscar Wild that skipped over his homosexuality. Imagine a film about Poe that didn’t address his alcoholism—or better yet, one that completely overlooked the inspiration for the Red Death. To return to my previous trollishious example, would you want a film about Roman Polanski that didn’t at least acknowledge that he was in the wrong with his personal actions with that minor? Perhaps one on his later years that ignored the curious complexities of him staying in Europe directing plays like Doubt of all things (again, please don’t turn this into a Polanski debate, I’m so tired of those). Sound like a winner? To be a troll requires one to be bombastic and whoring of attention, not to mention rude, crud (‘you cunt even believe’? Really?) and a failure to argue reasonably. Admonisher mentioned that a film about Lovecraft shouldn’t sanitize the character, I agree for basically the reasons he’s cover, but also I might add because it would be a waste of good character work. I’m a Lovecraft fan, not the hardest of the hardcore, but as I mentioned before, one who wants Mountains of Madness very badly, and as a fan I have no interest in seeing some Johnny Deppish prude made of him.
-
Sep 25, 2009 2:31:20 PM CDT
MOST FUCKING PEOPLE WERE RACIST BACK THEN YOU CUNTS....
by carlthormark1978
Use what fucking brain cells you have and try to understand that. Of course most people today are still racist but are better at hiding it.
-
You are for sure Trolling.
-
It combines the poem and Shadow. It is decent and has hot vagina.
-
Sep 25, 2009 2:36:26 PM CDT
the Green Gargantua, I SAW DAGON AND WASN'T IMPRESSED....
by carlthormark1978
Gordon should have made Innsmouth as an episode of Masters of Horror.
-
............ You should read the story Shadow over YOUR MOUTH.
-
Shadow Over Innsmouth, was largely the basis for Gordon's Dagon, a pretty fun (TV?) movie. My only problem with it was that is has this over the top ending with Cthulhu raping a girl (off camera) which was sort of a two for one special on things that I hate adaptations doing: 1) using Cthulhu in stories he doesn't belong in, and 2) making testicle monsters rape people. There is not one story by Lovecraft where old noodleface gets it on with a human (at least I've never come across it). It's just stupid shit added by people who think Legend of Overfiend is koowl. But really, the films quite fun in a silly low budget way.
-
Until GDT gets his hands on the mythos I expect mediocrity. Ron Howard has not conveyed a sense of dread, ever. Guess we must wait for the stars to be right...
-
Most people would agree that Lovecraft's work is bordering on the genius of Poe. But he was a racist, as were most of the European descendant populace of the U.S. who were his contemporaries. Maybe racist is the wrong word and ignorant is more accurate. I don't know. But does that mean that all of their work should be ignored and disregarded? Lovecraft's stories are among some of the best horror that has ever been written. Ever. Seems kind of shortsighted to just dismiss it all over the philosophy or ideology or misguided belief of someone who is long since dead and holds no influence over anyone living now (at least in terms of race relations are concerned). Plus, I want to see someone actually do a good job of adapting this stuff to the screen. Don't know if Howard is the dude for that.
-
I don't think you can really compare Tolkien to Lovecraft in this regard. First, while Tolkien’s primary characters are of white, Northern European stock, it's worth remembering that his purpose was to imagine a "native English" mythology. Second, while the Fellowship does not contain Asians, Africans or Arabs per se, it DOES contain a great diversity of cultures and races, and this multiplicity of ethnic backgrounds and worldviews is depicted in stark relief to the culturally unvaried, homogenizing tyranny of Mordor. Third, Tolkien uniformly depicts instances of racism or bigotry (distrust between Dwarves and Elves; fear of the Elves of Lothlorien by men; persecution of so-called "savages" like the Woses) as having universally NEGATIVE consequences – chiefly, unnecessary war and strife. Racism and bigotry are a rapid road to tragedy. By contrast, examples of characters looking past their differences of culture or race – even when extreme – are depicted as both just and necessary for the forces of good to succeed. The "primitive" Woses are a great example. The racism directed against them by the Rohirrim is depicted as a moral failing, and a blemish on Rohan. But when Theoden supresses any prejudice and approaches their leader as an equal, the fate of the entire war hinges on the assistance they alone can render. Fourth, while armies of Men from the far East and South, with their darker skin and slanted eyes, are on the wrong side of the War, Tolkien is careful to observe that this is NOT a consequence of racial or cultural inferiority; rather, they are depicted as having been misled, lied to, dominated, enslaved and abused into going to war through the malice of Sauron. At several points in the narrative, Tolkien goes out of his way to validate their common humanity (voiced in the films by Faramir). Segments of their civilizations have been overthrown and come under the sway of an evil potency -- but the SAME THING happened to the race of Numenor: Caucasians, and Aragorn's own people! Middle-earth was colonized by the remnant that resisted and survived. By the same measure, Tolkien implies that those Eastern and Southern cultures which Sauron held dominion over can survive and rebuild, as evidenced by Aragorn's efforts to bring clemency and healing following his coronation, rather than subjugation and retribution. Fifth, it would be inaccurate to call Tolkien’s Orcs stand-ins for foreigners in the same way Lovecraft’s mutants are. As I have just established, Tolkien represents foreign Men with … actual foreign Men. And ALL non-Caucasian humans, whether they have dark skin, slanted eyes, or live close to nature in an aboriginal state, are accorded the full dignity of their humanity. Even those who have fallen into corruption or been deceived into adopting evil social models (such as human sacrifice and Devil-worship) remain both intrinsically human and redeemable. As for the Orcs, Tolkien agonized over their moral status, and wrote long essays trying to address the matter. At any rate, they are depicted as much victims of Evil as perpetrators of it. Tolkien isn’t perfect … but ultimately, the universe he created is one in which the enemy is NOT the “other,” but ourselves; in which “nothing is evil in the beginning … even Sauron himself was not so”; in which unity-in-diversity is strength; and in which hatred and bigotry must be overcome for Mankind to survive. This is the key to unlocking his fiction. To read racism – in particular, encoded racial hatred – into Tolkien, it seems to me you have to build your entire case on subtext (and an unsustainable subtext, in my view), throwing out an awful lot of contrary evidence in the process. By contrast, Lovecraft’s fiction is so bound up with his ideas about eugenics, Aryan purity and racial enmity (not to mention issues with the female gender and the reproductive act), that it is impossible to attempt a fair literary analysis of his work without acknowledging these elements.
-
and he was brutally anti-semite. Don't even get me started on Burzum or X-Clan. One can appreciate art without absorbing their politics or subscribing to their belief system.
-
At the Mountains of Madness, he just hasn't gotten around to it.
-
who owns the rights to that and when does it get made?
-
...was due largely to ego issues. Sure, both his parents went crazy, sure he had mental and physical health problems all his life, sure he was almost a shut-in, sure he was an academic failure, but at least he was of pure Aryan stock and not one of those awful Negoes!
-
Sep 25, 2009 3:13:51 PM CDT
To shran: Regarding "ignoring and disregarding" Lovecraft...
by admonisher
I don't advocate pretending Lovecraft never existed, overlooking his prodigious literary talent (which I do not deny), or summarily banishing or boycotting adaptations of his work. I DO advocate a measure of sensitivity, however. I think his works should be preserved and read, but I don't think the context should be forgotten or glossed over. My *concern* (NOT knee-jerk outrage) over artistic interpretations such as the one which inspired this talkback is mainly this: that by sanitizing Lovecraft's character we risk perpetuating the idea that his reprehensibly racist and misogynist views (and expressions) were somehow mild, incidental, or typical and therefore easily overlooked. I don't agree that they were mild or incidental; and whether typical or not (they were certainly extreme), they are not easy to overlook. Furthermore, if Lovecraft's racism is not addressed in a popular depiction of the man himself, we are both dishonest to history and overlooking a vital key in understanding the man and his art. Now, in terms of modern adaptations, you may advocate boiling away the more specific racial and cultural applications of Lovecraft's works to arrive at a more generic "fear of the outer darkness." I understand that. I'm sure most (if not all) talkbackers here don't read "The Doom That Came To Sarnath" and project that same creepy feeling onto their neighbors of different ethnicity. Most of us, I suspect, use horror literature as a way to exorcise our fears, not to multiply them in our daily lives. But where Lovecraft and artists like Riefenstahl are concerned, where their personal hatreds and bigotries ran so deep and were expressed so plainly in their work, it's a very fine line. I haven't read the material in question here, and don't know what Howard has in mind. But I couldn't agree with any depiction of Lovecraft-as-protagonist that would soft-pedal or forget such an important element of his character.
-
But you can't blame the guy for being a little mixed up. You finger pointing TROLLS should try channeling aeons of trans-dimensional evil. Poor bastard never asked to be thee radio receiver of cosmic evil...
-
of follow through in the prose?
-
his racism. Many of his peers and protégé were decidely NOT racist/anti-Semetic, such as Fritz Leiber.
-
Absolutely not, but we shouldn't run around hands in are ears shouting 'la la la-la you're all a bunch of stupid cunts' the moment someone acknowledges the presence of racism, be it the author's or the stories. Should we stop reading Conrad? Hell no. On the other hand, should we ignore its racist imagery and narrative (often, ironically, while banning Huck Fin in high school for saying nigger too much)? Is there no value in exploring the mentality of racism in a period when 'everybody was' to see how it plays out in the way people structure their lives, relationships, perceptions of reality and morality? Of course it does! Does that mean we have to make a huge deal of it whenever we talk about someone from when racism was 'okay'? Again, no actually. It should probably not be deliberately avoided, but if there is no reason for it to come up, as there would be if looking at the life of Washington, Jefferson or Lincoln. But the thing is, Lovecraft was writing in the late teens and twenties, right smack in the post-colonial period, a time when there was still plenty of racism, but also at a period when many intellectuals weren't. It's not like we're talking about the deep south in the aftermath of the civil war here. And again, his writing was pretty outgoing about his racism. I mean, would you skip over the subject of racism if you were doing a time travel adventure where someone met up with George Wallace? Extreme? Yes. But you get my point. No one is saying don't make a film about Lovecraft's works or even about Lovecraft himself. I personally will even go out on a limb and say you don't even have to make some horrible monster of him, but that's such huge part of his character and the machinery of his amazing imagination (again, the same could be said of Conrad) that you can't just make the guy into Young Indian Jones of some bookish hero. He's got to have that dimension to him to be dealt with and considered.
-
Sep 25, 2009 3:22:58 PM CDT
Admonisher: Your interpretations are REACHING at best.
by the green gargantua
it's fucking absurd.
-
Some of my responses have been delayed by juggling the phone and being on my feet. So, sorry for the overlap in responses.
-
Very well put.
-
Tolkien condemned the Nazis, and apartheid. His son was stationed in South Africa during the war, and they discuss the local situation in one of their letters, and I believe he openly discussed his hatred of apartheid, as well.
-
Sep 25, 2009 3:33:49 PM CDT
Ron Howard tackles "Lovecraftian" esthetic?
by half-baked-goggle-box-do-gooder
Wouldn't that be about like Ratner presuming to "comprehend" and "elaborate" on Kurosawa?
That's crazier than a fucking bucket of ducks. -
You can write CTHULU it in! FUCKING CTHULU!! Oh, but penis is out. Cunt too.
-
"REACHING at best?" How so? Perhaps my equating of sub-human mutants and foreign immigrants in Lovecraft's output was too unsubtle. But after having read a great deal of his work, both fiction and non-fiction such as private correspondence, I don't see how anyone could deny either Lovecraft's deeply held racism or its (quite natural) reflections in his fiction, both fantastic and otherwise. The theme which underpins much of his work is that of inferior races who insidiously corrode or violently bring down greater or more enlightened societies ... something he believed was happening throughout Europe and America. It's not his ONLY theme, but it's a big one. Just look at stories like "The Street" and "The Horror at Red Hook."
-
...the man's dead, so give it a rest. Jeez, you must be fun at parties.Whatever you think of his personal life and beliefs, he helped shape modern horror, and for that commands respect.
-
Just make a movie based on Lovecraft's Chthulu mythos.
-
I DO respect Lovecraft's influence on modern horror. Did you not get that? I absolutely agree that he was a great literary talent, and an artist of great influence. All I'm saying is, his "personal life and beliefs," whatever you OR I think of them, were not incidental to his writing. Much of his work, well-written as it was and popular as it is, has notable racist undertones. Much of it doesn't bother with undertones at all -- it's just plain racist. If "giving it a rest" means failing to observe these facts, then no -- I will not "give it a rest." It's not like I bring this up at parties, or go around picking fights on non-Lovecraft related threads. But when we're in a talkback about Lovecraft, this is the elephant in the room. And when folks try to dismiss this aspect of his life or work as unimportant or unworthy of serious discussion, I'm naturally going to object.
-
Actually, the impression that I was getting from the people that brought up Lovecraft's well-documented racist beliefs was that his work was diminished by his prejudices. I also got the impression that they thought it was an ill-conceived notion to pursue his works in film. As an example, I don't look at the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution and say "This is the work of slave-owning racists and is not worthy of my time!" when we all know that the words are far more important that the antiquated lives of the authors of them.
-
Sep 25, 2009 4:22:39 PM CDT
Actually...Lovecraft was more an "Enthicist" than a racist
by conspiracy
He hated catholics, Irish, Dutch..in fact he didn't like most anyone that was not decended from European Germanic blood... But that is totally moot; the real question is why the fuck are we bringing up race issues in an AICN TB dedicated to a fiction writer? There are other, whinier, anal retentive, self rightious, politically correct boards on this world for that kinda bullshit...keep it on topic.
-
Speilberg puts "Lincoln" into production. That'll be a Peach!
-
I don't think it's *necessarily* an ill-conceived notion to pursue Lovecraft's works in film or other popular media (although certain, specific notions might indeed wind up being ill-conceived). But I would argue that Lovecraft's body of work as a whole (if not every particular page of it) IS diminished by his prejudices ... if not on the level of word-craft or historical importance, then on the level of making for edifying reading. I don't find comparisons to the Declaration of Independence or Constitution to be particularly compelling, for two reasons. First, those documents ARE compromised to at least some degree by the slavery-upholding tendencies of their drafters. That's why amendments were necessary, and why we teach the historical context in our schools. But second, it's the CONTRAST between the ideals of America's founding documents and the way many of our Founders actually lived that stands out to us. We are struck by the dramatic irony that a slaveholder could write such poignant and eternal words about human dignity, freedom and equality. No such cognitive dissonance exists between Lovecraft and his writings; on the contrary, his personal racism is at minimum compatible with, and too often integral to, his stories. I agree with you that words are of great importance. But if you knew nothing about the life of Jefferson, you would be forgiven for reading the Declaration of Independence and assuming that he was anti-slavery. If you knew nothing of Lovecraft, on the other hand, you could still easily identify the racist streak ... a streak which by its very presence (in my view) diminishes his work as a whole, as it does with other writers (such as Conrad) to various degrees. They remain worthy of my time, as all great works of art do -- but they can never receive the fullness of my admiration, and my enjoyment will always be somewhat tempered. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
-
This is really stupid. I've read every short story Lovecraft has ever written, I own all the Selected Letters volumes, I own about half a dozen or so more books of letters to specific other people that Lovecraft kept in contact with. The guy was indeed a product of his time, he was not an out and out racist who preached his views every chance he got. In fact he RARELY wrote about such things, and only when specifically asked. On top of that, it wasn't just racism, I'm not sure what the real word would be, but he tended to dislike the human race in general, and was quite a pessimist about everything he encountered through life. He spent much of it secluded and lonely by choice.
-
"the impression that I was getting from the people that brought up Lovecraft's well-documented racist beliefs was that his work was diminished by his prejudices." Look, racism is bad. So in that sense there will always be a moral setback in a work that is blatantly racist, no matter how good it is. But I don't think you're actually trying to defend the work's racism. Your original question was if because something is racist/ignorant, "does that mean that all of their work should be ignored and disregarded?" I've answered that question pretty clearly. Just because a work is racist, dosen't mean it should be banned/destroyed/not read. We can still learn and benefit from incorrect texts, as I've also explained. Now, Admonisher did say, "One can certainly appreciate Lovecraft's literary merits and influence on the genre without embracing every individual story or condoning his personal views or agenda" and I agree with him. I love the Adam West: Re-animator series, but the episode with the wild ape of a nigger boxer turned zombie with the infant in its teeth is not what I would call Lovecrafts shining moment as a literary contributor. Embrace does not me NOT READ, let alone NOT ALLOW TO READ, it means not love, and no, I don't love that story and would probably be taken back by anyone that specifically pointed it out as their favorite thing by him. But again, that doesn't even mean it couldn't be adapted in some provocative manner that would be good. Now, as for your final bit about our nation's two out of three (Bill of Rights) most important documents, we actually do acknowledge the context of at least the first in that by man, they did mean/intend "white landowning males" so, yes and no. They made works that were better than the people that wrote them with the intention of those documents being just that, but we constantly debate to this day the context of the words, be it the 1st and 2nd amendment or whatever.
-
.. because he writes about crazy things that are cyclopean, squamous and rugose.
-
See, this is what I was talking about earlier. Why AREN'T race issues a legitimate point of discussion in a talkback dedicated to a fiction writer when said writer was demonstrably racist, and his works reflect this? I mean, we're talking about re-imagining this writer as a fictional character ... how is it in any way off-topic to debate how this person's actual character traits should carry over to his fictional counterpart? If this talkback was about a new Lincoln film, I would absolutely expect talkback conversation about how the film might depict his struggle with depression and melancholia, or his shifting and complicated attitudes towards race. If we were talking about a National Treasure-style adventure romp starring Christopher Columbus in Central America, a debate about Columbus's actual historical personality and actions would seem perfectly relevant.
-
I take your point that Lovecraft was arguably more of a misanthropist than anything. But "not an out and out racist"? He may not have preached his views "every chance he got," but when he did, prompted or not, he preached with absolute conviction. And however "rare" his direct statements on the subject when compared to the total volume of words he produced, I still maintain that racism (together with misogyny and misanthropy) was an important aspect of his character, and a theme of significance in his writing. I wouldn't expect Howard or anyone else to make their project an INDICTMENT of Lovecraft for views that were certainly not uncommon during his time (or ours, for that matter) ... but I think those views were a prominent *enough* aspect of his life and work that it would be tough to justify overlooking them completely -- and even tougher to contradict them outright. (How would you feel if Howard's Lovecraft came packaged with an ethnic minority sidekick and a developed love interest? Not that I believe that will be the case...)
-
Sonia Greene a woman of Ukrainian-Jewish decent. On his Wikipedia page, it explains how he lived in New York for a time and came to hate it because he was unable to find work because of the large immigrant population that he felt he was superior to due to his Anglo-Saxon lineage.
-
...exactlyhow he was, then his writing would not be exactlywhat it is. I love his writing, and thus have to accept who, and how, he was.Truth of the matter is, the only truly valid opinion you can have of an artist, is one of his or her art, as that is your sole relationship to them.
-
is it like a Strange Adventure?
-
...they're ignorant, ill-informed and for the most part simply carrying on the prejudices they've inherited from their upbringing and surroundings.What I find more worrying are the anti-racist zealots who ban nursery-school children from singing 'Baa Baa Black Sheep' in case somebody of colour (and usually far more well adjusted and tolerant) takes offence.Unfortunatley, from where I sit here in England, these are precisely the sort of meddling social experimenteers currently running the country...I say, this is terribly grown-up stuff for a movie talk-back site, isn't it?
-
his ugly ass brother Clint.
-
I've been on this site for over ten years by now, and it's actually quite common in the long run. There are just as many people that read this in their twenties and forties and older even as there are little teenies who want to drool of Megan Fox's titties or call everyone a fag that dosn't thing G.I. Joe is teh grateest movie evah! It's always been a mix of high brow and low brow.
-
It's just scary to think that some people are adults. ;)
-
HP Lovecraft: Against the World, Against Life.
-
...is actually William Hope Hodgson, whose most famous work is probably "The House on the Borderland." Night Shade Books put out a great five-volume collection of his complete works, and while not perfect (there's the odd typo, and the silver printing on the cover can leave some glitter on your hands) I consider it essential. They have a similar series of Clark Ashton Smith's collected works, although I don't have that one.
-
I want a monster movie where bizarre horror abounds. What is to be done with Lovecraft? How should one go about reconciling his racism with their own enjoyment of the story? And am I a bad person because I like to read it? And I'm not a teenie. But I still occasionally drool over titties.
-
lame director
-
These Talkbacks are one of the last free places on the intertubes...Government and Shareholder pressure has shut down all the once free places, like Yahoo Message Boards, and many of the CHANs...Yet here, for some odd reason..the freaks, virgins, geeks, actors, writers, directors and various other outcasts of society have so far held out against the groundswell of Political Correctness and inforced homogenious mediocrity.Here free men and women are able to talk about Tits, Racism, Anal Fisting, Accounting, Celebrity Incest, Entertainment law, Megan Foxs hidden cock, and Politics...usually all in the same talkback. It is why I still come here, it is why you are here...and I pray it never changes.
-
who looks like John Merrick typing away in these threads. Bag over head and all.
-
Tolkien gets a pass for the following reasons: 1. He wrote high fantasy, which means his classism, xenophobia and chauvinism are easier on the eyes. 2. Contemporaneous sources portray a conventionally centrist man of his time and it is easy to believe that if he had been born fifty years later he would have still grown into a conventionally centrist man, just of a somewhat less chauvinistic, xenophobic and classist time. Is there anything as virulent in Tolkien as there was in Lovecraft? Not by miles. But Admonisher, you danced around the standard you had set for Lovecraft with Tolkien, and I suspect you’re smart enough to know it.
-
Which could be used, in a pinch, as a thematic description for the greatest percentage of Lovecraft’s work. And Lovecraft’s work is not great art. There are some great fevered dreams floating through his clunky, clumsy prose, but Lovecraft’s reputation is built on a talent for two things: 1. Filling his stories with horrors that can be deeply affecting to many adolescent males, and 2. Inspiring a small band of disciples who gave over significant portions of their lives to build on and proselytize his work. We are now observing a discussion of his racism, and it is undeniable that the man was a racist, as well as a misogynist. If memory serves I once saw an admiring thread about him on Storm Front, and…well, if you don’t know what Storm Front is you are better off for it. But really, even the “Lovecraft mythos” most people, myself included, enjoy so much is more the creation of Derleth and Wandrei and others who came later than it was Lovecraft. However, Lovecraft was nuts. Now whether that earns him any pass on his racism, misanthropy and misogyny is up to the individual. But there were a host of things wrong with the actual HP Lovecraft that would make him almost uniquely unsuitable as the horror/adventure protagonist in a film being made in 2009. So the Lovecraft in this movie won’t be that guy. How many Robin Hoods have you seen? King Richard, nine times out of ten (love you Robin and Marian, for being that one) gives us the good King Richard. Just one example. Anyone who loves movies and history can give you a hundred more. (They Died With Their Boots On or Custer of the West anyone?).
-
I always try, but sometimes fail to separate the creation from the creator, but let’s face it, in the works of Howard, Burroughs, Lovecraft and a bunch of other writers we who love things fantastical embrace, the hatreds and prejudices usually leak into the writing. I love Solomon Kane. Absolutely loved it when I read it as a child. Learned some reasonably good lessons from those stories. Saw what was bad at the same time and there was lots. Can’t read Burroughs, because even as a child his bigotry and misogyny bothered me too much. Why? It could be argued (I daresay it could be proven) that the xenophobia and misogyny in Howard is much more virulent than that in Burroughs. I could tolerate and largely ignore it in one and I couldn’t in the other. I suspect, to one degree or another, we’re all like that. So there are people in this talkback who want to be able to ignore that facet of Lovecraft, because there are other things in his writing that speak/spoke to them so powerfully that it made those negative things irrelevant. It doesn’t mean they accept those things. It doesn’t mean they celebrate them. It means there are other things in the work so powerful for them that those things don’t exist in the interior landscape they inhabit while reading or watching. And Neosamurai and Admonisher, when you spend this much time and verbiage banging on them in this way you’re being a variety of dick. And you know you are. It’s a form of intellectual bullying and it’s no fit way for a couple of guys who should feel secure about themselves to act.
-
And Neo, unless “Adam West: Reanimator Series” was some sort of joke…your license to discuss any aspect of Lovecraft’s work is revoked.
-
but seeing as how this is a fictional tale of his life, and this is a talkback about that project and not the man in reality, I do not see the need to dwell upon his perceived racism. It is irrelevant to telling this particular tale, or the production of this film.
-
Red Ned, I wish it were. The truth is quite honestly I popped over to The Spoony Experiment and discovered through his recent link that someone made yet another Batman cartoon (or something, looks like some version of Justice League actually), this one based on the style of the Adam West show... which I'm not a fan of. There are reasons I don't own a TV anymore. GOOD REASONS. But yeah, I guess it bled over. But no, I know it's Herb. Thanks for catching that.
-
First off, I wasn't aiming that teenie business at you Shran, or anyone actually. I might not agree with some of your directions of argument, but you've been totally civil and worthy of your grown-up birches. As for liking the material, look, I'm a fan of Lovecraft (license recently evoked or not) and yes one can just like a good monster story, but like I said, if you came up to me and said your favorite work was something like Six Shots by Moonlight (from HERBERT WEST-REANIMATOR) I'd be taken back. Lovecraft is remembered for his tone, his manner of describing horror, and yes, his monsters. He developed a style to keep the dead form of epistolary horror alive. There's nothing wrong with liking him for those reasons, and like Gordon's film, you can work around the racism to revel in those elements. As for your point conspiracy, look, I'm not asking for a big time-life intervention segment on the guys behavior, I won't speak for Admonisher, but like I said before, Lovecraft can't just be one of those Johnny Depp Characters, you have to at least acknowledge that part of him. Be it simply with a few lines that make the character problematic. It's the idea of a white-wash that has both of us particularly concerned, and like I said before, it's a good opportunity for better character writing.
-
Gordon's filmS. He's done a lot of them after all.
-
...I still love ya'. You're one of the few handles I remember from back when I was here all the time.
-
Sep 25, 2009 7:54:42 PM CDT
I can honestly say I have learned quite a bit
by hey_kobe_tell_me_how_my_ass_tastes
About Lovecraft in this thread. Very educational.
-
To hold HPL or JRRT or C.S. Lewis or Edgar Rice Burrows, or Dickens, or Shakespeare or whomever else you choose, to contemporary standards is simply absurd. It's what's known as a "logical fallacy". Don't like a writer due to your personal fixations? Don't read his stuff. You're never going dissuade others with your tirades, so why bother? Go out and volunteer, do something to improve race relations as they exist now, in the still very racist 21st century world you actually live in. It's all about context my brother.
-
Neo - Nicely done! Moaters - I happen to be a Jew, and proud of it. Does the fact Jews have been despised at various times in history mean that just because that was the way some people thought, that their racism has to be held in a context of the times and be excused because we are more 'enlightened' today? I think not. Like Neo said, Lovecraft did not live in the deep south. Even during the Independence war era people knew slavery was wrong, but that was the way it was in the south. Do we excuse those southerners for that today? I think not.
-
I've never read Lovecraft, but heard a live reading of one of his poems, or a passage from a story, that nearly put me to sleep. His imagination goes to the right places, but that archaic (even for its time) writing style is bullshit!
-
Red Ned Lynch: First up, I dislike bullies and apologize if that's how this has been coming across. I concede the point about time and verbiage (it's been a slow day) and appreciate your parsing of the "interior landscape" argument. It's a fair observation. I am wondering if you'd elaborate regarding Tolkien. I can understand the accusation of some species of chauvinism (I might not agree, depending on your particular view, of course). Classism takes more effort. And xenophobia, I don't think will hold up to scrutiny.
-
...the classism is the worst. I'm sure you know that the hobbits represented the rural working class in England. And the patronizing portrayal in the books (because really, think about what the Hobbits are like and then think about how someone calling you, your family, your kids, Hobbits would make you feel) betrays pretty blatant classism. But I don't want to do this at you. Because then I become the guy who's taking a verbal leak on something that's yours. If it's important I'll continue, but you know I like Tolkien. I don't even want to dwell on this, much less make you dwell on it. And about that interior landscape, here's a bender for you. I can't read Conan, by Howard, but I can read Kane. Mind's a funny old thing.
-
Racism has brought us together! Peace.
-
Later guys.
-
... racism should be discounted, forgiven, or excused dear Kobe dude, merely that it should be interpreted in context. By your standards we should discount all literature that reflects the racism common to the period in which it was written. Such an attitude leaves way to much out of the lexicon IMO. Just out of curiosity, should the works of Poe, Shakespeare, Nabakov, Twain, Faulkner, or any and all others you deem to be racist be "verboten"? Burned ala "Fahrenheit 451"? Should we just arbitrarily censor all literature that doesn't meet modern sensibilities? Where would it end? Who's qualified to judge what is and is not permissible? Wouldn't such a pogram "burn" The Bible and all other religious tomes as well?
-
that is this exact story. i wonder if the movie is based on it?
-
Sep 25, 2009 8:59:36 PM CDT
I never said the works should be 'verboten'
by hey_kobe_tell_me_how_my_ass_tastes
I said they should not be excused because of the era the came from. Context does have it's place and meaning, but Morality is not something that was invented in the 20th century. Good and evil, right and wrong has been known since man first beat the shit out of another man for some cave poon - or since Adam and Eve -pick your story.
-
Sep 25, 2009 9:03:26 PM CDT
HP LOVECRAFT WAS A RACIST AND HIS RACISM HAD RELEVANCY...
by continentalop
....because his racism, xenophobia and fear of race-mixing fueled some of his best work. "Facts Concerning the Late Arthur Jermyn and His Family", "Shadow Over Innsmouth", "The Lurking Fear", "The Street", and "The Terrible Old Man" were all tied into his extreme racial beliefs. And some of the best imagery - such as the line about the little arm in the giant black man's mouth in "Herbert West: Re-Animator" - were also inspired by it.
I love HP Lovecraft's work, but the man was a racist. I can understand why some people can't stomach his work. But me, I can see past the racism and see the genius of his wordcrafting and his unique vision of horror. I can also see that he taps into something universal in all of us - the fear of those different and the fear of something alien- and projects it into a great story set far enough away from the real world. He might have been thinking about Italians or Blacks interbreeding with whites, but luckily for us he wrote about Apes or fish men mating with humans.
I also don't think you are racist for liking HP Lovecraft, anymore than you are racist for liking Shakespeare's work or the tales of Charlemagne versus the Saracen. But cmon, HP Lovecraft's racial beliefs definitely were influences on his work. Only a guy truly worried about interbreeding would have the antagonist be a village of fish-men hybrids. -
And yet HPL is off limits because he was a racist? Have you really thought this through? My Grandmother was a "deep south" racist. Should I throw her on the ash-heap of history because her attitudes reflected the society in which she lived? Or accept that she was a product of her times and forgive her ignorance?
-
Sep 25, 2009 9:28:44 PM CDT
Moaters, when did I say he was 'off-limits'?
by hey_kobe_tell_me_how_my_ass_tastes
Uh, never. I said his racism can not be excused because of the times he wrote in. I never said it should be banned or off-limits. You do have a tendency to read more into a post than was actually written.
-
I don't care what you do, nor should I, nor should you care if I did.
-
is the best thing I've read all day, and I've been re-reading some Philip K Dick on the Jon today. Kudos to you talkbackers! I don't care if the news is timely, this is the best site online. I've read a bit of Lovecraft, and I didn't even know he was racist. Doesn't change a thing, but it's very interesting.
-
... HPL should be off limits, I ASKED you if you think he should off limits becuase of his racism. Really, this "conversation" is getting ridiculous...
-
... The spark of this conversation was that you intepreted that my initial post said that HPL's racism should be excused - which I never said or even implied. Who's read what into what here? If you have a point to make, you've yet to do so. And I don't care what you think about my late racist Granny. But you see, that's how this talkback thing works. It's a 'discussion', and folks sometimes use analogies to illustrate a point they're trying to make. You have good one now, y'hear?
-
Sep 25, 2009 10:10:28 PM CDT
Moaters - you ned to learn how to phrase a question
by hey_kobe_tell_me_how_my_ass_tastes
"And yet HPL is off limits because he was a racist? Have you really thought this through? " Well I might have been able to understand the "And yet" as a mangled attempt at interrogative, but the rest of your so called 'question' is anything but. " Have you really thought this through?" Yeah, that does not sound like you had already had decided that what I was thinking was " HPL is off-limits" . Not at all. Yeah. Oh, by the way, that is called sarcasm.
-
... "are you saying that HPL, etc " would have been better, and I concede the point, but you didn't get what I was driving at? Are you always this pedantic? Do you ever agree to disagree? I never said HPL's racism should be excused, merely taken in context. Thanks for the lesson on sarcasm and codescension. Just how *does* your ass taste anyway? Like strawberries and cream I'm guessing...
-
Stick to Jamie Fox Video clips.
-
You need to go back and read all the posts. My first response to you was that the times do not excuse the behavior. "Does the fact Jews have been despised at various times in history mean that just because that was the way some people thought, that their racism has to be held in a context of the times and be excused because we are more 'enlightened' today? I think not. " Your first response to me was to jump to the conclusion that I was for discounting literature I disagreed with. "By your standards we should discount all literature that reflects the racism common to the period in which it was written. Such an attitude leaves way to much out of the lexicon IMO. " Then you asked if I thought those works I might not like should be verboten and used these examples of works that might be offensive to some. "Just out of curiosity, should the works of Poe, Shakespeare, Nabakov, Twain, Faulkner, or any and all others you deem to be racist be "verboten"? Burned ala "Fahrenheit 451"? When I responded that I never said anything was 'verboten' just that behavior can not be excused simply because of the times and that morality was not invented in the 20th century, you responded: with the so called 'question' which you now graciously concede was ill-phrased. But you could not leave it at that, and decided it was I who was being pedantic, as opposed to you, who was being reactionary. Like I said, read the damn posts again. And you will never know how my ass tastes. But feel free to keep guessing.
-
...as confrontational. And I don't think there is a conspiracy to quell any Lovecraftian movie. I just sensed an undertone of strong dislike aimed at the author and was curious if the vitriol was going to manifest itself in some form of boycott against his work. Generally the fanbase around here gush at the mention of his name. I understood that his view of the world was unfortunate to say the very least but I guess I have always glossed over it in order to get to a good read. But I never totally ignored it. I just saw that other works by men who had questionable beliefs get a pass, so to speak. I do appreciate the good conversation and feedback from you all as I find it missing from those I have most of my daily contact with. Thanks for that.
-
Lovecraft has never been my cup of java juice even before I found out about his rampant racism. Your posts shed more light on his personality than I had previously known. I do not condemn people who read his works - and are themselves not swayed to his opinions, but simply enjoy the power of the prose. But I will never give a free pass and excuse such virulent racism as just a product of the times. Morality was not born in the 20th century. Right has been known from wrong for a very long time.
-
... because I don't like you. I'm not all that bright, and terribly immature as you've no doubt surmised. So I'll just drop all the snarky intellectually dishonest rhetoric that is my stock in trade and ask you staight up as I should have done to begin with: Do you think it's morally acceptable to make an HPL film or not? Happy now?
-
The guy that played him I mean. Oh, and all the classic writers were essentially racist. Arthur Conan Doyle, Robert E. Howard, Joseph Conrad. Wrong as it was, during their time it wasn't considered taboo. And it worked its way into their literature. Del Tor needs to get his formally fat ass moving on Mountains of Madness after this Hobbit shit.
-
The feeling is mutual bubby. As for your question, morality has nothing to do with making the movie. I would hope that if a movie was made, fictional or otherwise, about that D-bag, that it would not seek to glamorize him or gloss over his repellent nature. But that is not my call. All I can control is whether or not I would pay to see it. And that I can confidently say would be - never.
-
Tolkien himself was compared to a hobbit not infrequently, and never seemed to mind. Hobbits are the chief heroes of the tale, and a recurring theme of the story is that the Great and Wise are constantly underestimating them. Any prejudices regarding hobbits' depth, resourcefulness or strength of character are frequently confounded. Frodo is no country bumpkin. Sam IS a country bumpkin of sorts, but he's also the character Tolkien found most admirable and felt closest to. There's a measure of subjectivity in any interpretation, of course, but I just can't agree with you that his attitude towards hobbits is "patronizing" ... characters in the books who patronize the "little folk," usually out of simple arrogance, tend to end up regretting it. Hobbit culture and society is certainly somewhat *idealized* (although not to an absurd degree, in my opinion), but Tolkien makes it clear that they are not strictly "Men," so he has a degree of license. Finally, while it's safe to say that much of hobbits and their ways was informed or inspired by Tolkien's experience of rustic, country life among England's working classes, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say hobbits "represent" any particular people or class. Tolkien simply doesn't employ allegory in that way. Hobbit life is "applicable" (Tolkien's preferred word) in certain ways to life in the English countryside -- but hobbits do not "represent" the rural English any more than Orcs "represent" the Nazis or the Rohirrim "represent" Anglo-Saxons. Perhaps I should have taken a cue from Tolkien from the start, and used this language regarding Lovecraft. I will rephrase things now: In my analysis, even if Lovecraft did not mean for his various degenerate tribes to directly "represent" dark-skinned humans and immigrants per se, I think he perceived and portrayed many of the same characteristics -- inferior genetic stock, corrosive influence on human society, primitive and debased morality, limited intelligence -- as being *applicable* to both his fictional monstrous hordes and the actual classes of persons who were the target of his prejudice.
-
Sep 26, 2009 12:48:05 AM CDT
Admonisher - you have a way with words
by hey_kobe_tell_me_how_my_ass_tastes
That I greatly admire.
-
I DO think there are some unfortunate elements of racism and classism in Arthur Conan Doyle. What saves his works for me is the fact that such moments are not generally cruel-hearted, mocking or vitriolic in tone. They are also USUALLY (but not always) incidental to the story. Holmes himself, misogynist tendencies aside, is relatively egalitarian for his era. Character takes priority over class; villainy can lurk in every station, from the humble to the lofty; and Holmes will happily work on behalf of the lowliest of clients. Nevertheless, those moments of prejudice or unrecognized bigotry that creep in always give me pause -- as they should.
-
.. I could see your point. But it's based on comic book in which a young Lovecraft participates in fictional (or are they?) adventures based on his writings. So if you want to point the finger at anyone, point it at the comic book writer. I personally think it would be silly to see that aspect of his life addressed in this type of fictional adventure setting... I'm pretty sure if they did the same type of thing based on Poe, they wouldn't have him battling the forces of evil with a bottle of hooch in one hand (as entertaining as that might be.)
-
The story "The Yellow Face" for example, where the big reveal is that a white woman is secretly raising her mixed race daughter, born to a black man in America. Her new husband, when he finds out, doesn't reject this child, but instead embraces her as his own.
Holmes and Watson walk away feeling optimistic about the human race. Very progressive, not only for the 1890s but also up until the friggin 1980s! -
Whom he later separated and divorced. Once he was making disparaging remarks about Jews, she had to remind him that she was one as well.
Great writer, seemed to be a big asshole and had a bug up his ass about his Anglo-Saxon superiority. -
that is exactly NOT the right term when describing the chtulhoid threats. Calling them "evil" means that there is no understanding at all regarding the nature of the mythos. Bad sign for a Lovecraft-movie in the making.
-
Yes-- I think we can all agree that H.P. was a seriously flawed and deeply disturbed human being. For one thing, Lovecraft's mother dressed him in dresses and Shirley Temple-ish curls until he was ten years old...
Absent the scars of a warped childhood and some admittedly ugly persona beliefs, his writing wouldn't have captured the cosmic horror that haunted him. -
Just go read Roland Barthes's piece, "The Death of the Author."
In fact, sometimes an author's writing is far more progressive than the author himself. For example, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did not believe women should have the right to vote, yet in the Sherlock Holmes story there is a very progressive view of women. Holmes is portrayed as a misogynist, but it is because of this misogyny that causes him to underestimate his female opponent. In the end the female villain bests Holmes and he must admit that she is one of the rare worthy adversaries he has come across. Even though Doyle may have been somewhat of a bigot, his stories were not. -
Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director.Change the director.
Change the director.
Change the director. -
Once you start copying and pasting, it's hard to know when to stop.
-
who wasn't a racist in the 1920's?
besides, "death to the author" and all that. -
Sep 26, 2009 11:11:42 AM CDT
This almost makes me want Guillermo not to make the Hobbit
by seppukudkurosawa
Just so he can jump straight into The Mountains of Madness and ensure that Ron doesn't get his clammy mitts anywhere near an HP property.
By the way, Neil Gaiman is one of the world's biggest Lovecraft fans, so I'd recommend getting him involved in this project in some way (while you're ditching Howard...preferably a la his guest appearance on The Simpsons- off the top of a skyscraper). -
I skimmed over this thread and it's just full of trolls & whining little bitches. Merrick asks if the comics are any good? Well, seeing as how no-one else seems to have read them, I'll chip in me tuppence worth: They're not bad at all, but they are still ongoing so I can't say if the story resolves satisfactorily (which a hell of a lot of comics don't these days). At the moment I think it would be a good flick but I'd agree that Ron is maybe not the right man for the job. Del Toro would also be my choice. No matter who does it you know it'll be promoted as "from the acclaimed graphic novel" as Hollywood seems scared of the words "acclaimed comic book series". Cunts.
-
one of HP's stories? At the Mountains of Madness would be the prime candidate. Or how about a TV series based on the Cthulu mythos? Instead we get some weird meta-fictional-mish-mash that just makes me think of other goofy ideas like, Hook, I Frankenstein, or Doc Frankenstein (Doc F. is kinda neat though I must admit).It's like making a mash up of The French Connection and Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Popeye Doyle tracking down pod people that are smuggling seed pods into the country to convert more of us into slaves. I just don't like it when an original work gets fucked with so much like they are these days.
-
Maybe instead of doing some goofy comic book hero lovecraft story, do the actual horror stories that the real man wrote. This is an abomination.
-
Sep 26, 2009 9:49:42 PM CDT
If they're not going to do the actual Lovecraft stories
by murdermostfowl
Then at least do "Alone in the Dark" that way it was meant to be, like the original video game... 19th century, Sherlock Holmesian mystery with psycho Lovecraft mythology.
-
I just made that up and I own it right? Anyways, I was not to sure, but did someone earlier want a dif director? Just checking
-
...disregarding the fact that this site is run (without the most basic of EDIT facilities) by morons employed by an overweight retard in an arranged marrage with a chubby bitch I've long grown tired of fucking...You are a cock.Have a nice day.
-
I am skunk drunk, but still clever. Write guys?
-
I'll be much happier to hear de Toro's started on Mountains of Madness in... y'know... 2015 or so. But Ron Howard isn't that bad.
I think it's good to pick someone with a diverse directorial background to lend the movie an air of the mundane.
And as for Lovecraft himself, I think Red Ned said it best.
It's like the song in Avenue Q, everyone's a little bit racist. Doesn't make it excusable or good, but the kneejerk reactions people have to racism (especially racism from their own race) I think may have to do with their issues with their own inner racist. As if admonishing others racism will absolve or erase their own. -
...he couldn't of been, he married a Jew =)
Sure, there is a racist tinge to his work and to him, but seriously get over yourself.
He married a jewish lady, now that doesn't speak hard core racism to me no matter how you either try to rationalize it or intellectualize it.
-
If you cannot seperate the work from the man nor just love a good horror story...then please, adhere to your ideals and you own sense of purity. Racism isn't the only deep sin of the world...there are many others as well...are we all so pure we can throw the first stone? Is racism deplorable, yes. Have we learned from it, yes and no. But if Lovecraft was a hardcore racist he never would have married a Jewish woman. Just think how that would have went over at the local Klan meeting. Yes they divorced, but not under animosity, nor over race. Lovecraft was a product of his time and at least give him credit for being able to at least find that his racism did not stop him from marrying the object of said hatred. Think about it.
-
Your definition of "racism" seems to imply that if one hates or fears ONE race, one must hate or fear ALL other races or ethnic groups. But that's not how racism works in the real world. Marriage to a Jew doesn't somehow rule out the possibility of racism towards others. As I noted earlier, Lovecraft himself was very specific on this point: Jewish blood was fine, it was Jewish culture he had a problem with; African blood, on the other hand, was irredeemably tainted and inferior. Also, I think the term "product of his time" gets thrown around a little too easily. In any time, there's a spectrum of cultural views, ranging from progressive to regressive (using our modern mores as a basis for judging -- e.g. Jim Crow laws bad; Women's Suffrage good). I think an argument can be made that some authors, such as Conan Doyle, leaned towards the progressive in spite of their common prejudices or assumptions; while others, such as Lovecraft, clearly held regressive views. There's also a question of degree -- nothing in Doyle (that I'm aware of) even remotely compares to Lovecraft's mean-spirited "Creation of Niggers," for example. So while you can always point out that some man or woman is a "product of his/her time" as a way of helping to account for certain traits, I hope you can understand why employing the phrase as an argument for moral clemency might carry more weight when applied to some historical persons than to others. (Oh ... and my apologies again for the "verbiage"; it's the way I write.)
-
Never read Lovecraft, but I have seen a pile of Ron Howard films and while crude and mean-spirited, Yackbacker summed it up perfectly about the guy. His shiny, seemingly good films have been leaving me empty since Splash. Though I should say Apollo 13 and Frost/Nixon were pretty decent. Maybe he should just stick with docudramas.
-
We all get that he was racist. That's a no brainer. For me though, despite his racism, I still love his work and will continue to. He was also racist towards Jews as well...as Sophia pointed out when in conversations where he ranted about Jews and she softly reminded him she was one. One of Lovecraft's letters "The mass of contemporary Jews are hopeless as far as America is concerned. They are the product of alien blood, & inherit alien ideals, impulses, & emotions which forever preclude the possibility of wholesale assimilation... On our side there is a shuddering physical repugnance to most Semitic types...so that wherever the Wandering Jew wanders, he will have to content himself with his own society till he disappears or is killed off in some sudden outburst of mad physical loathing on our part. I've easily felt able to slaughter a score or two when jammed in a N.Y. subway train"; yet he married one. Also "Michael Gurnow's study of "The Dunwich Horror" relays that Lovecraft makes martyrs of African American twins by the close of the text, thus suggesting that, at least in part and at various times throughout his life, Lovecraft explored and questioned the veracity of his racial views." So your argument doesn't really hold up in the regard he hated one race more than another. But we are both making assumptions of the depth of Lovecraft's racism because neither of us knew the man and we are making assumptions based soley on his work and letters. Lovecraft's racism seems to be born more out of fear than hate, fear of the differences. For example did his racism lead him to join the Klan or did he sign up with the Nazi party? No. It was his character flaw but fortunately his work outshines this flaw. If we were to shun every author that had flaws the list of authors to be read would be small indeed. After all didn't Poe marry a 13 year old child and his very cousin and also filled his life with chemical dependancy and opium? Does that also negate his body of work? Hardly. Or are you saying racism is the deepest sin a man can have? Yes some of Lovecraft's work reveals his racism. So in the end, as in this argument, do we judge an author by his work or his character? By the way "According to L. Sprague de Camp's biography, Lovecraft greatly moderated his views toward the end of his life as he began to travel more and came into contact with people of diverse ethnic backgrounds. He says Lovecraft was horrified by reports of anti-Jewish violence in Germany during the 1930s, which he regarded as irrational. Sprague de Camp also says that Lovecraft enjoyed getting a rise out of people he considered his intellectual inferiors by stating in a deadpan manner whatever he thought would offend them the most, and suggests that at least some reports of Lovecraft's racism derived from this practice." Do I ask for clemancy for Lovecraft's character flaw? No. I simply accept the man for whom he was, flaws and all and enjoy a good tale. By the way, never once reading a Lovecraft tale did I feel the need to join a Klan or a Nazi party...but it did cause me to leave the lights on at night.
-
If Lovecraft could write such a vile letter advocating taking out a score or two of Jews and then turn around and marry one...then it tells me he was more about rhetoric than hate and his rhetoric was fueled by fear, which is obvious in his writings after all he was a horror writer. Also trying to pin down which race Lovecraft hated the most is really fruitless. Especially with the martyrdom of the African Twins in one story he wrote whereas you claim he destested more than Jews. Whether Lovecraft was either a shotgun carrying hood wearing racist or just simply an intellectual bigot is something we can argue about until hell freezes over. Demonize the man if you want, or you can accept a flawed human being, after all, aren't we all? I think we can agree that we both enjoy Lovecraft's work and let the argument rest. Like somone mentioned earlier, I can listen to Wagner and enjoy the beauty of it even though Wagner was a racist and one of Hitler's inspirations. I really don't think any supremist can list Lovecraft for inspiration for their cause. =)
But I would agree any biography that would be about Lovecraft should include his racism. But a fictionalized version of Lovecraft such as in the comic that Howard is supposed to be inspired by, I really don't see the need. Fiction doesn't have to adhere to those rules. -
Thanks for elaborating -- and for backing up your elaboration with specific examples.
-
IT'S CLEAR TO ME AFTER READING THIS THREAD THAT NONE OF YOU UNDERSTAND LOVECRAFT AND SHOULD STICK TO THE JOSS WHEDON THREADS YOU FUCKING PONCES.
-
Ya' smug prick. "Universal Morality" huh? Whatever.
-
Exempting RE-ANIMATOR and DAGON (both directed by Stuart Gordon), the Lovecraft adaptations have tanked. IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS was at least a marginally interesting failure while THE LURKING FEAR and DUNWICH HORROR were abortions. Hell, I'd prefer Dennis Hopper over Ron Howard. I have no doubt that Howard's vision of Cthulhu will drop somewhere between CGI extravagance and all the pageantry of a Bob Hope special. Howard's mainstream adherence forfeits the subversive sting (Carpenter's THE THING definitely invokes H.P.).
-
... how they make movies about real people with supernatural, otherworldly or just plain impossible elements, like this, or 300, or SHERLOCK HOLMES... Is the audience really so stupid and lowbrow and neanderthal they can't sit through a movie that's just real? Why not do TEDDY ROOSEVELT: SASQUATCH HUNTER, or THOMAS EDISON RE-ANIMATES THE DEAD!, or JFK AND THE VENUSIAN MENACE? Ugh...
-
I know thee:
A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a
base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited,
hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a
lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson,
glass-gazing, super-serviceable finical rogue;
one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a
bawd, in way of good service, and art nothing but
the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pandar,
and the son and heir of a mongrel bitch: one whom I
will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest
the least syllable of thy addition.
-
totally lack visually. The inking is very blotchy and almost art-school at times. Some panels it works and other's a just a bit of a mess. I like the story in the comics and it will probably work great on the big screen. Ron Howard could possibly fumble and make it snooze fest like DaVinci Code. He has absolutely no experience in directing the horror genre, and has acted in maybe a handful of Twilight Zone episodes. This one could go either way, but I'm willing to hold judgement until I check out the trailer to see how this goes. I am excited for a big budget Lovercraftian movie though.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 151 total posts 140 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 128 total posts 94 posts
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 92 total posts 91 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 474 total posts 70 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 64 total posts 64 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 51 total posts 51 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 116 total posts 41 posts
- Wanna smell like the Hulk? What about Cap? Consider yourself a Thunder God or a unisex God of Mischief? -- 71 total posts 40 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 35 total posts 35 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 35 total posts 34 posts