Cast member of Palme d’Or contender shot in Kent says the high number of chaperones and intimacy coordinators on set was over the top
Archived version: https://archive.ph/b5qgr
“It feels a bit off-balance,” said Rogowski, who went on to point out that children already have many other damaging freedoms online where they are more exposed to danger and not protected.
So, there’s a chance something could be getting lost in translation and I don’t know the context here, but just taking this article’s description at face value,
[Paraphrasing], “Kids can voluntarily be exposed to explicit content on the internet, so why do we need guardians around when I act creepy towards them (it’s my job, no really)” seems like both a tellingly weird rant trigger for this guy and first line of argument in defense of it
e; I should have kept reading the article,
For Rogowski, though, the efforts now made in Britain are in danger of inhibiting creativity. His scenes in Bird involve several small children and teenagers who are depicted in situations of social neglect and even imminent harm. “It’s true that Andrea is very careful and respectful, but it would have been great sometimes if there was a bit more trust – and I think that’s a cultural thing,” Rogowski told the industry journal Variety this weekend. “We are so scared nowadays to expose our kids to maybe a swear word – which is ridiculous, because we allow them to use social media and YouTube.”
Ok, yeah, so maybe spoilers for the movie Bird (I haven’t seen it but I’ve read a few things about it now), but it seems like this actor plays an abusive father figure type, and I could kind of imagine how doing that work would have you running into these regulations a lot and they might get kind of annoying, but a) they are there for a really good reason b) if I was your publicist I’d be writing a profanity filled resignation email right now, because you just created a PR headache for yourself
That all said, I think this guy is more dumbass than creep at this point
This has got to be a German thing. I’m working with some German software engineers who are providing the hardware and it’s onboard software for some industrial shit at my work. They’re all constantly dropping these super hot takes as absolute truths, and refuse to listen to anyone who pushes back. Once you realize that, you can start a conversation by shit talking the idea the people pushing back brought up and suss out the real motivations behind their design decisions. Often times those decisions might make sense in isolation, but won’t work in our environment.
It takes tricking the Germans in to thinking you completely agree with them, then just spontaneously discovered a blocking issue, for them to change anything. It’s ridiculous.
Reading through your post gave me very similar vibes. It’s like they have a cultural inability to comprehend that someone could be in a situation that they haven’t already thought of. Like an absolute zero chance of that ever happening, under any circumstance, anywhere, ever. It’s amusing until you’re trying to convince someone that while it’s a good thing they only have their web server listening on a localhost socket, they still need to sanitize user input because the person sitting in front of the machine with a keyboard plugged in can submit any fucking data they want, and there’s a massive SQLi issue, like zero input sanitization and yall refuse to use parameterized queries for some reason.
That’s an interesting perspective
Like those network-attached-torque-wrenches that made the news recently.
Obviously not supposed to be internet facing, but also trivially easy to jailbreak, own, even tamper with values displayed in realtime to the user and the certification server (IE say it is 4nm when it’s actually 1nm).All of these accomplished using the lamest exploits that were discovered decades ago, and which basic programming practices would prevent.
And considering these were mega pricey and niche, obviously used for things like aerospace etc, absolutely a potential and worthwhile target for sabotage
I don’t see the problem. Protect the children. I suppose this fellow is fine with child abuse. It seems to be rampant in acting and entertainment.
Film and theatre are areas that have been and still are rife with abuse. I don’t really want to hear from someone who isnt a vulnerable individual about what we should do to protect vulnerable individuals
Shut up, German star.
“It feels a bit off-balance,” said Rogowski, who went on to point out that children already have many other damaging freedoms online where they are more exposed to danger and not protected.
Hey! The internet can abuse children, so I should be able to without anybody watching me!
For Rogowski, though, the efforts now made in Britain are in danger of inhibiting creativity. His scenes in Bird involve several small children and teenagers who are depicted in situations of social neglect and even imminent harm.
If you have to actually neglect and harm your actors to get a depiction of them being neglected and harmed, you’re a very bad film maker who shouldn’t be allowed to have actors who aren’t fully adult aged working for you.
Whybrew believes the issue is to achieve greater compliance with the laws and rules that are already in place. She added that regulation is hard to impose in an industry that relies on short-term contracts and where “a culture of fear” can lead workers to accept longer hours than they should and, in extreme cases, to submit to other forms of bad treatment or abuse.
Money quote of the article.
