Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I disagree. I think she's grabbing some easy relevance using a revisionist, Puritan #metoo lens. The lunch conversation with Haviland Morris tells it all.
Just simple rent seeking and virtue signaling. It's the bread and butter of the #metoo movement.
Last I checked, her career was going fine. Not seeing anything but her offering an opinion, which the New Yorker was happy to publish.
Maybe she watched the movie with her child and got to really wondering what Haviland Morris thought?
I mean, people can be introspective still, right?
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Are you completely unable to acknowledge that social norms change with the times? Why does simply discussing this fact within the context of the popular movies of the time threaten you so much?
I perfectly understand that social norms change. My problem is with the "20/20 hindsight" view that seems to be more and more prevalent. It is becoming the norm to bring up something that was said or written more than two decades ago and vilify the person who said or wrote it based on today's societal norms.
And, as much as you may want to deny it, the people doing this are overwhelmingly on the left side of the spectrum. We've seen movements to remove Hamilton from the $20 bill due to his owning slaves - which was perfectly normal at the time that he lived. We've seen the vilification of Civil War era leaders because of the same. We've seen Trump drug through the mud over words that were said in a private conversation 30 years ago. Do I need to go on, or do you start to see a pattern? What's happening is a rewrite of history on a large scale, and on this much smaller - and, quite frankly, somewhat idiotic - scale an attack on public figures for something that they a) did 30 years ago and b) can't defend themselves over. Our entire news cycle has become a political campaign, even when it isn't a major election year.
Quite frankly, Molly Ringwald is a Hollywood B-lister. She had a brief surge of popularity due to the very man she is attacking in her quotes, which quickly faded away as people realized that she wasn't all that talented in the first place outside of her core role of air-headed smart girl. This entire story belongs in the garbage heap, and if it weren't a slow week for news it would never have been brought to light, most likely.
She was lucky Hughes made her a star. She wasn't the most beautiful actress. Unless he was asking her to do nude sex scenes she should shut up and do her lines. He was a talented writer and director, and she was just a young actress who would if not for him be in character roles. I think she should be grateful for what Hughes did for her and shut her mouth now as well, if just out of respect.
Have you read much about the relationship between her and Hughes? She was his muse much like Uma Thurman was Tarantino's.
I'm not sure he could have created the movies he did create without her for inspiration. And he wanted her for those BECAUSE she was average.
Why do you think women should never be allowed to speak? She did speak out as a teen actress and John Hughes DID take plenty of her ideas to heart. Particularly around popular songs, what her character would wear, etc. She was always actively involved with him. As was Anthony Micheal Hall.
She is not attacking Hughes in any way in this article. I did not get that impression at all.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Good grief Molly, the whole point of the Bender character is that he's a despicable a-hole. His behavior wasn't supposed to be seen as acceptable or normative, he was portrayed as someone you hoped would get smashed to a pulp by even bigger jerks than him.
And while the whole "the pampered princess and the bad boy fall for each other" angle was a cringe-y stereotype, it wasn't just a lazy plot device in this particular movie. It was central to the whole theme of discovering the complexities behind the two-dimensional caricatures that result when we sell ourselves and each other short.
Hmm... I didn't get that impression of Bender at all. He was the bad boy who was always in trouble, yet had no shortage of women who wanted to date him. Maybe guys were supposed to hate Bender, but he was really hot, so I can see why guys would dislike him.
Claire's character is different because she has no interest in guys like him. Which is why she intrigues him. He is broken. And, she is also broken, yet he cannot possibly imagine how a girl from a rich family who is so popular could ever be broken.
Much like nobody thinks the geeky kid is broken. Or the jock.
Funny enough, they think that the weird girl is broken and she is the least damaged of all. Strange how that works.
It is a movie about how people are more alike than they realize. And, yet... they are still different.
It was a good movie at the time and it has held up fairly well over the years. I think 16 Candles has not held up as well. I think more kids are seeing it and wondering why a good many things that are done and said in that movie were okay. LOL.
Still, I love both movies. What they are is what things were like in the 80s.
For better or worse.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
That is a dig. I hope she is not blaming John for her real life issues with relationships. He made a lot of popular movies that will live on. His writing was not "inappropriate" particularly compared to gross, trashy modern movies with no nuance, sensitivity or plot. I hope Molly doesn't show her daughter any recent comedy films.
Woah... that was a leap.
I do not think she's saying any of the things you think she's saying.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I perfectly understand that social norms change. My problem is with the "20/20 hindsight" view that seems to be more and more prevalent. It is becoming the norm to bring up something that was said or written more than two decades ago and vilify the person who said or wrote it based on today's societal norms.
See, that's the problem. She didn't vilify Hughes. She was reflecting on how times have changed, as well as how unaware she was at the time. It's a commentary on how unaware we all were, because it was the norm at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
Quite frankly, Molly Ringwald is a Hollywood B-lister. She had a brief surge of popularity due to the very man she is attacking in her quotes, which quickly faded away as people realized that she wasn't all that talented in the first place outside of her core role of air-headed smart girl. This entire story belongs in the garbage heap, and if it weren't a slow week for news it would never have been brought to light, most likely.
Your points are moot because you keep insisting she "attacked" Hughes, which is a lie. Go back and actually read the article.
And what difference does her career make in relation to her observations on how we as a society have changed? Yeah, none whatsoever.
You've been triggered by this "B-lister." You should look inward and try to figure out why.
Maybe Ringwald was under contract for 3 movies with Hughes? Pretty in Pink, The Breakfast Club, and Sixteen Candles...in that order if you remember the mid 80s timeline (damn I'm old).
That's what made me throw that out there. But yeah, who knows?
This just sucks. Let it go Molly. Damn movies are classics and were made 35 years ago.
I usually watch the original Teen Wolf at least once a year (you know, to pretend I'm still young ) on Netflix or whatever and I noticed that they've never taken out the scene where Scott and Styles are looking for a stash of weed in the garage and both characters use the word f-a-g.
Don't forget Fast Times at Ridgemont High where Spicoli says it in his dream.
Hey Molly, duh. I could tell that when I was a teen and watched that movie.
Boy, she sure didn't have a problem with John Hughes' movies when they were making her a lot of money and famous. But hey, he's dead, why not speak up now.
Hypocrite.
I honestly always liked John Hughes movies,.....I found them to address topics that weren't always addressed with candor and honesty.
I cannot understand why people would anything but glad that we had such great movies. Hardly anything in the last decade can hold a candle to Uncle Buck, or Planes Trains and Automobiles......imo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) on Netflix or whatever and I noticed that they've never taken out the scene where Scott and Styles are looking for a stash of weed in the garage and both characters use the word f-a-g.
