Robert De Niro tells Gotham Awards his speech was edited without his knowledge
Robert De Niro told an awards ceremony a speech he was reading had been edited without his knowledge, removing critical comments about Donald Trump.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-67552014Open linkView original on lemm.ee
21 replies
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Robert De Niro told an awards ceremony a speech he was reading had been edited without his knowledge, removing critical comments about Donald Trump.
He referred to students in Florida being told slaves developed skills "for their personal benefit", and said the entertainment industry "isn't immune to this festering disease".
He singled out actor John Wayne, quoting 1971 remarks about Native Americans in which he said: "I don't feel we did wrong taking this great country away from them."
He attacks the weak, destroys the gifts of nature and shows disrespect, for example, by using Pocahontas as a slur," referencing the former president's nickname for Senator Elizabeth Warren.
De Niro, who has been vocal in his criticism of Trump in the past, then said he was supposed to thank the Gotham Awards and Apple, which made Killers of the Flower Moon.
The top prize for best feature went to drama Past Lives, about childhood sweethearts in South Korea who are separated when one emigrates to the US.
The original article contains 511 words, the summary contains 167 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyYIi_hov5Y
He then asked attendees if they would scratch his back for him.
Because the monkeys that support Trump are the exact kind of people to hold actors in higher regard than they should be.
This shit isn't rocket science, the logic is as easy to read as 1+1.
The article literally mentions John Wayne, one of the idols of the right. The dude was a bastard. Beat up his wives and girlfriends, cheated on his wives, skipped out on being an actual soldier in WWII because his movie career was taking off and like all the other bastards that suddenly decide their manhood should revolve around character they never built, he became a wannabe ever since. Just like modern day Arpaio and Nugent. Tough guys that dodged or made a big deal of minor service, one of which is an entertainer, has tv shows and sings. They were also perfectly happy to broadcast Eastwood talking to a chair when it suited them.
John Wayne was a nazi
And joey shithead was a drunk
There are two types of people in this world:
You've made your own point. Truly brilliant 🤭
For many of us, we don't care because he's famous, but we hear it because he's famous. He has a platform, and he chooses to use it! You're getting dangerously close to "Shut up and dribble" territory.
Will you please stay in your lane?
What the fuck qualifies you to criticize a celebrity online? Do you have any expertise in holding opinions or sharing them?
You're an internet commenter, write about what you had for lunch and stop weighing in on shit you know nothing about. This isn't the place for it, either.
/s
Now do you get it?
Broadcasting on TV these days is less likely to reach a wide audience than posting on the internet, but a platform is a platform.
Consider how you might feel if your tiny opinions got picked up and went viral, but then the comments they quote from Lemmy were incomplete and left you looking like an idiot.
Sound cool to you?
It's a pretty infamous quote from Laura Ingram of Fox News. I don't know why you and I are fine airing our opinion here, but if we were a celebrity, we should keep our opinions to ourselves. Taylor Swift is credited with driving voter registration, should she stay in her lane? What level of expertise do people need to be able to talk about politics?
We are starting to reach critical levels of irony
Clarify your tortuously muddled stance on celebrity opinions. I need to ask because of the subpar quality of your previous posts.
I'll be honest, the history is full of takes I would expect from a conservative who hasn't tried to explain the issues of the day.
Don't really need to dig, experience has shown self-aggrandizers to have a chip on their shoulder, and not much else to provide.
Debate for the sake of debate, wasting everyone else's time while they're at it.
Why? And can you answer my other question: What are the requirements to be able to talk freely?
you're the arbiter of the free market now, eh
This, but replace "DeNiro" with "Trump".