Michael Douglas:The Angriest White Man?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

So Michael Douglas, in 1993 and 1994, starred in two films which best signify the anger/fear/resentment of the American White Male that helped lead to Newt Gingrich's capturing of the House in 1994. These are Falling Down (white collar white man deals with the travesties of a world that favors Asians (OH NO!), Latinos (OH NO!), Blacks (OH NO!) and everyone else over the Good Ole Hardworking Boy who's eventually led back to society after being scared straight by a militia-minded white supremacist (message: he's at the brink, but he's still better than all them other colored folk)) and Disclosure (white collar white man is raped by a woman (the smokin' Demi Moore) literally after getting raped by her figuratively by being passed over for a promotion in favor of a pair of ovaries and a pair of tits, turning to a hispanic lawyer to save him but in the end he must save himself only to, once the dust has settled, be passed over for the promotion again by yet another woman (a dyke, probably)). Both of these films are insanely paranoid, and are so indicative of the under-seige mentality of much of America's white male population. I'm not sure what would have drawn Douglas to these roles, but these films are very similar in their themes... Still thinking this one out.

― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:33 (twenty-three years ago)

but falling down is about what a wacko idiot MD is: same set-up, opposite message

in fact almost all MD's best roles are about what an idiot the character MD is playing is

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:39 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't think the message is that he's a wacko idiot at all, mark s. We are supposed to cheer when he bitches about the shittiness of fast food or when he complains about the cost of a can of Coke to the Korean store owner. And Jesus, the whole thing starts with bad traffic! Of course we are supposed to identify with him!

― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:41 (twenty-three years ago)

Why can't you equally just think he's being a mentalist?

― Graham (graham), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:43 (twenty-three years ago)

Michael Douglas:The Angriest White Man? No, that would be me.

― Lynskey (Lynskey), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:43 (twenty-three years ago)

but he is so yuk!! what is there to identify with?

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:44 (twenty-three years ago)

lynskey r u in the remake of basic instinct?

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:45 (twenty-three years ago)

The entire gender issue in "Disclosure" is an enormous red herring.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:46 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree with you about Disclousure - its a very stupid movie based on a very stupid book. But I think Falling Down is a much more nuanced film than you suggest. I don't think we ever feel that much sympathy for D-Fens, the film paints a character who litearlly gets fired one day and has to deal with a world he no longer understands. Now that does include his own racism which is then contrasted with the militiaman. Is the film paranoid - I don't think so, the film is mainly a morality play in which someone who always thought he was doing the right thing is no longer sure. (Considering the right thing he was doing was being in the defence industry its nicely ironic).

I think Douglas makes good choices of contoroversial political films - even if what comes out isn't always great. He produced One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, is great in The China Syndrome and in Traffic he has his moments.

(After reading other posts. We are not supposed to identify with D-Fens, which is why he does things that we are supposed to cheer and in the order he does them. Sure the traffic and the idiocy of the fast food joint is good because when we start to identify we notice what horrible people we are ourselves. cf Man Bites Dog).

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:47 (twenty-three years ago)

All MD is in Falling Down is anger. And that's what there is to identify with. I remember seeing this in the theater and people cheered! Many people feel the way his character did... the film just took it to an extreme.

Explain Disclosure, then Dan. Crichton wrote the book in the wake of the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill thing, when "sexual harrassment" = "political correctness." It's about the death of masculinity, the waning of testosterone. This is the undercurrent in America at the time. Same with FD.

― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:50 (twenty-three years ago)

That's a good post Pete, but still, seeing his working in the defense industry as ironic is erroneous. For a vast majority of Americans, this is good work. This is good, God-fearing work for him to do. He's killing Commies! Or Arabs, at least. Your parenthetical is good though. A good point, but I don't think many people would pick up on that.

And what of Robert Duvall's character? He's completely emasculated by his pill-popping basketcase wife!

― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:52 (twenty-three years ago)

"many people feel the way his character does" is not the same as "the film's message is that those people are right"!!!!!!!

i didn't identify with him hence yr theory is proved wrong!!

douglas carries with him the ambiguity of the weight of his earlier roles, inc. the idiot in basic instinct and the idiot in fatal attraction

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:54 (twenty-three years ago)

I did not say that the film's message is right. I think Pete's parenthetical gets it right.

You do not see a similar strain between these two movies, mark?

― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:57 (twenty-three years ago)

His idiocy in both of those films was unambiguous!

― RickyT (RickyT), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:58 (twenty-three years ago)

The entirety of "Disclosure" the movie (I know nothing about the book) is about the insidiousness of corporate culture and the lengths people will go to torpedo rivals. When the sexual harrassment plan is derailed, Demi and pal switch to a Plan B designed to torpedo Michael Douglas that they never get a chance to implement because he sacrifices himself in order to move someone more sympathetic to his faction into power. It's WAY more about insanely evil office politics than it is about sexual harrassment.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:59 (twenty-three years ago)

i identified with robert duvall!!

it's true it wz a social undercurrent at the time — cf newt gingrich, yes — but when gingrich shut the govt down he lost support, so that wz an undercurrent then too, and the film also speaks to that, ie MD gets mad at ther same things you do but then tackles this in the fashion of a wacko dingbat

another films i just realised is reffed = the swimmer!! viz travelling across LA in a non-scinationed direction = at once thrillingly disorientating and attractive (freedom from the social) and the act of a deluded person

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i'm not sure i ever saw disclosure yancey, except maybe like ten mins on TV b4 i remembered how much i hate demi moore

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:02 (twenty-three years ago)

Well to be fair its not a point they are supposed to pick up on if the film is doing it well. And if the film is supposed to have an heroic arc for Douglas what about the ending? The film is about the supposed Western attitude that the world owes us a living, when actually it can often be a pretty shitty place. Lesson to be learnt by Douglas' daughter.

Duvall is the nominal hero of the film and he also represents the lack of heroism in real life. He is representing the idea that life really isn't about good and evil, right and wrong - rather its often about having a bad day - hence even he sympathises with the non-sympathetic lead. (Changing Lanes presents a similar idea but really fluffs its ending).

Mark - are you saying that the audience will be influenced by MD's previous work? (The Swimmer - excellent).

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:04 (twenty-three years ago)

(I'd just like to point out that it seems to be mostly the English claiming we're not meant to identify with these characters: I'm sorry to say that our country may disappoint you once again.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:04 (twenty-three years ago)

scinationed? i think i musta meant sanctioned |:-|

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:05 (twenty-three years ago)

I see corporate culture and sexual politics in opposite places as you, Dan, but that's probably from reading the book. The book has sections on sexual harrassment filled with legalese, just as Rising Sun the novel has loads on Japanese business practices.

Virtually every Hollywood flick has a point where the wacko is brought back into society (many times with death, more often with medals (think Die Hard & Lethal Weapon)). It would be "socially irresponsible" to do otherwise. And yes, MD attacks institutions that many would consider deserving in a way that most people would find revolting: which is why it works! If MD were to decide not to eat at MikkieD's, declaring their food not to his liking, then where's the drama? Yet, it's not too fictional. I would offer a guarantee that somewhere in the pitching of that movie they considered making D-Fens a postal worker.

― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:08 (twenty-three years ago)

no of course not pete, i'm saying the film's "message" — including esp.what m.douglas saw in it (ie link to the swimmer) — may differ from what the audience made of it...

(haha there was a stageplay of anne frank's diary which wz so bad that people in the asudience were shouting out "she's in the attic!")

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:08 (twenty-three years ago)

It's WAY more about insanely evil office politics than it is about sexual harrassment.

Even if, in the course of the movie, the sexual harrassment angle was a red herring, you have to admit that for everyone else, it was awfully tasty red herring -- the movie got a lot of free press + publicity thanx to its 'provocative' subject matter. (The same is true for the use of VR in the movie.)

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:10 (twenty-three years ago)

IIRC, wasn't the reason MD went postal at the fast-food place because they had *just* stopped breakfast service only a minute or two before he ordered, not because the food was crap?

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:11 (twenty-three years ago)

You are right Michael. But then he rants about the pictures of the food on the menu and how they fail to correspond with what you actually get. I'm sure in the director's cut there's a rant about how there's too much ice in the soda.

― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:16 (twenty-three years ago)

Well, there generally is too much ice in the soda.

(sorry but halfway thru this thread Nitsuh stole my point so I'm stuck with just that)

― Ally (mlescaut), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:20 (twenty-three years ago)

About the Brits seeing him as unidentifiable?

― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:21 (twenty-three years ago)

And adding to the confusion: In American President he essentially plays a neutered Bill Cliton.

― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:28 (twenty-three years ago)

"Cliton" = "D*ck-Cl*t," obviously.

― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:31 (twenty-three years ago)

Well, I'm not going to ask what you're thinking about instead of working...

But anyway, yeah, that I do know a lot of people who find the characters identifiable - particularly in Falling Down. I know a lot of people who've been laid off recently who are in love with the movie. I think it's just the two different cultures at work here. Everyone is seeing him as a complete nutter in this thread - but a lot of people I know, scarily or not, see him as a justified nutter, a man who went nuts because of what people did to him.

I like italics.

Anyway. Michael Douglas in the film is not viewed as some sort of crazy freak by the American viewing public. He is viewed exactly how you put it forth in the question. He's busted his ass to be rejected in a world that has come to be full of quotas favoring the non-white-male majority and nothing he does in a regular course of action will gain him back respect so it is time for war. Clearly this message is completely bitchcakes bonkers, but so are a lot of people...

Our economy provokes insanity, I guess. It's not on some steady hum, we have 5 years fabulousness, 5 years the dole, back and forth and no one here seems to learn from it so they have no savings and then have to blame everyone else when they get fucked over - who likes to blame themselves?

Not having any experience with British economic factors and the British version of the good ole boy, I really can't say for certain if this explains the divide...

― Ally (mlescaut), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:44 (twenty-three years ago)

In the end D-FENS is not an idiot, he is not a figure to identify with or to revile -- he's a loser. Someone with a repressed screwed up life pushed into a final freefall and lashing out on the way down. Anyone wanting to see one-dimensional interpretations of the role is free to do so, but THAT is idiocy. The reason some people may do that is because of the way the character is revealed piece by piece and they stay with just the initial impression and don't pick up the other stuff along the journey.

Disclosure sounds terrible. Rising Sun doubly so.

― Alan (Alan), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:51 (twenty-three years ago)

But he's a loser because of society! He works hard. He has a family. He wears a tie. He does what he's supposed to do, but society has changed the rules while he wasn't looking.

― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:56 (twenty-three years ago)

Middle Aged White Man = THE ULTIMATE VICTIM

― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:59 (twenty-three years ago)

Exschactly. Alan, you have a good point and I think that's a proper interpretation of the intent of the film; however I don't think it's the way that most people interpret it. Round these parts, especially recently, people seem all crazy for that film in Yancey's interpretation of it. "Society has changed the rules" is a very accurate way of looking at the common thought as I see it.

Is that the film's fault? It's as much Falling Down's fault as Columbine was The Matrix's fault - take however you would choose to take such a comment.

― Ally (mlescaut), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 18:00 (twenty-three years ago)

well, the people he is supposedly "better than" have been consistently shafted, but he has been shafted AND betrayed

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 18:04 (twenty-three years ago)

so i don't think his feelings are paranoid, i just think his response is a disaster

i guess my earliest post shd prolly have said "falling down is about what a wacko idiot MD is gradually revealed to be": bcz i. he believed what he wz told and did what he wz told, and ii. he takes it out on those who are still caught at stage ii.

the film's deep message is that the us middle classes have been proletarianised right up to the point of actually realising this and combining with the rest of who they've become

but anti-cap radicalism is embedded, latent, in more us middlebrow art than you can shake a stick at

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 18:11 (twenty-three years ago)

Of course they have, but that's beside the point. Falling Down's sole point of reference for history is the '50s (which every American knows was Utopia, even the coloreds). It's about emotion, frustration, the individual (meaning FUCK THEM, WHAT'S IN IT FOR ME???).

(strangest point in the movie: when md sees the black man wearing the exact same clothes as him protesting outside of a bank for being denied a loan ("they say i'm not 'economically viable,'" he screams) and there's a flash of recognition on md's face (message: gotta get a job at a bank so i can put them in their place, jk) -- i think this signifies not that they are similar (because would the protesting black dude really like md?), but that md sees himself as the new black man, the new victim. it's telling that the black man is protesting not getting a loan, not something more basic or volatile, like a lack of healthcare or something)

― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 18:12 (twenty-three years ago)

if the film's only reference point is the 50s, then the film's message is "the 50s were a lie"

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 18:16 (twenty-three years ago)

I really think it can be taken in the opposite way, because here the '50s are seen as Utopia, are still referenced as such. This would be a strength of the movie, because for conservatives I think it's read as their ultimate triumph, while for liberals it makes them feel better/worse because conservatives are just fucking nuts. I still maintain that the most common interpretation of FD is the former.

― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 18:19 (twenty-three years ago)

I absolutely agree. This was one of the things I really liked about the movie; it pulled people in with the "sexual discrimination like you've never seen it before!" angle and then served up a story about something completely different. I call this the "'When A Man Loves A Woman' Effect".

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 18:22 (twenty-three years ago)

That's not a strange point -- it's KEY.

― Alan (Alan), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 18:22 (twenty-three years ago)

(BTW: I have not seen and probably never will see "Falling Down" because MD's character looks like such a freakin' tool.)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 18:23 (twenty-three years ago)

my KEY point was Yancey's ref to the loan protestor guy. Dan -- it's a grebt film. (not as good as "Doctor Who and The Two Romanas Lez Up" obv)

― Alan (Alan), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 18:26 (twenty-three years ago)

It's certainly key, because MD identified more with the black man than with the militia dude (remember the militia guy saying, "We're the same you and me. We're the same don't you see?"). I think is because the black man signifies, in a weird flipflop, the OPPRESSED while the militia dude is the OPPRESSOR. MD sees himself as oppressed, not the oppressor.

And Alan, it is a great film. I haven't seen it in several years, yet I remember it almost perfectly.

― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 18:29 (twenty-three years ago)

MD's character looks like such a freakin' tool

He's Dilbert on meth.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 18:30 (twenty-three years ago)

How does Wonderboys work into this, tho?

― Ally (mlescaut), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 18:53 (twenty-three years ago)

Anyone know MD's political persuasion? Should I assume him to liberal like the rest of those Hollywood tree-huggers?

― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 18:58 (twenty-three years ago)

They're all hippies, Yancey. HOWEVER I just found this quote in a quick look thru a Michael Douglas filmography (there was an article about his film choices):

"I get rapped about that all the time, but I'm tired of women using sexual politics as a defense mechanism. I'm not against women, but I AM in defense of men."

Take as you wish.

― Ally (mlescaut), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 19:02 (twenty-three years ago)

Gawd bless him.

― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 19:06 (twenty-three years ago)

"I guess a lot of my films are very ambiguous, meaning they're hard to pigeonhole, and that doesn't always grab an audience. But you work on your failures just as hard as you do on your successes. I still think of Falling Down with fond affection. I'm really proud of that film." -- MD

― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 19:10 (twenty-three years ago)

Skipping 81 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

are we reding the same book ryan? i believe we are.

it's not a very good book is it?

btw funny you should mention shampoo s1ocki cos i'm on the last chapter which is about shampoo w/warren beatty. do we like that film?

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Thursday, 9 September 2004 01:58 (twenty-one years ago)

i do, i think! i gotta see it again though

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 9 September 2004 02:16 (twenty-one years ago)

oh i read it over the summer. why dont you like it? i thought it was ok--to be honest i think i learned a lot about the 60s because of it. so it was pretty enjoyable on a "i didnt know that before" level.

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 9 September 2004 02:48 (twenty-one years ago)

five months pass...

Michael Douglas--smartest, richest, white man in Hollywood. And married to Catherine Eta-Beta-Zeta-Jones.

― EComplex (EComplex), Tuesday, 15 February 2005 02:47 (twenty years ago)

four years pass...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/08/04/michael.douglas.son.drugs/index.html

― kingkongvsgodzilla, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 19:06 (sixteen years ago)

seems like something out of a movie

― kingkongvsgodzilla, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 19:07 (sixteen years ago)

LEGALIZE METH

― velko, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 19:28 (sixteen years ago)

All About Michael Douglas • Methamphetamine

― mayor jingleberries, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 19:54 (sixteen years ago)

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/2339/michael20douglas20aaa.jpg

― http://tinyurl.com/bapppp (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 4 August 2009 19:55 (sixteen years ago)

thought thread was gonna be about
http://www.einsiders.com/features/images/mk_douglas.jpg

― velko, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 20:00 (sixteen years ago)

eleven months pass...

Solitary Man is good. I think I would have liked it a lot more if I didn't also see Crazy Heart, which is basically the same movie in a different setting.

― surfer blood for oil (Hurting 2), Sunday, 11 July 2010 04:23 (fifteen years ago)

Solitary Man was quite good. Michael Douglas really has a knack for playing a real son of a bitch. this movie definitely had its fill of discomfort though, and didn't end neatly, which I feared it would.

― San Te, Sunday, 11 July 2010 04:45 (fifteen years ago)

^^^ the not ending neatly I meant as a virtue

― San Te, Sunday, 11 July 2010 04:46 (fifteen years ago)

some great writing in it

― surfer blood for oil (Hurting 2), Sunday, 11 July 2010 05:07 (fifteen years ago)

one month passes...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/michael-douglas-cancer-th_n_683824.html

― Zeno, Monday, 16 August 2010 22:56 (fifteen years ago)

Poor guy. I'm enormously fond of Michael Douglas. He comes across as a mensch in interviews.

― Haunted Clocks For Sale (Dorianlynskey), Monday, 16 August 2010 23:25 (fifteen years ago)

five months pass...

http://thisisphotobomb.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/d458be17-948a-43e1-a7a1-b59171215a79.jpg

― you think you're cool, but you read ick (Phil D.), Tuesday, 18 January 2011 17:16 (fifteen years ago)

The photo says, "Hi! I'm still alive!"

― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 18 January 2011 17:17 (fifteen years ago)

how do you so totally misunderstand falling down?

― normal_fantasy-unicorns (contenderizer), Tuesday, 18 January 2011 17:44 (fifteen years ago)

you mean at the start of the thread?

― Princess TamTam, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 12:34 (fifteen years ago)

watched solitary man on netflix the other night. man that was bad. but his willingness to play horrible people is commendable, i guess?

― scott seward, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 13:09 (fifteen years ago)

Falling Down the character is clearly sad and pathetic, no? If people have some other opinion, it's because they took the reviews too seriously, and who writes most film reviews? White males!

I liked Disclosure in a pulpy b-movie sense, like I enjoyed Basic Instinct. If you take them too literally, they are horribly sexist, but one has to ask why you would do that?

― Possession of Stolen Goods (pharoah slanders) (u s steel), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 13:09 (fifteen years ago)

you mean at the start of the thread?

― Princess TamTam, Wednesday, January 19, 2011 4:34 AM (51 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah, the film initially invites us to sympathize with "D-Fens" Foster's impotent anger and estrangement from what america has become, but then questions and undermines our willingness to do this, to share his perceptions and responses. this seems obvious to me. it's a movie about the once-dominant white male retreating into grudgeful (and potentially dangerous) bewilderment in response to his diminished role in a world that no longer so clearly reflects his will and desires. i don't think it critiques this new world so much as Foster's angry and paranoid view of it.

― normal_fantasy-unicorns (contenderizer), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 13:37 (fifteen years ago)

i'd guess that it's not so obvious since people still argue about this movie's POV all the time!

i just love the snowglobe scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-rD262adg8&t=3m25s

at 3:25 if it doesnt take u there

― Princess TamTam, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 13:46 (fifteen years ago)

i do like the bewildered 'i'm the bad guy?' line at the end, most movies about this kind of character dont let them ask themselves that kind of question

― Princess TamTam, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 13:47 (fifteen years ago)

i do like the bewildered 'i'm the bad guy?'

that's one of a few moments that makes the film's POV explicit, at least as i see it. it plays with the ways in which we decide who the "good guys" and "bad guys" are, and winds up sort of scolding us (and D-Fens himself) for our initial view of the situation and the character's role in it. which is a suspect gambit, of course, because we only see what the film lets us see, and didn't necessarily side with Foster during the opening act.

agree that it's open to interpretation, esp. wr2 the degraded quality of the america it sometimes seems to present.

― normal_fantasy-unicorns (contenderizer), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 13:56 (fifteen years ago)

seems to be v much a mirror of the viewer's political persuasions, d-fens is definitely a libertarian hero and many of the reviews seemed to take this pov - he's just a guy trying to get home! (in violation of a restraining order.) he never hits first! (except for the korean shopkeeper.) he doesn't kill anyone! (except the genuine nazi bad guy, which is the only defensible 'except' and the only one the d-fens apologists tend to acknowledge).

― nanoflymo (ledge), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 14:20 (fifteen years ago)

two years pass...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/jun/02/michael-douglas-oral-sex-cancer

the fuck are you on about buddy

― goole, Monday, 3 June 2013 15:02 (twelve years ago)

a doctor writes

― Neil S, Monday, 3 June 2013 15:10 (twelve years ago)

When asked whether he now regretted his years of smoking and drinking - common causes of oral cancer - the 68-year-old replied "No.
"Because without wanting to get too specific, this particular cancer is caused by HPV which actually comes about from cunnilingus," he said.

1) how specific could 'too specific' be? Naming the names?
2) Who needs privacy laws?

― Mark G, Monday, 3 June 2013 19:38 (twelve years ago)

HPV comes from cunnilingus, good to know

― they are either militarists (ugh) or kangaroos (?) (DJP), Monday, 3 June 2013 19:40 (twelve years ago)

The dude is totally right. The move to give HPV vaccines to kids is mostly to forestal cervical cancer.

High-risk HPVs cause virtually all cervical cancers. They also cause most anal cancers and some vaginal, vulvar, penile, and oropharyngeal cancers.

― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 3 June 2013 20:07 (twelve years ago)

Cancer.gov:

The most reliable way to prevent infection with either a high-risk or a low-risk HPV is to avoid any skin-to-skin oral, anal, or genital contact with another person.

FYI.

― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 3 June 2013 20:08 (twelve years ago)

that sentence basically reads "you're going to get HPV"

― goole, Monday, 3 June 2013 20:16 (twelve years ago)

Hope this wasn't a PR tactic promoting Candelabra to let us know in the clearest way possible that Douglas himself is not gay.

― The End**^ (Eazy), Monday, 3 June 2013 20:18 (twelve years ago)

honestly it just reconfirms my original stance on Michael Douglas ie dude is hella creepy

― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Monday, 3 June 2013 20:20 (twelve years ago)

Hope this wasn't a PR tactic promoting Candelabra to let us know in the clearest way possible that Douglas himself is not gay.

I was wondering about that, the timing of this interview is kind of sketchy.

― ...also i'm awesome (Nicole), Monday, 3 June 2013 20:26 (twelve years ago)

shoulda used a dental dam

― ⚓ (elmo argonaut), Monday, 3 June 2013 20:34 (twelve years ago)

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ2nJeuSlmCiyAXr4NWSv7IwEQWrpiSdMm810ccsc2V_dFEGBHXww

― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 3 June 2013 20:54 (twelve years ago)

http://wonderly.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Girls-HBO-episode-3-all-adventurous-women-do-7.jpg

― Mr. Mojo Readin' (C. Grisso/McCain), Monday, 3 June 2013 21:01 (twelve years ago)

On the one hand, he's raised a serious health concern that we all should be aware of.

On the other, he's basically blaming CZJ and her <uncontroversial edit> for his cancer.

― Mark G, Monday, 3 June 2013 21:44 (twelve years ago)

On the other, he's basically blaming CZJ and her <uncontroversial edit> for his cancer.

― Mark G, Monday, June 3, 2013 5:44 PM (47 minutes ago) Bookmark

he could've gotten it from brenda vaccaro

― i wanna be a gabbneb baby (Hungry4Ass), Monday, 3 June 2013 22:42 (twelve years ago)

http://img2-2.timeinc.net/ew/img/review/010504/one_l.jpg

― brimstead, Monday, 3 June 2013 22:45 (twelve years ago)

And now, his publicist is saying he a) didn't, and b) didn't say that.

Guardian interviewer fetching his audio recordings out..

― Mark G, Tuesday, 4 June 2013 12:38 (twelve years ago)

eight years pass...

Ok The Game, it's pretty funny that all the chaos that happens to him throughout the movie is swiftly disregarded at the end and he just wants to shag that woman.

― Ste, Friday, 25 February 2022 14:48 (three years ago)

That whole movie is ludicrous but impeccably made, which makes it work kind of like a good sleight of hand trick. Pulling a rabbit out of a hat is neat enough that no one ever questions why a rabbit would ever be in a hat to begin with.

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 25 February 2022 14:52 (three years ago)

Lewis Carroll aside.

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 25 February 2022 14:52 (three years ago)

It's certainly in my 'wtf lol but watchable' list

― Ste, Friday, 25 February 2022 15:00 (three years ago)

https://i.imgur.com/UqnSmz4.jpg

A pensive MD reflects on his anger
From Black Rain

― calstars, Friday, 25 February 2022 17:38 (three years ago)

Perfect Murder was a good, somewhat forgotten movie (loose remake of Dial M for Murdah)

― sorry Mario, but our princess is in another butthole (Neanderthal), Friday, 25 February 2022 17:53 (three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.