Stop trying to make fetch happen
December 2, 2017 12:09 PM   Subscribe

 
Watched Free Fire with Kitteh last week and had exactly this conversation about how Armie Hammer seems to keep getting... is it tenth chances?... in Hollywood. It's weird. Well, now that I know he's essentially crazy rich, it's less weird.
posted by Shepherd at 12:24 PM on December 2, 2017 [4 favorites]


see also - Hunnam, Charlie
posted by mannequito at 12:25 PM on December 2, 2017 [8 favorites]


I like Hammer fine, but even if I didn’t I’d still think this article is pretty mean spirited.
posted by schoolgirl report at 12:28 PM on December 2, 2017 [34 favorites]


Eh, rich boy can cry himself to sleep on a mattress of $100 bills.
posted by Artw at 12:30 PM on December 2, 2017 [6 favorites]


Jeez I saw Free Fire (enjoyed it) and didn’t even realize he was the tall dude in it. (While watching, i liked his character but he mostly just struck me as playing similar to John Krasinski.) Same after Man From UNCLE— enjoyed, but could not for the life of me have told you who played the second male lead. He’s just so bland. Hoping Call Me By Your Name gives him some personality.
posted by supercres at 12:31 PM on December 2, 2017 [1 favorite]


He seems pretty bland and I had no strong feelings about him one way or the other until I got to the part of the article where he blames the outrage about Nate Parker being a rapist on someone with a competing film "orchestrating" it, and acts like if one rapist got away with it then every rapist should be allowed to get away with it, and now I hate him.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:32 PM on December 2, 2017 [44 favorites]


I liked The Man From U.N.C.L.E. at the movie theater, it was a fun summer action movie romp. But there's a lot of sameface lately in Hollywood, no wonder most new male actors can't be remembered. IMO this is why Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hiddleston got all the movies and fandom until people got sick of them -- you can't mistake them for all the cookie cutter Chrises.
posted by sukeban at 12:32 PM on December 2, 2017 [11 favorites]


I refuse to believe an actor with a professional name shared with a brand of baking soda can possibly (a) succeed (b) be minimally self-aware. So Armie, get in line behind Ron McDonald, Duncan Doenut and Awxy Kleen.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:33 PM on December 2, 2017 [13 favorites]


It really doesn't read as mean-spirited if you look past the surface. I mean, this is Anne Helen Petersen's beat. Take a look at her body of work; she writes pieces that critique parts of our culture, including the way that a certain kind of white man gets not just second chances to succeed, but third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh chances, and on and on and on.

What's unfortunate is that Hammer's little tempter tantrum on Twitter over the article prompted the hordes to go after AHP. Doesn't help that he called her "bitter AF" before deleting his account and stomping off in a huff.
posted by palomar at 12:45 PM on December 2, 2017 [31 favorites]


I've always wondered this about him (why is he still around? huh?); it was interesting to read this.
posted by LobsterMitten at 12:49 PM on December 2, 2017 [1 favorite]


I like Hammer fine, but even if I didn’t I’d still think this article is pretty mean spirited.

I feel like this takeaway misses the point of the article entirely, and falls into the exact trap that it describes throughout the entire piece. It's clearly meant to be more of an indictment of the massive privilege Hollywood bestows upon attractive white men like Hammer rather than of Hammer itself. It's built up through the entire article, but then stated very clearly multiple times in the last couple paragraphs.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:52 PM on December 2, 2017 [48 favorites]


Marketable leading men in their 30s are rare and have the potential to be very valuable. Tom Cruise is in his 50s and won’t be around forever.

Chris Hemsworth can’t carry a movie in his own (see Huntsman)
Chris Evans isn’t interested in blockbusters.
Chris Pine hasn’t broken out outside of existing properties (Star Trek, Wonder Woman).
Chris Pratt is the best chance for a leading man in his age bracket, and has succeeded as the biggest face on multiple properties. But remember, Pratt was kicking around in TV for over a decade (OC, Everwood, etc.) before he broke out.
Ryan Reynolds also underperformed in a series of properties before crushing it in Deadpool.
Armie Hammer hasn’t succeeded yet, but the underperformance of properties he’s been tied to are not seen as his fault.
Henry Cavill (Hammer’s costar in UNCLE) is another potential leading man. He’ll also get lots of chances.
posted by leotrotsky at 12:59 PM on December 2, 2017 [9 favorites]


Whenever I see him in something it always amuses me that his parents were stoned enough that they thought calling a child Armand Hammer was a good idea, and I've enjoyed the notion enough that I haven't wanted to spoil it by finding out any facts.

He's fine. He's the Rod Taylor de nos jours.
posted by Grangousier at 1:05 PM on December 2, 2017 [1 favorite]


Think of how Clooney’s early movies were pretty meh before he found his rhythm. Remember “The Peacemaker?” Neither does anyone else, but he went on to great success. Potential leading men get more chances because they’re worth so much more if they make it. That’s in part because their careers last so much longer. Because women past 35 have a lot of difficulty getting cast.
posted by leotrotsky at 1:05 PM on December 2, 2017 [6 favorites]


He's still around because if you live in Los Angeles and work in or near the westside you're aware he has the same name as a motherfucking museum. That's the kind of money people want to be near. Amazing that he talks about how he and his wife have always "supported themselves" - talk about total privilege blindness. Dude, the very top line of your resume may as well say, "I have more money than god and maybe you'll get some of it if you get close to me."
posted by potrzebie at 1:09 PM on December 2, 2017 [31 favorites]


And female stars aren't worth a buttload if they make it?
posted by palomar at 1:10 PM on December 2, 2017


Previous generations of prettyboy actors, such as Alec Baldwin, had the opportunity to hone their acting skills by working on daytime soap operas. Not so much any more.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 1:12 PM on December 2, 2017 [4 favorites]


Rich people who use their privilege to get parts that should have gone to someone with talent deserve excoriation. Mean-spirited? Tug that forelock.
posted by Segundus at 1:17 PM on December 2, 2017 [15 favorites]


Are people really unaware of his namesake billionaire, major connection between the U.S. and the Bolsheviks then Soviets right back to the 20's?

The "Arm and Hammer" being an early communist symbol?
posted by goinWhereTheClimateSuitsMyClothes at 1:21 PM on December 2, 2017 [11 favorites]


"Whenever I see him in something it always amuses me that his parents were stoned enough that they thought calling a child Armand Hammer was a good idea, and I've enjoyed the notion enough that I haven't wanted to spoil it by finding out any facts."

Sorry to burst your fact bubble. Armand is a family name. His great-grandfather was Armand Hammer, a very famous, influential, uber rich businessman and philanthropist. I'm honestly surprised this isn't more well-known.
posted by bawanaal at 1:21 PM on December 2, 2017 [13 favorites]


people are far more aware that he is named after a baking soda and laundry detergent.
posted by poffin boffin at 1:22 PM on December 2, 2017 [11 favorites]


And female stars aren't worth a buttload if they make it?

They are, but their careers tend to be shorter and so they age out of many second chances. Look at Jessica Chastain, she broke through in her early 30s and isn’t likely to get cast in a ton of films in the near future. Or Chris Pratt’s costar Zoe Saldana, who also took awhile to get big. The odds of them becoming dramatically more successful than they are now is slim. That’s true even after an Oscar win! How many huge movies did Charlize Theron carry after Monster?
posted by leotrotsky at 1:22 PM on December 2, 2017 [3 favorites]


Right. And... is there anything at all that's fucked up about a system that enshrines mediocre men while making it ever harder for a talented woman to succeed?
posted by palomar at 1:27 PM on December 2, 2017 [18 favorites]




Rich people who use their privilege to get parts that should have gone to someone with talent deserve excoriation. Mean-spirited? Tug that forelock.

And yet I don’t see any articles on Rooney Mara.
posted by leotrotsky at 1:31 PM on December 2, 2017 [6 favorites]


leotrotsky, I don't get what your angle is here. Did you read the article?
posted by LobsterMitten at 1:32 PM on December 2, 2017 [5 favorites]


I also watched Free Fire last week.

Could I have told you if Armie Hammer was in it?

Well...I thought Brie Larson was very good.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 1:32 PM on December 2, 2017 [1 favorite]


Taking down a rich white guy... no problem. But what was up with all the "he seems pretty GAY, huh?" stuff?
posted by clawsoon at 1:33 PM on December 2, 2017 [3 favorites]


Right. And... is there anything at all that's fucked up about a system that enshrines mediocre men while making it ever harder for a talented woman to succeed?

I’m not defending it, I’m answering the question. They get more chances because they have the potential for longer careers and so their success is worth so much more. The answer is patriarchy, obviously.
posted by leotrotsky at 1:33 PM on December 2, 2017 [6 favorites]


They get more chances because they have the potential for longer careers and so their success is worth so much more.

It's so weird that you keep framing it as this thing that just *happens*, over which no one has any control, like it's the natural order of things.
posted by palomar at 1:35 PM on December 2, 2017 [27 favorites]


Palmor, your pull quote leaves our the important bookend commentary.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 1:41 PM on December 2, 2017 [8 favorites]


It's so weird that you keep framing it as this thing that just *happens*, over which no one has any control, like it's the natural order of things.

I don’t think it’s natural at all, but I think the primary motivations of folks in the industry making these decisions are financial, and I think the writer overlooks that in this article.

But none have been afforded the sort of second, and third, and fourth chances that Hammer has been. That’s a privilege afforded men like Hammer’s costar Johnny Depp, or Matt Damon, or Ben Affleck, or Michael Fassbender, or Bradley Cooper, or Ryan Reynolds — or even, in a slightly different way, Mel Gibson. No one gets second chances in Hollywood the way straight white men do.

To ignore that money drives much of the reasoning behind that I think is an oversight. What types of actors are worth more based upon the movies they can be successfully cast in? I think this phenomenon is obviously a symptom of the larger structure of systemic patriarchy that produces those results. But I think the article could have better expanded on that.
posted by leotrotsky at 1:43 PM on December 2, 2017 [2 favorites]


Taking down a rich white guy... no problem. But what was up with all the "he seems pretty GAY, huh?" stuff?

My take was that the acticles concern wasn’t over his possible queer leanings, but that so much publicity when to walking back on any hints of queerness in order to preserve Armie’s leading man potential.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 1:44 PM on December 2, 2017 [1 favorite]


Nate had stuff in his past, which is heinous and tough to get beyond. I get that,” Hammer continued. “But that was when he was 18, and now he’s in director’s jail.

boy, you rape one woman, one time, that we know of, and they put you in director's jail! that sounds a whole lot worse than real jail!

of Parker, he said in the Hollywood Reporter article that "his entire life is affected in the worst possible way." which says more about his level of privilege and the consequent barren wintry hellscape of his blighted imagination than most of the other detail Peterson amasses.

he is, of course, correct about Casey Affleck, typing whose name makes you feel irresistibly compelled to first wash your hands and then set them on fire. but boy, you are a man born into this level of protection and comfort and inability to visualize what exactly severe consequences might be, for anything, and you want to make a point about unfair treatment of other people, you figure out exactly what kind of idiot you are first. that's my advice to Hammer.

oh well, he seems like a nice man except for that whole thing. and he has a curious gift for making me unable to remember what he looks like five seconds after looking at pages of photos of him. can't do it, it can't be done.
posted by queenofbithynia at 1:51 PM on December 2, 2017 [23 favorites]


Maybe it's just that I'm getting old, but actors like Armie Hammer and Henry Cavill and (to a slightly lesser extent) Channing Tatum...well, okay. There's a bit in Neil Gaiman's American Gods where the protagonist is serving as a driver for a few of the titular gods, and one of them is described like so:
He had stood beside the man as he got into the car, had opened and closed the door for him, and was unable to remember anything about him. He turned around in the driver ’s seat and looked at him, carefully noting his face, his hair, his clothes, making certain he would know him if he met him again, and turned back to start the car, to find that the man had slipped from his mind. An impression of wealth was left behind, but nothing more.
That's the Armie Hammer experience for me.
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 2:01 PM on December 2, 2017 [33 favorites]


I don’t think it’s natural at all, but I think the primary motivations of folks in the industry making these decisions are financial, and I think the writer overlooks that in this article.

This is the exact justification they've used for decades to justify not casting people of color in prominent roles in Hollywood movies. No one will watch them! 'Mainstream' people don't want to see minorities in movies! How can you know if you don't even try? It's why when a movie starring a woman fails or rumors get around that she's 'difficult,' her career is effectively over but men like Armie Hammer and Ryan Reynolds get chance after chance. It's not just about the money.

I don't believe that movie industry folks are completely free of sexism, racism and other biases and make their decisions in completely practical ways.
posted by armadillo1224 at 2:01 PM on December 2, 2017 [18 favorites]


What I don't know, is how do you audition for the title role in Lone Ranger and not have this conversation:

"...and Johnny Depp is going to play Tonto."

"Oh, cool! I didn't know he was a Native person."

"He's not."

"Yeah, I'm out."
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 2:13 PM on December 2, 2017 [11 favorites]


He was wonderful as the puppy in “Mirror, Mirror.”
posted by mmiddle at 2:18 PM on December 2, 2017 [1 favorite]


Buddy of a buddy produced one of Armie’s first films. Producer has nothing but good things to say about him, but is also subject to “When Armie hits it big, my little passion project will finally get the attention it deserves!” semi-derangement.
posted by infinitewindow at 2:18 PM on December 2, 2017 [2 favorites]


People have mentioned Charlie Hunnam and Henry Cavill, but Sam Worthington is another one of these super-bland white dudes that Hollywood tried REALLY HARD to make happen despite having no particular charisma on screen.
posted by tavella at 2:55 PM on December 2, 2017 [13 favorites]


It's not just about the money.

I don't believe that movie industry folks are completely free of sexism, racism and other biases and make their decisions in completely practical ways.


You’re absolutely right. It’s not just about the money, and movie industry folks, in addition to having bias issues themselves, assume most middle America moviegoers are mouth breathing morons with values from the 1950’s. That’s compounded by the same corporate conservatism that produces nothing but sequels. When women’s movies succeed they are seen as exceptions, for example.

But the writer leaves out the money factor almost entirely. My point is I think she fails to accurately describe the mechanism by which patriarchy manifests here.
posted by leotrotsky at 2:56 PM on December 2, 2017 [4 favorites]


You're only a star if your name alone can make people want to watch your show. One of the unspoken but strongly implied arguments the article makes is that Hammer might have suffered from the hard luck of being cast in movies that don't go anywhere, it's also on him, as the leading role in those movies, to sell them by his performances. This is not really a personality profile, it's a business article. Hollywood's business involves trading on the popularity of individuals. Pointing out that somebody on the index is overvalued against their investment to date is not all that much different than a comprehensive article on an investment website about how some publicly-held company is overvalued or undervalued by investors.
posted by ardgedee at 2:57 PM on December 2, 2017 [9 favorites]


see also - Hunnam, Charlie

I dare you to find another male actor who can deliver the line "Come on! Let's do this! Together!" with a straight face.
posted by tobascodagama at 3:26 PM on December 2, 2017 [3 favorites]


tavella: "People have mentioned Charlie Hunnam and Henry Cavill, but Sam Worthington is another one of these super-bland white dudes that Hollywood tried REALLY HARD to make happen despite having no particular charisma on screen."

Aaron Taylor-Johnson too. He was easily the worst thing about the most recent american Godzilla movie and Wikipedia says that he was in Age of Ultron but I don't remember him at all.
posted by octothorpe at 3:27 PM on December 2, 2017 [1 favorite]


Jai Courtney (though great in Spartacus and fun in Suicide Squad)

Joel Kinneman
posted by leotrotsky at 3:39 PM on December 2, 2017 [3 favorites]


I vaguely remember the senior Armand Hammer trying to buy the Arm & Hammer baking soda company because he got sick of people assuming he already owned it.
posted by elphaba at 4:41 PM on December 2, 2017


Meh, I think if we're going to be snide about a person who's benefited from an unjust system (which it totally is), we should pick a worse person. Hammer's a privileged dilsnoofus, no doubt. I'd probably find him annoying in person if I could hear him over the good looks. But the worst thing he's done (that we know of, anyway) is fail to carry some movies. Peterson seems to be criticizing him for not making public statements that he's been a damp squib in Hollywood and for possibly being insincere in saying he wants to try more sophisticated and challenging roles. But, well...how many people are going to go around proclaiming their professional mediocrity while still trying to move their careers forward?
posted by praemunire at 5:14 PM on December 2, 2017 [3 favorites]


im ok with being snide about a rape apologist sry
posted by poffin boffin at 5:22 PM on December 2, 2017 [12 favorites]


Hammer's just the device by which AHP is discussing the larger cultural practice. It helps if people read through the entire article.
posted by palomar at 5:32 PM on December 2, 2017 [10 favorites]


I already did a tweet thread about this earlier in the week when Twitter was talking about it, and my general opinion is that

1. The general thesis of the article - white men get more chances in Hollywood - is correct, and obviously so. But...

2. Armie Hammer is a terrible example from which to argue the point and the article is badly written because of this.

Setting aside Petersen's use of publicist quotes and fluff pieces from Hollywood magazines as if they were evidence of literally anything other than a publicist doing his job and marketing his client, Petersen's thesis makes little sense when applied to Hammer. Like, seriously, look at his career arc. Dude starts out with a successful casting call with George Miller, and although that movie doesn't pan out the industry takes notice because George Miller is one of the few people in movies who is always right about everything, and he was right about Hammer being a very talented actor -

- and I'm going to pause for a second here because the shit talking about Hammer in this thread has been both admirably epic and richly undeserved because Hammer is very, very good at what he does, he was the best thing about MAN FROM UNCLE, which is a superb action comedy, he's generally very good in most roles -

- anyway, after that, Hammer gets some work in tween TV because he's handsome and good at what he does, and that results in supporting roles in THE SOCIAL NETWORK and J EDGAR, and he's excellent in both of them, and Hollywood says "okay, let's try him as a lead," and right here, now, these lead roles are his actual chances in the way that Petersen means, as opposed to what she's actually writing, which are a list of roles Armie Hammer has played in film.

Those chances are THE LONE RANGER and MAN FROM UNCLE. RANGER is a bad film, but it's not Hammer's fault; it's a bad concept from the beginning and Johnny Depp as Tonto makes a bad concept completely unsalvageable. I've seen it, and Hammer is not bad in it, honestly; he doesn't redeem it or anything, but he's not making it worse, he's just there in this shit movie.

Then a year later (having been in production while RANGER was bombing, so just not like the studio was gonna drop everything mid-production) is MAN FROM UNCLE, and it didn't really flop like RANGER did, it's barely profitable, but not a hit. And, like I said - and Petersen even acknowledges this - it is really good, a wonderfully fun movie that was just marketed in the worst possible way. And Hammer is great in that.

After this point, Petersen is jumping through hoops to try and force Hammer through the hoops she has constructed. A supporting role in THE BIRTH OF A NATION, an indie film with a tiny budget, is a "chance" equivalent to an action blockbuster. So is a role in FREE FIRE, a (mostly bad) indie crime flick that cost about a million bucks. And she treats the critical acclaim Hammer is getting for CALL ME BY YOUR NAME as proof Hammer is getting "another chance" because the way Hollywood gives actors chances is by casting them in indie gay romance movies they don't fund themselves and wait for critics to sell the movie for them because it's still 1992.

Here is the thing: it is absolutely true that white male actors get more chances. But the chances mostly come up front when an actor gets a shot to prove that they have what it takes to thrive as a freelancer actor in Hollywood and the rules for freelancers don't change: have at least two of "be talented," "be professional" and "be pleasant to work with" (and in Hollywood you usually add "be good looking" as an extra requirement). White dudes get more opportunities to show that they've got the right stuff and can be relied upon, and consequently they are relied upon.

Hammer proved early on that he had all of the boxes, so he gets work because he's good at his job. He's not getting leading roles in major tentpole releases these days and it is totally fair for Hammer to have been annoyed with Petersen's frankly shitty article when he's been grinding away in indies for years now. He's not Sam Worthington or Ryan Reynolds or Colin Farrell or any of a dozen actors who keep getting chance street chance to lead pictures despite a track record of mediocre returns (a group which, I might add, includes Idris Elba, who we all love but who cannot open a flick that isn't a genre thing where he isn't the draw to save his life).
posted by mightygodking at 5:45 PM on December 2, 2017 [16 favorites]


I like Hammer as an actor (though his rating is dropping as I read the above anecdotes of him sporadically acting like a piece of shit). I feel like it’s not that he keeps getting more chances, but that all these paper turds masquerading as scripts keep getting chances (no doubt written by more mediocre white men). Who the fuck thought it was a good idea to make a Lone Ranger movie at all? We’re two generations removed from anyone giving a shit about cowboys-and-Indians as a genre. The last time that schtick was entertaining was in “Back To the Future III”. Same with “The Man From UNCLE”, that show went off the air 50 years ago!

I feel like Hammer in particular, and several of these other dudes, would do well if someone would finally write a decent movie. Enough with comic book universes and YA trilogies.
posted by Autumnheart at 6:09 PM on December 2, 2017 [3 favorites]


It's so interesting that nothing ever seems to be Armie Hammer's fault. Why, he's clearly the greatest actor the world has ever known!! Why on earth do neither the box office nor his CV reflect that? Gosh, it's a mystery.
posted by palomar at 6:10 PM on December 2, 2017 [1 favorite]


Remember “The Peacemaker?”

I do! Because it's the only movie ever to actually understand how an implosion-type nuclear weapon works.
posted by ckape at 6:29 PM on December 2, 2017 [6 favorites]


im ok with being snide about a rape apologist sry

It's hard to read that article without thinking that, to the extent Petersen gave much thought to that statement, she disliked it more because it was an example of him "blaming some other factor besides himself for the relative underperformance of his movie" than because it was something that was awful to say. I found that quite off-putting.

And, yeah, the whole Nate Parker story made me sick to my stomach (even while making it clear what a double standard there is and has been for white men and men of color in Hollywood, something that Hammer doesn't seem to get any credit for pointing out), but I don't think saying one stupid and offensive thing (which it was!) makes you a permanent legitimate target for nastiness.
posted by praemunire at 6:45 PM on December 2, 2017


...basically, I feel like Petersen really wanted to write an "Armie Hammer is a dick" story, but didn't quite have the material to get there, so she embeds these constant gestures in that direction in an otherwise perfectly valid analysis of what his career says about Hollywood's endless patience with a certain kind of white man even if he doesn't deliver the goods.

I have to wonder how some people here ever get hired anywhere, considering that on their resumes and in their interviews they must constantly be painstakingly pointing out their responsibility for failures at their prior jobs and also outlining at length how they might not be best-suited for the position. Or is that people don't understand that when an actor gives an interview, it is publicity, not a glimpse into his innermost soul? I mean, maybe Hammer really does think that his relative lack of success so far doesn't reflect on him at all, but I don't know how you tell that from reading his interviews with Details.
posted by praemunire at 6:52 PM on December 2, 2017 [1 favorite]


I mean, the lady has PhD in cultural studies and made her living writing cultural criticism focusing on celebrity image management, but sure, she's just a moron with an axe to grind.

My god, as a culture we sure work hard to protect the delicate feelings of the wealthy and privileged men out there, don't we.
posted by palomar at 7:08 PM on December 2, 2017 [38 favorites]


with an axe to grind.

She did write a couple of thousand words being angry about a man whose main crime has been to appear in a bunch of films that are kind of just okay. Armie Hammer is a weird hill to die on.
posted by Damienmce at 8:11 PM on December 2, 2017 [3 favorites]


It's her job, but I get it, it's easier to denigrate her work if you diminsh her first.
posted by palomar at 8:23 PM on December 2, 2017 [13 favorites]


Man, it's weird seeing people on Metafilter actually going full chauvinist with the "she's just an angry woman" schtick.
posted by palomar at 8:30 PM on December 2, 2017 [18 favorites]


Armie Hammer has only been a name actor since The Social Network six or seven years ago. He has never gotten disastrous reviews. His biggest box office failure is The Lone Ranger, but it was much more Johnny Depp's responsibility to carry that. He has had some modest successes in that time as well, both critically and commercially, even if his attempts to have a franchise never panned out

There are plenty of other actors, female as well as male, who have had a decade of failure or passable success before breaking out or reaching the A-list, as Armie Hammer may be doing with an iconic role in Call Me By Your Name

The article was singling him out and bizarrely hateful toward him, such as by personally blaming him for the way he is portrayed in magazine articles or even for not doing magazine articles and attacking him for his wealthy background and his brief comments about his childhood and whatnot. It seems very petty. A high percentage of successful actors come from wealth, which should not be a surprise. There are numerous actors with privileged backgrounds who keep finding work despite box office failures or not being talented

Armie Hammer's handsomeness alone probably would suffice to justify his career until he loses it. That isn't his fault either

By the way, Armand Hammer the spying tycoon was a notorious self promoting con artist who used Occidental Petroleum funds to have things named after himself, but died leaving much more debts than assets (and who supposedly embezzled his wife's inheritance). He was never actually a billionaire (remind you of anyone?) although I have no idea how that family has fared since the 1980s

Armie Hammer may have a privileged existence, but Petersen did come off as bitter af from this article in my opinion. She could have written about Hollywood privilege without this stalkerish attack on one actor
posted by knoyers at 8:35 PM on December 2, 2017 [1 favorite]


What exactly is she supposed to be bitter about? I'm sure one of you men insisting that she's bitter and angry can find a name to give to her alleged bitterness.

Because it's definitely not misogyny fueling your insistence. Goodness, no. It's perfectly normal to attack the character of a journalist these days for writing things that make us feel bad, isn't it.
posted by palomar at 8:40 PM on December 2, 2017 [8 favorites]


Regarding Armie Hammer's Nate Parker comment, I think that he was just annoyed and disappointed that the Nate Parker mess ended up impacting himself through the movie's failure, while Casey Affleck (whose people, he implies, orchestrated negative publicity, which I think is quite possible, although not the only one playing that game) walked off with the grand prize. He is probably at least a bit narcissistic like many in that industry, but I don't think it's significant enough to villainize someone over
posted by knoyers at 8:40 PM on December 2, 2017


It's bitter to blame someone for failing and then succeeding, bitter to blame someone for being effortlessly attractive and having inherited wealth, bitter to single someone out for these things at such length. If such an attack article was written about an actress (which it easily could have been) Petersen's defenders would feel differently
posted by knoyers at 8:42 PM on December 2, 2017 [1 favorite]


So... what you're saying is that it's bitter for Anne Helen Petersen to do any work at all.

Wow. Yeah, definitely not misogyny at work here. Nooooope.
posted by palomar at 8:46 PM on December 2, 2017 [8 favorites]


I noticed no uproar here over her articles on Macklemore, white female privilege, Jennifer Lawrence, Charlize Theron, Kim Kardashian, Melania Trump... nope, just outrage over something she wrote about a rich white man that a lot of people apparently think is handsome.

I'm just saying... it's pretty fucking suspicious that this specific piece is the one that gets her called a bitter, angry woman. By a lot of men, from looking at the profiles.
posted by palomar at 8:48 PM on December 2, 2017 [23 favorites]


I think it's bitter and gratuitous for her to write a long-winded attack on the career of one young actor, based more on who he is rather than based on his performances or anything in particular that he has done. Singling out Armie Hammer over all other actors for an attack article wasn't very justified. I have no idea who the author is and would certainly feel the same way if they had a male name
posted by knoyers at 8:49 PM on December 2, 2017 [1 favorite]


Mod note: palomar and knoyers, knock it off.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 9:29 PM on December 2, 2017 [4 favorites]


this is weird cause I really don't like Peterson's work because it's not angry, though it is reasonably smart. I've read her stuff since Hairpin days and it's at its best when talking about dead people because it is more socially acceptable to be detached about the feelings and humanity of the dead and to consider them as sentient furniture whose main point of interest is in what their bodily arrangement unwittingly says about social trends. personally, I am still offended a bit because I respect dead people as much as anyone but I try to be lenient.

all in all I think it is ok to consider the careers of blank-cheeked candle-faced dudes as general indicators of the way of a nation, like hemline lengths and stock market prices. but the second she touches women, even women whose work I don't care for, or men who have real virtues and are more than thermometers or barometers or some other incidental measuring implement for whatever is more important than they are, it makes a little queasy and a little angry. but it's me who's angry, not her. and bitter, I'm also bitter. but she's not. if she were, I would be more of a fan. her tone is crystal calm.


dilsnoofus


thank you for keeping this word in circulation
posted by queenofbithynia at 9:57 PM on December 2, 2017 [2 favorites]


If you read this, as a woman, in the time that is happening now, JFC “ It was the best thing that could’ve happened to Hammer’s career. Coupled with the James Woods tweet, it transformed him into a sort of meme-able internet hero, a mannequin onto which readers could drape their fantasies, whether they be of a feminist hero or a queer icon.“ We are all so disposable to these fail-upward winners.
posted by Threff at 11:15 PM on December 2, 2017 [3 favorites]


Sorry to burst your fact bubble. Armand is a family name. His great-grandfather was Armand Hammer, a very famous, influential, uber rich businessman and philanthropist. I'm honestly surprised this isn't more well-known.

Yeah, his great-grandfather (and namesake) was the owner of Occidental Petroleum, the current third largest petroleum producer in the world.

While not as big/popular as the other two oil baron art museums we have in town here in LA (Getty Villa and Getty Center), The Hammer Muesum over on has some good stuff.

I do believe Armand Hammer did own Arm and Hammer towards the end of his life, but I believe he owned the company who owned the brand.
posted by sideshow at 11:20 PM on December 2, 2017


lol he's doubling down on his rape apologetics what a garbage piece of shit
posted by poffin boffin at 11:29 PM on December 2, 2017 [10 favorites]


If it seems mean spirited, that is because it is mean spirited. If you wrote this about somebody who was your friend they would no longer be your friend. If you wrote this about somebody who ran a company you would not get a job at that company.

Now, it's a choice to be mean, and in these times whatever gets attention might be the best strategy. But let's not pretend this is highbrow analysis. It's mean, it's bitter, nobody would want this written about their long quest towards a modicum of success (by whatever metric success is judged). It's totally her right to write such a piece, and absolutely everyone else's to be horrified.
posted by effugas at 2:31 AM on December 3, 2017 [2 favorites]


About the article/podcast in poffin boffin's link: Dude. Hammer. You went out of your way to delete twitter over AHP's article and now this. There's no such thing as a gray area when it comes to judging a convicted child rapist and it's not difficult to decide to stop personally valuing and supporting Polanski's work. I hope your career continues flopping in a sea of frothy vinegar since no one can recall your basic face.

That said, it's incredibly messed up for Hammer to imply that being a rapist is an artistic 'flaw' like other 'fucked up' things like addiction or depression. Bye, Armie "gray area" Hammer.
posted by one teak forest at 2:53 AM on December 3, 2017 [4 favorites]


Yeah, still not persuaded that AHP is bitter. Repeating it doesn't make it so. He's a forgettable guy with appalling opinions about rape. I bet you could find a dozen equally-good-looking, equally-talented dudes working as waiters in Hollywood while they hope for their big break, and they wouldn't have the shitty rape apologism going on. So why him? Because he's rich and studios have no imagination. It's not bitter to point this out. It's just analysis.
posted by harriet vane at 4:25 AM on December 3, 2017 [15 favorites]


Taylor Kitsch is my go-to guy for mediocre white men who Hollywood keeps trying to turn into a star. Somehow he was the star of two of the definitive tent pole disasters: John Carter and Battleship. He was one of the stars of the not-liked second season of True Detective. He was in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. He was in Snakes on a Plane.

I mean, how do you do that many disasters and not at least accidentally appear in an okay film?
posted by maxsparber at 4:52 AM on December 3, 2017 [10 favorites]


I like Armie Hammer plenty (i mean, until tht doubling down on the rape apologetics fuck no lol), but palomar, you truly did god's work in this thread. kudos, man.
posted by cendawanita at 5:39 AM on December 3, 2017 [4 favorites]


I thought the post title was a pun. Boy am I out of the loop ... it’s a human person!
posted by freecellwizard at 5:39 AM on December 3, 2017


re: taylor kitsch

that's probably why he's so well-cast as Ghost in American Assassin.
posted by cendawanita at 5:40 AM on December 3, 2017


"It's just analysis". Oh yeah. Dispassionate and all that.

You know what a pile of good looking waiters don't have? Ten years experience working within the system, memorizing their lines, not getting consumed by fame or drugs or whatever. These movies are enormous risks; you can do all the prep you want but at the end of the day you've gotta spend $50M-$200M on what's essentially a startup.

Hollywood is weird. They've had this performative requirement to not shun Roman Polanski for decades. Hopefully that shit's over. It's all kinds of toxic. But, and I mean this in the nicest way possible, what isn't?
posted by effugas at 5:42 AM on December 3, 2017


I too find the response in this thread odd. This is what Anne Helen Petersen does — cultural analysis via pop stars. She has a PhD in it! She's known for moving beyond dry writing and dead people and making it popular and lively. She does it well. That Buzzfeed hired her to do this is really interesting.

It's not mean-spirited because it's not about Hammer as a person; it's about Hammer as a product. With stars that line is deliberately fudged, but just as an interview is publicity, a critique of a trajectory is analysis. If anyone broke the rules of stardom here, its Hammer for acting as though it's personal.

And funnily enough — that reaction, to take it personally and complain instead of knowing people won't always be complimentary and deciding to ignore it or address it with your work is absolutely symptomatic of the cosseted privilege of the handsome rich white man with 10,000 chances.
posted by dame at 6:50 AM on December 3, 2017 [20 favorites]


Also, though, perhaps this is also not AHP's best work (and I don't think it is) and that explains some of the reaction. The folks who seem most inclined to defend her clearly know her work well and to read this piece in the context of say the Macklemore and Jennifer Lawrence pieces, much less the original Hairpin series, may be to give more credit to analysis than this work puts out alone.
posted by dame at 6:59 AM on December 3, 2017 [1 favorite]


I guess for some folks the idea that a mediocre white man can be criticised for being mediocre and having bad opinions hits too close to home.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:16 AM on December 3, 2017 [16 favorites]


This is what Anne Helen Petersen does — cultural analysis via pop stars. She has a PhD in it! She's known for moving beyond dry writing and dead people and making it popular and lively. She does it well.

This and the various bits of back-and-forth about where this article exists on the spectrum of hit job to fluff piece makes me think that someone should do an FPP on Anne Helen Petersen's work, maybe put it in some context.

On the other hand, she's been sourced in FPPs five times this year already, and four times the year before.

Or maybe we should amend RTFA to include the author not just the article.
posted by aureliobuendia at 8:14 AM on December 3, 2017


It's mean spirited because abject objectification of another human being is mean. You've basically established precisely why it's mean -- she doesn't know and doesn't care to know anything about this *human being*, as anything more than a vehicle for her theories and displeasure with the system.

People aren't just products, and if there's anything more personal than your very own decade long struggle, I don't know what it is. And I'll tell you why this stings. I was talking with someone interestingly connected to the music business. She was explaining that -- if your first album isn't a hit, it's not just that you're dropped by your label. No, the contracts are set up so *you're done*, you're *out of the music business*, you're *not allowed to do this thing you've done your entire life* in any professional capacity.

I had no idea, but the mechanism of operation was pretty clear. There are lots of up and coming musicians, and they need to not be competing with attention with the came and went. Being dropped one day, permanently, is *literally* a driving fear in the entertainment industry.

It is, after all, the threat that enabled Weinstein. No really, he could end you. That was a thing that could happen, and did happen.

So you've got this writer, who puts together a piece saying, why didn't someone END this fucker? After a decade!

It's mean. Not "I don't like it and so I'm insulting it". It's just not a nice thing. I don't think anybody thinks it is, they're just arguing about whether they *have* to be nice to stars.

Well, here's the thing. Most of what people are thinking about here, is about themselves. They're not being sympathetic to Armie Hammer, whose name they're probably hearing for the first time and possibly wondering what he has to do with Baking Soda. They're worried that someday, one day, someone will ask why it's taking them so long to achieve their hopes and dreams, and complain that they've had enough time to try.

*Everyone* is behind on their hopes and dreams. Flip side of pursuit -- the carrot's always a bit further away, and man, it seems further every day for a lot of people. "What if there's a time limit, on becoming OK with life, before people start taking back what little you've achieved?"

That's terrifying. Totally hits close to home Tobascodagama (hilarious name, btw). But not just to white guys. Damn threat is fractal, it applies at all scales. She's striking something of a universal nerve there.

But then, that's the idea, isn't it? What, are you gonna write something boring?
posted by effugas at 8:16 AM on December 3, 2017 [3 favorites]


cultural analysis via pop stars. She has a PhD in it! - I see you point. I enjoyed her tales of old hollywood told from an intellectual point of view. But this article for me veered into being very similar to gossip magazines.

On a more positive note: I thought that The Man from UNCLE was a truly delightful movie. Even though I've never seen the tv series. The movie is full of witty 50s 60s (Roman Holiday, cold war, iron curtain) references and interesting tension between characters. (f.i. the scene where Alicia Vikanders character tries to seduce Hammers character who's trying to be strong and impervuous. To the tune of Solomon Burkes Cry to Me. Or the scene where the US / USSR straight(!) action hero(!) characters are arguing knowledgeably about womens fashion. Etc etc...)
I don't know why it didn't do very well. Somehow none of my friends knew about the movie.

Or perhaps I just identify with tall guys.
posted by jouke at 8:23 AM on December 3, 2017


So you've got this writer, who puts together a piece saying, why didn't someone END this fucker? After a decade!

No. I think your view is being clouded by how deeply personally you're taking this article. There's nothing in there about "ending this fucker", or even anything close to it.
posted by palomar at 8:24 AM on December 3, 2017 [6 favorites]


Is the article mean/bitter? Well, I don't know. But if it is, gotta say I don't give a flying fuck if someone writes a hit piece on a rich straight white male 1-percenter rape apologist who is oblivious to his own privilege.
posted by imnotasquirrel at 8:30 AM on December 3, 2017 [5 favorites]


I guess for some folks

Oh do stop being so coy, you might as well list the usernames at this point
posted by ominous_paws at 8:30 AM on December 3, 2017


This article was mean. Shitting on someone for who they are, rather than the values they hold or what they do, is really unfair. [note : Had no idea who the author until I read the discussion here]
posted by kuroikenshi at 8:39 AM on December 3, 2017 [1 favorite]


palomar,

The fundamental thesis of the piece is, how come this guy gets *TEN LONG YEARS* to try to succeed? Think of all the chances *we* don't get when *he* gets to fail over and over again until he gets it right!

That's the idea here. And if you're wondering why *this* article is getting noticed (for better or worse) it's because the threatened group effectively includes everyone over the age of ten.

It's America. We *are* our jobs, we *are* our career struggles, in ways the rest of the world isn't. The threat is real, and it's what Weinstein used. And if you don't think men in Hollywood are exposed to this just the same, listen to Terry Crews. Or Corey Feldman, who *STILL* is terrified to name names.

He was just a kid. His best friend is dead. Most friendly time in modern American history to do so. Still scared -- and from what I can tell, he *is* actually afraid of more than his career being ended.

Lot of pain to go around, everyone. I hope your struggles go well, and nobody ever mocks you for them.
posted by effugas at 8:40 AM on December 3, 2017


Like I said, it's Hollywood -- *visibly* not shunning Roman Polanski is a *thing*. That shit lasted a few decades, it's gonna take a while to fade.

We've got a couple of these bugaboos in our culture. How long were Catholic priests (a group I've had nothing but positive experiences with) a subject of certain mockery before it absolutely stopped being a joke?

Anyway, it's not like this was really about him. If Armie Hammer didn't exist she'd have written the exact same thing about anyone else. Taylor Kitche came up earlier in the thread. The piece had _nothing to do with him_. Everyone knows it. You know it. You're just OK with the class warfare.

In raw, reptilian business terms, great move by the author. Let's not pretend it's anything better than that.
posted by effugas at 8:51 AM on December 3, 2017


it's like people are suddenly illiterate in sociological or cultural analysis, idk.

anyway, the whole aging out of 80s/90s male stars dovetailing with the rising urgency of needing to groom a new slate of leading men* (and also intersecting with american male actors losing out to british talent because of how their respective industries provide both technical and practical training) is a necessary background to understanding this piece tbh. i mean, if you rewind it to 5 years ago this can literally be about taylor kitsch, who is still trying to happen. armie hammer is an interesting case but also at the same time not, his career trajectory is pretty much playbook attempts to restart/rebrand (and the fact i can't immediately name someone slightly older than him who's tried feels to me is another illustration to tht lack of leading men). honestly, his next step is probably prestige tv. i make jokes about jai courtney and sam worthington too, but they're still stuck in the eric bana/ben affleck of the early 00s action blockbusters it feels to me -- maybe if they can have a second wind as an auteur director, who knows.

but you know, the fact that it's playbook doesn't mean it's not sincere. but we're talking scaffolding and structural aspects here, and less about how much is that is, uh, false consciousness.

*which itself is an industry-specific example of what happens when boomers are unable to retire leading to millenials being stuck in their jobs, if they even have jobs
posted by cendawanita at 8:54 AM on December 3, 2017 [4 favorites]


First you railed on about how this was a hit piece targeting a specific person and invoked Corey Feldman as a reason everyone should feel sorry for Armie Hammer. 11 minutes later, you're like "but tra la la, it's not about Hammer anyway, it's class warfare, and being down with child rape is totally a-okay". I feel like you're not arguing in good faith here, plus what you're saying is kind of horrifying in the "holy shit can this guy hear himself" sort of way, so... I don't know man. I'm pretty grossed out right now.
posted by palomar at 8:56 AM on December 3, 2017 [13 favorites]


and also maybe knowing this kinda had a newsiness to it because of his brief stint as Internet's Woke Boyfriend (circa tht James Woods @) is also probably another reason why
posted by cendawanita at 8:56 AM on December 3, 2017 [1 favorite]


cendawanita,

I've noticed this thing going on in music, where these old bands from the 90's can keep touring whereas everyone who started after the Internet can't. My working hypothesis has been that the Internet fragmented people's attention to the degree that the "critical mass general population fan base" doesn't exist for new artists now.

It might seem that movies haven't changed in competition, but I'm not quite sure people watched movies on TV like they do on Netflix. Yes, there was movie rentals, but they were the movies in theatres.

I have no idea why anyone thinks anyone should be an instant success. That's not how it works, anywhere.
posted by effugas at 9:00 AM on December 3, 2017 [1 favorite]


I have no idea why anyone thinks anyone should be an instant success. That's not how it works, anywhere.

Good thing absolutely no one has made that argument at all.
posted by palomar at 9:01 AM on December 3, 2017 [5 favorites]


also intersecting with american male actors losing out to british talent because of how their respective industries provide both technical and practical training

and it's one that black and POC american actors themselves feel even more keenly, aside from all the chrises and sams of the british commonwealth, like this brief drama when samuel l jackson called out the lead casting in get out

I have no idea why anyone thinks anyone should be an instant success. That's not how it works, anywhere.


and that's why it's always pertinent to examine how privilege provides people with second chances. in any case it's bedtime in my timezone, so just kinda chew on that get out anecdote for a bit.
posted by cendawanita at 9:02 AM on December 3, 2017 [4 favorites]


palomar,

It was a hit piece, that didn't care who it hit.

I've said my peace, you're welcome to consider it or be grossed out or whatever you like. I can absolutely hear myself, and I can certainly hear you.
posted by effugas at 9:02 AM on December 3, 2017 [1 favorite]


and third, fourth, fifth, UNCLE....
posted by cendawanita at 9:02 AM on December 3, 2017


anyway effugas, hope to see you in the next taylor swift thread
posted by cendawanita at 9:04 AM on December 3, 2017 [5 favorites]


Mod note: A few comments removed, y'all please ease it down a little at this point, and effugas maybe stick with stepping out of the thread after the first I've-said-my-bit bit.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:18 AM on December 3, 2017 [2 favorites]


This was far from a hit piece... I'm finding it hard to find her even saying anything particularly negative about Hammer, other than he seems particularly suited to playing a rich asshole. The article is entirely about how the industry and his PR machine try to present him, and what people actually think about him (not much). It's not about him personally, except that he's the epitome of rich white male privilege. Maybe starting with this line before reading the rest would make this clear:

"Call Me by Your Name is a lovely movie, and Hammer’s performance is one of the lovely, if less remarkable, things about it. But in a moment ripe for holistic re-evaluation of the way careers are advanced and protected in Hollywood, it’s worth contemplating why, and how, Armie Hammer has been given the time and space to finally happen."
posted by team lowkey at 10:14 AM on December 3, 2017 [7 favorites]


Metafilter - it's like people are suddenly illiterate in sociological or cultural analysis, idk.
posted by Trinity-Gehenna at 11:35 AM on December 3, 2017


As someone who goes to the movies to watch all the special effects get blowed up and hopefully some cool monsters and shit, I find this passionate beanplating over aspects of the film industry that are completely irrelevant to my own interests weirdly fascinating.
posted by Trinity-Gehenna at 11:42 AM on December 3, 2017


I thought that The Man from UNCLE was a truly delightful movie.

I wanted to love it, I thought the trailer looked great, but it was like watching 3 attractive pieces of wood awkwardly replicating descriptions of human behavior that they'd been given third or fourth hand from a bunch of robots using poorly written translation software.
posted by poffin boffin at 11:47 AM on December 3, 2017 [9 favorites]


Just watched that trailer, poffin boffin, and that was like soda with all the fizz gone out!
posted by Trinity-Gehenna at 12:31 PM on December 3, 2017


I read a lot of Anne Helen Petersen, and I think that this article suffers from something I've noticed previously: a strongly researched, well written article that ends without a strongly written conclusion to wrap it all up. Her articles are like Coen brothers films in that they just sort of breezily end, leaving the reader to draw their own conclusion. That's not wrong or bad, but I think a tighter, more substantial summation might have helped drive the response to this article.
Then again maybe not: to me it seemed inescapably about the Hollywood machine deeming a relatively bland white guy worthy of repeated investment, while at the same time bland white guy insists he's interesting! and edgy! but ultimately not responsible!- for the way his output has been received. Yet lots of people have been insisting that it takes an unfair swipe at a nice guy who has just been working hard all his life, and is therefore a mean article. So mean, in fact, that poor Armie had to delete his Twitter account. Ironic that "he was a nice, hard-working guy" is the boilerplate is used to demonstrate that white guys are good enough and deserving of multiple chances to fail upward, and any woman that questions that premise is obviously bitter, hateful, and ignorant. That's privilege in a fucking nutshell. It's the entire point of the article, for chrissake: that rich, white, handsome, yet forgettable men get many more chances to prove themselves than people of color or women, and apparently saying so intelligently and with citations is an indication of petty cruelty.

PS: Armie Hammer will be fine.
posted by oneirodynia at 2:51 PM on December 3, 2017 [17 favorites]


For what it's worth, his new movie Call me by your name just won the LA Film Critics Award for best picture. I've never thought much either good or bad about Hammer but Luca Guadagnino's earlier film I am Love is a favorite of mine.
posted by octothorpe at 5:14 PM on December 3, 2017


but it was like watching 3 attractive pieces of wood awkwardly replicating descriptions of human behavior that they'd been given third or fourth hand from a bunch of robots using poorly written translation software.


coincidentally my favourite WIP is an AU where one of them is a cyborg and the other an android in the Robotic Age (instead of nuclear)
posted by cendawanita at 5:16 PM on December 3, 2017


I didn't take this as a hit piece. Yes, she used Armie Hammer* as the example, but it seemed to me that she was humanising him rather than anything else? The piece seemed to be critical of Hollywood for not affording anyone other than good looking white males more than one chance.

*Someone convinced in the not too distant past that the Arm & Hammer toothpaste family had bankrolled Armie Hammer's Hollywood career, and that's why he kept getting roles even though he was instantly forgettable. This thread has made me evaluate how gullible i might be. I wish I could remember who it was so I could pay it forward...
posted by trif at 3:24 AM on December 5, 2017


« Older Nearly 20% of NYC's sexual misconduct reports...   |   A . for CompuServe Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments