Bret Easton Ellis: Freedom of Speech in the Digital Age
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 08. 2024
- Bret Easton Ellis, the best-selling novelist and screenwriter of the darkly incisive American Psycho and other hugely popular novels, is diving into nonfiction for the first time with his provocatively titled new book White, which blends his personal perspective in the entertainment industry and his sharp cultural insight into our digital age, simultaneously defining and defending the concept of freedom of speech.
While Ellis eschews the label provocateur, he remains outspoken in his frustration with identity politics and political correctness. In Ellis’ words, “Everyone feels muzzled now, and it comes down to how much you can take. Can I talk about what I’m feeling and say my opinion? You get to a point where there’s a break, a fissure, and you either decide to go through it and be yourself, or you decide to hide.”
Beyond his literary career, Ellis also expounds at length on film, books, music, culture and politics on “The Bret Easton Ellis Podcast,” and his Twitter feed is often feisty-agree or disagree with him, Ellis gets you thinking. Join Ellis live at INFORUM as he reflects on the state of political discourse in the United States and shares his unique perspective as an unfiltered and often polarizing cultural commentator.
I cannot believe this woman is lecturing him about his opinions. wtf? no one is there to hear yours that's for sure.
shes a liberal most likely a demo-rat, so they preach a lot of hypocrisy some of them do...
@@7bigapple Seriously, I get people feeling entitled to dispute questions of fact. If they have a true belief that they know the facts-But opinions belong to all of us. It’s not for us to tell others what their opinions should be.
Opinions are what they are.
I find virtually everything about her demeanor fo be disingenuous. She's condescending, patronizing, and passive aggressive.
She is sooooo horrible
it's quite amazing and a little frightening to see that authentic liberal values like freedom of personal conscience, freedom of expression and the primacy of the individual, which suffuse Brett's conversation and world view, are becoming a thing of the past. he also has the humility to throw his hands up and say I don't know sometimes, another endangered species.
Not here for this interviewer.
I am sorry but she was a terrible interviewer. WHy was a tech writer interviewing a novelist?
On the one hand I see that there were technical interviewing skills that weren't quite there. On the other hand I also think that he's not easy to interview and I appreciated that she clearly was thinking about what she was saying. I think it was interesting in the sense that the interviewer probably wouldn't have seemed so stilted were she not so worried about what they were saying, which seems to me to be Bret's point.
Generational toughness variability is obviously real, to think otherwise would be some kind of weird biological determinism.
Talking is easier than writing, no matter how fluently the hackwork flows, and in 2013, Ellis began hosting a podcast. In 2019, nearly everyone with a smidge of name recognition and a working set of vocal cords is fronting a podcast, but Ellis got into the game relatively early for a literary dude, and proved himself solid at it. His opening monologues - ruminations on the latest movies and/or controversies rattling the detention halls of social media and the ecclesiastical offices of the New York Times - unroll in the pensive, slightly irked manner of Gore Vidal expounding on the verandah, taking inventory of civilisation’s rapid cookie crumble
"Who are you to decide what art is?" she says. Wut? Can a spectator not be critical of the art he's looking at?
Answer: A person.
@Actionbastard Edit: A work of art isn't purely for the viewer or the masses, though the viewer can gain something specific and individual from it. A work of art is the artist and viewer contending with it and discovering something unique from it.
Great question. First Ellis even really reacts. Took a lot of poking to get him to turn into one of the peoples that he wrote about in “White”.
@@Spelpojken It’s a really dumb question which is why he finally reacted. Up to that point, the questions had some thought to them, albeit in a barely-contained accusatory manner. Ellis was able to remain calm, collected, and jovial which a lot of people can’t do when being subtly (or at times not so subtly) attacked. Kudos to him for being polite, respectful, but also firm in his views and not pandering to dumb questions.
Moonlight was garbage. Get over it.
Ellis talking about just being an individual talking about how he feels about things (rather than "lobbing grenades") is so vital.
Our culture has been driven into this tiny wedge of acceptable views. Going outside that inch of space whether through genuine curiosity or trying to do scientific research or trying to understand another viewpoint is greeted with righteous indignation. You have a right and duty to be offended by anything that is outside of your narrow window of thought.
As a Conservative Christian ALL of the artists I was into in the 90s had MANY views that clashed and even scoffed at my own.
WHO CARES? Grow up and learn to interact with diverse and taboo views. It makes you smarter.
The last question perfectly defines the fundamental difference in worldview between the 2 sides of our Culture. One side would NEVER arrogantly presume that they have world fixing answers, yet would sacrifice their life for their country to do just that. The other assumes that if only they were in charge of everything and everyone, utopia would manifest. Gratitude, humility, forgiveness, and grit or a sinister combo of Empathy and Rage.
Terrible interviewer.
She is so stupied and exhausting.
This woman is exhausting.
Bret Easton Ellis has a point.
Bret says it as he sees it. He has a point of view uniquely his own. Good for him. The interviewer tried to lasso him into the mainstream SJW clique, and he was not having it. Bravo.
This interviewer emits such a condescending, smug energy.
Agree with Ellis on just about everything and I've always identified myself as a liberal. The fact is, no one wants to join ranks with their denouncers, and it's actually self-destructive towards the goals or change you're trying to achieve, to overreact to every thing that angers us and alienate would-be allies. Persuasion, even with people you find vile, is sometimes necessary to "move the needle." The interviewer was passively antagonistic and cringey though, from one San Franciscan to another.
Love Bret! I just find him so cool.
This interviewer/moderator is awful.
So is the interviewee.
@@jcclarkeru Brent is a failed novelist tying to make the transition into an intenet personality.
@@jcclarkeru Bad reviews, media bashing, mockery, disdain, brutal accusations of old-fartdom - will Bret Easton Ellis learn anything from this debacle? Of course not. It would be out of character and borderline disappointing if he did. A sudden onset of empathy would neutralise the snot factor so integral to his persona and voice. Upsetting the maximum number of people with the minimal amount of effort is a gift and a curse, akin to Jonathan Franzen’s earnest genius for getting on everyone’s nerves. The ability to bring out the energised best and worst from reviewers and fellow writers with even so middling, muddling a book as White - to provoke them into haughty erasure - testifies to an arch-nemesis quality that might be put to better purposes than the paltry sport of weenie-roasting millennials.
@@jcclarkeru Drooling over an internet post is not "work." It's diversion.
@@jcclarkeru Anger issues! Anger issues! Quick, Ma! Pass the seratonon uptake jar.
I have to quote Reich-Ranitzki here: To write about Beethoven you don´t have to be able to play in an orchestra.......
Nellie is a terrible person and a wokescold. Brett is amazing!
that was painful.
This interviewer is exhausting. She so wants to "educate" this brilliant man. She's been brainwashed into thinking everyone must think the same about everything.
They all are like this. It’s total narcissism
they always want you to behave just like them and believe in exactly what they believe. it's bizarre behavior.
The end of this interview is like being at a party with two bored & stoned people who keep forgetting the last thing they said.
The problem with the problem and the outrage is that they assume that they are right and the other side is wrong..
Easton is a god, American Psycho is a treasure.
Brett Easton Ellis. Total respect for this man, watching tonight's Channel 4 news (UK)
23.04.2019. The interviewer tried to put words into his head to gain a pro- liberal agenda. He didn't play the game and gave many examples of the danger of censorship and free speech. She also tried to get him to be very anti-Trump. However, he again was far too smart with her with his answers. She's not got over Hillary not getting in! Sadly, another example of CH4 media bias.
ur sexist comment sucks ass, dude! but ur other points are fairly true...
@@blondearyanmohawkhairdoski9086 Best wishes.
llis has turned his live-in millennial boyfriend into a character in his podcasts and interviews, a cartoon proxy for Generation Wuss, that tender wad of neurotic idealists curled up into foetal balls and sucking their vape pens like pacifiers, unable to cope with the slightest scrape of adversity or opinion that hurts their foo-foos. As a member of Generation X, Ellis is offended by this bunch of baby bunnies, just as many Baby Boomers were exasperated by the grungy sofa slugs of Gen X. Such generational stereotypes are of course gross caricatures of dubious utility, but they generate a useful friction and fodder for gripe sessions about kids today. And there does seem to be a consensus, at least in the States, that millennials truly represent a distinct mutant species of crybaby.
Did they have a Jordan Peterson/Cathy Newman moment there?
A lesbian, vegan, yogi and writer for the NY Times..... Yeah I could smell her condescending and smug attitude within the first two minutes of this interview.
Well you would 'cos you look for it!
Took you two minutes? Why so long? I only had to look at her to work out where she was coming from.
24:20 "Entitled hysteria." Perfect.
I generally agree with Brett, but I think there's too much of a generalization when it comes to millennials. Plenty of people who had (and are still having) a meltdown over Trump are in their 40s, 50 and even 60s. I work with several Americans who complained a lot about Trump (ranting constantly about Russia, Mueller etc) and they are all in their 50s.
Ellis’s most successful satire was self-satire: Lunar Park, a postmodern haunted house novel filled with post 9/11 dreads, in-jokes and autobiographical notes, with Jay and Bret themselves futzing around as doofus sidekicks. An uncharacteristically companionable novel from Mr Trendy Sicko, it also indicated a narrowing avenue ahead. After you’ve made yourself the hapless protagonist, poked fun at your own celebrity, vanity and substance intake, how much more meta can you go?
I’m with Brent on ideologically possessed movies • no thanks to Black, Gay and Feminist movies •
What an actual goat bro
I'm leaving this interview. Will find Bret Easton Ellis elsewhere. He's so engaging, but . . . the interviewer is insufferable. Over and out.
He has a point.
Refreshing
She may have read the book but did not get it
How are you TELLING the author what the themes of HIS book are? She should write a book entitled WHITE PRIVILEGED TRIGGERED WOMAN.
Love Bret.
She manages to suck at this almost as much as Cathy Newman and I don't say that lightly. (And Bret is a beauty of course.)
gen wusser here to point out how triggered i am by the interviewer
It’s not a “political book.” It’s a book about how people are behaving in response to culture, which includes politics. Not the same thing at all.
I've watched a number of (long) interviews with Bret Easton Ellis now and the man really puzzles me. I love literature and generally prefer to go for the classics: I often find they've stood the test of time for a reason. On US literature I can be clear: the limited amounts I've read of it has never enticed me to read more as all I read (that is held up such high regard) seems to me to be substandard. I started reading American Psycho purely as some light read for quick entertainment purposes and was absolutely stunned by two things: the brilliant literary quality in terms of writing skill (something Easton Ellis seems to refer to as 'esthetics' and in my opinion fits quite well with Nabokov's view of literature as being "not about ideas, but about images" - an approach to literature I've never fully adhered to, but can respect) and the depth of insight into the then present day society.
To me, Easton Ellis didn't just provide a brilliantly funny, but a brilliant allegory of 80's ('New York' and by extension (at the time) 'modern') society and its values. Delivering piercing insights with a great literary zest. I later didn't read much more of Easton Ellis's work (contrary to what I usually do with authors I like), but saw a number of movies based on his novels (less than zero, the informers,...). I saw a lot of that same insight and relentless drive to expose false images of confidence and success. Although admittedly, rather monothematic.
The interview really stunned me, because by now I was expecting your typical intellectual writer showing a deep understanding of human nature with a measured, calm and piercing eye for modern society and its fallacies. Instead you constantly get this rather non-opinionated, superficial, responsibility evading individual that doesn't really make any point or set out an intriguing point of view. Just non-compromising chatter and adolescent mischief. A real poster boy for the adagium "never meet your heroes". I think Bret Easton Ellis had better stick to the novel as a medium: it seems to afford him the opportunity to reflect and both deepen his insight and sense of esthetic that is so clearly missing in the everyday version of himself.
An appalling interviewer.
She just doesn’t get it.
Uh oh NYT, this interviewer is kind of weak. For example 28:00 "Every movie is a message movie, every movie is ideological." Hokay if you believe that, but you'd be a better interviewer if you acquired a bit of nuance in your thinking. As she said, she suffers from being triggered. Poor thing, even with all of the power that she has, she still needs comfort and reassurance.
46:32 - discussion regarding the backlash against American Psycho. I'm not sure but I think that moral backlash was from the Right. These days most moral backlash comes from the moralizing Left. However I have to give credit to the interviewer for noting that there is no difference between the moralizers of the past (the Right) and the moralizers and censors of the present (the extreme Left.) I agree. I also think that she's correct when she states that the bar for triggering has gotten much lower. But at the end of the interview she states that the social pathology of "triggered culture" indicates decadence in the culture. As a subscriber I am concerned that the NYT has an interviewer who's so susceptible to the very problem (weak and easily triggered human beings) she attributes to the problems of our culture. Gawd, I'm so concerned....
I love hearing this man speak, even if I don't agree with things he says.
Twitter is digital tattoo's! you can't get rid of them if you regret them.
Bret: Do you believes that things are cyclical, that things come in cycle and that it may be this way now but its going to be something else later?
Her: I use to think we where like on a LINEAR trajectory of constant progress...
(while I was cringing inside from her answered)
Bret answers: Ok... so who did I say I'd fuck?
Just made this whole hour even more satisfactory
This woman has recently taken up much of what Bret was trying to explain to her five years ago.
Worst interviewer ever. What were they thinking
You can tell that she wanted to hate him sooo much
I love how unbothered he is when people disapprove about what he says, like this interviewer.
Smug alert! "Who are you to decide what's art--?" IT'S CALLED AN OPINION.
Yes she admitted she is triggered!!
I’m with ol’ white hair at the end of the isle here (5:02)
25:35 Bret Easton Ellis
To those criticizing the interviewer, remember: that's what makes the interview so entertaining 👍👍
Wow. She was atrocious.
In the immortal words of Bart Simpson this moderator sucks and blows. What happened? Weren't there any professionals around?
Wow usually you have to skip about three minutes for the talk to get interesting... This looks like it gets spicy right from the off lol.
Yeah, Dave, Twitter aint real life.
38:19
This isn't an event horizon
A brilliant host......Jesus Christ......🙄
If you ever wondered what it would be like to watch a person get banged over the head with a 12 inch cast iron pan..we just watched it 59:51
A worse interviewer could not have been paired with BEE.
"We barely hung out..."
The Brat Pack? Didn't Donna Tartt dedicate The Secret History to Ellis?
That's different I think they went to school together
His boyfriend is his SpongeBob Square Pants friend. The man's life is a cartoon.
God, the interviewer is gorgeous. Not a skilled interlocutor, but she sure is beautiful.
I would agree with you entirely if she weren't so unconsciously over-conscious about her public presentation.
Beauty means nothing when your so damn triggered.over nothing.
I find her cringy. I can Just imagine sitting in a party with her friends talking about social interactions and gluten free diets with high nutriotin they can post online. I would pour down vodka very fast.
Yeah it's a shame that her looks don't make up for the horrendous personality.
Man, there's nothing redeeming about this interview. The presenter is terrible and Ellis reminds me of Brian from Family Guy.
It s amerika...it s amerika.