[ SECRET POST #4867 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4867 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 48 secrets from Secret Submission Post #697.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

02. https://i.imgur.com/996aotP.png

[(Anonymous)]

Anyone who doesn't think the docu was biased in favor of Joe is blind. Out of the documentary, the directors admitted that they cut out all of his racism. They allow Joe to frame how Big Cat Rescue is presented. They completely gloss over his particularly bad animal abuse by acting as if BCR is just as bad. The docu ends with Joe weeping and presenting himself as "a poor ol' boy" who just got in over his head but he really loves the animals. Poor boy just lost his way. ;_;

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah...pure logic tells us if it's biased against BCR and Carole, knowing their entangled histories, it must be automatically biased in favor of Joe.

[(Anonymous)]

The show paints Joe as a flawed but entertaining anti-hero, as in "we know he's terrible but like him anyway". When Carole is portrayed as a greedy hypocrite out to bankrupt him, that's when Joe looks like an underdog to be rooted for. It's fucked up but that's how narratives warp your perspective, unless you stop and analyze the facts on your own, which few people bother to do when watching TV.

[(Anonymous)]

Isn't it sort of difficult to detach the audience reaction from the work itself? People are responding to the documentary based on the way that the documentary portrays things.

[(Anonymous)]

Your argument supposes that people are always accurate in their reading of a documentary and never make any mistakes in interpretation. Do you think that's a reasonable assumption to make?

[(Anonymous)]

if there's a strong pattern of a specific audience reading, even if that reading is incorrect, I think it's very likely that at the very least the original source material failed to exercise due care and regard in making its message clear and making sure people did not come to the incorrect conclusion.

[(Anonymous)]

You have a lot more faith in a creator's ability to make sure people don't come to the wrong conclusion about something than I do.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, when the creators purposefully remove things that can make their star look worse, maybe the creator wanted the bad guy to look better?

[(Anonymous)]

There's an argument for that. There's also an argument that "better" is a relative term. Did Joe look good in this documentary? I don't think so, but clearly others think differently.

Him coming out looking like a fool doesn't mean the doc wasn't biased in his favor.

[(Anonymous)]

It's been established, for example, that the filmmakers cut material that would have made him look too bad. I agree it's hardly a puff piece, but they were clearly aiming for entertaining and oogling and walked a line to keep Joe Exotic "likable" enough while kind of giving him a pass for, in particular, abusing teenaged boys and how insanely unhinged his anti-Carole Baskin tirades were.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, it's definitely biased in his favor. It is presenting them all as equally bad and crazy but he's still presented as the most sympathetic one out of the various owners and Carole.

Like maybe 80% of the really bad stuff about him wasn't in the doc itself, some of it was revealed in interviews (like the fact they cut out his racism) and some in the extra episode but if someone only watched the original episodes and never heard anything about it elsewhere? He's the one they'd be rooting for for sure.

[(Anonymous)]

LOL, showing those godawful music videos was a hatchet job....

[(Anonymous)]

I think if a documentary maker chooses to edit out the racism of one of their subjects, they are trying to make that person look better. If you disagree, I would be interested in your arguments.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, they purposely removed the times he said racial slurs, so it was definitely biased toward him. It just goes to show he's worse than it portrays.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, they could have left the racial slurs in and then you all could have rioted over racial slurs! on Netflix!

[(Anonymous)]

The fuck is this "hurrr you'd be offended" argument? Go back to watching anti-SJW clips on youtube.

[(Anonymous)]

All I can say is this doco looks like terrible sensationalism and the more I hear about it, the more I'm glad I haven't seen it.
Joe Exotic looks like a piece of shit, from the way everyone talks and deserves to be in prison.

[(Anonymous)]

I think... you and the people you're criticizing are both kind of right, actually? I agree with you, that he didn't come off as a good person by any means to me and that I didn't think the series was meant to show him in a positive light, but it did portray him as a somewhat sympathetic figure, and did construct the whole narrative sort of "from his point of view," and did redact his racism.

The audience reaction baffled me too, though, honestly.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, his racism was edited out, which would've undoubtedly made him look worse, but that doesn't mean that what was left in made him look good.

I mean, maybe their intention was to make him look good, but he still came off as a horrible person to me (just like everyone else involved did) and you can't say audience interpretation only matters if people liked him.

[meadowphoenix]

you're confusing favorable bias with complete whitewashing. you can be biased toward a person and still portray him as an asshole. the bias can be in how much the assholeness is excused as circumstantial. while there are certain audiences who won't see that as an excuse, in general, audiences are primed to excuse assholeness as insignificant toward enjoyment or admiration when they view it as a matter of circumstance or so deeply internally held that it is immutable.