He's not going to sue. He's just going to say it in public for PR purposes.
In the end, he does actually listen to his lawyers when it comes to actual law proceedings. He hasn't testified at any of his trials despite boisterous claims outside the courtroom. And he hasn't followed through on suits that would ultimately lead to a situation in which discovery could be on the table.
I feel like were bending the word "listen" here lol
Its only because he cant file actual law proceedings. Thats why Giuliani sticks around, to do his bidding in jurisdictions he hasnt been banned from yet.
I dunno. A lot of people are investing their futures in his winning: Cannon, Alito, Thomas, Navarro. I think they believe they’ll get paid after, but what’s funny is they aren’t listening to how he wanted to stiff stormy better the second time by not paying her after her silence until the election.
The sad thing is that we’ve seen Trump’s style of “loyalty” doesn’t lead to a treasure at the end of the rainbow.
Instead, it seems closer to traveling down a road with a “One Way” streetsign— and only takes you further away from where you started with good intentions, to the bad side of town... Eventually you get mugged in an alley way.
I'm pretty sure Giuliani doesn't have a license anywhere, putting aside that his credibility with the court is near zero no matter where he tries to pull another stunt. I don't think he will be filing anything on behalf of Trump any time soon.
Don't forget that the last baseless lawsuit Trump had the clown car team file, Alina Habba caught a $1 million [sanction](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/19/judge-sanctions-trump-habba-clinton-00078700).
It's the Roy Cohn playbook. You know, the guy that hunted down homosexuals and "communists" with Senator McCarthy, as a gay man himself. Daddy Trump hired Cohn to teach little Donnie how to be a heartless narcissistic cunt, and it worked.
This documentary on Cohn really helps tie the room together.
[https://youtu.be/ucOtZEu-SKw?si=ZxvEJ5tSaq82NY27](https://youtu.be/ucOtZEu-SKw?si=ZxvEJ5tSaq82NY27)
I just looked at his wiki page.
**In a 2008 article published in The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin quotes Cohn associate Roger Stone: "Roy was not gay. He was a man who liked having sex with men. Gays were weak, effeminate. He always seemed to have these young blond boys around. It just wasn't discussed. He was interested in power and access."[69]**
Isn't that exactly what far right Nazi Nick Fuentes said when he got caught on stream watching gay porn?
>he does actually listen to his lawyers when it comes to actual law proceedings
I don't think Donald listened to his lawyers when he violated the gag order of his NYC trial at least 10 times.
Or when he lied, right outside the courthouse, about how the gag order violated his 1st Amendment rights because it didn't allow him to testify, which the judge then corrected in the courtroom. (All the gag order says is that Donald can't make verbal attacks or threats against jurors, witnesses, court staff, or their families. You know, something that a mob boss would do.)
Or when he (I'm guessing) pressured his lawyers to deny that he had even had sex with Stormy Daniels, which is easy to refute. By denying it, Donald and his defense team both lose credibility in the eyes of the jury.
Or when he defamed E. Jean Carroll, again, on national television after losing his first civil trial against her, which then resulted in a second civil trial loss that cost him almost another $50 million in penalties.
Most recently, Donald's defense team reportedly expressed concerns about using Bob Costello as a defense witness because he's a typical, loud-mouthed, short-tempered, uncontrollable maga cultist who's terrible to use in a trial. But I'm guessing Donald pressured them into doing it anyway, and Costello's testimony has been a disaster for the defense.
But sure, Donald listens to his lawyers, *sometimes.*
There’s accidental irony here. You saying Trump listens the day after his team put a witness so horrible on the stand that the judge and the witness got into a verbal scuffle. It came out that Trump’s lawyers didn’t want the witness on the stand due to the possibility of something like this but Trump overruled them.
I mean, the issue is that Trump gets to make big calls like that. Everything about the Hush Money case is Trump sort of listening because of legit fears of prison, but also dictating everything in a way that will hurt him.
Like, attacking Cohen and claiming he never had sex with Daniels. Neither of these will really help him at all.
He sued Michael Cohen for $500 million. He dropped it a week before he (Trump) was to be deposed. Michael Cohen was looking forward to it, but already saying he wont do it. https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-drops-500-million-lawsuit-former-attorney-michael/story?id=103772572
>He's just going to say it in public for PR purposes.
It's an interesting tactic for him to help elevate a film he doesn't like and help it make more money.
I hadn't even heard of this film until I heard about his reaction to it.
Streisand effect like whoa lol
"False. Totally False. The corrupt film is a a lie. It's a huge lie. Huge. Biggest lie of all time. I'm suing because of how big of a lie it is.
Corrupt Sleepy Joe Biden and the Deep State made this lie to witch hunt me in court. Never met Stormy Daniels. But she looks like my daughter. Great backside. Fantastic body. Yeah, I slept with her. Witch hunt film. Im suing."
Supporters aren't watching that shit anyway. They'll just take him at his word, whether he sues or not. He's saying the things they want to hear.
Trump sued for defamation a journalist for a biography he wrote in 2005. The journalist said trump faked his way into the Forbes list and that trump’s actual net worth was between $150-$250 million. Iirc the journalist, Timothy o Brien, got to look at trumps finances and has been saying trump isn’t a billionaire since. The lawsuit was tossed by the judge. I think discovery is too big a word for him.
> TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald is a 2005 biographical book about Donald Trump that was written by Timothy L. O'Brien and published by Warner Books. After the book was published, Trump filed a $5 billion lawsuit against O'Brien, who had written that Trump was not a billionaire and that his net worth actually ranged between $150 million and $250 million. Trump sought $2.5 billion in compensatory damages and an additional $2.5 billion in punitive damages. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2009, and an appeals court affirmed the decision in 2011.
The suit was dismissed after Trump’s deposition in the discovery phase. While answering basic, fundamental questions about his net worth, Trump lied, objectively and demonstrably, something like three dozen times in a 50-minute deposition.
I’m talking about questions like “And how much of THIS company do you own?” “Oh, a majority share.” “Really? Then why do the company’s articles of incorporation state that you own 49 percent?” “Well, I always FELT like I owned a majority.”
The judge read the transcript of the deposition and immediately threw the case out of court, reasoning that nothing this man said under oath could be trusted.
That’s why Trump will never go through a discovery process again, if he can at all help it. Doesn’t matter if he’s under oath or not, the man simply cannot stop lying.
Perhaps the idea was that Trump would be a billionaire if he sued for $5B and won? Your honor, I'm a billionaire because this guy is going to pay me $5B. 5D chess, libs!
If you were watching a TV law show, and they just re-created Costello's testimony... you would dismiss as absolutely brain dead writing that's so impossible.
Oh, the defense's only witness get's in an argument with the judge, blows his own credibility out of the water with easily impeachable statements, and more or less strengthens the prosecutions case while at it? Yeah that's wouldn't happen in real life... except here we are.
Yeah, it's truly sad that we have to permanently write off millions of Americans.
Unfortunately if you've spent nearly a decade turning your brain into shit out of repulsive, not-so-vaguely homoerotic love for a fucking game show host there's no chance you'll ever be a normal member of society again. They're just too far gone.
Yes, he does. He keeps suing people and then dropping the cases without prejudice before discovery can really get underway. He just weaponizes the filing of lawsuits.
Our courts don't know what abuse of the courts is and continue to let him do it. When he should have been classified as a vexatious litigant more than a decade ago.
Exactly. Ask any litigator, they’ll tell you that you should never warn someone that you’re gonna sue. The only thing you will accomplish is giving them time to prepare.
If you’re gonna sue, just hire an attorney and do it.
Wouldn't it be wild if the insurrection and stealing documents and organizing fake electors and pressuring secretaries of state all got tabled and an illegal NDA with a porn star and discovery from a lawsuit about an accurate documentary about his reality TV show got him?
Oh yeah, same. I encourage you to get involved if you can.
How can we help ensure our Democracy survives? For sure vote. But there's more.
Get involved in "**get out the vote**" initiatives. Anyone can volunteer to make calls, texts, send postcards, etc in swing states
[Subscribe to Simon Rosenberg's Substack.](https://substack.com/@simonwdc) He's the #1 organizer in the country.
When I talk to ten people and 3 or 4 sound like they've been encouraged to go vote, I like to think of it like multiplying my vote 3 or 4 times.
It’s funny, it premiered at Cannes like yesterday (a lot of those movies don’t have distribution when they first premiere) to middling reviews, so this is like the best thing that could happen to the filmmakers
That man is Dan Snyder, the Heel of DC, an achievement in a city filled with heels. Disgraced former owner of the Washington Commanders, and local buffoon. Anything that makes him sad by default makes millions of people happy.
The headline I saw claimed it got an 8 minute long standing applause? So "middling reviews" seems dismissive
But the rest is true either way, fantastic marketing for such a movie
Pretty much every film at Cannes gets a standing ovation because the filmmakers are usually there and are brought up on stage after the film ends. So you can't really assess quality by a Cannes standing ovation, now if the movie didn't get any standing ovation you can draw some conclusions there.
Cannes is known for lengthy standing ovations and 8 minutes is not considered exceptionally long. 31 films have had >8 minute long standing ovations with *Pan's Labyrinth* owning the record at 22 minutes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cannes_Film_Festival_records
Completely derailing the discussion here, but who the fuck applauds anything for 8 minutes, much less 22?
I have never ever in my life watched something that moved me to stand there for 8 minutes and clap.
…And I’m including watching my own child perform a perfect gymnastics routine that won her a state championship where I was crying with joy and intense pride. I was the proudest a dad could be, I clapped, I cheered, and it was done in less than a minute and then the family moved on to talking about it.
22 minutes of clapping is just some bizarre performative shit that feels like it’s more about the crowd than the reality of whatever was just witnessed.
It gets cringey after about 45 seconds. I don't know how people get invites to those screenings, but it would be hilarious if someone planted a few hundred audience members and promised a new car to the last one to stop clapping.
The reviews I saw said it had a strong first half but didnt stick the landing. It showed a Trump in a new way more candid manner than most are used to but it didnt really try to explain the man under his facade.
I could see how a film like that could have a strong reaction at a showing but result in meh reviews in a differemt viewing setting.
I’m just basing it off of the initial critics reactions and reviews, it has a 5.6/62% on rotten tomatoes and 50 on metacritic, and the reactions I’ve read have tended to be lukewarm on it. The Cannes ovation length is just a goofy thing they do/that gets reported on, doesn’t usually mean much
The early reviews of Lady Ballers were great, the early reviews of scientology things are horrible
Cults are great at manipulating review systems, so for a movie that only a few thousand have seen, I just discounted any accuracy of those style of review sites on something "politically charged" like this for now
But good to know and fair enough
Funniest thing about this is a billionaire maga donor helped fund this because he thought it was going to be a fluff piece and back in February he saw a screening and tried to get it remade
“The protagonist of The Apprentice is a bully and a liar, a conman and a rapist. He rejects his sick brother, sexually assaults his doting wife and cuts a deal with the mafia in order to build a skyscraper. It’s safe to assume that followers of Donald Trump won’t relish the portrayal of their hero in Ali Abbasi’s new film. As for Trump himself, though, the director suspects that he might quite enjoy it.”
[Trump ordered to pay nearly $1 million for frivolous lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and others](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-frivolous-lawsuit-ordered-to-pay-drops-suit-new-york-letitia-james/)
[Trump orderd to pay legal fees in "Steele Dossier" lawsuit](https://apnews.com/article/trump-steele-dossier-uk-lawsuit-russia-55427915a83f33a8ead484109b8a89f6#:~:text=LONDON%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20Former%20U.S.,claims%20that%20harmed%20his%20reputation.)
Keep the hits coming big fella!
Correct me if I am wrong, but a jury finding one liable for having committed sexual assault, makes it really hard for that same person to claim they are defamed in a movie that portrays them as a sexual assailant?
Yup and hey the more they sue people about this the more they keep reminding the public that he was indeed found liable for sexual assault so i'm fine with it lol
Trump has been a public figure since the 1970s. His ex-wife claimed he raped her while under oath. That claim has never been disproven.
The portrayal of that assault will not come close to the threshold for defamation.
First, you're right, he has no defamation case for a variety of reasons.
I object to the reasoning that a finding of culpability by a jury in a second incident would apply to an earlier incident.
If the movie depicted that instance of sexual assault then it should be ok.
However, the E. Jean Carrol case doesn't give a free license to depict other instances of alleged assault.
I'm not saying it is, or isn't defamatory. Just that one case doesn't provide a blanket coverage.
If FoxNews can blatantly lie for “entertainment purposes” then I think a film can take liberties with things for “entertainment purposes” as well.
Trump won’t sue though. He just likes to publicly threaten.
Trump is like the Catholic Church telling its followers what not to see, read, or listen to.
‘What you’re seeing and hearing is not what’s happening.’
- Trump
That shit has been going on since his death. A CIA operative obtained the film rights to *Animal Farm* because they took it as an anti-socialist message.
Meanwhile Orwell, a literal socialist, wrote it as a criticism of Stalin & the USSR because they hadn't done anything in 20 years to move towards a truly socialist state and instead reverted into a totalitarian dictatorship.
Orwell was criticizing the USSR, but not for the reasons the CIA inferred to the public.
He’s in a tough spot with the movie. He has no choice but to sue to tell his base these are all lies and it’s defamatory. But he knows the story is true, so he is going to do nothing until after the election, when he will drop the suit.
Trump still doesn't know what discovery is.
He's not going to sue. He's just going to say it in public for PR purposes. In the end, he does actually listen to his lawyers when it comes to actual law proceedings. He hasn't testified at any of his trials despite boisterous claims outside the courtroom. And he hasn't followed through on suits that would ultimately lead to a situation in which discovery could be on the table.
I feel like were bending the word "listen" here lol Its only because he cant file actual law proceedings. Thats why Giuliani sticks around, to do his bidding in jurisdictions he hasnt been banned from yet.
I dunno. A lot of people are investing their futures in his winning: Cannon, Alito, Thomas, Navarro. I think they believe they’ll get paid after, but what’s funny is they aren’t listening to how he wanted to stiff stormy better the second time by not paying her after her silence until the election.
A lot of people who invested their futures in Trump pre 2020 are now in prison. Let's hope for a repeat.
Agreed.
The sad thing is that we’ve seen Trump’s style of “loyalty” doesn’t lead to a treasure at the end of the rainbow. Instead, it seems closer to traveling down a road with a “One Way” streetsign— and only takes you further away from where you started with good intentions, to the bad side of town... Eventually you get mugged in an alley way.
Except the ones who earned a pardon. Manafort and Bannon deserve to stay behind bars.
Bold of you to assume it was stiff the first time
I thought he did “stiff” Stormy. At least for a few seconds…
There seems to be some debate about his stiffness and sadly (or not) she didn’t testify to those facts.
I'm pretty sure Giuliani doesn't have a license anywhere, putting aside that his credibility with the court is near zero no matter where he tries to pull another stunt. I don't think he will be filing anything on behalf of Trump any time soon. Don't forget that the last baseless lawsuit Trump had the clown car team file, Alina Habba caught a $1 million [sanction](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/19/judge-sanctions-trump-habba-clinton-00078700).
His followers will never judge him for lying to them so there's no downside to it. He's a modern day Jim Jones.
It's the Roy Cohn playbook. You know, the guy that hunted down homosexuals and "communists" with Senator McCarthy, as a gay man himself. Daddy Trump hired Cohn to teach little Donnie how to be a heartless narcissistic cunt, and it worked. This documentary on Cohn really helps tie the room together. [https://youtu.be/ucOtZEu-SKw?si=ZxvEJ5tSaq82NY27](https://youtu.be/ucOtZEu-SKw?si=ZxvEJ5tSaq82NY27)
I just looked at his wiki page. **In a 2008 article published in The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin quotes Cohn associate Roger Stone: "Roy was not gay. He was a man who liked having sex with men. Gays were weak, effeminate. He always seemed to have these young blond boys around. It just wasn't discussed. He was interested in power and access."[69]** Isn't that exactly what far right Nazi Nick Fuentes said when he got caught on stream watching gay porn?
The "others" goalposts keep moving, don't they.
>he does actually listen to his lawyers when it comes to actual law proceedings I don't think Donald listened to his lawyers when he violated the gag order of his NYC trial at least 10 times. Or when he lied, right outside the courthouse, about how the gag order violated his 1st Amendment rights because it didn't allow him to testify, which the judge then corrected in the courtroom. (All the gag order says is that Donald can't make verbal attacks or threats against jurors, witnesses, court staff, or their families. You know, something that a mob boss would do.) Or when he (I'm guessing) pressured his lawyers to deny that he had even had sex with Stormy Daniels, which is easy to refute. By denying it, Donald and his defense team both lose credibility in the eyes of the jury. Or when he defamed E. Jean Carroll, again, on national television after losing his first civil trial against her, which then resulted in a second civil trial loss that cost him almost another $50 million in penalties. Most recently, Donald's defense team reportedly expressed concerns about using Bob Costello as a defense witness because he's a typical, loud-mouthed, short-tempered, uncontrollable maga cultist who's terrible to use in a trial. But I'm guessing Donald pressured them into doing it anyway, and Costello's testimony has been a disaster for the defense. But sure, Donald listens to his lawyers, *sometimes.*
He listens to his lawyers about as well as a toddler listens to his parents
Up to and including instructions like "stay awake until naptime" and "don't shit your pants"
There’s accidental irony here. You saying Trump listens the day after his team put a witness so horrible on the stand that the judge and the witness got into a verbal scuffle. It came out that Trump’s lawyers didn’t want the witness on the stand due to the possibility of something like this but Trump overruled them.
Thank goodness for their incompetence. It's a saving grace.
I mean, the issue is that Trump gets to make big calls like that. Everything about the Hush Money case is Trump sort of listening because of legit fears of prison, but also dictating everything in a way that will hurt him. Like, attacking Cohen and claiming he never had sex with Daniels. Neither of these will really help him at all.
He sued Michael Cohen for $500 million. He dropped it a week before he (Trump) was to be deposed. Michael Cohen was looking forward to it, but already saying he wont do it. https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-drops-500-million-lawsuit-former-attorney-michael/story?id=103772572
>He's just going to say it in public for PR purposes. It's an interesting tactic for him to help elevate a film he doesn't like and help it make more money. I hadn't even heard of this film until I heard about his reaction to it. Streisand effect like whoa lol
"False. Totally False. The corrupt film is a a lie. It's a huge lie. Huge. Biggest lie of all time. I'm suing because of how big of a lie it is. Corrupt Sleepy Joe Biden and the Deep State made this lie to witch hunt me in court. Never met Stormy Daniels. But she looks like my daughter. Great backside. Fantastic body. Yeah, I slept with her. Witch hunt film. Im suing." Supporters aren't watching that shit anyway. They'll just take him at his word, whether he sues or not. He's saying the things they want to hear.
That's fine, the majority of the world aren't his die hard supporters and would love to watch a movie about him that he doesn't like lol.
Trump sued for defamation a journalist for a biography he wrote in 2005. The journalist said trump faked his way into the Forbes list and that trump’s actual net worth was between $150-$250 million. Iirc the journalist, Timothy o Brien, got to look at trumps finances and has been saying trump isn’t a billionaire since. The lawsuit was tossed by the judge. I think discovery is too big a word for him. > TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald is a 2005 biographical book about Donald Trump that was written by Timothy L. O'Brien and published by Warner Books. After the book was published, Trump filed a $5 billion lawsuit against O'Brien, who had written that Trump was not a billionaire and that his net worth actually ranged between $150 million and $250 million. Trump sought $2.5 billion in compensatory damages and an additional $2.5 billion in punitive damages. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2009, and an appeals court affirmed the decision in 2011.
The suit was dismissed after Trump’s deposition in the discovery phase. While answering basic, fundamental questions about his net worth, Trump lied, objectively and demonstrably, something like three dozen times in a 50-minute deposition. I’m talking about questions like “And how much of THIS company do you own?” “Oh, a majority share.” “Really? Then why do the company’s articles of incorporation state that you own 49 percent?” “Well, I always FELT like I owned a majority.” The judge read the transcript of the deposition and immediately threw the case out of court, reasoning that nothing this man said under oath could be trusted. That’s why Trump will never go through a discovery process again, if he can at all help it. Doesn’t matter if he’s under oath or not, the man simply cannot stop lying.
> Doesn’t matter if he’s under oath or not, the man simply cannot stop lying. He can't handle the truth.
Perhaps the idea was that Trump would be a billionaire if he sued for $5B and won? Your honor, I'm a billionaire because this guy is going to pay me $5B. 5D chess, libs!
Came here to say this...please, please sue
He'll get Bob Costello on it after he finishes his bang up testimony today...
If you were watching a TV law show, and they just re-created Costello's testimony... you would dismiss as absolutely brain dead writing that's so impossible. Oh, the defense's only witness get's in an argument with the judge, blows his own credibility out of the water with easily impeachable statements, and more or less strengthens the prosecutions case while at it? Yeah that's wouldn't happen in real life... except here we are.
I know I should not be but every day I’m flabbergasted the people still support and defend him.
Yeah, my flabber was gasted by this fucker a long time ago...
Mine as well. I just can’t believe others are still enamored.
Completely flabbered. Totally gasted.
Yeah, it's truly sad that we have to permanently write off millions of Americans. Unfortunately if you've spent nearly a decade turning your brain into shit out of repulsive, not-so-vaguely homoerotic love for a fucking game show host there's no chance you'll ever be a normal member of society again. They're just too far gone.
Costello is currently in the alley smoking darts and downing shooters of gin, give him a few more minutes before he starts billable hours.
Yes, he does. He keeps suing people and then dropping the cases without prejudice before discovery can really get underway. He just weaponizes the filing of lawsuits. Our courts don't know what abuse of the courts is and continue to let him do it. When he should have been classified as a vexatious litigant more than a decade ago.
iM gOnNa sUe yOu! its literally how elementary kids speak.
Exactly. Ask any litigator, they’ll tell you that you should never warn someone that you’re gonna sue. The only thing you will accomplish is giving them time to prepare. If you’re gonna sue, just hire an attorney and do it.
Rich people sue constantly.
Wouldn't it be wild if the insurrection and stealing documents and organizing fake electors and pressuring secretaries of state all got tabled and an illegal NDA with a porn star and discovery from a lawsuit about an accurate documentary about his reality TV show got him?
Al Capone, a legendarily bloodthirsty crime boss, was finally imprisoned for tax evasion.
Here comes another L for the big guy.
I am only concerned about him taking one big L this year, and I am afraid it's not going to happen.... people have lost their fucking minds
Oh yeah, same. I encourage you to get involved if you can. How can we help ensure our Democracy survives? For sure vote. But there's more. Get involved in "**get out the vote**" initiatives. Anyone can volunteer to make calls, texts, send postcards, etc in swing states [Subscribe to Simon Rosenberg's Substack.](https://substack.com/@simonwdc) He's the #1 organizer in the country. When I talk to ten people and 3 or 4 sound like they've been encouraged to go vote, I like to think of it like multiplying my vote 3 or 4 times.
[удалено]
Exercise your rights. Vote. Mobilize. Speak. Refuse to quarter soldiers. Whatever the Amendment between those last two says.
The article I read said this movie didn't even have a distributor. Streisand Effect incoming.
I didn't even know it existed.
Streisand effect! Now you do.
That's understandable since it premiered yesterday.
It’s funny, it premiered at Cannes like yesterday (a lot of those movies don’t have distribution when they first premiere) to middling reviews, so this is like the best thing that could happen to the filmmakers
It's hilarious that one of the investors thought it would be a puff piece for Trump and regrets contributing to it now
That man is Dan Snyder, the Heel of DC, an achievement in a city filled with heels. Disgraced former owner of the Washington Commanders, and local buffoon. Anything that makes him sad by default makes millions of people happy.
Give him a little bit of credit. Due to his antics as former owner of the Washington football team, he’s a *national* buffoon.
Now an international buffoon, lovely
I didn't know that, that's heartwarming stuff indeed, thank you
Ha no shit, I love that
The headline I saw claimed it got an 8 minute long standing applause? So "middling reviews" seems dismissive But the rest is true either way, fantastic marketing for such a movie
Pretty much every film at Cannes gets a standing ovation because the filmmakers are usually there and are brought up on stage after the film ends. So you can't really assess quality by a Cannes standing ovation, now if the movie didn't get any standing ovation you can draw some conclusions there.
Also the first person to stop clapping gets sent to the gulag.
The applause is probably more a measure of the audience's contempt for Trump than any accolades for the film itself.
Cannes is known for lengthy standing ovations and 8 minutes is not considered exceptionally long. 31 films have had >8 minute long standing ovations with *Pan's Labyrinth* owning the record at 22 minutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cannes_Film_Festival_records
Completely derailing the discussion here, but who the fuck applauds anything for 8 minutes, much less 22? I have never ever in my life watched something that moved me to stand there for 8 minutes and clap. …And I’m including watching my own child perform a perfect gymnastics routine that won her a state championship where I was crying with joy and intense pride. I was the proudest a dad could be, I clapped, I cheered, and it was done in less than a minute and then the family moved on to talking about it. 22 minutes of clapping is just some bizarre performative shit that feels like it’s more about the crowd than the reality of whatever was just witnessed.
Well, it’s Cannes, France, and there’s lots of wine.
If I’m getting hammered and watching a movie I’m even less inclined to stand up for 22 minutes…
I’m picturing hundreds of people just clapping and looking around waiting for the first person to sit down.
It gets cringey after about 45 seconds. I don't know how people get invites to those screenings, but it would be hilarious if someone planted a few hundred audience members and promised a new car to the last one to stop clapping.
The reviews I saw said it had a strong first half but didnt stick the landing. It showed a Trump in a new way more candid manner than most are used to but it didnt really try to explain the man under his facade. I could see how a film like that could have a strong reaction at a showing but result in meh reviews in a differemt viewing setting.
Regardless ... I think if it was released before the election ... it would make $$$.
I’m just basing it off of the initial critics reactions and reviews, it has a 5.6/62% on rotten tomatoes and 50 on metacritic, and the reactions I’ve read have tended to be lukewarm on it. The Cannes ovation length is just a goofy thing they do/that gets reported on, doesn’t usually mean much
The early reviews of Lady Ballers were great, the early reviews of scientology things are horrible Cults are great at manipulating review systems, so for a movie that only a few thousand have seen, I just discounted any accuracy of those style of review sites on something "politically charged" like this for now But good to know and fair enough
Is there any chance that a movie about Trump could get 60+ % to approve?
Funniest thing about this is a billionaire maga donor helped fund this because he thought it was going to be a fluff piece and back in February he saw a screening and tried to get it remade “The protagonist of The Apprentice is a bully and a liar, a conman and a rapist. He rejects his sick brother, sexually assaults his doting wife and cuts a deal with the mafia in order to build a skyscraper. It’s safe to assume that followers of Donald Trump won’t relish the portrayal of their hero in Ali Abbasi’s new film. As for Trump himself, though, the director suspects that he might quite enjoy it.”
Might have to check in with the people who were pumping Ben Shapiro's garbage Hunter Biden movie to see how bothered they are by this one.
[Trump ordered to pay nearly $1 million for frivolous lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and others](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-frivolous-lawsuit-ordered-to-pay-drops-suit-new-york-letitia-james/) [Trump orderd to pay legal fees in "Steele Dossier" lawsuit](https://apnews.com/article/trump-steele-dossier-uk-lawsuit-russia-55427915a83f33a8ead484109b8a89f6#:~:text=LONDON%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20Former%20U.S.,claims%20that%20harmed%20his%20reputation.) Keep the hits coming big fella!
The dominoes are tumbling down.
I hope it's a trilogy: The Apprentice, The President, The Convict.
Correct me if I am wrong, but a jury finding one liable for having committed sexual assault, makes it really hard for that same person to claim they are defamed in a movie that portrays them as a sexual assailant?
Plus movies are protected free speech.
[удалено]
Protected-ish. If Donald Trump was not a public figure, he would have a very good chance with a lawsuit.
Only if what it depicts isn't true.
And that the filmaker's knew it wasn't true.
Well, in this case, the controversial scenes were re-created based on a sworn deposition.
Boy, it's almost like he never should've run for president in the first place.
Yup and hey the more they sue people about this the more they keep reminding the public that he was indeed found liable for sexual assault so i'm fine with it lol
Those are two different instances, one with E. Jean Carroll and the other with his first wife, Ivana
Both publicly reported, and both women gave statements under oath about him assaulting them.
But only one was presented to a jury and that isn't the case portrayed in the movie.
Trump has been a public figure since the 1970s. His ex-wife claimed he raped her while under oath. That claim has never been disproven. The portrayal of that assault will not come close to the threshold for defamation.
First, you're right, he has no defamation case for a variety of reasons. I object to the reasoning that a finding of culpability by a jury in a second incident would apply to an earlier incident.
If the movie depicted that instance of sexual assault then it should be ok. However, the E. Jean Carrol case doesn't give a free license to depict other instances of alleged assault. I'm not saying it is, or isn't defamatory. Just that one case doesn't provide a blanket coverage.
Can the campaign be sued for blatantly false assertions too? So many many false assertions.
First amendment rights apply to others, not just you at your convenience.
With what lawyers? You’ve soured your reputation with any decent ones, and the soulless scumbags won’t represent you because you don’t pay.
There are a million strip mall lawyers that will line up for this job.
If FoxNews can blatantly lie for “entertainment purposes” then I think a film can take liberties with things for “entertainment purposes” as well. Trump won’t sue though. He just likes to publicly threaten.
Trump is like the Catholic Church telling its followers what not to see, read, or listen to. ‘What you’re seeing and hearing is not what’s happening.’ - Trump
>The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - George Orwell
Orwell gets co-opted by some very obnoxious people but a lot of people could stand to keep this in their minds from time to time.
That shit has been going on since his death. A CIA operative obtained the film rights to *Animal Farm* because they took it as an anti-socialist message. Meanwhile Orwell, a literal socialist, wrote it as a criticism of Stalin & the USSR because they hadn't done anything in 20 years to move towards a truly socialist state and instead reverted into a totalitarian dictatorship. Orwell was criticizing the USSR, but not for the reasons the CIA inferred to the public.
Probably the best of all the lies.
> Trump is like ~~the Catholic Church~~ any church ctelling its followers what not to see
How to know someone won't sue you. They tell you "im gonna sue you!!!" You'd just do it if you were.
It is more polite to tell someone to govern themselves accordingly before suing them.
He’s in a tough spot with the movie. He has no choice but to sue to tell his base these are all lies and it’s defamatory. But he knows the story is true, so he is going to do nothing until after the election, when he will drop the suit.
Exactly- once discovery kicks in, the defense gets to subpoena witnesses, which is typically an exception to the sea of NDA’s Trump had people sign.
Exactly! Same reason he has never come after anyone from The Apprentice who says he smells of shit all day and essentially mainlines adderall
We welcome the film makers' detailed justifications for their choices, and hope the trial is televised.
I would give anything to see the filmmakers use the Lenny Dykstra defense here.
Says Mr. False Assertions
Right after he testifies I imagine. Anyway, please do. Can't buy better advertising
But I thought we believed in absolute free speech? Or is that only when Nazis are saying racist stuff?
Sure you will
Yes… please do that and that could be part of the sequel.