r/MovieTVArticles

What would you put on your list?

Thought I’d share this tribute to Reggie. What’s everyone’s favorite Phantasm movie?

I want to talk about a specific recurring theme in some of our favorite coming-of-age/romance movies.

Don't get me wrong—I am a huge believer in the core message of these films. I love movies that are about following your heart, breaking free from the shackles of moral and societal rules, and escaping that feeling of "compromise" we are all trained to settle for. I have absolutely no hard feelings toward the concepts these movies champion.

But watching them always leaves me with a lingering question about the "collateral damage" left behind in the protagonist's pursuit of ethereal love. Specifically, the undefined cheating situations.

Take two great examples: Tamasha and Dear Zindagi (the one with the "Love You Zindagi" track).

1. Tamasha and the blurred lines of emotional infidelity In Tamasha, our female protagonist, Tara, visits Corsica on a solo trip. There, she meets Ved. They share this incredibly carefree time, exploring the sides of themselves they’ve always hidden. This exploration leads to a massive amount of emotional intimacy (and a blurring of boundaries).

The story goes on, and when Tara returns to reality, she meets her current partner. We don't get the exact details of their relationship depth, but she ends up breaking it off. Whether she confessed what happened in Corsica and he left, or whether she simply realized she didn't want him anymore after experiencing that high—the result is the same.

I’m not entirely sure if her time in Corsica qualifies as outright "cheating," but it raises a thought: There will always be someone out there who seems better, wilder, or more exciting than your current partner. The whole point of a relationship is that we stop looking for them (assuming the current partner is loving and not abusive, of course).

2. Dear Zindagi and the void of self-sabotage Then we have Dear Zindagi. The female protagonist, Kaira, feels a deep, traumatic void in her life, leaving her perpetually confused about her relationships.

She has a decent, stable guy. He clearly ticks off certain needs for her, but she cheats on him during a trip with her charismatic boss/colleague, mistakenly thinking this new guy is the answer to her void. When the truth comes out, she and the stable guy break up. But here is the kicker: she wasn't happy about the breakup. She still liked him and wanted that stability.

Her unhappiness turns to anger when she realizes the new guy (the boss) is a philanderer and never took her seriously. She ends up missing the very partner she betrayed.

The Core Question All of this screen time might only take up a few minutes of the actual runtime, but it really makes me think.

Why are contemporary writers so keen on showcasing these deeply messy, sometimes toxic human behavioral confusions, while simultaneously vouching for an ultimate, ethereal, meant-to-be love? Why do characters have to be so careless with others to "find themselves"?

I could write paragraphs more on this, but I'll stop here. I really want to know what you guys think as viewers. Do we give these protagonists a free pass because they are "finding themselves"?

In 1997, while Apt Pupil was being filmed, the parents of a 14-year-old extra sued over minors allegedly being compelled to appear nude in the shower sequence. Other teenage boys subsequently supported the allegations. The DA investigated but did not bring criminal charges.

Bryan Singer, Ian McKellen and Brad Renfro

I recently came across Ian McKellen's "tribute" to Brad Renfro star of Apt Pupil, written on January 16, 2008, the day after Renfro died. After looking into the history surrounding Apt Pupil, I find the tribute increasingly difficult to read because of the context he chose to leave out.

Brad Renfro died on January 15, 2008, at 25, from an accidental heroin overdose. McKellen's tribute was published the following day.

McKellen begins his tribute by saying:

>«"I first caught sight of Brad Renfro when he was kicking a football around with Bryan Singer on the half-built set of Apt Pupil in Hollywood."»

He then remembers Brad as "a kid having fun" and says that this is how he would "always remember him."

That opening really bothers me now because Apt Pupil wasn't simply a happy Hollywood memory.

During production in 1997, allegations were made concerning underage extras and nudity during a shower scene. There were legal proceedings surrounding those allegations. Much later, in 2019, Victor Valdovinos alleged that Bryan Singer sexually assaulted him when he was 13 on the Apt Pupil set. Singer denied the allegations.

I'm not claiming that McKellen knew that Singer was abusing anyone, or that he personally witnessed a sexual assault.

But McKellen was an adult star working on that production with a 14-year-old Brad Renfro. And his own writings about Apt Pupil describe his relationship with Brad in very affectionate terms. So it is fair to ask what McKellen knew about the allegations surrounding the production and whether he ever reported or raised concerns about them**. I have not found evidence that he reported Singer or the allegations to authorities**.

What makes the 2008 tribute especially uncomfortable is that McKellen's chosen memory of Brad begins with Bryan Singer. He doesn't simply say, "I remember Brad as a wonderful young actor." He specifically places the first memory of Brad alongside Singer on the Apt Pupil set.

And there is another part of the story that makes this much more complicated.

McKellen did not simply have a professional association with Singer that ended after Apt Pupil. He subsequently worked with Singer on several X-Men films, including X-Men: Apocalypse in 2016. In other words, McKellen continued his professional relationship with Singer for years after Brad's death.

Then in 2019, when allegations against Singer were again receiving major public attention, McKellen made extraordinarily ill-judged comments about Singer and Kevin Spacey. He suggested that their being closeted had contributed to their problems and that, had they been open about their sexuality, they would not have "started abusing people in the way they're being accused." McKellen subsequently apologized and said he deeply regretted the remarks.

That 2019 statement is particularly relevant to how I read the 2008 tribute today. It doesn't prove that McKellen knew anything about abuse in 1997. But it does demonstrate that, even decades later, his instinct when discussing allegations against Singer could be to offer an explanation that contextualized or rationalized the alleged abuser's behavior rather than centering the alleged victims.

And that's why I find the tribute tone-deaf.

It's not that McKellen wasn't allowed to have happy memories of Brad. Of course he was. It's not even that his affection for Brad must have been fake.

It's the combination of things that bothers me:

• Brad was a child actor when McKellen met him.

• The production around which they met had allegations involving underage boys.

• McKellen's tribute was written immediately after Brad's death and nostalgically foregrounded the Apt Pupil set and Bryan Singer.

• McKellen continued working with Singer for years after Brad's death.

• And in 2019, McKellen made comments about Singer's alleged abuse that he later acknowledged were wrong and apologized for.

So I don't think the fairest criticism is "McKellen couldn't possibly have loved Brad because he remained friends with Singer." People can have contradictory relationships and genuinely mourn someone while making terrible judgments about other people.

The more troubling question, to me, is:

How can someone write such an intimate, affectionate remembrance of a young actor while continuing to maintain such a close professional relationship with the adult director at the center of serious allegations involving minors from that same period—and, years later, make comments that appeared to rationalize that director's alleged behavior?

That's the contradiction I can't get past.

And I think it is worth separating two questions:

What McKellen knew in 1997 is something we may never be able to establish.

What McKellen chose to do with his relationship with Singer after the allegations became public is much easier to document.

That's why I think the latter is the more legitimate subject of criticism.

Let's never forget how Ian Mckellen expressed himself.

https://www.advocate.com/people/2019/3/01/ian-mckellen-blames-closet-spacey-and-singers-alleged-abuse?utm_source=chatgpt.com

>Well frankly, I’m waiting for someone to accuse me of something, and me wondering whether they’re not telling the truth and me having forgotten (pointing to his head) you know*-Ian Mckellen at the Queer as F podcast*.