Talk:David O. Russell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Expand[edit]

I'm trying to flesh out this article. What I've added so far amounts to a couple lists. Thinking of doing a short film by film examination of his works. What do you think? Nscheffey 00:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fine, aside from the fact that you've not elaborated on what a douchebag this guy is. --142.167.182.57 23:52, 19 March 2007
Hey, I know how you feel about David O. Russell. That's why I just editted the page to have quotes/links to examples of what a d-bag that guy is. So please, don't vandalize the page. Practically anyone with a sense on right knows what a jerk he is. Who the heck pisses off Lily Tomlin and George Clooney to the point of alienating him? But if you do find any more articles or examples of his insane behavior, please feel free to share. If you're not clear on how to add them to the article, just post them in the talk page and I'll help out. SpyMagician 00:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As much as anyone thinks Russell is a douchebag, you've got to make sure the information in the article is presented in a neutral manner. The controversy section should definitely be in here, but be conscious that the entire article doesn't become one big attack on the guy. Pele Merengue 20:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Nolan Incident[edit]

I've added it, as well as restored to the page to its original format. I'm going to request that this article be locked up for a while. Lastanzabianca 12:07 AM, 20 March 2007 (CST)

Thanks for the addition! But I disagree about locking the page up. Nobody has abused or vandalized the page and people have simply added to the content and expanded on the facts that exist. Which is pretty impressive considering the YouTube videos are gone. Unless someone starts posting 1337 CODE, then I think that a lockup is excessive. SpyMagician 05:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This dude is psycho.



The Tomlin Incident[edit]

Based on my understanding of the Tomlin incident, it is wrong and unfair to Russell to portray him as the lone aggressor in the incident. Surely it is understood that his conduct was unacceptable to most, but Tomlin did little to avert or calm the situation. I am not sure how to, but I would dispute the neutrality of the "Tomlin v. Russell" portion of the entry.

Uh, I hardly think it's "non-neutral" to assume that this director, who is known for being a gigantic, temper-tantrum-throwing ass, was the instigator here. It's quite likely she was frustrated with his behavior. This is a guy who put Christopher Nolan in a headlock because he wanted his star back and got into a fistfight with George Clooney (who's well-known for being quite calm and composed on set). While I'll agree she didn't diffuse the situation, I certainly don't think it's wrong to assume that he was the source of the friction. Magicflyinlemur 22:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, though, you've formed your opinions on all of those incidents from secondary sources. By assuming blame on either party, you're forfeiting neutrality. Pele Merengue 02:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

It seems that this article needs to be fleshed out more, with attention paid to things other than his confrontations with other celebrities. If nothing else, his filmography (or a "career" section) needs to come before the "Controversy," section. Remember, he is a person, then a filmmaker, then a person with a few controversial incidents under his belt. While it is important that these things be included, only focusing on these incidents could make one interpret this page as not NPOV. 70.116.139.13 05:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanking the Monkey[edit]

Is it true that this early (1994) Russell film was autobiographical? If so, it would explain his personality and his treatment of women. Whatever the case, moviegoers are free to express their support or opposition of Russell's directorial style and his movies at the box office (or video store). As a moviegoer I tend to judge a movie on its artistic merit, but, this time, my disdain for workplace bullies may make me boycott Russell's movies.

71.132.228.252 08:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)The Last Gentleman[reply]

Article Composition[edit]

It seems to me that an excessive amount of space in the article is dedicated to various controversies concerning Russell. I think the article would have a more encyclopedic finish if these bits were either trimmed substantially or given appropriate context through his life and career. --Aioth 12:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As the article looks right now, it's definitely "wikipedia at its worst". Cd52x 19:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Everything stated in this article is backed up with facts and citations. If someone wants to contribute more positive things to the article, they're more than welcome to. No one here is trying to smear this director. We're only presenting the facts which we have been given. If someone would like to post more unbiased accounts on his contributions to film, they should immediately do so. Until then, the article should remain as it is. Lastanzabianca 1:40, 7 May 2007 (CST)
Citations doesn't make something encyclopedic, though. Wikipedia at its worst. Cd52x 09:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And even if everything stated in the article is backed up with citations, the only information included seems to be information regarding Russell's negative behavior. I've read much on the Three Kings debaucle and Waxman's book paints much more of a two-sided argument in which Clooney is also acting quite childish. I'd argue that someone here is trying to smear this director.Pele Merengue 17:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Wikipedia's striving for neutrality, but the fact remains that more of his behavior and history is negative than positive. And the general reaction in industry circles is not anyone crying out towards this guy being "smeared" but more of "Thank goodness someone's being honest about his behavior..." Very few people have defended him, and even Lily Tomlin's reaction in Waxman's article seems to be more of an actress in an upcoming movie downplaying an incident to protect the project more than speaking truth. Also, note that with other "leaked" tapes such as David Hasselhoff's drunken video and Alec Baldwin chewing out his daughter, they both spoke out immediately and had others provide context to what happened. David O'Rusell. I know it's not Wiki style to comment on what has not been said, but very few people truly disagree with the painting of him as an abusive lunatic. To me, that truly speaks volumes. It should also be noted that these videos are "new" as far as Internet awareness goes, but in industry circles copies have been quitely passed a long since the incident happened on the set. I'd say that the best way to balance this story is to add anything new and not related to the old controversy if that ever happens. --SpyMagician 00:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How come that since 2007 the whole controversy section disappeared? There should be mention about his "incidents". Or why should someone have to google his name to realize that? This appeares to me as either an unfortunate bias or an overzealous commitment to WP:BLP which explicitly states the following: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." --91.120.156.65 (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, the article should not be about how Russell is an asshole. It should be about his career. I added info about his next film, Nailed, but a career summary needs to be added. Possibly, the entire controversy section should be removed and the individual controversies should be added in each appropriate film summary in career.DFS (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add James Caan[edit]

Start searching for the confirmation, because production of his latest film just got put on hold because of a blow up between him and James Caan on the set of Nailed (film). RoyBatty42 (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done DFS (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial?[edit]

The lead claims he is controversial but the article doesn't expand on this. I can see it's been edited a lot. The lead needs to reflect the current contents.◦◦derekbd◦◦my talk◦◦ 13:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is some minor edit warring over content like his interactions with Tomlin during the Huckabees film. Even if the content is re-instated, it is not significant enough to mention in the lead. I've tagged the lead as needing improvement. It does not accurately summarize the article and the two sentences about controversy and loose comic style should be removed IMO.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • BLP guidelines state, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist". By adding the paragraphs in question, undue weight is being given to irrelevant third-party gossip. // Moviebuff18 (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP does not mean nothing that might be seen as negative should be in an article. Check out the Arnold Schwarzenegger or Mel Gibson pages. This is not gossip - it has not been disputed by any reliable sources that I'm aware of. Not even Russell has denied these incidents. They happened in front of multiple witnesses and the second was recorded on video and has been widely seen. The New York Times did a major article on it. Not known for being a gossip rag. And we're not even including the Christopher Nolan headlock incident, discussed on this Talk page above, and which was probably the most outrageus thing Russell has done and also occurred in front of witnesses, and was reported on by RS. 207.233.45.14 (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying we should whitewash the article of all criticism or reports of bad behavior. I'm saying they need to be presented in a neutral way and in proper context of the subject's entire life and career. Placing these items in the lead creates undue emphasis, bias, and POV (in my opinion). (see WP:UNDUE)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what Moviebuff18 is doing is nothing less than a whitewash - the repeated complete removal of anything that would be seen as unpraiseworthy. He also removed any mention of Russell's unfinished film Nailed. What possible justification could he give for that? You might notice that he gave no edit summary in his last deletion of the sourced text, after I wrote the text two entries above on this Talk page justifying its inclusion. It is presented in a neutral way and in proper context, though I'm open to improving it. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, so I don't see what your problem is with its including He has been the subject of controversy, while receiving much critical acclaim. That seems quite neutral and accurate to me. Without it the bad behavior, as you call it, comes out of the blue. Russell has actually been involved in at least three such incidents in front of multiple witnesses that were widely reported in RS at the time. Anybody who has followed his career in any depth already knows about them. Only two of these incidents were established in this article, when I looked over its history. I restored them as they were written before. I didn't even try to put in the third incident involving Nolan (though I could), because it wasn't as well established previously in the article and I don't really want to pile on the guy. But the other two incidents belong in the article, and I'm getting tired of people deleting known, sourced, undisputed facts from this page just because they don't like them. If anyone deletes the negative history from the Schwarzenegger or Mel Gibson articles, other editors restore it. That's all I'm trying to do here. 207.233.45.14 (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience it works best when concerns are addressed one at a time. Is there a specific event or piece or information that is not in the article that you feel should be there? If so please mention it here and provide sources please. Then we can discuss and have a consensus and move forward to the next issue.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The incidents that keep getting deleted occurred during the making of Three Kings and I ♥ Huckabees. The sources are in the article, including the New York Times. It's there right at this moment, but you'll probably have to go to the article's history to see what I'm talking about, as Moviebuff18 keeps taking out the text (he just did it yet again today) without discussing it on this Talk page, other than his one brief entry above where he called sourced, undisputed facts gossip. Someone should tell him to discuss possible changes here, instead of just repeatedly doing what he wants on the article. 207.233.45.13 (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In cases of BLP entries, it is typical to have any disputed content removed from the entry while the discussion takes place. Repeated edits by the anonymous user above places large chunks of content, that while cited, are clearly against NPOV. The details in all disputed paragraphs present one person's account of events. Regardless of the outlet it runs on, it seems like unfair representation and undue weight is being given to these events within the larger scope of the entry. My latest edits presented what transpired, rather than letting salacious quotes define the entry. Moviebuff18 (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you removed all detail, leaving no account of what transpired. A reader would have to go to another website to find out what happened in these incidents. NPOV means neutral, not nothing negative allowed. As said above, check out other pages here with controversy sections. Your statement "The details in all disputed paragraphs present one person's account of events" is ridiculous - it describes a video - the second incident was captured on video! No one is denying its accuracy. And regarding the first incident, no one, not even Russell, has called Clooney a liar. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way the current content is being presented in a neutral light. Other pages include encyclopedic accounts of controversial events but they do not have one-sided paragraphs that describe events at such lengths. Clearly we disagree on this fact, so we need others to weigh in. To go into so much detail about the controversial events, puts undue weight on controversy compared to the overall scope of the entry. Moviebuff18 (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support Moviebuff18's most recent NPOV edit to the Kings/Huckabee section. There is way too much detail and weight being given to minor incidents however 'juicy' they might be.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He should have done something more like that to begin with, and he should have been discussing it here, instead of just deleting everything he didn't like. But removing legitimate references is not the right thing to do. That gives others the excuse to whitewash the incidents all over again. And the article was not unbalanced or trivial. If it was somewhat sensational, well, how do you describe outrageous behavior without some people calling it sensational? Whitewashing is not the answer. Clooney's Three Kings quotes should be there, with the ref. I'm restoring them, while leaving out Russell's offensive quote and the description of their physical struggle. Even though there's legitimate reasons to include them.
With I ♥ Huckabees he's removed the introduction and all text about the video, which is obviously significant. Really, this whole incident as described is backed up by the video, and was widely reported on. But today I'll only restore some of it, as a compromise, subject to others not persisting in hiding any mention of the video or the other incident. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What reason is there to include sensational quotes? The citation used is an editorial interview with Clooney. Why should his view of the accounts be used in an entry about someone else? The last round of edits, which other editors agreed were fair, does not dismiss the event, nor whitewash it. BLP entries are meant to detail a person's life and career - not to detail every single infraction against them. Same goes for Huckabees. Yes, the video was documented and is mentioned, but when did Wikipedia start linking out to specific YouTube videos as a source? The edits proposed in my last update mentioned all events, left the major citations as a basis for said events, and provided a neutral account. Moviebuff18 (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it didn't. It removed important refs. The video documents the incident, and that is significant. You removed all mention of it. You also previously removed all mentions of anything you saw as negative. The only real sensational quote, to use your term, from Russell, I left out as a compromise. I also left out the description of the fight (which really makes the article read different and may have been too big a compromise). The quotes from Clooney are not sensational, it strikes me he was trying to play down the situation, but then he described the incident as "truly, without exception, the worst experience of my life." That seems to be him being honest, it's a very significant quote, and without it his quote years later on the mended relationship is out of context. In the last few hours two other veteran editors have restored my last version after that single issue account hopper repeatedly deleted it again. Aside from one edit, you're a single issue editor as well. You've made lots of deceptive points on this page, including the new not to detail every single infraction against them. You said this after I left out the most sensational details (even though they're undoubtedly true and backed by RS), and I never even mentioned the incident of Russell assaulting Christopher Nolan. Yet you say I'm trying to detail every single infraction. I suggest this article is now as stable as can be expected, and people should stop deleting sections they don't like. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the edit warring should stop but this article is still not in compliance with WP:NPOV in my opinion. I find that discussions work best if they are specific. So I'm opening a new thread below to discuss the specific content and how it may be reduced further to come into compliance with NPOV and UNDUE WEIGHT.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undue Weight issue[edit]

Ok, here's what the article currently says about Russel's direction of the movie Three Kings:

  • Three Kings was released in 1999 and was his biggest critical and financial success. It grossed $60 million in the United States and over $100 million worldwide.[10] It holds a 94% at Rotten Tomatoes, with the consensus "Three Kings successfully blends elements of action, drama, and comedy into a thoughtful, exciting movie on the Gulf War."[11] It ended up being the first of several collaborations with Mark Wahlberg. During filming, news spread of Russell and George Clooney nearly having a fistfight on the set of Three Kings. In a 2000 interview, Clooney described his confrontation with Russell after tensions on the set had been steadily increasing. According to Clooney, Russell was demeaning the crew verbally and physically. Clooney felt this was out of line and told Russell, "David, it's a big day. But you can't shove, push or humiliate people who aren't allowed to defend themselves." After the confrontation escalated, Clooney said Russell eventually apologized and filming continued, but Clooney described the incident as "truly, without exception, the worst experience of my life." When asked if he would work with Russell again, Clooney responded, "Life’s too short."[12] In early 2012, Clooney indicated that he and Russell had mended their relationship, saying "We made a really, really great film, and we had a really rough time together, but it's a case of both of us getting older. I really do appreciate the work he continues to do, and I think he appreciates what I'm trying to do."[13]

Way too much content in my opinion and violates WP:UNDUE. This is a big movie, one of Russell's biggest success stories and we give 20% of the section to the movie and 80% of the section to coverage of an "almost fistfight" between him and Clooney? Something is wrong here. Any suggestions on how to reduce the content further? — Keithbob • Talk • 22:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're starting to act too much like the other user, becoming rather deceptive - You completely left out the paragraph above the one you quoted:
    • The success of those two films led to the Gulf War thriller Three Kings, starring George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, Ice Cube and Spike Jonze. Adapted from an earlier script by former stand-up comic John Ridley, the film follows three American GIs who devise a plan to steal hidden Kuwaiti gold during the 1991 Iraqi uprising against Saddam Hussein. Filmed in the deserts of Arizona, California and Mexico, and featuring actual Iraqi refugees as extras, Russell used several unique cinematic techniques to achieve a feeling of realism. He filmed using handheld cameras and Steadicam, and shot on Ektachrome slide photography stock that was cross processed in colour negative chemicals, to reproduce "the odd colour of the newspaper images [of the Gulf War]." He also insisted on filming all of the explosions in one shot, as opposed to a typical action film.
The article does not violate WP:UNDUE. I thought you were here to help end an edit conflict. Guess not. I reduced it far enough already. Perhaps too much. As said in the section above, two other veteran editors restored my last version after it was removed twice, so this article is now as stable as can be expected. We don't take out legitimate sourced information because there isn't enough "other" information. I agree there is more on the making of this film that could be added. You and your friends are free to build up the section on Three Kings anytime you like, as long as it's backed up by RS. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, I mistakenly left out the other paragraph. Thanks for pointing that out. Also, we are here to discuss content not make personalized comments about other editors. You might want to read WP:AGF and WP:TALK when you have time. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just assumed that when someone comes on a Talk page and declares we give 20% of the section to the movie and 80% of the section to coverage of an "almost fistfight" between him and Clooney that he would have double checked that such a thing was true. It wasn't just an "almost fistfight" either. This shows how it may have been a mistake for me to have compromised by taking out the description of the physical struggle between them. But if people continue to leave it alone, as they have the last few days, I'll also leave it as it is. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nailed - Date[edit]

As it stands, in his filmography, Nailed is listed as a 2008 film. This is incorrect. Since films are named by the year of their initial release, I believe I will move it to the top of his filmography for now with a ???? as a date, as it is yet to be released (if it ever is). If anyone has an issue with this, please discuss here. NickCochrane (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

groping his niece[edit]

This article certainly doesn't shy from detailing the controversies that Russell has been involved in, yet I don't see anything anywhere about what he did to his niece. I'm presuming the Chicago Tribune is a reliable source? I would add this info myself, but I'm not sure where in the article it would go (there's no "personal life" or "controversies" section, and giving it its own section seems weird). --81.106.54.32 (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed edit by 24.188.205.33 -- charges were never laid against him (last sentence was therefore false) and the sentence also didn't comply with WP:NPOV. -- Jacquelyntwiki (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For fuck's sake, when typing his name into Google Search the very first suggestions that pop up are "nephew" and "niece" (the former of which is obviously wrong, and transphobic as hell, but w/e); there are pages and pages of results about this incident, and while obviously not all of them would be reliable, am I seriously supposed to believe that none of them would be? What exactly would qualify as a "reliable source" if fucking news articles on the incident don't? Or are you guys just that determined to stop people from knowing that he molested his niece and then blamed said niece for it? --81.102.61.3 (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Frequent Collaborators' Table[edit]

Given that he has worked with a lot of people multiple times, maybe a box can created with all of that info. 114.143.115.117 (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Health Awareness / Advocacy[edit]

Russell does a lot of work with raising awareness for mental health and autism. I wasn't sure if it deserved it's own section - but have put it into personal life for now. If that's incorrect please adjust and comment here to let me know! Morganglick (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frequent Collaborators Section[edit]

This was brought up a few years ago by 114.143.115.117 as a table but wanted to float the idea again, as he has worked the same people even more times. Was thinking of doing a section like the one on Steven Spielberg. If this isn't appropriate please let me know! Morganglick (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David O. Russell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies[edit]

In this section, there are several points where sentences trail off when it seems they are about to say where these events occurred (i.e. on the set of which movie). Clooney and Tomlin and Adams all fail to say what project was being worked on when the indicent occured. 2600:8800:5019:7300:40CB:BD36:8A9E:4182 (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_O._Russell&oldid=1200308400"