(Close Window)
Topic: Actor Philip Seymour Hoffman found Dead
Message: Posted by: motown (Feb 2, 2014 01:12PM)
What a shock:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/02/philip-seymour-hoffman-dead-dies_n_4713623.html?icid=maing-grid7|maing15|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D437875
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Feb 2, 2014 02:39PM)
So terrible to read that article.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Feb 2, 2014 02:50PM)
One of the most gifted actors of our lives. A real loss and such a tragedy for his wife and children. So sorry to read this.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Feb 2, 2014 06:58PM)
RIP... What a loss.

Always the drugs... :no:
Message: Posted by: afinemesh (Feb 2, 2014 08:54PM)
Tragic and very sad. . .
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Feb 2, 2014 11:23PM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-02 15:50, Slide wrote:
One of the most gifted actors of our lives.
[/quote]
Tragic and sad but really, one of the most gifted actors of our times?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 2, 2014 11:38PM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-03 00:23, Bob1Dog wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-02-02 15:50, Slide wrote:
One of the most gifted actors of our lives.
[/quote]
Tragic and sad but really, one of the most gifted actors of our times?
[/quote]

I'd go along with that. Four Oscar nominations (including a win), three Tony nominations, a wide range of roles... He was great in leading and supporting roles. Capote, The 25th Hour, Patch Adams, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, Chalrie Wilson's War,... Even small roles (like Moneyball) or innocuous movies (like Twister). Never saw him onstage, but I hear he was great. In one play with John C. Reilly, they switched roles each night. Never saw him in anything when he wasn't at least very good.
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 3, 2014 12:00AM)
Yes, he was an amazing actor.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 3, 2014 02:27AM)
Well since the story came from the Huffpo I doubt the veracity of it.

Now that I tried to lighten the mood a bit, (Probably unsuccessfully.) I would put him as one of the greats of our generation without a doubt. The man lent class to any roll or production he was in. He will be missed by a craft that has fewer and fewer people who can take a minor or supporting roll or a minor roll and make it memorable.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 3, 2014 02:47AM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-03 03:27, Dannydoyle wrote:
Well since the story came from the Huffpo I doubt the veracity of it.

Now that I tried to lighten the mood a bit, (Probably unsuccessfully.) I would put him as one of the greats of our generation without a doubt. The man lent class to any roll or production he was in. He will be missed by a craft that has fewer and fewer people who can take a minor or supporting roll or a minor roll and make it memorable.
[/quote]

Definitely agree. Particularly loved him in Charlie Wilson's War.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Feb 3, 2014 07:43AM)
" In one play with John C. Reilly, they switched roles each night. "

That was True West, by Sam Shepard. I never saw that production (I would have loved to have seen it, although I have seen True West performed, just not with that cast). If you know the play, you'll understand the difficulty of switching roles each night: the play deals with 2 brothers who could not be more dissimilar. I heard that, no matter what night you saw, you couldn't imagine the actors doing the other roles. And that was said regardless of who was playing what.

He also founded the Lybrinth theater here in New York.
Yes, Bob, he was truly one of our great actors, not just movies, but brilliant stage player (which few actors can pull off these days).
Message: Posted by: FrostyFeet (Feb 3, 2014 08:27AM)
Such a sad story he was a great actor.

R.I.P
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Feb 3, 2014 12:08PM)
What's truly sad is that, according to an article in the New York Times, his drug habit was well-known. Which means that many, many people could have helped him. Either they didn't try (or didn't try hard enough), or he refused their help.

Either way, it's truly sad.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Feb 3, 2014 12:24PM)
"according to an article in the New York Times, his drug habit was well-known"

I don't know how well it was known. I know someone who was very close to him, babysat his kid, and worked at the theater he founded and she wasn't aware of the heroin issue until after he had announced he was going into rehab about 6 months ago. She did move out of the city a few years ago, so clearly wasn't part of the inner circle anymore, but I think the degree he was still hooked was not known outside of a very small circle.
Message: Posted by: Vlad_77 (Feb 3, 2014 12:44PM)
To quote from [i]A Bronx Tale[/i]: "The saddest thing in life is wasted talent."

Yes, the passing of this actor is sad, but, everyday, children in St. Jude's and other hospitals are dying of cancer, leukemia and God knows what else. This man knew the risks of heroin; these children did not ask for death.

I don't mean to sound callous, and I realize that addiction is a disease, but, UNLIKE cancer and leukemia, it is treatable. I am sorry, and flame me all you want, but this man committed suicide. People with terminal illnesses FIGHT to live and an Oscar winning actor shoves a needle into his arm.

C'est la vie?
Message: Posted by: silvercup (Feb 3, 2014 01:12PM)
Don't understand your connection with Phillip and dying children but since leukemia is a cancer I gotta ask, they don't treat cancer?
Phillip did what he wanted, call it what you want.
I support freedom even if it ends in death.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Feb 3, 2014 03:00PM)
I believe that Vlad's point is that while many people mourn for Hoffman, not many people mourn for these children; he finds that saddening.

I, for one, agree with him.
Message: Posted by: silvercup (Feb 3, 2014 03:13PM)
Curios, does mourning make all the difference?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Feb 3, 2014 04:15PM)
[quote]On 2014-02-03 16:13, silvercup wrote:
Curios, does mourning make all the difference?[/quote]
No.

But a lot more than sarcasm does.
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 3, 2014 04:15PM)
When we mourn the loss of an artist we are not mourning only the loss of one life but also that we have all lost the possibility of seeing more great art created by that person. There's no shame in this.
Message: Posted by: silvercup (Feb 3, 2014 06:32PM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-03 17:15, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2014-02-03 16:13, silvercup wrote:
Curios, does mourning make all the difference?[/quote]
No.

But a lot more than sarcasm does.
[/quote]

Not being sarcastic. You might bone up on your ability to determine what I'm thinking.
On second thought give it up.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 3, 2014 07:20PM)
I think, as I smoke my cigar and gamble away the family fortune, we are not simply born for ourselves but born for others also, our friends, our family and so on. So it seems to me no one should harm themselves. He was fine actor, they can't take away from him, as they say. May he rest in peace.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 3, 2014 08:38PM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-03 16:13, silvercup wrote:
Curios, does mourning make all the difference?
[/quote]

to whom and for what?
Message: Posted by: Tree (Feb 3, 2014 08:44PM)
"Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" in this movie Hoffman plays a heroin addict.
Kinda ironic, watch it and see.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Feb 3, 2014 08:48PM)
He was great in that. He could do villain and he could do sap and make you believe it.

And who can forget his turn as obsequiousness in The Big Lebowski
Message: Posted by: motown (Feb 3, 2014 09:05PM)
Does anyone remember him in Boggie Nights. I think that was the first I remember seeing him.
Message: Posted by: AllAboutMagic (Feb 3, 2014 09:36PM)
I agree with you Vlad that, indeed, he's the one who stuck the needle in his arm. And, yes, his death isn't as tragic as the thousands of children who die in hospitals every year. The sympathy and mourning come from the masses being able to relate to him. They have seen him for the past 20 years, watched his roles, and invariably connected with one or more of those roles. So his passing makes it "feel" a bit more personal.....if that makes any sense.
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Feb 3, 2014 09:50PM)
I too agree with Vlad.


You would think a smart man would know better.
Just goes to show how controlling a drug habit can be.

Yes, wasted talent really is a sad thing.


Tom
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Feb 3, 2014 11:18PM)
You see successful people, you think they are happy... :(
Message: Posted by: silvercup (Feb 3, 2014 11:19PM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-03 21:38, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-02-03 16:13, silvercup wrote:
Curios, does mourning make all the difference?
[/quote]

to whom and for what?
[/quote]
The whom is both the dying children and the person mourning.
I'm trying to find out for what. I see no for what.
That's why I asked does mourning make all the difference thinking I would get an answer but the answer was no, it does not, in one man's opinion.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Feb 3, 2014 11:40PM)
I just mourn for all I feel I want to mourn for...

It takes nothing away from me really.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 4, 2014 01:10AM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-03 17:15, critter wrote:
When we mourn the loss of an artist we are not mourning only the loss of one life but also that we have all lost the possibility of seeing more great art created by that person. There's no shame in this.
[/quote]

Well put.
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 4, 2014 02:00AM)
Thank you.
Message: Posted by: longhaired1 (Feb 4, 2014 09:40AM)
I'm not special, but I possess the ability to mourn the loss of one of my favorite actors with compassion left over for little cancer babies, and even small reserve chambered to be bummed out about starving children in third world countries.
Message: Posted by: irossall (Feb 4, 2014 01:24PM)
Maybe if we did not have a "WAR" on drugs Mr. Seymour and other's like him would still be alive today. Too many are fearful of arrest if they try to seek help with illegal drug use. Take away the "War" and maybe more people will seek help and get off the dangerous drugs that are ruining their lives.

Decriminalize ALL drugs AND control the drugs by getting them off the street and into the pharmacy so at least those who choose to use drugs, will at least get pure and measured doses of their drug. The drugs on the street have no quality control, there lies the crust of the problem.
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 4, 2014 02:21PM)
So you are claiming a well regulated drug addict is going to increase their life span? Seriously that is what I got from what you wrote and am trying to see if that is the claim or not.
Message: Posted by: irossall (Feb 4, 2014 07:07PM)
You are correct Danny. Although, I would not use the term "Well Regulated" drug addict. Let's treat this like a medical problem, not as a criminal activity.

Let the junkie go to a doctor to get their prescriptions of clean drugs and needles, along with treatment if that is what they want. Same as medical marijuana. In the meantime, use the money saved on catching and incarcerating the user, on catching and incarcerating the black market dealers and manufacturers.

Many users overdose due to lack of purity laws with black market product. Decriminalization would do a lot to end many overdoses.

War has not worked. Let's see what a little kindness can do.
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 4, 2014 07:23PM)
Have you ever worked with the drug addicted on any level personally?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 4, 2014 07:40PM)
Somehow, I don't think PSH was afraid of the legal consequences of rehab.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 4, 2014 07:46PM)
Well decriminalization of crime would cut the crime rate.

Let card sharps get aces on prescription.
Message: Posted by: silvercup (Feb 4, 2014 07:52PM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-04 20:46, tommy wrote:
Well decriminalization of crime would cut the crime rate.


[/quote]

...and a big boost to the freedom movement, not unlike the one that kicked the whole thing off.
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Feb 4, 2014 08:01PM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-04 14:24, irossall wrote:
Decriminalize ALL drugs AND control the drugs by getting them off the street and into the pharmacy so at least those who choose to use drugs, will at least get pure and measured doses of their drug. The drugs on the street have no quality control, there lies the crust of the problem.
Iven :patty:
[/quote]
Not trying to be argumentative here, but who will pay for the costs of these addicts getting their free drugs? And how will that help them kick their habit, or do we just continue to pay for them to be stoned all the time? I don't see any incentive here for folks hooked on hard drugs to try to clean up their act and become productive members of society.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 4, 2014 08:08PM)
From each according to his habit, to each according to his presciption.
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Feb 4, 2014 08:33PM)
Still didn't answer my question tommy; where's the incentive to become productive in society and who pays for it all?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 4, 2014 08:51PM)
Dude Tommy was making a very funny joke! Read it again cross reference Marx it will come to you.
Message: Posted by: gypsyfish (Feb 4, 2014 09:55PM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-04 21:01, Bob1Dog wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-02-04 14:24, irossall wrote:
Decriminalize ALL drugs AND control the drugs by getting them off the street and into the pharmacy so at least those who choose to use drugs, will at least get pure and measured doses of their drug. The drugs on the street have no quality control, there lies the crust of the problem.
Iven :patty:
[/quote]
Not trying to be argumentative here, but who will pay for the costs of these addicts getting their free drugs? And how will that help them kick their habit, or do we just continue to pay for them to be stoned all the time? I don't see any incentive here for folks hooked on hard drugs to try to clean up their act and become productive members of society.
[/quote]

I don't think irossall is saying anything about the public paying for the 'addicts' use. If they can buy drugs from a pharmacy, they will get drugs that aren't adulterated with poisons or get hotshots. In addition the public would benefit because taxes would be paid when the drugs are purchased, just like they are now when you buy prescription drugs at a store. If prices are cheaper, because there's no prohibition, there's no need to buy them on the streets, so crime would decrease since dealers won't be fighting over turf.

The War on Drugs is working no better than Prohibition did in the 1920's in the USA. Money spent on the WoD, would be better used to educate people on the problems of addiction and offering more programs to help addicts get off of their drug of choice.

As far as public health is concerned, more people die because of alcohol abuse/use, or tobacco use or, even, a sedentary lifestyle (being a couch potato).

I don't think that abuse of any drug is a good thing. People should no more be allowed to drive or work under the influence. I don't smoke, drink moderately (a lot less than when I was younger) and, sadly, am a couch potato. If drugs were legalized tomorrow, it wouldn't change my lifestyle and I don't think there would be a major change in drug use.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Feb 4, 2014 09:55PM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-04 00:18, Pakar Ilusi wrote:

You see successful people, you think they are happy... :(

[/quote]

Richard Cory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwqwAy85CgY
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Feb 4, 2014 10:16PM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-04 21:33, Bob1Dog wrote:
Still didn't answer my question tommy; where's the incentive to become productive in society and who pays for it all?
[/quote]
Right Danny, now I get it. My bad. Sometimes tommy confuses me; and that's not meant as a slam. :)
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Feb 4, 2014 10:28PM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-04 22:55, ed rhodes wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-02-04 00:18, Pakar Ilusi wrote:

You see successful people, you think they are happy... :(

[/quote]

Richard Cory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwqwAy85CgY
[/quote]
Edward Arlington Robinson's original poem:

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/richard-cory/

more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cory
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 4, 2014 10:48PM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-04 23:16, Bob1Dog wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-02-04 21:33, Bob1Dog wrote:
Still didn't answer my question tommy; where's the incentive to become productive in society and who pays for it all?
[/quote]
Right Danny, now I get it. My bad. Sometimes tommy confuses me; and that's not meant as a slam. :)
[/quote]
He always confuses me but that was indeed funny!
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Feb 4, 2014 11:21PM)
Yeah, it was. I was slow on the uptake. Gettin' old I guess. :)
Message: Posted by: irossall (Feb 5, 2014 05:22AM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-04 20:23, Dannydoyle wrote:
Have you ever worked with the drug addicted on any level personally?
[/quote]

No. I never worked with drug addicts on any level. I lived with addicts for many years. I know that some want to get off the stuff but they know that their treatment would be an arrest and lockup.
People of influence or affluence rarely have trouble signing into a "good" rehab center. The poor or destitute seldom get a chance to book into a good rehab center but rather must check into a slummy and poorly run rehab center.

Who pays for this? The same people who are paying now for the "War on Drugs", you and me, the taxpayer and the addict if they can afford it.

Last year I lost my best Friend of 42 years due to complications of his hepatitis c that he got back in the early 70's. My Friend along with his Brother would go into a border town of Mexico and partake in a shooting gallery. Dirty needles is most likely what did him in.
My Friend would most likely be alive today if he could have at least access to clean needles and pure drug.
My Friend has been drug free since 1975, yet he died in 2013. He paid the price. How many more must pay before we get back on track and start to really care about each other?

For those who love the "War on Drugs" 2014 may be your lucky year. I think we are about to see the War on Drugs escalate to higher levels.
War is Fun!
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 5, 2014 02:51PM)
Did anyone here but you putting positions on people say the war on drugs was a good thing or has been a success as it is being waged?

War on drugs is idiotic even as a term. It is not a war but a social issue. One that is quite complex and can not be dealt with simplistic solutions such as make all of them legal. There are no simple solutions to complex problems.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Feb 5, 2014 03:23PM)
I don't know the answer but I know some things:

1. You have to take the profit motive out of it. As long as the gangsters can pay off every person from cop to congressman, the problem gets worse. By some means (ask someone smarter than me) we need to take the profit out of it.
2. We need to stop treating the addicts as criminals. You don't have to legalize, but you can decriminalize and force those caught into treatment instead of jail.
3. We need to redirect the resources used to fight relatively harmless substances like weed and focus the attention on hard narcotics where it belongs:

Those things won't eliminate the problem, but they'd take a dent out of the ancillary costs of drug addition.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 5, 2014 03:39PM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-05 16:23, Slide wrote:
I don't know the answer but I know some things:

1. You have to take the profit motive out of it....but they'd take a dent out of the ancillary costs of drug addition.
[/quote]

take the money away? :( :(

what next, address root causes of despair?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 5, 2014 04:12PM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-05 16:23, Slide wrote:
I don't know the answer but I know some things:

1. You have to take the profit motive out of it. As long as the gangsters can pay off every person from cop to congressman, the problem gets worse. By some means (ask someone smarter than me) we need to take the profit out of it.
2. We need to stop treating the addicts as criminals. You don't have to legalize, but you can decriminalize and force those caught into treatment instead of jail.
3. We need to redirect the resources used to fight relatively harmless substances like weed and focus the attention on hard narcotics where it belongs:

Those things won't eliminate the problem, but they'd take a dent out of the ancillary costs of drug addition.
[/quote]

Not bad. Not bad at all.

Addicts are not criminals UNTIL their addiction moves them to be one to feed their habit. THAT is where the line gets a bit blurred.
Getting society to agree upon "relatively harmless substances" might not be as easy as it should be.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 5, 2014 04:39PM)
I keep hearing many of you say by making let us say pot or other drugs legal and easily obtainable by addicts will help solve the problem of drug addiction. I have only one question to ask. Has the same solution solved the problem of alcohol addiction?

I have not followed this thread so maybe this has been asked and answered already.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Feb 5, 2014 04:44PM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-05 17:39, acesover wrote:
I keep hearing many of you say by making let us say pot or other drugs legal and easily obtainable by addicts will help solve the problem of drug addiction. I have only one question to ask. Has the same solution solved the problem of alcohol addiction?

[/quote]

It might have saved a few people of dying from drinking bathtub gin.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Feb 5, 2014 04:48PM)
It ended the reign of corruption and crime that came with prohibition.

It is education that has helped ease cigarette addiction and alcoholism.

It is education and medical help that helps drug addiction.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 5, 2014 07:14PM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-05 17:48, Pop Haydn wrote:
It ended the reign of corruption and crime that came with prohibition.

It is education that has helped ease cigarette addiction and alcoholism.

It is education and medical help that helps drug addiction.
[/quote]

So then the answer to my question is...No. Is that correct?

Making alcohol legal to anyone of age has not prevented alcoholics and in fact may have contributed to the number of alcoholics because of the ease of acquiring it. Would that be correct?

Maybe it is just me but this does not seem like a solution. Seems more like throwing gasoline on a fire in order to extinguish it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 5, 2014 07:16PM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-05 20:14, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-02-05 17:48, Pop Haydn wrote:
It ended the reign of corruption and crime that came with prohibition.

It is education that has helped ease cigarette addiction and alcoholism.

It is education and medical help that helps drug addiction.
[/quote]

So then the answer to my question is...No. Is that correct?

Making alcohol legal to anyone of age has not prevented alcoholics and in fact may have contributed to the number of alcoholics because of the ease of acquiring it. Would that be correct?

Maybe it is just me but this does not seem like a solution. Seems more like throwing gasoline on a fire in order to extinguish it.
[/quote]

I think it's made some problems better and others worse.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 5, 2014 08:02PM)
Your questions often contain your presuppositions. In this case the word "addiction" in there being neglected and then surrounded by safe platitudes. Is addiction treatable - sometimes. is it curable - maybe sometimes. Legislation and social attitude effective at managing... not really. Does the damage done by one out of his mind financial/funds manager measure to that done by thousands of street level drug users? Brin's story "Existence" goes after the damage done by addiction on a different level and raises other questions about narratives.

Getting back to the suffering: Despair. Maladaptation. Addiction.

What would X so much prefer not to address that X instead turns to substance Y?