Paul Reubens Interview

topic posted Sun, July 24, 2005 - 1:07 PM by  SFSlim
msnbc.msn.com/id/4653913/

Features a handy little timeline of Paul's career thus far.
posted by:
SFSlim
SF Bay Area
  • Re: Paul Reubens Interview

    Sun, July 24, 2005 - 1:09 PM
    And another Paul Reubens-related website, this one evidently belonging to "Stalker Wee":

    www.paulreubens.com/
    • Re: Paul Reubens Interview

      Mon, July 25, 2005 - 12:52 PM
      Man - after watching this interview I can't help feel that Paul would be horrendously embarassed by the event on saturday. Bet he never expected to become the patron saint of masturbation!
      • Re: Paul Reubens Interview

        Mon, July 25, 2005 - 2:59 PM
        I watched it too, and while I agree that one could definately come (AAAAAHHH!) away from it with that impression, I have a different take:

        That was Paul do his level best (he's an actor, remember) to save his career by publicly and unequivocally allaying any fears people have of him being a pedophile or pervert.

        It was an absolutely necessary move, and one in which it was crucial that he appear normal, measured, and UTTERLY CLEAR that:

        - He IS NOT a pedophile (nor does he collect kiddie porn)

        - He regrets both incidents deeply

        - He NEVER indecently exposed himself

        He was wise (or well-advised, or both) to not appear even slightly flip or cavalier about these suspicions/allegations. There's a large number of people who would be very ready to write him off as a sicko, and who aren't inclined (or necessarily even able) to parse irony, sarcasm or the all-too-subtle (to them) differences between historical erotic ephemera and kiddie porn. I think that if he'd tried to defend himself in that way, he'd have probably only succeeded in convincing people that he's.... well, weird. And most likely dangerous.

        And with that, so would disappear any chance of a continued Hollywood career. (2 new movies in the works, supposedly! The future of which was likely saved due to this quick and decisive interview.)

        This is how the Hollywood game is played. As such, I don't take his seriousness or flat denials of his sexual (mis?)adventures as an accurate reflection of his true personality. Indeed, I suspect that Mr. Paul Reubens is, like us, a sensitive, creative freak, full of dualities, contradictions, desires and hypocrisies, all bubbling around in a confusing stew, from which he occasionally ladles out a dollop of that strange substance we call "art".

        Did he rock out with his cock out when he was 40? Oh yeah.

        Is he, at 50 something, smart enough to know that he has to deny it? Yessiree Wee!

        What then, does he likely think of PRD? I have no doubt that - privately - he's deeply amused by and supportive of it.

        Just my $0.02,

        - (s)Punk Wee (AKA Slim)
      • Re: Paul Reubens Interview

        Mon, July 25, 2005 - 3:01 PM
        Seriously. I think he'd be really offended by everyone projecting their sexuality onto him and Pee Wee. Pee Wee is innocent and naive, looking up girl's skirts with mirror shoes, not running around waving his dick at people. I thought the message was that it should be okay for Paul Reubens to masturbate in a porno theater and that he shouldn't be shamed and that people should still love Pee Wee in spite of it. NOT that Pee Wee and Paul are one in the same and that they are both big time obnoxious perverts who can't stop beating off in public and that they would somehow approve of the porn being shown along side clips from the playhouse.

        After being at the afterparty for a while, I genuinely felt bad that he called in. At least said he "really didn't know what to think." I know everyone's heart is in the right place, and I'm sure that's why he was willing to give the benefit of the doubt. But that's also what makes it feel so exploitive.
        • This post was deleted by SFSlim
        • Re: Paul Reubens Interview

          Mon, July 25, 2005 - 5:10 PM
          Food for thought Macki, and cause for some reflection...

          > I thought the message was that it should be okay for Paul Reubens
          > to masturbate in a porno theater and that he shouldn't be shamed
          > and that people should still love Pee Wee in spite of it.

          This is certainly my personal take on it.

          Having said that, I'm not sure that there is one universally accepted message to Paul Reubens Day. Like most group events, each participant brings their own interpetation of the event, and acts out their own expression of it. According to the PRD website, there is an underlying intent of sex- (and by inclusion, masturbation-) positivity. But such cacophony-styled events also, by their nature, involve and invite a large degree of, well.... cacophony. People creatively transgressing in public, whether as debauched Santas, perverted clowns or, in this case, excessively onanistic Pee Wees. In the case of PRD, some folks choose to come (AAAAAHHH!) to celebrate Pee Wee, some come to celebrate porn, or sexuality in general, and some just come to fuck shit up; to hack people's predictable daily bubble of consensus reality with the weirdest or most taboo juxtapositions possible. And the juxtaposition of the iconically naive (and asexual) man-boy Pee Wee with that of the accidentally infamous sexual human being Paul Reubens is, undeniably, a powerful one.

          > NOT that Pee Wee and Paul are one in the same and that they
          > are both big time obnoxious perverts

          I believe that that separation is clearly understood, at least by all the PRD organizers and participants that I know. But the tension that is created between those two poles - the nearly sexless Pee Wee and the all-too-human Paul Reubens - makes a great spark gap for art.

          I'm very sorry to hear that you felt sorry about Paul's call (I know that many people, including myself, were just thrilled by it) and are concerned about PRD feeling exploitive and I'd be genuinely interested to hear in what ways you think PRD participants could course-correct to avoid that in the future.


          - (s)Punk Wee
          • Re: Paul Reubens Interview

            Mon, July 25, 2005 - 5:24 PM
            Slim, you've mostly, er, nailed my take on it with your talk of consensus reality blah blah blah juxtpostion etc blah, although I usually try not to get so outwardly philosophical about it. I'd like to say also that, for me, the combination of the Pee-Wee character with masturbation, simulated bukkake, and only too real pantslessness, er, arises not as such from a projection of my sexuality. I think of it as a celebration of both childlike playfulness and adult sexuality - two things which can go, er, hand in hand, but rarely do, at least in any kind of public way. Things can easily get confused and confusing that way if they're, er, handled wrong. Then again, we're all human, and I happen to believe that "confused" is our natural state of being anyway.

            Okay, I'll stop rambling now. I'm sure I've managed to clear nothing up for anyone. And 'Sesame Street' is on.
          • Re: Paul Reubens Interview

            Mon, July 25, 2005 - 6:01 PM
            > I'd be genuinely interested to hear in what ways you think PRD participants
            > could course-correct to avoid that in the future.

            I don't think you can really course-correct such a beast. As you've described, it's a system of anarchy and everyone is free to express it however they feel it. Obviously not everyone is going to be on the same page.

            It just isn't possible to promote a message that masturbation is healthy and normal while also trying to mess with "people's predictable daily bubble of consensus reality with the weirdest or most taboo juxtapositions possible."

            See, that's all well and good, and I'm not trying to say anyone is wrong, because it's all entirely subjective. But, that said, there is one CORE difference between santa/clowns and Paul Reubens', which of course is that the latter is real person. The fact that Paul Reubens exists would be less relevant if no one cared about his approval, feelings, or interests. By involving Paul Reubens, a layer of individual subjectivity is removed.

            Basically I'm saying that you accept him as an authority of what is appropriate behavior so long as you care about whether or not he would approve. Not everyone does. I don't see being able to really *do* anything about it though, it's just the nature of things.

            Maybe Irene has more insight, since she actually talked to him about the event. My impression though is that he heard about the sort of grand altruistic sex positive message, and would be horrified by the reality of how his image was being used.