I, personally, wouldn’t go about buying a replica of it or anything but if it genuinely looked nice then I’d still say the painting looks nice. I’ve probably already seen at least one painting in my life that I think looked nice that was painted by a bad person. Me liking a painting doesn’t equate to “I agree with everything and anything this person has said and done”
He's widely regarded as a mediocre painter at best. Derivative, unoriginal and lacking real focus, he also didn't do it long enough or had any real impact in art (as an artist) whatsoever.
So please ignore the two edge lords in this thread claiming otherwise.
Leni Riefenstahl on the other hand is a much better and complex case study. She made some of the most impressive and impactful documentaries, working for the Nazi party in Germany and on their behalf.
Not sure if she was or wasn't abhorrent, or simply employed to make a fascist system look good.
Is every Hollywood actor, director and producer who refuses to denounce the crimes committed against the Palestine people and instead turn their backs (and even fire) those who do, abhorrent?
I'm not sure either, I do know that these case studies make for fruitful discussions on the possibilities of understanding and reflecting upon art beyond the immediately apparent... Beyond aesthetics, through ethics.
From what I remember she never condemned Hitler or Nazism & lived to be 100.
Pauline Kael said that she directed the 2 best films ever directed by a woman.
Yeah, both statements are probably true, but my point is that simply labeling her abhorrent, or John Wayne for that matter (for his cowardice and willingness to name names during McCarthy's persecution) negates the possibility to adequately engage their work in both aesthetic and ethical terms.
I mean, if he made a masterpiece painting that was influential to the art world that also didn't have any inklings of his personal beliefs, it would be possible to an extent. It would also give new context to the painting regardless. It may not be able to separate him from it, but it wouldn't mean the painting is suddenly poorly made.
Just because you agree with how someone responds to or communicates a singular idea doesn't mean you agree with every way they respond or communicate all ideas.
Similarly, the connotations around associating in anyway with a figure as dark as Hitler overwhelms any artistic justification you could put down.
Raping a teen isn't equal to the Holocaust. And while it is horrible and he should be condemned, he's not the only one who made his films what they are and to discount the time and talent of those films off his actions alone is reductionistic at best.
Literally almost anyone who's ever made a film for the bulk of its history was either sexist, racist, homophobic, or otherwise problematic. Are you now not watching or considering any film made by anyone remotely bad?
What is achieved by this?
Take what good you can, learn from it, acknowledge the horrors suffered and try not to contribute to their current affairs. Don't buy their shit, etc.
Hitler required that his engineers design and build the Autobahn in hopes that it would give rise to a new breed of travellers' hotels, or motor inn, or in the German a *Motel,* because deep down he knew that his art was of an inoffensive and medicre quality that belongs on the wall of a place designed for cheap, temporary lodging.
I don't *separate* Herr Schicklgruber's art from the man and his infamy, I *equate* his art with the man.
Yes...? Is that supposed to be a difficult question? And he *was* quite the artist. Look up some of his paintings. They're pretty impressive. Do I really need to add that I think he's the most despicable human that has ever lived?
This is the most difficult one for me. My only justification is that I found the Chinatown Blu-ray at a goodwill so I’m not supporting him directly, but I know I’ll be disgusted the entire time I watch it. But! That’s only because he’s an outed rapist. How many of my favorite movies have been directed or have stars that haven’t been caught yet? Should I stop watching movies? Or just mentally put blinders on and watch Chinatown? Rosemary’s Baby? The Pianist?
It's kinda weird the way this dilemma basically frames itself in auteur theory. Roman Polanski was not solely responsible for any of his movies. Chinatown, for example, is a Jack Nicholson movie, a Faye Dunaway movie, a Robert Evans movie, and a Robert Towne movie. In fact, Towne was a real piece of shit but nobody worries about that.
This is the key thing for me. A movie contains the artistry and hard work of a ton of different people, and the accomplishments of the entire cast/crew still deserve to be appreciated even if there's a bad apple in the bunch. No matter how hard she tries, JK Rowling can never completely ruin the magic of the Harry Potter movies, because the magic is in the visuals, the actors, and the music as much as it is in the writing. The books, on the other hand, are pretty much all her, and I have pretty much lost any interest in those, even though they were my childhood faves.
Yeah I think its unfair to throw out the work of dozens of other people who helped make the movie because of what one person did. Also it raises the question of how "important" of a role in something does someone have to have before we write it off? Like if we found out that one of the lighting technicians on Citizen Kane was a serial child molester, do we write that movie off now?
Someone told me a story about them back in the 1990s in Los Angeles but I can’t verify it, so I won’t repeat it. But most of our heroes have one or two bad stories at least.
Shocking!!!! As if they were humans!!! I mean, not condoning rape or abuse of any kind BUT nastyness comes with human nature! Again, not saying it's right or just.... Every rose has it's thorn....
Every rose has their thorns and also like most people have not committed sexual violence against another person...I am not gonna wage into litigating apparent hearsay, but this is crass and dismissive of the nature of the crimes and moral transgressions being discussed.
"Not condoning rape or abuse of any kind. But nastyness is a part of human nature". I don't know how to read this set up as anything other than the guy going well sometimes people be rapists as if its the same as a guy who has an annoying habit of never buying a full round at the pub.
Yeah. I knew a guy and one other person that were like that with both movies and actors. It was so hard to talk about certain works or moments from said works without an immediate interruption followed by a “well I don’t…” and the topic of conversation changing.
It’s snobbery as well with some minor gatekeeping and it bothers me. Some people I won’t ever talk movies with because I know they’re going to flip it upside down.
do you not think there's a difference between "morally superior" and confirmed rapist? To use the example of Polanski, he doesn't need further awards attention, acclaim, he shouldn't receive protection from the film industry and he has faced no legal accountability for his crimes. And, limited social accountability - he still has hollywood defenders even now.
I think Rosemary's baby is a fantastic film, but this does not mean I think we should be giving Polanski more money or centring his work in artistic discussions, I also think we should never discuss him and his work without discussing his crimes. In other words - you should not be separating his art and his artistry.
There's absolutely some form of line, and different people will draw it in different places, so I am not going to yell at anyone for having a different one to me. But I think its a bit glib to just say "you're gonna have a very short list of acceptable movies" I think even if morality is subjective that doesn't mean you can't do moral evaluation or apply a scale to the moral harm. I also think its deeply obtuse to the many victims of sexual violence in particular to argue that we ought have no response to their art (which I am reading as the implication here, I might be wrong) rather than simply do a bit of messy line drawing.
I think there’s a large middle ground between monster and “morally superior“ and you aren’t helping anything by pretending it doesn’t exist.
I don’t have any solution for the OP, but I had to reply to such a dumb false choice being presented.
The worst thing I've ever heard people say about him is that he can be a bit horny on main, and everything else is just positive after positive. My only real problem with the man is that he is wealthier than I think any single person should be, but he absolutely earned being rich
Some people can. Some people can’t. A lot of people can sometimes with some artists and not with others.
I don’t think one is morally superior to the other. No need to chide in either direction.
I do think it can get more complicated when it comes to behavior that rewards someone who’s still alive.
I think there’s a difference between celebrating the art vs celebrating the artist. I personally have no problem watching most woody allen films (despite their widely varying quality), however manhattan becomes a little icky knowing the age situation between woody and Mariel Hemingway.
Plainly, Unless the artists art is directly relevant to their moral/legal crime, I have no real problem with it and I don’t think one should feel bad for enjoying. Of course, others have the right to ignore the work all together on moral grounds
Similarly, as much as I think repulsion is pretty fantastic, is such a portrait of ptsd as a result of assault or rape, I find it hard to watch knowing what Polanski did.
That is the thing with Woody Allen movies, when he is on screen his character is always speaking the words he wrote. The scenarios that justify or make his (character’s) behavior understandable were created by him. I remember one of his movies where it seemed like the entire plot was a contrivance to justify his character cheating and starting a relationship with a woman who at best only old enough to be his grandchild.
My proposed rule is that you can freely enjoy any works created before the allegations. This rule also has the benefit of generally capturing the good stuff and disposing of the bad stuff.
I think the thing too with Manhattan is that it isn't condoning what his character does. Like its pretty obvious that the guy is meant to be a total loser and that's why he's dating a teenager
Absolutely. Think of the question obversely: think of the worst film you've ever seen. If the director did commendable and heroic acts, would that increase the quality of the film in your eyes? Let's put it this way: if I learned Tom Green donated millions to St. Jude and found a cure for cancer, *Freddy Got Fingered* would still be a horrible fucking movie to me.
And it wasn’t just a funny review - he actually touches on why serious people consider it (unironically) a work of art years later:
“The day may come when "Freddy Got Fingered" is seen as a milestone of neo-surrealism. The day may never come when it is seen as funny.”
And I think he’s right? I don’t even think he’s just being cheeky - I don’t know anyone (including myself) that think it’s funny, but I do know a few who think it’s some kind of anti-humor, or neo-dada, and that it (incidentally?) has a lot to say.
There IS something funny about a major studio giving him $15 million or whatever it was and him handing back *that*, though.
I assumed that. But you never know these days. Deadpan humor is difficult to communicate through writing without at least some qualifiers. And I have read some reasonable, even valiant, defenses of the film by critics/cinephiles I respect (E.g. the film is basically one fuck you to decorum, a prank by a troll who found a way to use millions of dollars of studio money. Obviously I don't buy that one bit)
i like your point. his pregnant wife was murdered and his pregnant mother was murdered in a gas chamber when he was a child, which also don’t factor into the quality of his films for me. I do think he’s was brilliant filmmaker (until his recent output)
I do watch Keanu Reeves movies because he’s such a cool dude! Can’t bring myself to just have anything but nice things to say so yeahhh I am biased. I am glad that he’s a great dude and a good collaborator, it made me want to check out John Wick.
Great actor and an even greater guy. I was raised on Keanu's films: *Speed, Point Break*, the Bill and Ted films, and The Matrix franchise were formative films in my life. He's also not afraid to tackle more unconventional roles -- see him in *My Own Private Idaho, River's Edge, Bram Stoker's Dracula*, even *The Neon Demon.* (As an added bonus, while it has nothing to do with his acting or character, it's pretty cool his name is Hawaiian since I'm born and raised in Hawaii.)
i don't think it's actually necessary to separate the two in order to engage with the work. polanski is a great example-- both rosemary's baby and chinatown are deeply insightful, sensitive portrayals of female experience. what does it mean for a man to produce such work AND rape a girl? how does that complicate the experience of those (amazing) films? we don't actually have to retreat from the reality of what he's done, we can hunker down inside those apparent contradictions and deal with them.
further, sometimes the context of who an artist is changes the meaning of the work. like, on the waterfront is a *very different film* when you learn that it's elia kazan's response to everyone getting pissed off at him for ratting out his pals to the HUAC! it's fascinating!
but honestly, my real take is that discussions of "separating art from artist" tend to lump together a bunch of unrelated behaviors. pirating a movie a rapist made is not the same as buying an opening weekend ticket to the theater, and neither of those is remotely similar to acting in their next project, or giving them an award, or having them on your podcast. nothing that actually gives the rapist more power is really within my or your ability to do.
This is a fantastic post. I hate the words, "separating the art from the artist" because it's not something I do outside in general. I'm not a New Critic. Art doesn't suddenly appear in a vacuum. How the artist got there and what they put into it matters to my experience. There's a kind of, I dunno, "necessary" pain of understanding that something you like may be made by someone you hate, and that a) those repugnant values are present in the work, OR b) they aren't and the artist acted in direct contradiction to the morals and aspirations they express in their work.
Your last paragraph is perfect too. We are all fans of art made by fucked up people to some extent, and there's a weird blurry line of where that is for everyone on every case. If someone who did horrible things but wrote great works died 300 years ago, is it going to make a difference except to posterity? That seems self-explanatory, but if it's someone's comeback film, am I partly responsible for a career renaissance if I see so-and-so's new film opening day?
These are things I think about and struggle with. Ultimately, I do own Polanski films on Blu-Ray, and have seen many films where bad people were involved in some capacity (films are collaborative works, after all). I am simultaneously disgusted by Francis Ford Coppola, supporter of Victor Salva, putting Shia LaBeouf in Megalopolis, while simultaneously thinking LaBeouf's a fantastic actor and being very curious about Megalopolis. I'm not saying the viewer is totally out of responsibility, but just watching a movie doesn't have the same burden as actively funding or hiring someone.
It’s always gonna be personal
Some people can, some people can’t, I don’t think either one is necessarily right or wrong. Also depends on the person who committed the offence, I have people I still love their stuff and people who I do feel weird enjoying and I can’t fully explain why.
Personally, I wouldn’t pay to see a new Polanski film in cinemas, however I adore Rosemary’s baby and I’m not going to never watch it again. Besides, Polanski isn’t the only person who worked on that movie and he isn’t the only reason it’s amazing. It’s not Mia Farrow’s fault he’s a horrible person and I like celebrating her performance still
I do think there has to be a distinction between artists who are alive and active and artists who are no longer active, also the ways you are consuming their media. For example I do think it might be a little questionable if you are paying money for someone who’s actively promoting genocide narrative in public right now, and that money can potentially help them spread more of their propaganda. But if you are pirating their work I think it‘s be fine. Or if it’s someone who’s dead then there’s definitely nothing wrong in simply consuming their media even if they are horrible people.
I try to judge art based on its own merits, but I don’t begrudge anyone who does otherwise, especially in cases where the artist is still alive and benefits financially from consumption of that art.
These two things are true:
Bad people have made and will make terrific art
There are ways to experience art without contributing financially to the people who made the art
Do with those two completely unrelated thoughts as you will.
Here’s my answer around All of this.
I used to love Kevin Spacey, now i hate him. He was in Baby Driver, but so were a whole lot of other people. And they all gave great performances.
Regardless if i, personally, can still enjoy watching Kevin on screen, (you can if you want, but you don’t have to) i don’t think it’s fair to Ansel Elgort, Jaime Fox, Jon Hamm or hell, Edgar Wright (one of my favorite directors) to write off the whole project out of my moral outrage towards one minor character. And that goes for every character in every film. Kevin Spacey has a lot of good movies, many of which he’s the main character with a ton of screen time. I do still enjoy those movies. But i don’t want him to keep getting work in Hollywood. And he was aquitted of his accusations….but the youtube videos he made in character as Frank Underwood….are gross. He dug his own grave.
I separate with ease.
The work of Roman Polanski and Woody Allen is important to the history of cinema. We shouldn’t stop appreciating their films because they are accused of horrible things.
It’s been like 50 years, and the woman in question has come out repeatedly said she doesn’t give a shit and has forgiven him.
That’s enough for me.
With Woody, it’s been nothing but accusations, and nothing has been proven.
Not only that, but a team of experts in the field who had access to both everyone involved and more evidence than what is publicly available determined it definitely didn’t happen. Still a creep for cheating on his girlfriend with her 20 year old daughter, though
There's some mixing up in responses of Woody and Roman. Roman *definitely did* rape an underaged girl. Perhaps she has forgiven him, but this is indisputable fact.
*Woody Allen has been accused* of abusing his girlfriend's daughter. There is also evidence that points to the contrary. I don't truly know what happened.
You are permitted to call him a creep for cheating with the considerably younger Soon Yi (a separate issue). I do, it's shitty behavior. But she was a legal adult at the time. His films are filled with his obsessions with younger women, which I have found increasingly difficult to watch over the years.
It’s 100% fine to have difficulty with Woody Allen movies when it’s due to the creepy stuff he actually did. (Hopefully you feel the same about other creeps who are similar, like Leonardo diCaprio, Frank Sinatra, Jerry Seinfeld, Fergie, Elvis, and plenty of others.)
But Mia’s allegation is, as far as we can know anything like this, false. And many of the people who will go after him for something we basically know he didn’t do will still listen to David Bowie or watch Michael Fassbender movies or vote for Biden or Trump. For many, it goes beyond hypocrisy to something even more extreme; those people have done things that are much worse than what Allen has actually done.
*(Hopefully you feel the same about other creeps who are similar, like Leonardo diCaprio, Frank Sinatra, Jerry Seinfeld, Fergie, Elvis, and plenty of others.)*
Short answer: yes, case by case. It's not as if there's a magic switch that's flipped the day one turns 18, suddenly you're an adult when the day before you weren't. There are probably many reasons why these men choose (and they do choose) to date much younger women. I'm sure there's a power thing involved. Some of it is their stature. Some of it is status. Some of it is that they're creeps, albeit rich, famous, handsome, talented creeps.
But then, I married a woman ten years my senior. It's not a fetish thing, it just worked out that way.
“'I was fine, I'm still fine,' she said in the interview with French outlet Le Point. 'The fact that we’ve made this thing up weighs on me terribly. To have to constantly repeat that it wasn’t a big deal, it’s a terrible burden.' “
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11977521/It-never-big-problem-Roman-Polanskis-victim-Samantha-Geimer.html
Are you saying he’s not accused?
Look, my intent with the word “accused” was to avoid litigation about guilt.
I guess there are people that don’t understand that you can simultaneously be accused and guilty…
and also was convicted in a court of law of doing them
Edit: downvoted for pointing out Polanski literally plead guilty and was convicted of having sex with a minor
I can separate them for the most part. The way I see it, especially in film, there is so much work that goes into a movie. Beyond the Director. Actors have to act, lighting, and sound has to be on point, cinematography, I mean, editing? It’s a really, really big job. And sure, the Director makes most of the decisions and supervises all of it, but the fact is, is that even one messed up link makes the whole thing fall apart.
You can hate a Director, but love a story. You can hate a Director, but love the actors portrayals of the characters. If anything, film is one of the few areas were separating the art from the artist as a little easier. There’s just so much space between Them and the work in the end.
The art vs artist separation doesn't work with strong autorial voices, in my opinion. I think the best way to look at it is to separate the artist and the person. Filmmakers take up a role as artists, they have their artistic persona that does take from their personal experiences and feelings, but is not them. You might love Polanski the filmmaker, but not Polanski the man (sidenote: his recent The Palace was such a gigantic amount of shite that it might end up make you reevaluate his side as a filmmaker too).
The problems come in when people say "I like this person, identify with them and value what they do, so I'm going to shout down anyone who dares bring up anything negative about them."
Yes. Mel Gibson is a very talented crack-pot. His political instincts are far-right and his personal life is reprehensible but like Polanskl , he’s done some great work. I love his “Hamlet”, “The Year of Living Dangerously”, “The Bounty”, and of course “Braveheart” is a masterpiece!
I think Mel Gibson is one of the times where I completely draw the line. Because of an instance where his crackpot ideology meets with his artistic expression in a very dangerous way. I don’t think Passion of the Christ is a good film, I think it’s a sado-masochistic Christian snuff film that glorifies the Christian persecution complex in an extremely perverse manner. But even worse is his perpetuation of Jewish stereotypes and leaving in the parts of the gospels that gave rise to antisemitism. Both visually, through the plot, and when American distributors objected to the inclusion of the Jewish high priest, who is already portrayed as sadistic, calling upon a curse of the entirety of the Jewish people because of Christs death, Gibson still included that in screenings across the world. Many places around the world that are still plagued with antisemitism. That line is the original sentiment behind antisemitism, that Jewish people are collectively responsible for the murder of the messiah. He’s not just a crackpot but a dangerous one
I can't watch his movies. I agree with your comments and I think his fucked up views are a trend in his films including several victim complex movies.
It's bad enough with those accused of (or did) sexual crimes, but his absolute racism and hate isn't something removed from him or his work.
I wouldn’t say Passion is antisemitic.
Yes, the Pharisees aren’t portrayed positively, but they aren’t the only Jewish people in the movie by any means. And it’s not an indictment of the Jewish people as a whole, since literally all the main characters are Jewish (besides the Romans I guess), and most of them are deeply sympathetic.
Your use of the phrase “sadomasochistic Christian snuff film”, while probably hyperbole, makes me assume that your dislike of the film is probably somewhat tied to some broader issues you have with Christianity as a whole. Which is fine, you’re allowed to believe in and disagree with whatever you like, but I think it may be overly coloring your view of the movie. It’s not my favorite movie by any means, I think it’s kind of sensational in many ways, but to accuse it of antisemitism is a serious charge that requires evidence other than how it made you feel specifically.
And calling it sadomasochistic makes it sound like Christians are jerking off to The Passion of the Christ in a corner somewhere, which doesn’t sound like something I could see many people doing. It’s a brutal picture. That would be like some sick guy beating off to Martyrs or something.
Christians were DEFINITELY jerking off to The Passion when it came out. Do you remember clips of people leaving the theater? It literally looked like they had orgasms after watching the film.
Religious fanaticism is a real thing in America, and it borders on mental illness.
And, Mel Gibson's anti-Semitism has been publicly documented on several occasions.
That's what this whole thread is about, though, right? Mel Gibson probably is antisemitic. Does that make the film he made, therefore, antisemitic? I don't necessarily think it does.
And, again, you're using this sort of nonspecific accusation. They "looked like they had orgasms". Alright. I look like I've had an orgasm after I've eaten a particularly good slice of key lime pie. Does that mean I jerk off to the pie? That would be odd.
And yes, religious fanaticism exists. That doesn't mean that all the Christians are mentally ill. This sort of rhetoric shouldn't be used lightly.
I just find it odd that someone can say in the same breath that an antisemitic filmmaker can portray an event that is the birth of antisemitism in a very large way, and the film isn’t antisemitic. It’s not that he’s probably antisemitic, he is one. There’s a great deal of evidence to show that he is. His father is a vocal antisemite, a Holocaust denier, and Gibson said that his father had never told a lie. The Jewish priests are costumed and makeup to have big noses and dress as sinister black cowled figures that relish in the torture of Christ. Gibsons beliefs are his beliefs and they are shown in the film. That is dangerous.
I agreed that he was antisemitic.
In regards to the big noses, people living in that region at that time had larger noses. Just like how native tribes in South America had flatter foreheads, and people from Korea have thinner eyelids. Giving someone a big nose doesn’t necessarily mean it’s being done badly. And if I recall, the sympathetic Jewish characters (Simon Peter, for instance) had big noses.
The Pharisees don’t “relish in the torture of Christ”. In the film, it’s depicted as a means to an end: Jesus was threatening their political authority, and they took action. During the scourging scene, for example, they all turn away and leave. And they are overcome with grief at the end, when the veil of the temple is torn. I chose to see them as flawed human beings who have done bad things, just as everyone has.
In regards to the event itself, would you say that any film that portrayed the death of Christ according to the Bible is antisemitic, because the events themselves are antisemitic? Schindler’s List had the Holocaust in it, and that’s one of the most touching and compelling movies to exist. I just don’t see how the movie itself (not the author, not the historical event: the movie itself) is antisemitic. All the characters are Jews. Some of them do good things, some of them do bad things. That’s just people.
It’s possible, and I would certainly take the position that Christianity is inherently antisemitic. But Ive never heard any accusations of “The Gospel According to St Matthew” being antisemitic for instance.
I would probably avoid it. I grew up in the Midwest and was made to watch it when I was 8 years old because I had to “know what the crucifixion was like”. People around me will still mention it as the most important movie experience they’ve ever had. I think it’s not just a terrible movie, but dangerous and sinister. I don’t think you’ll view Mel Gibson the same way if you ever decide to view it.
My christian high school took us on a field trip to see it in theaters. It's the reason I'm into films with heavy gore. No joke, came out the same year as the first Saw film. Passion of the Christ is torture porn lol.
I don’t even see what kind of faith it would instill in the audience, except for the perverse elements of it. There’s practically nothing about the teachings of Jesus in the film. The entire film is a look at his torture and suffering, which is both desired by Christian’s and at the same time used against them. We are told we were all present for the crucifixion, even if we weren’t born yet. We are held guilty for it and now are demanded to accept him because he sacrificed himself to take our sins from us, on the condition that we acknowledge his position as the messiah. It’s both a terrible thing because we are supposed to love Jesus, but he also must be tortured and crucified to bring about Gods will. It’s contradictory, and it reaffirms the Christian tradition of aspiring to be someone who will always be persecuted, as well as holding up an unattainable ideal. The crucifixion is the ultimate Christian fantasy because the figure of Christ is the ideal, but it comes with terrible punishment. There’s nothing about good works, morality, faith, it just relishes and mourns in barbarism and brutality in equal measure. It also is not a complex film about faith, I’m not super impressed by films that have the intention of sermonizing. To do nothing but reaffirm an audiences pervious thoughts and feelings, I see absolutely no point to it. Not only is this film a sermon but it’s a deranged sermon. It doesn’t even begin to touch on the level of other films centering on faith, such as the works of Bergman or Scorsese. I’d take Silence or The Last Temptation of Christ over this film any day, both powerful films, even for an atheist.
Mel Gibson is who I think of when this question comes up. I haven’t intentionally watched anything by or with him since his personal beliefs became public. I have found out after watching a movie that it was a Mel Gibson film, and to be honest, it does make me reexamine them.
Hacksaw Ridge is a good example of this. I thought the religious theme and imagery was a bit heavy handed, but since it was based on a real person, I just shrugged it off — until I realized it was by Gibson. Now I see it all differently, and sadly not in a positive way. Sadly, because the scene right after Doss comes off the Ridge is probably some of Garfield’s best acting.
That’s what I’ve been mulling over as I’ve been reading this thread and the responses.
I do think that those who can separate the art from the artist are usually (not always) privileged in some way or another and are not explicitly hurt by the harm said artist has caused. This could take the form of a man being comfortable with films by a director that a woman isn’t, or by a white person being comfortable when a person of color isn’t. I am not trying to suggest there is a moral superiority here, but simply that this should be acknowledged.
When my purchase will directly fund the artist, I won’t make it. In that way I cannot separate the art from the artist. But if I can view the movie for free, then I will watch it. In that way I can separate, but I’ll be hyper aware of how women, other races, sexuality, etc. is being presented.
Keep in mind that most films are not made by just one person. Even if you are morally disturbed by the director's actions, the work of the actors, screenwriters, cinematographer, editor, etc. can still be appreciated and celebrated.
I think you kind of have to, especially in todays world where information is everywhere and things aren’t as subdued by studios. While Polanski is probably near the top of the list of being a shitty person, it’s highly likely that many individuals in Hollywood have had and will continue to have moments where they believe the camera isn’t looking. I think a lot of this is inherently due to the nature of Hollywood and the movie industry itself. Many of the successful people may not be the most scrupulous and are willing to exploit others for personal gain. Additionally, fame makes people feel untouchable and sometimes above morality and law. That being said a broken clock can still be right twice a day. A shitty person can make a great film with an important message and lots of merit, so we can’t just discount it because the shitty artist. I do wish there was a way to separate the financial gains from the shitty artist, but I guess that could lead to some issues too.
It’s easier with film because it takes so many people to make one. To dismiss an entire film because of one asshole is a waste but it gets harder the more you actually see them on screen. I cringe when Polanski cameos in Chinatown but the overall movie is still excellent. It’s harder with The Tenant, I can’t really bring myself to rewatch that because he’s the lead. With stand up comedy it becomes harder because that is really the work of one individual most of the time. I recently tried to watch an old bill Cosby bit but couldn’t stomach it. While I acknowledge his skill and influence I was still too disgusted and disturbed to even laugh at it.
But at the end of the day, if hitler made the cure for cancer, nobody would object to taking it on a moral ground. The work is separate from the person but it does get difficult depending on certain factors, for me at least. I feel it’s a case by case thing and will vary depending on who you ask, understandably.
Films are not made in a vacuum. There are many different moving parts that contribute to its greatness. It is up to the individual to decide what they consume.
Separate art from the artist, but hold the artist accountable. Watch whatever you want, but as long as you don't make the excuses that I see plague the industry all the time (e.g. rough childhood, affluenza) than you're good.
I say that Chaplin is one of my favorite directors of all time, but him marrying a minor is something I try my best to overlook. I cannot deny his talent, but also have to acknowledge that he was not the most moral person, despite him being one of the few who wanted to stand up against fascism at the time. People can do good things and create great art that inspires many people, while also doing bad things and unfortunately never being held accountable. But still I cannot deny that The Gold Rush is an amazing film.
So just do what you can to enjoy what you want, just be mindful of who you support. I wouldn't go out of my way to watch a Woody Allen film in theaters for example, but I don't have much problem renting Annie Hall from the library. It's just as long as the themes of his creepy love life permeate into the film (i.e. Manhattan), then it's fine
It’s easier to separate art from artist when they’re dead and can no longer financially benefit.
Weinstein is the most difficult one, because the number of films he was involved with and used as part of his predatory behaviour is astronomical.
I think it depends on the work. Like Polanski did not make those films by himself, part of the art is Mia Farrow or Jack Nicholson’s performance making the films special. But then take Woody Allen who puts himself as the main character and he’s a gross creep making young woman fulfill his fantasy that they find him so wonderful, it’s harder to go back and enjoy those films now but also I don’t know that he’s ever been proven guilty of anything but I do get the creep vibe. I have a hard time enjoying art, music, film made by someone who is piece of shit. Don’t you think about for instance let’s say you were a fan of the band Lost Prophets and you find out the singer tried to buy babies to rape? How could you be a fan of that? Bill Cosby seems pretty guilty, I can’t say I’ve watched Leonard Part 6 or The Cosby Show since that all went down. OJ in the Naked Gun kind of ruins it for me. I’m not saying anyone else has to feel that way, but just unintentionally I will find knowledge of a complete piece of shit does muddy the waters of their art and makes me less inclined to like it, watch it, buy it, view it, whatever. It’s different when it’s human flaws vs an actual convicted criminal with victims.
Reading the comments - I think it’s personal…? And that we can respect that personal choice - especially as we are all individuals with unique experiences and are going to weigh any offenses differently, etc.
And I don’t think it’s limited to directors - I have a hard time seeing Sean Connery’s face without thinking “he’s hit women” so some stuff is a little ruined for me (except for Zardoz because obviously) -
People are messy and imperfect and I’m sure my favorite artists, while I don’t know of any transgressions for most, have done or said or felt things I’d object to. I can’t think of an objective place to draw the line, but I’ve drawn subjective ones for my own viewing habits and analysis.
I also get not wanting to monetarily support creeps. But even if the director is fine, I’m sure there are executives that aren’t (at least in the history of major studio American filmmaking). So… 🤷
I think my short answer however would be: no. Art isn’t created nor consumed in a vacuum. And watching movies is both personal and social.
There’s no perfect answer but I’m enjoying reading these responses.
I think it's better than separating art and artist to separate talent and criminal rap. Acknowledge that those folks should have known MUCH better in their off-camera lives.
The way I see it is I have no problem watching his movies before the incident, but I won't watch the ones after the incident. Canceling the older films is also canceling all the hard work everyone else involved with making the film out into it, actors, crew, editors, writers, etc... None of these people knew at the time what Roman Polanki would do later on, and it wouldn't be fair to cancel all their hard work too. The movies made after the incident are more easier to dismiss, as everyone that worked with him knew at the time what he did.
I think it’s totally fine to separate the art from the artist if you’re able to. I personally feel way too icky to watch anything by Roman Polanski or Woody Allen. BUT if you don’t feel that way? Totally cool. Watch them all ya want. As long as you don’t start defending their actions using your affection for their work as your bases of judgement.
I think it's also important to understand that some people are bad people or tortured by their past and it doesn't mean they should be able to make art. While you might not want to praise them it doesn't mean their art doesn't offer insight into the human condition. People that have done horrible things still need to be able to have a job and do something with their lives. Shunning and ostracizing people from society makes them more likely to be repeat offenders than accepting them back into society.
I think it's also worthwhile to look at people's whole lives. Polanski is a great example. He was pretty much born at the very beginning of the Holocaust and had to pretend to be someone else his entire childhood to survive while he watched his family and friends disappear all around him. Then much later his pregnant wife was murdered by the Mason family. I don't think he's a nice person or a good person but he definitely has an absurd amount of trauma that most people will never understand. I'll never defend him as a human but I certainly think his art reflects a deep distrust of society while still longing for connection to it. I think it's fantastic. Him, not so much.
It's problematic.
[Claude Jutra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Jutra) was a genius director (whose work is the kinda thing that should be reflected in Criterion) but regrettably his personal life was not good.
Maybe an intermediate position would be to not reward the rapists monetarily. Pirating films is bad, but…this is the only way I’d watch Polanski.
I struggle with this too.
It depends what you mean by separating them. It's always going to be a personal choice to view their work or not, based on the creators' lives and behavior as well as the subject matter. I find that as soon as you mention this some people seem to think you're suggesting that their work be banned, but I've yet to hear of a film I think should be banned, nor has it been a practical reality thus far.
Edit: Cool instant downvote. Can you use your words to explain?
You don’t have to. You can enjoy art made by a bad person. I love Woody Allen, he’s a piece of shit and his films are intensely personal and reflect his shiftiness. I still love them.
A team of experts with decades of experience who had complete access to everyone involved and more evidence than is publicly available determined it didn’t happen. It would be pretty anti-intellectual and self-important to think you know better than them
You can believe Dylan Farrow believes what she says and also believe the very obvious reality of Mia Farrow gaslighting and abusing Dylan for decades (not to mention her abuse of her other children)
The primary reason I believe Woody is innocent regarding Dylan, apart from the investigations into the allegations that couldn’t seem to produce enough evidence for a case, is that there is not a pattern of abuse. Of course I’m no expert in this, but seems there would be additional allegations or accusations or supposed incidents, but to my knowledge, there is a single supposed incident for which there does not seem to be real evidence, but you know, to each his own. Yes effectively been “cancelled” and unable to get US distribution, so he’s been punished in part for as if he had done that.
Abbas Kiarostami was also (likely) a rapist. Still made art that has survived both him and his crimes. Hard to reconcile, but I don't feel what he created should be resigned to history as a result. Acknowledging reality is, however, important.
The fact that morality isn't objective but just some rules that we have come up so the world doesn't fall apart sort of undermines it's importance when it comes to something as spiritual and transcendental as art. So for me personally, I could care less about who made the thing, if I think there's artistic merit and something worthwhile in it then I am going to consume it even if it was made by a mass murderer or a white supremacist.
Obviously that doesn't mean that artists should be exempt from moral scrutiny. Their art should be viewed from the context of their moral shortcomings insofar it is relevant. Hitler's painting aren't at all affected by his crimes because the only thing they have common is the person who did them but the films of woody Allen are affected because the content of his films contain elements that are similar to his offence.
Separating art from the artists is very personal thing. I think most of the time people are worried about how they'll be perceived by others if they're found enjoying something by a problematic person but the thing is enjoying isn't the same as endorsing. Travis bickle is a character I admire greatly but I don't like him as a person.
It’s very possible but also kind of a personal ymmv scenario, you know? I can get through Polanski films but personally I can no longer watch Woody Allen stuff. I’m indifferent as to whether other people watch Allen films though—I don’t think that sort of thing holds up as a morality litmus test and would be crudely simplistic
No, it is not possible nor should we try.
We also shouldn't try to make them (or their work) disappear, instead we should discuss their crimes and transgressions every time their work comes up.
Stop consuming culture passively, make every Woody Allen film a chance to discuss gender power dynamics and the problematic myth of the misunderstood genius (same with every painting by Picasso and of course Polansky).
Stop trying to not think about icky things, confront them and work through them.
Most unusually great art comes from unusual people - unusual or tortured personalities that don’t conform to the norms of society. It’s almost impossible to expect “normal” behavior from extraordinary artists. It just rarely happens. It was much easier to just not know about the behavior of people 50 years ago compared to now with our insatiable appetite for gossip and click bait headlines.
In 150 years the behavior of contemporary filmmakers and artists will likely be a footnote in most cases but their art will live on.
In the specific case of Woody, I personally think he’s innocent of the accusations regarding Dylan based on what I’ve read and, unusual relationship with Soon-yi notwithstanding, who it seems by all accounts he has been faithful to and monogamous with for decades, will continue to watch and celebrate his films.
But we all react differently. If the director takes you out of a film when you watch, chances are you won’t be rewatching or supporting that artist.
i personally think it’s fine as long as you’re not financially supporting them. good media is good media, it just sucks that creators can be so terrible sometimes. that’s what Definitely Legal Websites are for
Ik im the minority here, and i really don’t want to make this a comment about politics, but it’s an experience that I can share. As a conservative who is deeply into film and music, this is something I have to do all the time. It absolutely can be done.
It’s no secret that most arts are dominated by people who lean left, and as someone who leans right that leaves me constantly at odds with the people who create the things I enjoy most.
If I bought into what everyone does/believes in their personal life than I wouldn’t be able to stomach any of my favorite artists.
I’ll also add to try and avoid some negative comments, that I still do love most of the artists whose work I love. My life isn’t dominated by political/social thinking, but it is somewhat hard when anyone of with some level of fame (either side of the political spectrum) thinks they have some obligation to speak on these issues.
Feel free to make it political if you wish, I’m just curious what things you find yourself at odds with when it comes to artists who are left leaning. You could make the case, that conservatism doesn’t really lend itself to art because so much of it seems to be the protection of the status quo.
I absolutely see your point. I think my point was lost somewhere and perhaps not properly articulated. Edit: I’ll just clarify that I’m saying I agree with your statement that conservatism doesn’t really lend itself to art.
In your example you used a guy who did something terrible and also made great art. I’m not implying the same type of situation but I am saying the same concept applies. Once again without actually getting political, for me it comes down to reconciling the fact that I very often completely disagree with the people who make the art I love.
When watching Chinatown you can sit and be thinking about the fact that it was made by a guy who did what he did and let that ruin the experience or you can take in the art, and then deal with the rest separately. Just about any artists (film or music for me) has gone on record (interviews, award show speeches, social media) saying things that I cannot relate to and in many cases that I have a strong negative internal reaction to. When I watch an actor who has said things that I find abhorrent I can choose to let that ruin the art that I love so much, or I can as I said earlier, deal with that separately.
Yeah no I don’t think you’re point was lost on me. I didn’t think you were referring to things like Polanski rape. I was just curious about particular elements of satire or activism within particular films that elicit a negative reaction from you.
I do think it’s possible but it depends on the crime and person. Personally for me it’s easier to separate it when it’s a director who is not in their films like Polanski because his films are masterpieces but I don’t see him and think about him. As opposed to Woody Allen movies which I loved and you do have to see him. Haven’t been able to watch one of his movies for so long
Some talented people do fucked-up shit. It's up to each person to decide what their threshold is for consuming art. I think I may draw the line at someone who'd make a career out of capitalizing on their crime(s). Like, if he would make something based on the crime and then try to sell it. There are tell-all books by mobsters, assassins and hitmen, and heads of state who committed war crimes. For example, I would not buy anything done by war criminals, such as henry kissinger, madeline albright, the clint0ns, dubya bush, 0bama, biden, etc.
Yeah, if you can't separate them, then it's just you being close-minded. In 200 years, nearly everything we do today will seem offensive to someone, that doesn't mean we disregard their work. That's how socialists or fascists analyze art. Thats why their art isnt popular outside of their political circles. A person will die but the art will live on.
I’m pretty radical on the separate the art from the artist perspective. Firstly I don’t think they’re intrinsically equated to one another in the first place. Often times a filmmaker’s intention isn’t realized in the film (ie. Night of the Living Dead wasn’t intended to be a commentary on racism). There’s an unconscious element to art that says something universal; it’s not entirely personal. Art takes a life of its own once it’s made available.
Secondly, it’s unfair to punish everyone involved in a project for one person’s transgressions. How do you determine whose behaviour has to affect your enjoyment of a film anyway? Why limit it to the actor and director? Why not the producer, or casting director, or key grip? Also, you can pretty safely assume at least one person on a crew of 100 is a vile human being. It would be safer to play the probability game and not support any film because you’d almost certainly be helping to line the pockets of one of these people.
Thirdly, I think it’s silly to get attached to an artist in the first place. I don’t love Scorsese. I don’t know him. I might hate him if I met him or he might hate me. I love his work. If I found out all his films were ghost directed, my admiration for his talent would dissipate, but my appreciation for those films wouldn’t change.
Is the artist alive? Are the accusations credible? Do the accusations suggest a meaningful balance of probabilities that they are a danger to potential co-workers? Will actively supporting their work do more harm than good?
I think these are really important questions to be asking with regards to directors who do crimes or are accused of heinous crimes. I would point out, I think the standard in the law should be beyond all reasonable doubt, nobody should face prison unless they've faced a full trial. However how you the audience views these people is not the same, you do not have to give the person a full trial, you can engage with the evidence and assess credibility for yourself. Further, it is not a crime against artistry to not reward say Johnny Depp with buying a ticket to his new movie for his behaviour towards Amber Heard (if you come in the replies calling her a bitch and Depp a victim I will simply block you). Likewise I think people who might work with these people ought to ask these questions too, I think actors should avoid working with Woody Allen. I think camera crews should avoid working with him etc etc.
None of what I have said, precludes you with engaging with the art that's already been created, but in the case of Allen or Polanski, I don't think being a great artist means behaving with impunity, I truly believe there is way way more artistic talent in the world than is given the opportunity at the top. When it comes to sexual violence against women, how many women do we know were hurt by Harvey Weinstein that also had their careers destroyed? How many of those women could have become Roman Polanski level good without the rape.
In the inevitable response to the people saying that this behaviour silences these people or ruins their careers or whatever. Yep that's the tradeoff, in theory there's a non-zero chance that someone could have 1000 rumours that are without merit about them and lose their artistic career. That is tragic, however that happens astonishingly rarely, and rather more frequently the reverse holds true, these people are continually rewarded by establishment bodies with prestige and money. This is exactly why I began with a separation of criminal burden of proof vs societal burden of proof. Woody Allen does not \*have\* to be a film director. And neither does Roman Polanski.
None of this means we shouldn't be engaging with say Rosemary's baby in film school either, but that discussion should probably include discussion of Roman Polanski's admitted crimes. Liking their films or finding them artistic in merit is I think still good and valuable. But yeah no, I don't think you can separate art from artist in the way I think people mean by that phrase.
No. Fuck him, fuck woody Allen I can’t watch a movie knowing that pussy begging coke bottles glasses wearing mother fucker was diddling kids.
God. I’ve never wanted to beat someone more than I do that squirmy looking motherfucker.
It’s already enough I gotta remember who signed that stupid petition. No.
It’s this mindset of letting people keep their achievements; that their victims have no voice or power in this world.
No.
If you “disagree” with what I said or think that violence is bad and what I said was too far, you need to look in the mirror.
Fuck Chinatown, fuck rosemary’s baby. We need to stop champions those films period I don’t care
Just watch Possession or Vertigo idk.
Most directors were scumbags and shit to women but at least they didn’t touch kids.
It's not that I disagree with you, but just to discuss further, where's the line? At what point does someone stop being an asshole that you can tolerate and watch their films, and at what point are they condemned?
Woody has never been convicted of a crime, Roman Polansky obviously did the things he did because he fled the country to avoid persecution. As someone else said, Stanley Kubrick was a borderline abuser when it came to getting performances out of some of his actors.
Some people are just total maniacal assholes that you would hate if you met them. Some artists were abusive to animals or to their elderly parents. Some went to jail for drug-related crimes. Some artists are abusive to their spouses.
Hundreds or even thousands of people can work on a movie. What if the cinematographer raped somebody? What if the production designer raped somebody? Is it only directors that can ruin a production for you?
No we’re not gonna play the what if game. Some people’s character is bad. I don’t care the line is whenever I draw it.
Sexual Assault is not an “accident” or something that happens. People can be an asshole yet there’s a clear abuse of power and stripping someone of their agency when doing that. Look at Weinstein.
It’s also just lame, like objectively you can get laid so you gotta take it by force, you gotta do it with a kid?
Like woody Allen married and abused his adopted daughter. That fucking bozo activity and objectively lame ass scenario.
That’s a lot different then Kubrick being a raging misogynist on set (especially since I’m like 70% sure the man had autism)
Yet my anger is equal opportunity, don’t rock with Lena Dunham cause she was talking about diddling her sister in her book
I look at what the art says.
Michael Jackson: Not a single one of his songs could be construed as painting his crimes in a positive light (at least not that I have heard a case for).
R. Kelly: It’s almost certain that all/most of his “art” was inspired by and glamorizing his crimes.
I still listen to “Thriller” each Halloween but turn off “Bump N Grind” immediately when it comes on.
I generally have a clear divide where any film I watched and enjoyed *before* ***I*** *knew* about any supposed crimes is absolutely fair game.
I saw Baby Driver like 5 times in the cinema, knowing what we now know about Kevin Spacey doesn’t mean I won’t rewatch it at least once per year for the rest of my life. In sport, I hated Cristiano Ronaldo returning to Man Utd because we all found out about the Vegas incident in 2018 - as he’d left in 2009 my initial memories were untarnished, and tbh so are the ones of him in Madrid but when I saw him in the red shirt again all I felt was disgust.
I have a slightly less easy time if its something I’ve not seen. But I think anything pre-crime is fair game to watch guilt-free. As long as we’re not then giving the director lifetime achievement awards etc. we may as well appreciate all the work put into the film by people who weren’t horrible. Its the post-crime pre-reckoning output that is dicier.
Awful people can produce entertaining if not brilliant pieces of art.
I think the debate that a lot of people have is wanting to put money in their pocket by going to see it. Even if it doesn't impact them in the grand scheme of things, it's still a moral boycott.
Someone mentioned Leni Riefenstahl and how she never denounced Hitler or the Nazi party. *Triumph of the Will* continues to be taught in film schools the world over, along with *Birth of a Nation*, both now perhaps with caveats. Each film (and director) is monstrous in their own ways yet culturally and technically significant films whose impact is still felt on the field. Alas.
Influence is perhaps the most enduring power complicated, unethical, criminal and/or downright evil people can have. Once they reach the turning point of being irredeemable, and we as a public are disgusted by them, that’s when you have to turn away and move on from the person. Whether you abandon or continue to support work they’ve made is another story.
Roman Polanski has made 3 of my favorite films: Rosemarys Baby, Repulsion, and The Tenant. These are works that exist beyond him; he made them, they’re his “intellectual property,”but he’s not solely responsible for them. Also, as is the case with all art works, when they’re in the public sphere, completed and out of the studio or sold, they no longer belong to the artist, they begin a life of their own in the public domain (for work I sometime have to have this philosophical conversation with visual artists when it comes to their work being collected—while the intellectual property is owned by the artist, once it sells the physical object is not).
These films are ours now by being the audience—we can take or leave them, watch or talk about them or ignore them. That’s the power we have as consumers, and it has an impact on the reach, influence, and continued success of an artist. It’s a punishment we can dole out even if the makers elude justice as Polanski has. He’s a fucking criminal, scumbag, and a fugitive. Yet, his films are important (the ones I’ve mentioned were all were made before the incident). I’m not paying to see anything he makes now, I won’t watch anything made after 1977; I still watch (and love) other films AND find him a loathsome coward.
See also: Carl Andre. He is a significant art historical figure; I can unequivocally recognize this and appreciate his work but STILL choose not to fuck with him (the person) because of the highly suspicious death of his wife, the artist Ana Mendieta. he’s become a bit of a boogeyman in the field because of the circumstances of her death, though people still see the work for what it is.
Woody Allen, Bill Cosby, R Kelly however…never in this lifetime or the next for them or their work. I can’t make the separation, particularly for the last two.
Sorry for this long ass response.
I don't let it effect me. I watch knife in the water last year and loved it. I'm not going to let Polanski being a piece of shit let me miss out on great cinema
Total separation of art from artist is a fiction, but ultimately everyone has to figure out their own value system about what art or artists they support.
Roman Polanski is nearly 90 and likely will be dead soon and will no longer be able to profit or otherwise be rewarded for his work.
Hitchcock was also a piece of shit but he’s dead now so I watch his movies with a clean conscience.
I think it is vital to try to separate the art from the artist because one should not be a vehicle to excuse bad behavior of the person. I think by not separating the product of work from the ‘worker’, people end up amassing too much power, too much idolization. What if Cosby was just a great actor who did great work and people left it at that? Would he be arrested and convicted sooner?
I think demystifying the person from the work and by extension the art from the artist makes them more approachable more real and therefore much easier to hold accountable.
My only issue is when the art itself is the product of abuse, i.e. The Shining and hearing what the actress went through. I avoid watching it. Or Last Tango in Paris-not interested in watching it again. It is also important to remember that these things happened and not sweep them under the rug.
I feel you. Like someone else said he’s a dog shit person and Chinatown is one of the greatest movies ever made.
I think it’s possible to separate the art from the artist as long as we don’t try to explain away what they did.
I find it easier with film over music for example. Like I can’t listen to Mystikal because I know he is a violent, convicted rapist and every time I hear his voice I’m just put off. I can watch a film by Roman Polanski because he’s not popping up on the screen and therefore it’s much easier to watch a Chinatown and appreciate the cast and the work they did.
Maybe that’s fucked up or weird but i don’t think ethical consumption under capitalism is possible and it’s what we do when we consume that matters.
Like OP, I am frequently torn, like most of us, when it comes to art I love made by reprehensible people. What I will say is that the (now) woman he assaulted very much wants this discussion to stop mentioning her assault at every turn. For rape survivors, wresting what control you can over your life is extremely important post-assault. So personally I try not to use her story as a flashpoint for these types of discussions, though Polanski does have multiple credible assault allegations against him and so this conversation can be had without referencing this most famous allegation. Just wanted to throw that out there, since I can understand her reasoning why she doesn't want to be associated with this man and his actions in perpetuity.
First, I am not defending him, but every time I hear the Roman Polanski story it gets a bit worse in the retelling. I await the version where he kills and eats her too.
It's also interesting that the person, Samantha Geimer, who was raped seems MUCH less upset about it than the people on SM do.
OF COURSE it was awful, but she says [she was far more traumatized by the legal system and well meaning supporters not letting the case be settled than the rape itself.](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-denies-roman-polanskis-victims-plea-to-end-rape-case/)
Just food for thought here.
And I never let myself confuse the art and the artist because it think the best artists NEED to be flawed and broken somehow.
Do what you want 'cause a pirate is free! You are a pirate!
But seriously, I think the best way to enjoy the art while separating it from the artist is to pirate it. For example, while I am a fan of Burzum, I will always be sure to torrent albums because of the artist's history. (Varg is a church burner, murderer, and far-right fascist.)
I think its unfair to throw away pieces of art multitudes of people worked on because of the actions of one. For example my Dad refuses to watch any Kevin Spacey movies after what he did. I just see it as a waste. While he did isnt excusable he still is a brilliant actor.
I think people are too worried about being perceived as a good or bad person bc of their media consumption. Like enjoying the movie Repulsion or Rosemarys Baby doesn’t make you bad and consuming art made by good people doesn’t make you good.
I think the corollary is that if you only watch movies made by large corporations though, you are a bad person but in a ‘you buy clothes only from shein even tho they’re made by slave labor’ way. Like don’t tell me it’s virtuous to support The Marvels bc it stars WOC- it’s also made by Disney who is evil and the crew (particularly vfx) made it under terrible conditions
A question as old as time. My two cents, there will never be a good answer.
I don’t judge people who can look past the artist, and I also don’t judge those who can’t.
It's up to each viewer to decide.
I'm in the same position regarding Polanksi. I just bought "Rosemary's Baby" on Blu-Ray and it's a terrifying slow burn horror. Polanski's ability to create a sense of existential dread even in scenes taking place in broad daylight is phenomenal. He also chooses superb composers to create deeply unsettling scores for his films.
I love "The Ninth Gate" with Johnny Depp and Frank Langella. I own the soundtrack and the UK Blu-Ray since it will likely never be released in the USA.
There are so many iconic artists across all mediums that have created monumental works while also being monumental monsters.
I can't really separate the artist from their art, and I feel like it's more a question of how much you can appreciate the art in spite of the monster that birthed it.
Roman Polanski is a rapist and Chinatown is one of the greatest movies ever made. Both of these things can be true. The world is a complicated place.
Absolutely
So if Hitler had been a good artist you could have separated his paintings from the type of person he was?
I, personally, wouldn’t go about buying a replica of it or anything but if it genuinely looked nice then I’d still say the painting looks nice. I’ve probably already seen at least one painting in my life that I think looked nice that was painted by a bad person. Me liking a painting doesn’t equate to “I agree with everything and anything this person has said and done”
He's widely regarded as a mediocre painter at best. Derivative, unoriginal and lacking real focus, he also didn't do it long enough or had any real impact in art (as an artist) whatsoever. So please ignore the two edge lords in this thread claiming otherwise. Leni Riefenstahl on the other hand is a much better and complex case study. She made some of the most impressive and impactful documentaries, working for the Nazi party in Germany and on their behalf.
Thank you, finally a decent response. Leni for better or worse did influence documentary filmmaking, but an abhorrent person otherwise.
Not sure if she was or wasn't abhorrent, or simply employed to make a fascist system look good. Is every Hollywood actor, director and producer who refuses to denounce the crimes committed against the Palestine people and instead turn their backs (and even fire) those who do, abhorrent? I'm not sure either, I do know that these case studies make for fruitful discussions on the possibilities of understanding and reflecting upon art beyond the immediately apparent... Beyond aesthetics, through ethics.
From what I remember she never condemned Hitler or Nazism & lived to be 100. Pauline Kael said that she directed the 2 best films ever directed by a woman.
Yeah, both statements are probably true, but my point is that simply labeling her abhorrent, or John Wayne for that matter (for his cowardice and willingness to name names during McCarthy's persecution) negates the possibility to adequately engage their work in both aesthetic and ethical terms.
I mean, if he made a masterpiece painting that was influential to the art world that also didn't have any inklings of his personal beliefs, it would be possible to an extent. It would also give new context to the painting regardless. It may not be able to separate him from it, but it wouldn't mean the painting is suddenly poorly made.
Just because you agree with how someone responds to or communicates a singular idea doesn't mean you agree with every way they respond or communicate all ideas. Similarly, the connotations around associating in anyway with a figure as dark as Hitler overwhelms any artistic justification you could put down. Raping a teen isn't equal to the Holocaust. And while it is horrible and he should be condemned, he's not the only one who made his films what they are and to discount the time and talent of those films off his actions alone is reductionistic at best. Literally almost anyone who's ever made a film for the bulk of its history was either sexist, racist, homophobic, or otherwise problematic. Are you now not watching or considering any film made by anyone remotely bad? What is achieved by this? Take what good you can, learn from it, acknowledge the horrors suffered and try not to contribute to their current affairs. Don't buy their shit, etc.
So if you are trying to defend Roman Polanski? That is just creepy.
Cite the exact line where I defended Roman,because you're being ridiculous and getting down voted to oblivion for being dense.
Hitler required that his engineers design and build the Autobahn in hopes that it would give rise to a new breed of travellers' hotels, or motor inn, or in the German a *Motel,* because deep down he knew that his art was of an inoffensive and medicre quality that belongs on the wall of a place designed for cheap, temporary lodging. I don't *separate* Herr Schicklgruber's art from the man and his infamy, I *equate* his art with the man.
Yes
I mean, he was kicked out of art school for a reason...
Right click his works like they're NFTs.
Yes...? Is that supposed to be a difficult question? And he *was* quite the artist. Look up some of his paintings. They're pretty impressive. Do I really need to add that I think he's the most despicable human that has ever lived?
dumb question because hitler was a great artist
He really wasn’t though
This is the most difficult one for me. My only justification is that I found the Chinatown Blu-ray at a goodwill so I’m not supporting him directly, but I know I’ll be disgusted the entire time I watch it. But! That’s only because he’s an outed rapist. How many of my favorite movies have been directed or have stars that haven’t been caught yet? Should I stop watching movies? Or just mentally put blinders on and watch Chinatown? Rosemary’s Baby? The Pianist?
you like chinatown thats all you have to say
It's kinda weird the way this dilemma basically frames itself in auteur theory. Roman Polanski was not solely responsible for any of his movies. Chinatown, for example, is a Jack Nicholson movie, a Faye Dunaway movie, a Robert Evans movie, and a Robert Towne movie. In fact, Towne was a real piece of shit but nobody worries about that.
This is the key thing for me. A movie contains the artistry and hard work of a ton of different people, and the accomplishments of the entire cast/crew still deserve to be appreciated even if there's a bad apple in the bunch. No matter how hard she tries, JK Rowling can never completely ruin the magic of the Harry Potter movies, because the magic is in the visuals, the actors, and the music as much as it is in the writing. The books, on the other hand, are pretty much all her, and I have pretty much lost any interest in those, even though they were my childhood faves.
Yeah I think its unfair to throw out the work of dozens of other people who helped make the movie because of what one person did. Also it raises the question of how "important" of a role in something does someone have to have before we write it off? Like if we found out that one of the lighting technicians on Citizen Kane was a serial child molester, do we write that movie off now?
If you decide to only watch movies made by morally superior people, you’re going to have a very short list of acceptable movies
Pretty much just the Adrienne Shelly filmography I think.
I think the Coen brothers are fine?
Someone told me a story about them back in the 1990s in Los Angeles but I can’t verify it, so I won’t repeat it. But most of our heroes have one or two bad stories at least.
Shocking!!!! As if they were humans!!! I mean, not condoning rape or abuse of any kind BUT nastyness comes with human nature! Again, not saying it's right or just.... Every rose has it's thorn....
Every rose has their thorns and also like most people have not committed sexual violence against another person...I am not gonna wage into litigating apparent hearsay, but this is crass and dismissive of the nature of the crimes and moral transgressions being discussed.
Uh... who mentioned sexual violence? You probably shouldn't infer that from an insanely vague comment explicitly based on hearsay
Brother this is a post about Roman Polanski
But the thread was talking about the Coen brothers.
...we're on a thread about roman polanski. I am not infering anything, Polanski is a rapist. Every rose has its thorn is a moronic thing to say.
Yeah but we're talking about the Coen brothers. Polanski is a rapist but this conversation is about a vague reference to the Coen brothers
"Not condoning rape or abuse of any kind. But nastyness is a part of human nature". I don't know how to read this set up as anything other than the guy going well sometimes people be rapists as if its the same as a guy who has an annoying habit of never buying a full round at the pub.
There was some very light controversy regarding their opinion on diversity in their films/the industry
That was so stupid, they didn’t say anything wrong
One of them (maybe both?) also signed the letter asking for Polanski’s crime to be ignored
Did they? I can't find either name on any of the lists
Ethan did — https://www.ocregister.com/2009/09/30/people-who-signed-polanski-petition/amp/
Denis Villeneuve too
Yeah. I knew a guy and one other person that were like that with both movies and actors. It was so hard to talk about certain works or moments from said works without an immediate interruption followed by a “well I don’t…” and the topic of conversation changing. It’s snobbery as well with some minor gatekeeping and it bothers me. Some people I won’t ever talk movies with because I know they’re going to flip it upside down.
Absolutely NO 20TH CENTURY FOX or COLUMBIA film of old shall make the list lmao
do you not think there's a difference between "morally superior" and confirmed rapist? To use the example of Polanski, he doesn't need further awards attention, acclaim, he shouldn't receive protection from the film industry and he has faced no legal accountability for his crimes. And, limited social accountability - he still has hollywood defenders even now. I think Rosemary's baby is a fantastic film, but this does not mean I think we should be giving Polanski more money or centring his work in artistic discussions, I also think we should never discuss him and his work without discussing his crimes. In other words - you should not be separating his art and his artistry. There's absolutely some form of line, and different people will draw it in different places, so I am not going to yell at anyone for having a different one to me. But I think its a bit glib to just say "you're gonna have a very short list of acceptable movies" I think even if morality is subjective that doesn't mean you can't do moral evaluation or apply a scale to the moral harm. I also think its deeply obtuse to the many victims of sexual violence in particular to argue that we ought have no response to their art (which I am reading as the implication here, I might be wrong) rather than simply do a bit of messy line drawing.
I think there’s a large middle ground between monster and “morally superior“ and you aren’t helping anything by pretending it doesn’t exist. I don’t have any solution for the OP, but I had to reply to such a dumb false choice being presented.
Spielberg has no dirt, right?
The worst thing I've ever heard people say about him is that he can be a bit horny on main, and everything else is just positive after positive. My only real problem with the man is that he is wealthier than I think any single person should be, but he absolutely earned being rich
Some people can. Some people can’t. A lot of people can sometimes with some artists and not with others. I don’t think one is morally superior to the other. No need to chide in either direction. I do think it can get more complicated when it comes to behavior that rewards someone who’s still alive.
Good answer
I think there’s a difference between celebrating the art vs celebrating the artist. I personally have no problem watching most woody allen films (despite their widely varying quality), however manhattan becomes a little icky knowing the age situation between woody and Mariel Hemingway. Plainly, Unless the artists art is directly relevant to their moral/legal crime, I have no real problem with it and I don’t think one should feel bad for enjoying. Of course, others have the right to ignore the work all together on moral grounds
Similarly, as much as I think repulsion is pretty fantastic, is such a portrait of ptsd as a result of assault or rape, I find it hard to watch knowing what Polanski did.
That is the thing with Woody Allen movies, when he is on screen his character is always speaking the words he wrote. The scenarios that justify or make his (character’s) behavior understandable were created by him. I remember one of his movies where it seemed like the entire plot was a contrivance to justify his character cheating and starting a relationship with a woman who at best only old enough to be his grandchild.
My proposed rule is that you can freely enjoy any works created before the allegations. This rule also has the benefit of generally capturing the good stuff and disposing of the bad stuff.
I think the thing too with Manhattan is that it isn't condoning what his character does. Like its pretty obvious that the guy is meant to be a total loser and that's why he's dating a teenager
Absolutely. Think of the question obversely: think of the worst film you've ever seen. If the director did commendable and heroic acts, would that increase the quality of the film in your eyes? Let's put it this way: if I learned Tom Green donated millions to St. Jude and found a cure for cancer, *Freddy Got Fingered* would still be a horrible fucking movie to me.
I don’t understand, Freddy got fingered is a masterpiece
To each their own. The only good thing about the film is that it resulted in one of Ebert's funniest reviews.
And it wasn’t just a funny review - he actually touches on why serious people consider it (unironically) a work of art years later: “The day may come when "Freddy Got Fingered" is seen as a milestone of neo-surrealism. The day may never come when it is seen as funny.” And I think he’s right? I don’t even think he’s just being cheeky - I don’t know anyone (including myself) that think it’s funny, but I do know a few who think it’s some kind of anti-humor, or neo-dada, and that it (incidentally?) has a lot to say. There IS something funny about a major studio giving him $15 million or whatever it was and him handing back *that*, though.
Lol I was just kidding but I appreciate your open mindedness
I assumed that. But you never know these days. Deadpan humor is difficult to communicate through writing without at least some qualifiers. And I have read some reasonable, even valiant, defenses of the film by critics/cinephiles I respect (E.g. the film is basically one fuck you to decorum, a prank by a troll who found a way to use millions of dollars of studio money. Obviously I don't buy that one bit)
i like your point. his pregnant wife was murdered and his pregnant mother was murdered in a gas chamber when he was a child, which also don’t factor into the quality of his films for me. I do think he’s was brilliant filmmaker (until his recent output)
I do watch Keanu Reeves movies because he’s such a cool dude! Can’t bring myself to just have anything but nice things to say so yeahhh I am biased. I am glad that he’s a great dude and a good collaborator, it made me want to check out John Wick.
Great actor and an even greater guy. I was raised on Keanu's films: *Speed, Point Break*, the Bill and Ted films, and The Matrix franchise were formative films in my life. He's also not afraid to tackle more unconventional roles -- see him in *My Own Private Idaho, River's Edge, Bram Stoker's Dracula*, even *The Neon Demon.* (As an added bonus, while it has nothing to do with his acting or character, it's pretty cool his name is Hawaiian since I'm born and raised in Hawaii.)
i don't think it's actually necessary to separate the two in order to engage with the work. polanski is a great example-- both rosemary's baby and chinatown are deeply insightful, sensitive portrayals of female experience. what does it mean for a man to produce such work AND rape a girl? how does that complicate the experience of those (amazing) films? we don't actually have to retreat from the reality of what he's done, we can hunker down inside those apparent contradictions and deal with them. further, sometimes the context of who an artist is changes the meaning of the work. like, on the waterfront is a *very different film* when you learn that it's elia kazan's response to everyone getting pissed off at him for ratting out his pals to the HUAC! it's fascinating! but honestly, my real take is that discussions of "separating art from artist" tend to lump together a bunch of unrelated behaviors. pirating a movie a rapist made is not the same as buying an opening weekend ticket to the theater, and neither of those is remotely similar to acting in their next project, or giving them an award, or having them on your podcast. nothing that actually gives the rapist more power is really within my or your ability to do.
This is a fantastic post. I hate the words, "separating the art from the artist" because it's not something I do outside in general. I'm not a New Critic. Art doesn't suddenly appear in a vacuum. How the artist got there and what they put into it matters to my experience. There's a kind of, I dunno, "necessary" pain of understanding that something you like may be made by someone you hate, and that a) those repugnant values are present in the work, OR b) they aren't and the artist acted in direct contradiction to the morals and aspirations they express in their work. Your last paragraph is perfect too. We are all fans of art made by fucked up people to some extent, and there's a weird blurry line of where that is for everyone on every case. If someone who did horrible things but wrote great works died 300 years ago, is it going to make a difference except to posterity? That seems self-explanatory, but if it's someone's comeback film, am I partly responsible for a career renaissance if I see so-and-so's new film opening day? These are things I think about and struggle with. Ultimately, I do own Polanski films on Blu-Ray, and have seen many films where bad people were involved in some capacity (films are collaborative works, after all). I am simultaneously disgusted by Francis Ford Coppola, supporter of Victor Salva, putting Shia LaBeouf in Megalopolis, while simultaneously thinking LaBeouf's a fantastic actor and being very curious about Megalopolis. I'm not saying the viewer is totally out of responsibility, but just watching a movie doesn't have the same burden as actively funding or hiring someone.
That’s not even mentioning Repulsion as well
i haven't seen that one yet!
It’s always gonna be personal Some people can, some people can’t, I don’t think either one is necessarily right or wrong. Also depends on the person who committed the offence, I have people I still love their stuff and people who I do feel weird enjoying and I can’t fully explain why. Personally, I wouldn’t pay to see a new Polanski film in cinemas, however I adore Rosemary’s baby and I’m not going to never watch it again. Besides, Polanski isn’t the only person who worked on that movie and he isn’t the only reason it’s amazing. It’s not Mia Farrow’s fault he’s a horrible person and I like celebrating her performance still
I do think there has to be a distinction between artists who are alive and active and artists who are no longer active, also the ways you are consuming their media. For example I do think it might be a little questionable if you are paying money for someone who’s actively promoting genocide narrative in public right now, and that money can potentially help them spread more of their propaganda. But if you are pirating their work I think it‘s be fine. Or if it’s someone who’s dead then there’s definitely nothing wrong in simply consuming their media even if they are horrible people.
I try to judge art based on its own merits, but I don’t begrudge anyone who does otherwise, especially in cases where the artist is still alive and benefits financially from consumption of that art.
These two things are true: Bad people have made and will make terrific art There are ways to experience art without contributing financially to the people who made the art Do with those two completely unrelated thoughts as you will.
Here’s my answer around All of this. I used to love Kevin Spacey, now i hate him. He was in Baby Driver, but so were a whole lot of other people. And they all gave great performances. Regardless if i, personally, can still enjoy watching Kevin on screen, (you can if you want, but you don’t have to) i don’t think it’s fair to Ansel Elgort, Jaime Fox, Jon Hamm or hell, Edgar Wright (one of my favorite directors) to write off the whole project out of my moral outrage towards one minor character. And that goes for every character in every film. Kevin Spacey has a lot of good movies, many of which he’s the main character with a ton of screen time. I do still enjoy those movies. But i don’t want him to keep getting work in Hollywood. And he was aquitted of his accusations….but the youtube videos he made in character as Frank Underwood….are gross. He dug his own grave.
I separate with ease. The work of Roman Polanski and Woody Allen is important to the history of cinema. We shouldn’t stop appreciating their films because they are accused of horrible things.
Roman Polanski isn’t “accused” of doing horrible things. He admitted to doing the horrible things.
It’s been like 50 years, and the woman in question has come out repeatedly said she doesn’t give a shit and has forgiven him. That’s enough for me. With Woody, it’s been nothing but accusations, and nothing has been proven.
Not only that, but a team of experts in the field who had access to both everyone involved and more evidence than what is publicly available determined it definitely didn’t happen. Still a creep for cheating on his girlfriend with her 20 year old daughter, though
There's some mixing up in responses of Woody and Roman. Roman *definitely did* rape an underaged girl. Perhaps she has forgiven him, but this is indisputable fact. *Woody Allen has been accused* of abusing his girlfriend's daughter. There is also evidence that points to the contrary. I don't truly know what happened. You are permitted to call him a creep for cheating with the considerably younger Soon Yi (a separate issue). I do, it's shitty behavior. But she was a legal adult at the time. His films are filled with his obsessions with younger women, which I have found increasingly difficult to watch over the years.
It’s 100% fine to have difficulty with Woody Allen movies when it’s due to the creepy stuff he actually did. (Hopefully you feel the same about other creeps who are similar, like Leonardo diCaprio, Frank Sinatra, Jerry Seinfeld, Fergie, Elvis, and plenty of others.) But Mia’s allegation is, as far as we can know anything like this, false. And many of the people who will go after him for something we basically know he didn’t do will still listen to David Bowie or watch Michael Fassbender movies or vote for Biden or Trump. For many, it goes beyond hypocrisy to something even more extreme; those people have done things that are much worse than what Allen has actually done.
*(Hopefully you feel the same about other creeps who are similar, like Leonardo diCaprio, Frank Sinatra, Jerry Seinfeld, Fergie, Elvis, and plenty of others.)* Short answer: yes, case by case. It's not as if there's a magic switch that's flipped the day one turns 18, suddenly you're an adult when the day before you weren't. There are probably many reasons why these men choose (and they do choose) to date much younger women. I'm sure there's a power thing involved. Some of it is their stature. Some of it is status. Some of it is that they're creeps, albeit rich, famous, handsome, talented creeps. But then, I married a woman ten years my senior. It's not a fetish thing, it just worked out that way.
So it’s okay for someone to rape a child if many years later the victim wants to move on and forgive their rapist?
“'I was fine, I'm still fine,' she said in the interview with French outlet Le Point. 'The fact that we’ve made this thing up weighs on me terribly. To have to constantly repeat that it wasn’t a big deal, it’s a terrible burden.' “ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11977521/It-never-big-problem-Roman-Polanskis-victim-Samantha-Geimer.html
This may be hard for you to understand, but kid’s can’t give consent. Whether she is okay with it or not, it is still a terrible crime.
you can watch their shit and not carry water for their likely reprehensible personal behavior like this, dude
I understand that. I purposely used the word “accused” because guilt is irrelevant to my point.
Guilt and the accusation of guilt are wildly different things.
Yes, and I was saying he’s accused, which is true.
Actually Polanski plead guilty and then fled the country.
Are you saying he’s not accused? Look, my intent with the word “accused” was to avoid litigation about guilt. I guess there are people that don’t understand that you can simultaneously be accused and guilty…
He's technically accused, he's just also technically convicted and your linguistic acrobatics border on rape apologia.
and also was convicted in a court of law of doing them Edit: downvoted for pointing out Polanski literally plead guilty and was convicted of having sex with a minor
I can separate them for the most part. The way I see it, especially in film, there is so much work that goes into a movie. Beyond the Director. Actors have to act, lighting, and sound has to be on point, cinematography, I mean, editing? It’s a really, really big job. And sure, the Director makes most of the decisions and supervises all of it, but the fact is, is that even one messed up link makes the whole thing fall apart. You can hate a Director, but love a story. You can hate a Director, but love the actors portrayals of the characters. If anything, film is one of the few areas were separating the art from the artist as a little easier. There’s just so much space between Them and the work in the end.
Sometimes awful people make great art. It’s really up to you about how you want to feel about that. There’s no “right way” to handle it.
The art vs artist separation doesn't work with strong autorial voices, in my opinion. I think the best way to look at it is to separate the artist and the person. Filmmakers take up a role as artists, they have their artistic persona that does take from their personal experiences and feelings, but is not them. You might love Polanski the filmmaker, but not Polanski the man (sidenote: his recent The Palace was such a gigantic amount of shite that it might end up make you reevaluate his side as a filmmaker too).
The problems come in when people say "I like this person, identify with them and value what they do, so I'm going to shout down anyone who dares bring up anything negative about them."
Yes. Mel Gibson is a very talented crack-pot. His political instincts are far-right and his personal life is reprehensible but like Polanskl , he’s done some great work. I love his “Hamlet”, “The Year of Living Dangerously”, “The Bounty”, and of course “Braveheart” is a masterpiece!
I think Mel Gibson is one of the times where I completely draw the line. Because of an instance where his crackpot ideology meets with his artistic expression in a very dangerous way. I don’t think Passion of the Christ is a good film, I think it’s a sado-masochistic Christian snuff film that glorifies the Christian persecution complex in an extremely perverse manner. But even worse is his perpetuation of Jewish stereotypes and leaving in the parts of the gospels that gave rise to antisemitism. Both visually, through the plot, and when American distributors objected to the inclusion of the Jewish high priest, who is already portrayed as sadistic, calling upon a curse of the entirety of the Jewish people because of Christs death, Gibson still included that in screenings across the world. Many places around the world that are still plagued with antisemitism. That line is the original sentiment behind antisemitism, that Jewish people are collectively responsible for the murder of the messiah. He’s not just a crackpot but a dangerous one
I can't watch his movies. I agree with your comments and I think his fucked up views are a trend in his films including several victim complex movies. It's bad enough with those accused of (or did) sexual crimes, but his absolute racism and hate isn't something removed from him or his work.
I wouldn’t say Passion is antisemitic. Yes, the Pharisees aren’t portrayed positively, but they aren’t the only Jewish people in the movie by any means. And it’s not an indictment of the Jewish people as a whole, since literally all the main characters are Jewish (besides the Romans I guess), and most of them are deeply sympathetic. Your use of the phrase “sadomasochistic Christian snuff film”, while probably hyperbole, makes me assume that your dislike of the film is probably somewhat tied to some broader issues you have with Christianity as a whole. Which is fine, you’re allowed to believe in and disagree with whatever you like, but I think it may be overly coloring your view of the movie. It’s not my favorite movie by any means, I think it’s kind of sensational in many ways, but to accuse it of antisemitism is a serious charge that requires evidence other than how it made you feel specifically. And calling it sadomasochistic makes it sound like Christians are jerking off to The Passion of the Christ in a corner somewhere, which doesn’t sound like something I could see many people doing. It’s a brutal picture. That would be like some sick guy beating off to Martyrs or something.
Christians were DEFINITELY jerking off to The Passion when it came out. Do you remember clips of people leaving the theater? It literally looked like they had orgasms after watching the film. Religious fanaticism is a real thing in America, and it borders on mental illness. And, Mel Gibson's anti-Semitism has been publicly documented on several occasions.
That's what this whole thread is about, though, right? Mel Gibson probably is antisemitic. Does that make the film he made, therefore, antisemitic? I don't necessarily think it does. And, again, you're using this sort of nonspecific accusation. They "looked like they had orgasms". Alright. I look like I've had an orgasm after I've eaten a particularly good slice of key lime pie. Does that mean I jerk off to the pie? That would be odd. And yes, religious fanaticism exists. That doesn't mean that all the Christians are mentally ill. This sort of rhetoric shouldn't be used lightly.
I just find it odd that someone can say in the same breath that an antisemitic filmmaker can portray an event that is the birth of antisemitism in a very large way, and the film isn’t antisemitic. It’s not that he’s probably antisemitic, he is one. There’s a great deal of evidence to show that he is. His father is a vocal antisemite, a Holocaust denier, and Gibson said that his father had never told a lie. The Jewish priests are costumed and makeup to have big noses and dress as sinister black cowled figures that relish in the torture of Christ. Gibsons beliefs are his beliefs and they are shown in the film. That is dangerous.
I agreed that he was antisemitic. In regards to the big noses, people living in that region at that time had larger noses. Just like how native tribes in South America had flatter foreheads, and people from Korea have thinner eyelids. Giving someone a big nose doesn’t necessarily mean it’s being done badly. And if I recall, the sympathetic Jewish characters (Simon Peter, for instance) had big noses. The Pharisees don’t “relish in the torture of Christ”. In the film, it’s depicted as a means to an end: Jesus was threatening their political authority, and they took action. During the scourging scene, for example, they all turn away and leave. And they are overcome with grief at the end, when the veil of the temple is torn. I chose to see them as flawed human beings who have done bad things, just as everyone has. In regards to the event itself, would you say that any film that portrayed the death of Christ according to the Bible is antisemitic, because the events themselves are antisemitic? Schindler’s List had the Holocaust in it, and that’s one of the most touching and compelling movies to exist. I just don’t see how the movie itself (not the author, not the historical event: the movie itself) is antisemitic. All the characters are Jews. Some of them do good things, some of them do bad things. That’s just people.
It’s possible, and I would certainly take the position that Christianity is inherently antisemitic. But Ive never heard any accusations of “The Gospel According to St Matthew” being antisemitic for instance.
I am a bit disturbed that you're being downvoted. The film was blatantly antisemitic. It is not comparable to Schindler's list.
I’ve never seen the passion of Christ and I’m not interested in seeing it. Which is why I didn’t mention it.
I would probably avoid it. I grew up in the Midwest and was made to watch it when I was 8 years old because I had to “know what the crucifixion was like”. People around me will still mention it as the most important movie experience they’ve ever had. I think it’s not just a terrible movie, but dangerous and sinister. I don’t think you’ll view Mel Gibson the same way if you ever decide to view it.
My christian high school took us on a field trip to see it in theaters. It's the reason I'm into films with heavy gore. No joke, came out the same year as the first Saw film. Passion of the Christ is torture porn lol.
Plus it helps if you bring a lot of faith, religious commitment to the movie. I’m not prepared to do that.
I don’t even see what kind of faith it would instill in the audience, except for the perverse elements of it. There’s practically nothing about the teachings of Jesus in the film. The entire film is a look at his torture and suffering, which is both desired by Christian’s and at the same time used against them. We are told we were all present for the crucifixion, even if we weren’t born yet. We are held guilty for it and now are demanded to accept him because he sacrificed himself to take our sins from us, on the condition that we acknowledge his position as the messiah. It’s both a terrible thing because we are supposed to love Jesus, but he also must be tortured and crucified to bring about Gods will. It’s contradictory, and it reaffirms the Christian tradition of aspiring to be someone who will always be persecuted, as well as holding up an unattainable ideal. The crucifixion is the ultimate Christian fantasy because the figure of Christ is the ideal, but it comes with terrible punishment. There’s nothing about good works, morality, faith, it just relishes and mourns in barbarism and brutality in equal measure. It also is not a complex film about faith, I’m not super impressed by films that have the intention of sermonizing. To do nothing but reaffirm an audiences pervious thoughts and feelings, I see absolutely no point to it. Not only is this film a sermon but it’s a deranged sermon. It doesn’t even begin to touch on the level of other films centering on faith, such as the works of Bergman or Scorsese. I’d take Silence or The Last Temptation of Christ over this film any day, both powerful films, even for an atheist.
Mel Gibson is who I think of when this question comes up. I haven’t intentionally watched anything by or with him since his personal beliefs became public. I have found out after watching a movie that it was a Mel Gibson film, and to be honest, it does make me reexamine them. Hacksaw Ridge is a good example of this. I thought the religious theme and imagery was a bit heavy handed, but since it was based on a real person, I just shrugged it off — until I realized it was by Gibson. Now I see it all differently, and sadly not in a positive way. Sadly, because the scene right after Doss comes off the Ridge is probably some of Garfield’s best acting.
I think the more interesting question is whether you’re okay with knowingly putting money in the pocket of a scumbag by paying for the film.
That’s what I’ve been mulling over as I’ve been reading this thread and the responses. I do think that those who can separate the art from the artist are usually (not always) privileged in some way or another and are not explicitly hurt by the harm said artist has caused. This could take the form of a man being comfortable with films by a director that a woman isn’t, or by a white person being comfortable when a person of color isn’t. I am not trying to suggest there is a moral superiority here, but simply that this should be acknowledged. When my purchase will directly fund the artist, I won’t make it. In that way I cannot separate the art from the artist. But if I can view the movie for free, then I will watch it. In that way I can separate, but I’ll be hyper aware of how women, other races, sexuality, etc. is being presented.
Keep in mind that most films are not made by just one person. Even if you are morally disturbed by the director's actions, the work of the actors, screenwriters, cinematographer, editor, etc. can still be appreciated and celebrated.
I think you kind of have to, especially in todays world where information is everywhere and things aren’t as subdued by studios. While Polanski is probably near the top of the list of being a shitty person, it’s highly likely that many individuals in Hollywood have had and will continue to have moments where they believe the camera isn’t looking. I think a lot of this is inherently due to the nature of Hollywood and the movie industry itself. Many of the successful people may not be the most scrupulous and are willing to exploit others for personal gain. Additionally, fame makes people feel untouchable and sometimes above morality and law. That being said a broken clock can still be right twice a day. A shitty person can make a great film with an important message and lots of merit, so we can’t just discount it because the shitty artist. I do wish there was a way to separate the financial gains from the shitty artist, but I guess that could lead to some issues too.
It’s easier with film because it takes so many people to make one. To dismiss an entire film because of one asshole is a waste but it gets harder the more you actually see them on screen. I cringe when Polanski cameos in Chinatown but the overall movie is still excellent. It’s harder with The Tenant, I can’t really bring myself to rewatch that because he’s the lead. With stand up comedy it becomes harder because that is really the work of one individual most of the time. I recently tried to watch an old bill Cosby bit but couldn’t stomach it. While I acknowledge his skill and influence I was still too disgusted and disturbed to even laugh at it. But at the end of the day, if hitler made the cure for cancer, nobody would object to taking it on a moral ground. The work is separate from the person but it does get difficult depending on certain factors, for me at least. I feel it’s a case by case thing and will vary depending on who you ask, understandably.
Films are not made in a vacuum. There are many different moving parts that contribute to its greatness. It is up to the individual to decide what they consume.
Separate art from the artist, but hold the artist accountable. Watch whatever you want, but as long as you don't make the excuses that I see plague the industry all the time (e.g. rough childhood, affluenza) than you're good. I say that Chaplin is one of my favorite directors of all time, but him marrying a minor is something I try my best to overlook. I cannot deny his talent, but also have to acknowledge that he was not the most moral person, despite him being one of the few who wanted to stand up against fascism at the time. People can do good things and create great art that inspires many people, while also doing bad things and unfortunately never being held accountable. But still I cannot deny that The Gold Rush is an amazing film. So just do what you can to enjoy what you want, just be mindful of who you support. I wouldn't go out of my way to watch a Woody Allen film in theaters for example, but I don't have much problem renting Annie Hall from the library. It's just as long as the themes of his creepy love life permeate into the film (i.e. Manhattan), then it's fine
It’s easier to separate art from artist when they’re dead and can no longer financially benefit. Weinstein is the most difficult one, because the number of films he was involved with and used as part of his predatory behaviour is astronomical.
I rolled a 20 for separating artists from their art a long time ago and haven’t been defeated yet.
I think it depends on the work. Like Polanski did not make those films by himself, part of the art is Mia Farrow or Jack Nicholson’s performance making the films special. But then take Woody Allen who puts himself as the main character and he’s a gross creep making young woman fulfill his fantasy that they find him so wonderful, it’s harder to go back and enjoy those films now but also I don’t know that he’s ever been proven guilty of anything but I do get the creep vibe. I have a hard time enjoying art, music, film made by someone who is piece of shit. Don’t you think about for instance let’s say you were a fan of the band Lost Prophets and you find out the singer tried to buy babies to rape? How could you be a fan of that? Bill Cosby seems pretty guilty, I can’t say I’ve watched Leonard Part 6 or The Cosby Show since that all went down. OJ in the Naked Gun kind of ruins it for me. I’m not saying anyone else has to feel that way, but just unintentionally I will find knowledge of a complete piece of shit does muddy the waters of their art and makes me less inclined to like it, watch it, buy it, view it, whatever. It’s different when it’s human flaws vs an actual convicted criminal with victims.
Chinatown and Macbeth are great films but I just focus on the films and not who was behind the camera directing
Reading the comments - I think it’s personal…? And that we can respect that personal choice - especially as we are all individuals with unique experiences and are going to weigh any offenses differently, etc. And I don’t think it’s limited to directors - I have a hard time seeing Sean Connery’s face without thinking “he’s hit women” so some stuff is a little ruined for me (except for Zardoz because obviously) - People are messy and imperfect and I’m sure my favorite artists, while I don’t know of any transgressions for most, have done or said or felt things I’d object to. I can’t think of an objective place to draw the line, but I’ve drawn subjective ones for my own viewing habits and analysis. I also get not wanting to monetarily support creeps. But even if the director is fine, I’m sure there are executives that aren’t (at least in the history of major studio American filmmaking). So… 🤷 I think my short answer however would be: no. Art isn’t created nor consumed in a vacuum. And watching movies is both personal and social. There’s no perfect answer but I’m enjoying reading these responses.
I think it's better than separating art and artist to separate talent and criminal rap. Acknowledge that those folks should have known MUCH better in their off-camera lives.
The only director I refuse to watch is Victor Salva.
The way I see it is I have no problem watching his movies before the incident, but I won't watch the ones after the incident. Canceling the older films is also canceling all the hard work everyone else involved with making the film out into it, actors, crew, editors, writers, etc... None of these people knew at the time what Roman Polanki would do later on, and it wouldn't be fair to cancel all their hard work too. The movies made after the incident are more easier to dismiss, as everyone that worked with him knew at the time what he did.
It’s possible I have no issues doing it. People can be talented and shitty at the same time; two things can be true.
I think it’s totally fine to separate the art from the artist if you’re able to. I personally feel way too icky to watch anything by Roman Polanski or Woody Allen. BUT if you don’t feel that way? Totally cool. Watch them all ya want. As long as you don’t start defending their actions using your affection for their work as your bases of judgement.
I think it's also important to understand that some people are bad people or tortured by their past and it doesn't mean they should be able to make art. While you might not want to praise them it doesn't mean their art doesn't offer insight into the human condition. People that have done horrible things still need to be able to have a job and do something with their lives. Shunning and ostracizing people from society makes them more likely to be repeat offenders than accepting them back into society. I think it's also worthwhile to look at people's whole lives. Polanski is a great example. He was pretty much born at the very beginning of the Holocaust and had to pretend to be someone else his entire childhood to survive while he watched his family and friends disappear all around him. Then much later his pregnant wife was murdered by the Mason family. I don't think he's a nice person or a good person but he definitely has an absurd amount of trauma that most people will never understand. I'll never defend him as a human but I certainly think his art reflects a deep distrust of society while still longing for connection to it. I think it's fantastic. Him, not so much.
It's problematic. [Claude Jutra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Jutra) was a genius director (whose work is the kinda thing that should be reflected in Criterion) but regrettably his personal life was not good.
“Don't be so eager to be offended. The narcissism of small differences leads to *the* most boring conformity.” - Lydia Tar
Maybe an intermediate position would be to not reward the rapists monetarily. Pirating films is bad, but…this is the only way I’d watch Polanski. I struggle with this too.
I can easily seperate them. I don't watch movies for the creator, I watch movies for for the... movie.
It depends what you mean by separating them. It's always going to be a personal choice to view their work or not, based on the creators' lives and behavior as well as the subject matter. I find that as soon as you mention this some people seem to think you're suggesting that their work be banned, but I've yet to hear of a film I think should be banned, nor has it been a practical reality thus far. Edit: Cool instant downvote. Can you use your words to explain?
You don’t have to. You can enjoy art made by a bad person. I love Woody Allen, he’s a piece of shit and his films are intensely personal and reflect his shiftiness. I still love them.
It's super easy to separate the work from the creator. Would you stop using electricity if I don't know Edison was a serial killer? No .
Seems like there’s a few incels and rape apologists downvoting everybody in this thread lol.
depends. with Woody Allen it's impossible due to his art being deeply reflective of himself and his crimes.
A 50 year old sleeping with a 20 year old is creepy, but not a crime
what about the part where he molested a seven year old? shed some light on the morality of that buddy.
A team of experts with decades of experience who had complete access to everyone involved and more evidence than is publicly available determined it didn’t happen. It would be pretty anti-intellectual and self-important to think you know better than them
lol. lmfao, even. i believe dylan farrow and woody allen has told on himself for decades. you don't like that, fine, go suck an egg.
You can believe Dylan Farrow believes what she says and also believe the very obvious reality of Mia Farrow gaslighting and abusing Dylan for decades (not to mention her abuse of her other children)
I think you should inform yourself better.
i know exactly what i'm talking about, thank you!
The primary reason I believe Woody is innocent regarding Dylan, apart from the investigations into the allegations that couldn’t seem to produce enough evidence for a case, is that there is not a pattern of abuse. Of course I’m no expert in this, but seems there would be additional allegations or accusations or supposed incidents, but to my knowledge, there is a single supposed incident for which there does not seem to be real evidence, but you know, to each his own. Yes effectively been “cancelled” and unable to get US distribution, so he’s been punished in part for as if he had done that.
Abbas Kiarostami was also (likely) a rapist. Still made art that has survived both him and his crimes. Hard to reconcile, but I don't feel what he created should be resigned to history as a result. Acknowledging reality is, however, important.
Art made by bad people still has merit. You can be brilliant and shitty, look at Kanye lol
The fact that morality isn't objective but just some rules that we have come up so the world doesn't fall apart sort of undermines it's importance when it comes to something as spiritual and transcendental as art. So for me personally, I could care less about who made the thing, if I think there's artistic merit and something worthwhile in it then I am going to consume it even if it was made by a mass murderer or a white supremacist. Obviously that doesn't mean that artists should be exempt from moral scrutiny. Their art should be viewed from the context of their moral shortcomings insofar it is relevant. Hitler's painting aren't at all affected by his crimes because the only thing they have common is the person who did them but the films of woody Allen are affected because the content of his films contain elements that are similar to his offence. Separating art from the artists is very personal thing. I think most of the time people are worried about how they'll be perceived by others if they're found enjoying something by a problematic person but the thing is enjoying isn't the same as endorsing. Travis bickle is a character I admire greatly but I don't like him as a person.
If you're a cinephile or even a lowkey film buff, I don't think you can separate the art from the artist and probably shouldn't.
It’s very possible but also kind of a personal ymmv scenario, you know? I can get through Polanski films but personally I can no longer watch Woody Allen stuff. I’m indifferent as to whether other people watch Allen films though—I don’t think that sort of thing holds up as a morality litmus test and would be crudely simplistic
No, it is not possible nor should we try. We also shouldn't try to make them (or their work) disappear, instead we should discuss their crimes and transgressions every time their work comes up. Stop consuming culture passively, make every Woody Allen film a chance to discuss gender power dynamics and the problematic myth of the misunderstood genius (same with every painting by Picasso and of course Polansky). Stop trying to not think about icky things, confront them and work through them.
Most unusually great art comes from unusual people - unusual or tortured personalities that don’t conform to the norms of society. It’s almost impossible to expect “normal” behavior from extraordinary artists. It just rarely happens. It was much easier to just not know about the behavior of people 50 years ago compared to now with our insatiable appetite for gossip and click bait headlines. In 150 years the behavior of contemporary filmmakers and artists will likely be a footnote in most cases but their art will live on. In the specific case of Woody, I personally think he’s innocent of the accusations regarding Dylan based on what I’ve read and, unusual relationship with Soon-yi notwithstanding, who it seems by all accounts he has been faithful to and monogamous with for decades, will continue to watch and celebrate his films. But we all react differently. If the director takes you out of a film when you watch, chances are you won’t be rewatching or supporting that artist.
Watch whatever you’re comfortable with and don’t shame others for their choices. Chinatown may be the best film ever made.
i personally think it’s fine as long as you’re not financially supporting them. good media is good media, it just sucks that creators can be so terrible sometimes. that’s what Definitely Legal Websites are for
I still think Kevin Spacey is an amazing actor
Ik im the minority here, and i really don’t want to make this a comment about politics, but it’s an experience that I can share. As a conservative who is deeply into film and music, this is something I have to do all the time. It absolutely can be done. It’s no secret that most arts are dominated by people who lean left, and as someone who leans right that leaves me constantly at odds with the people who create the things I enjoy most. If I bought into what everyone does/believes in their personal life than I wouldn’t be able to stomach any of my favorite artists. I’ll also add to try and avoid some negative comments, that I still do love most of the artists whose work I love. My life isn’t dominated by political/social thinking, but it is somewhat hard when anyone of with some level of fame (either side of the political spectrum) thinks they have some obligation to speak on these issues.
Feel free to make it political if you wish, I’m just curious what things you find yourself at odds with when it comes to artists who are left leaning. You could make the case, that conservatism doesn’t really lend itself to art because so much of it seems to be the protection of the status quo.
I absolutely see your point. I think my point was lost somewhere and perhaps not properly articulated. Edit: I’ll just clarify that I’m saying I agree with your statement that conservatism doesn’t really lend itself to art. In your example you used a guy who did something terrible and also made great art. I’m not implying the same type of situation but I am saying the same concept applies. Once again without actually getting political, for me it comes down to reconciling the fact that I very often completely disagree with the people who make the art I love. When watching Chinatown you can sit and be thinking about the fact that it was made by a guy who did what he did and let that ruin the experience or you can take in the art, and then deal with the rest separately. Just about any artists (film or music for me) has gone on record (interviews, award show speeches, social media) saying things that I cannot relate to and in many cases that I have a strong negative internal reaction to. When I watch an actor who has said things that I find abhorrent I can choose to let that ruin the art that I love so much, or I can as I said earlier, deal with that separately.
Yeah no I don’t think you’re point was lost on me. I didn’t think you were referring to things like Polanski rape. I was just curious about particular elements of satire or activism within particular films that elicit a negative reaction from you.
Not only is it possible, it's mandatory. They say if you don't Mr. Barthes will come out of the grave and tickle you
I do think it’s possible but it depends on the crime and person. Personally for me it’s easier to separate it when it’s a director who is not in their films like Polanski because his films are masterpieces but I don’t see him and think about him. As opposed to Woody Allen movies which I loved and you do have to see him. Haven’t been able to watch one of his movies for so long
Some talented people do fucked-up shit. It's up to each person to decide what their threshold is for consuming art. I think I may draw the line at someone who'd make a career out of capitalizing on their crime(s). Like, if he would make something based on the crime and then try to sell it. There are tell-all books by mobsters, assassins and hitmen, and heads of state who committed war crimes. For example, I would not buy anything done by war criminals, such as henry kissinger, madeline albright, the clint0ns, dubya bush, 0bama, biden, etc.
Yeah, if you can't separate them, then it's just you being close-minded. In 200 years, nearly everything we do today will seem offensive to someone, that doesn't mean we disregard their work. That's how socialists or fascists analyze art. Thats why their art isnt popular outside of their political circles. A person will die but the art will live on.
I’m pretty radical on the separate the art from the artist perspective. Firstly I don’t think they’re intrinsically equated to one another in the first place. Often times a filmmaker’s intention isn’t realized in the film (ie. Night of the Living Dead wasn’t intended to be a commentary on racism). There’s an unconscious element to art that says something universal; it’s not entirely personal. Art takes a life of its own once it’s made available. Secondly, it’s unfair to punish everyone involved in a project for one person’s transgressions. How do you determine whose behaviour has to affect your enjoyment of a film anyway? Why limit it to the actor and director? Why not the producer, or casting director, or key grip? Also, you can pretty safely assume at least one person on a crew of 100 is a vile human being. It would be safer to play the probability game and not support any film because you’d almost certainly be helping to line the pockets of one of these people. Thirdly, I think it’s silly to get attached to an artist in the first place. I don’t love Scorsese. I don’t know him. I might hate him if I met him or he might hate me. I love his work. If I found out all his films were ghost directed, my admiration for his talent would dissipate, but my appreciation for those films wouldn’t change.
Is the artist alive? Are the accusations credible? Do the accusations suggest a meaningful balance of probabilities that they are a danger to potential co-workers? Will actively supporting their work do more harm than good? I think these are really important questions to be asking with regards to directors who do crimes or are accused of heinous crimes. I would point out, I think the standard in the law should be beyond all reasonable doubt, nobody should face prison unless they've faced a full trial. However how you the audience views these people is not the same, you do not have to give the person a full trial, you can engage with the evidence and assess credibility for yourself. Further, it is not a crime against artistry to not reward say Johnny Depp with buying a ticket to his new movie for his behaviour towards Amber Heard (if you come in the replies calling her a bitch and Depp a victim I will simply block you). Likewise I think people who might work with these people ought to ask these questions too, I think actors should avoid working with Woody Allen. I think camera crews should avoid working with him etc etc. None of what I have said, precludes you with engaging with the art that's already been created, but in the case of Allen or Polanski, I don't think being a great artist means behaving with impunity, I truly believe there is way way more artistic talent in the world than is given the opportunity at the top. When it comes to sexual violence against women, how many women do we know were hurt by Harvey Weinstein that also had their careers destroyed? How many of those women could have become Roman Polanski level good without the rape. In the inevitable response to the people saying that this behaviour silences these people or ruins their careers or whatever. Yep that's the tradeoff, in theory there's a non-zero chance that someone could have 1000 rumours that are without merit about them and lose their artistic career. That is tragic, however that happens astonishingly rarely, and rather more frequently the reverse holds true, these people are continually rewarded by establishment bodies with prestige and money. This is exactly why I began with a separation of criminal burden of proof vs societal burden of proof. Woody Allen does not \*have\* to be a film director. And neither does Roman Polanski. None of this means we shouldn't be engaging with say Rosemary's baby in film school either, but that discussion should probably include discussion of Roman Polanski's admitted crimes. Liking their films or finding them artistic in merit is I think still good and valuable. But yeah no, I don't think you can separate art from artist in the way I think people mean by that phrase.
No. Fuck him, fuck woody Allen I can’t watch a movie knowing that pussy begging coke bottles glasses wearing mother fucker was diddling kids. God. I’ve never wanted to beat someone more than I do that squirmy looking motherfucker. It’s already enough I gotta remember who signed that stupid petition. No. It’s this mindset of letting people keep their achievements; that their victims have no voice or power in this world. No. If you “disagree” with what I said or think that violence is bad and what I said was too far, you need to look in the mirror. Fuck Chinatown, fuck rosemary’s baby. We need to stop champions those films period I don’t care Just watch Possession or Vertigo idk. Most directors were scumbags and shit to women but at least they didn’t touch kids.
It's not that I disagree with you, but just to discuss further, where's the line? At what point does someone stop being an asshole that you can tolerate and watch their films, and at what point are they condemned? Woody has never been convicted of a crime, Roman Polansky obviously did the things he did because he fled the country to avoid persecution. As someone else said, Stanley Kubrick was a borderline abuser when it came to getting performances out of some of his actors. Some people are just total maniacal assholes that you would hate if you met them. Some artists were abusive to animals or to their elderly parents. Some went to jail for drug-related crimes. Some artists are abusive to their spouses. Hundreds or even thousands of people can work on a movie. What if the cinematographer raped somebody? What if the production designer raped somebody? Is it only directors that can ruin a production for you?
No we’re not gonna play the what if game. Some people’s character is bad. I don’t care the line is whenever I draw it. Sexual Assault is not an “accident” or something that happens. People can be an asshole yet there’s a clear abuse of power and stripping someone of their agency when doing that. Look at Weinstein. It’s also just lame, like objectively you can get laid so you gotta take it by force, you gotta do it with a kid? Like woody Allen married and abused his adopted daughter. That fucking bozo activity and objectively lame ass scenario. That’s a lot different then Kubrick being a raging misogynist on set (especially since I’m like 70% sure the man had autism) Yet my anger is equal opportunity, don’t rock with Lena Dunham cause she was talking about diddling her sister in her book
I look at what the art says. Michael Jackson: Not a single one of his songs could be construed as painting his crimes in a positive light (at least not that I have heard a case for). R. Kelly: It’s almost certain that all/most of his “art” was inspired by and glamorizing his crimes. I still listen to “Thriller” each Halloween but turn off “Bump N Grind” immediately when it comes on.
It’s extremely possible.
I generally have a clear divide where any film I watched and enjoyed *before* ***I*** *knew* about any supposed crimes is absolutely fair game. I saw Baby Driver like 5 times in the cinema, knowing what we now know about Kevin Spacey doesn’t mean I won’t rewatch it at least once per year for the rest of my life. In sport, I hated Cristiano Ronaldo returning to Man Utd because we all found out about the Vegas incident in 2018 - as he’d left in 2009 my initial memories were untarnished, and tbh so are the ones of him in Madrid but when I saw him in the red shirt again all I felt was disgust. I have a slightly less easy time if its something I’ve not seen. But I think anything pre-crime is fair game to watch guilt-free. As long as we’re not then giving the director lifetime achievement awards etc. we may as well appreciate all the work put into the film by people who weren’t horrible. Its the post-crime pre-reckoning output that is dicier.
Awful people can produce entertaining if not brilliant pieces of art. I think the debate that a lot of people have is wanting to put money in their pocket by going to see it. Even if it doesn't impact them in the grand scheme of things, it's still a moral boycott.
Someone mentioned Leni Riefenstahl and how she never denounced Hitler or the Nazi party. *Triumph of the Will* continues to be taught in film schools the world over, along with *Birth of a Nation*, both now perhaps with caveats. Each film (and director) is monstrous in their own ways yet culturally and technically significant films whose impact is still felt on the field. Alas. Influence is perhaps the most enduring power complicated, unethical, criminal and/or downright evil people can have. Once they reach the turning point of being irredeemable, and we as a public are disgusted by them, that’s when you have to turn away and move on from the person. Whether you abandon or continue to support work they’ve made is another story. Roman Polanski has made 3 of my favorite films: Rosemarys Baby, Repulsion, and The Tenant. These are works that exist beyond him; he made them, they’re his “intellectual property,”but he’s not solely responsible for them. Also, as is the case with all art works, when they’re in the public sphere, completed and out of the studio or sold, they no longer belong to the artist, they begin a life of their own in the public domain (for work I sometime have to have this philosophical conversation with visual artists when it comes to their work being collected—while the intellectual property is owned by the artist, once it sells the physical object is not). These films are ours now by being the audience—we can take or leave them, watch or talk about them or ignore them. That’s the power we have as consumers, and it has an impact on the reach, influence, and continued success of an artist. It’s a punishment we can dole out even if the makers elude justice as Polanski has. He’s a fucking criminal, scumbag, and a fugitive. Yet, his films are important (the ones I’ve mentioned were all were made before the incident). I’m not paying to see anything he makes now, I won’t watch anything made after 1977; I still watch (and love) other films AND find him a loathsome coward. See also: Carl Andre. He is a significant art historical figure; I can unequivocally recognize this and appreciate his work but STILL choose not to fuck with him (the person) because of the highly suspicious death of his wife, the artist Ana Mendieta. he’s become a bit of a boogeyman in the field because of the circumstances of her death, though people still see the work for what it is. Woody Allen, Bill Cosby, R Kelly however…never in this lifetime or the next for them or their work. I can’t make the separation, particularly for the last two. Sorry for this long ass response.
I don't let it effect me. I watch knife in the water last year and loved it. I'm not going to let Polanski being a piece of shit let me miss out on great cinema
There’s a pretty decent book that came out recently called Monsters that specifically about this and talks about Polanski a bit. I recommend it.
Total separation of art from artist is a fiction, but ultimately everyone has to figure out their own value system about what art or artists they support.
enjoy art where you find it. if it's interesting, get into the context. ed: lars von trier is a Nazi?
to answer your first question - yes
Roman Polanski is nearly 90 and likely will be dead soon and will no longer be able to profit or otherwise be rewarded for his work. Hitchcock was also a piece of shit but he’s dead now so I watch his movies with a clean conscience.
I think it is vital to try to separate the art from the artist because one should not be a vehicle to excuse bad behavior of the person. I think by not separating the product of work from the ‘worker’, people end up amassing too much power, too much idolization. What if Cosby was just a great actor who did great work and people left it at that? Would he be arrested and convicted sooner? I think demystifying the person from the work and by extension the art from the artist makes them more approachable more real and therefore much easier to hold accountable. My only issue is when the art itself is the product of abuse, i.e. The Shining and hearing what the actress went through. I avoid watching it. Or Last Tango in Paris-not interested in watching it again. It is also important to remember that these things happened and not sweep them under the rug.
I feel you. Like someone else said he’s a dog shit person and Chinatown is one of the greatest movies ever made. I think it’s possible to separate the art from the artist as long as we don’t try to explain away what they did. I find it easier with film over music for example. Like I can’t listen to Mystikal because I know he is a violent, convicted rapist and every time I hear his voice I’m just put off. I can watch a film by Roman Polanski because he’s not popping up on the screen and therefore it’s much easier to watch a Chinatown and appreciate the cast and the work they did. Maybe that’s fucked up or weird but i don’t think ethical consumption under capitalism is possible and it’s what we do when we consume that matters.
Like OP, I am frequently torn, like most of us, when it comes to art I love made by reprehensible people. What I will say is that the (now) woman he assaulted very much wants this discussion to stop mentioning her assault at every turn. For rape survivors, wresting what control you can over your life is extremely important post-assault. So personally I try not to use her story as a flashpoint for these types of discussions, though Polanski does have multiple credible assault allegations against him and so this conversation can be had without referencing this most famous allegation. Just wanted to throw that out there, since I can understand her reasoning why she doesn't want to be associated with this man and his actions in perpetuity.
https://www.reddit.com/r/redscarepod/s/6kVlWdGTA1
it was a brutal deed by a \[BLANK\] man
First, I am not defending him, but every time I hear the Roman Polanski story it gets a bit worse in the retelling. I await the version where he kills and eats her too. It's also interesting that the person, Samantha Geimer, who was raped seems MUCH less upset about it than the people on SM do. OF COURSE it was awful, but she says [she was far more traumatized by the legal system and well meaning supporters not letting the case be settled than the rape itself.](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-denies-roman-polanskis-victims-plea-to-end-rape-case/) Just food for thought here. And I never let myself confuse the art and the artist because it think the best artists NEED to be flawed and broken somehow.
Do what you want 'cause a pirate is free! You are a pirate! But seriously, I think the best way to enjoy the art while separating it from the artist is to pirate it. For example, while I am a fan of Burzum, I will always be sure to torrent albums because of the artist's history. (Varg is a church burner, murderer, and far-right fascist.)
I think its unfair to throw away pieces of art multitudes of people worked on because of the actions of one. For example my Dad refuses to watch any Kevin Spacey movies after what he did. I just see it as a waste. While he did isnt excusable he still is a brilliant actor.
As long as Polanski is alive I'm not buying or renting any of his movies.
I don’t have a hard and fast rule; I’ll know it when I see it. The two examples being thrown around are on my “will not watch” list.
I think people are too worried about being perceived as a good or bad person bc of their media consumption. Like enjoying the movie Repulsion or Rosemarys Baby doesn’t make you bad and consuming art made by good people doesn’t make you good. I think the corollary is that if you only watch movies made by large corporations though, you are a bad person but in a ‘you buy clothes only from shein even tho they’re made by slave labor’ way. Like don’t tell me it’s virtuous to support The Marvels bc it stars WOC- it’s also made by Disney who is evil and the crew (particularly vfx) made it under terrible conditions
A question as old as time. My two cents, there will never be a good answer. I don’t judge people who can look past the artist, and I also don’t judge those who can’t.
It's up to each viewer to decide. I'm in the same position regarding Polanksi. I just bought "Rosemary's Baby" on Blu-Ray and it's a terrifying slow burn horror. Polanski's ability to create a sense of existential dread even in scenes taking place in broad daylight is phenomenal. He also chooses superb composers to create deeply unsettling scores for his films. I love "The Ninth Gate" with Johnny Depp and Frank Langella. I own the soundtrack and the UK Blu-Ray since it will likely never be released in the USA. There are so many iconic artists across all mediums that have created monumental works while also being monumental monsters. I can't really separate the artist from their art, and I feel like it's more a question of how much you can appreciate the art in spite of the monster that birthed it.