|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 4, 2021 22:24:59 GMT -5
So, just a general question that popped into my head, after seeing Stephen Collins on later episodes of The Office, as Andy's father. Collins' career pretty much ended after admitting to illegal relations with female minors, on three separate occasions, between 1973 and 1994. When he was on screen, I didn't think, "Oh, Star Trek...Decker...", I just thought "pedophile." Same with anything with Jeffrey Jones, from Ferris Bueller, after his conviction for child pornography and soliciting a minor to appear in nude photos. Some people seem to find it easier to separate the work from the person; but, I find I have a very hard time doing it. I couldn't watch episodes of the Cosby Show, after the rash of allegations came out and his conviction. I have trouble reading a Gerard Jones story now, or look at the Crimson Avenger mini that Greg Brooks did. I am a pro wrestling fan and used to love watching Chris Benoit matches, until he murdered his wife and son. I can't enjoy the Nightmares, a tag-team in Memphis and Alabama, without thinking of Ken Wayne as a pedophile.
It's not in everything, though, as I watched a couple of I-Spy episodes, on-line, as I had never seen the series and found I wasn't as bothered by Cosby as I was with the Cosby Show. Maybe it was the values espoused in that series vs Cosby's actions, vs the more grey world of I-Spy. I can watch the Little Rascals or It's a Wonderful Life and see Carl "Alfalfa" Switzer and still enjoy the movie or short, though it always reminds me of how he died, shot in self defense. I can read Kipling, despite his colonialism, or Burroughs and his racism. Maybe its distance, maybe its cultural attitudes within historical context vs personal actions in a present setting.
So, anybody else suffer issues like this or can you completely separate the work from the artist?
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 4, 2021 23:35:00 GMT -5
****A WARNING FROM THE MOD TEAM: Okay folks, this is an extremely touchy subject. Recent history suggests there are some in this community who can't handle such a conversation diplomatically. If that's you, please walk away now instead of ruining this discussion for the rest of us. Keep it civil or stay away. No room for snarky jabs and condescending quips here if you don't like what someone else is saying. You STILL have to be respectful of the person and of their right to a contrary opinion.
Also, remember to be respectful of ALL people, including celebrities and creators. Yeah, that means being respectful of people who have been accused of (and sometimes found guilty of) doing some truly terrible things. You are not their judge.
It would not be okay, for example, to call Kevin Spacey a "piece of human garbage" for the serious crimes he is alleged to have committed. However, saying what he was accused of doing "was no big deal" would be grossly insensitive too. The man was accused of some pretty serious stuff and the facts don't look good. He also made great films, and folks are allowed to be fans of his work. We each have the ability to acknowledge both aspects of the man in a mature discussion and to prevent said conversation from descending into ugliness.
If you can't agree to that, don't post here.
This is one of the friendliest communities on the web, and keeping it that way requires the best of each of us, especially when the conversation topic strikes a nerve.
/end very serious warning****
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 4, 2021 23:48:21 GMT -5
I think, if you look deeply enough, you can find something incredibly disturbing about most creators, artists, and actors. I don't think these creators get a pass, but removing them and their works from the cultural canon doesn't work for me either, so I do think it's necessary to separate art from artist for the sake of our own sanity.
I've still never seen a Woody Allen film, but I'd like to. Do I want my dollars to go into his pocket? No. But I am curious about what made the man a legend until his personal life undid all of that.
The Naked Gun is STILL funny, even though OJ Simpson is in it.
Do we stop watching every film the Weinstein Company produced?
Hitchcock, Kubric, and Lang were monsters to their leading ladies. I still adore their films.
We can't turn a blind eye to creators who do terrible things, but I think it's still okay to enjoy their output so long as our enjoying their art doesn't help them to circumvent the consequences of their actions (i.e. you go see a Joss Whedon film because you love Joss Whedon, even with the serious allegations being made against him. The studio sees the ticket sales and decides to keep giving him work in spite of his alleged on-set behavior because he's making them money). So maybe a better answer is that we shouldn't financially support new work from people who do terrible things, but it's okay to go back and enjoy output that is not current?
There is, of course, a flip side to this. The media is making villains out of certain folks before all the facts are in place, and people are losing their livelihoods over it. Sometimes the evidence is overwhelming, but sometimes it's a simple matter of public opinion. I'm still not totally clear on why Amber Heard had to be fired from the Aquaman sequel. I don't give a darn about her either way, and I haven't read into it enough so I may be totally wrong, but it seems like folks formed an opinion about her that hasn't been verified by fact simply because they love Johnnie Depp and needed one of them to be the monster in their dramatic break-up. If so, that's...scary. Folks need to exercise their purchasing power with restraint and purpose. Otherwise, it's large scale mob justice.
But yeah, the predators hiding behind the success of their art need to be held accountable when the facts are clear. And I think it's still okay to enjoy their output so long as doing so isn't helping them to avoid consequences.
Is that a murky enough answer for you?
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Apr 5, 2021 0:05:33 GMT -5
I'm not at all consistent with this - sometimes I'll feel completly repelled and lose interest in an artist's work, sometimes I keep the two totally separate.
I watched Mike Tyson's fights all through his career, while disliking him increasingly as his personal behaviour came to light. And now, in recent years, I've started to find myself mellowing on him as a person too and have even watched a few episodes of his podcast. I've watched and admired the craftmanship of Polanski's films, while having no doubt of his guilt in that famous rape case of an underaged girl. And so on.
In the other direction, having been very impressed by two of his later novels, Ancient Evenings and Harlot's Ghost, I had been planning, until just recently, to really get deep into Norman Mailer's work from the beginning. But a few months ago I happened to come across an account of the incident in the 50s or 60s when he assaulted his wife - something I'd heard about before but only vaguely - and it was so much worse and more indefensible than I'd realised that it's turned me off the idea of reading anything by him for now. And though I haven't tested it by trying to watch anything, the recent accusations against Joss Whedon have certainly made it less likely that I'll be re-watching Buffy the Vampire-slayer anytime soon.
But I suppose in the end I come down more on the side of keeping the artist and the work separate - because I wouldn't be surprised if, in a few years, I get over my negative feelings towards Mailer and find myself able to read his books again. Or watch a Joss Whedon series.
So as Codystarbuck said, I think it does have to do with distance - after a while you get over the first shock and you're able to keep that separation between art and artist. Or it might be a distance in time or space or culture or even just imagination - it»'s easier to accept the racism and sexism in a 19th-century novel than it would be if you noticed the same evils in something written last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Apr 5, 2021 0:36:50 GMT -5
I watched some of the Cosby show back during the first run but it’s not the type of show I would watch in reruns. His conviction for his rapey behavior strikes me as just bizarre. Did he really have to drug them ? I thought celebrities had their pick of groupies.
|
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Apr 5, 2021 3:59:41 GMT -5
Like berkley, I'm not at all consistent in this. Mel Gibson has lost his luster for me (although I'd gotten kind of tired of him even before the full scope of sexist, racist, anti-Semitic awfulness came to light), but I can still watch Road Warrior and Payback. I can still sit through Woody Allen's older movies, i.e., Annie Hall and before. And I should acknowledge that with maybe two exceptions I was never the biggest fan of his post-Annie Hall ouevre in any case. Louis C.K. is pretty much dead to me, though - can't even see the guy now. Cosby, too.
Edited to add: On Stephen Collins, I know I've watched ST: the Motion Picture at least once since everything about him came to light, and was able to compartmentalize it. So yeah, guess I'm not very consistent.
|
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Apr 5, 2021 4:08:59 GMT -5
I watched some of the Cosby show back during the first run but it’s not the type of show I would watch in reruns. His conviction for his rapey behavior strikes me as just bizarre. Did he really have to drug them ? I thought celebrities had their pick of groupies. The whole point for him, apparently, was drugging and assaulting them (which, by the way, is not 'rapey', it's rape). He apparently also did this to women with whom he was already having consensual affairs. |
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Apr 5, 2021 7:38:30 GMT -5
It's a tough subject and I'm still formulating my own opinion on it. Whether I can still enjoy a work after believing things about the artist hangs on many different
Likewise I'm inconsistent on this. I do think 1. an artists own reaction can change my reaction as well; as well as 2. the way the artist portrays himself and 3. the distance between the artist and the work.
To explain a bit more:
1. Occassionally the dark histories are during a specific period of the artists work, often during periods where they were suffering from illness and/or substance abuse. If the artists gets help and makes amends, I can very easily read their works, especially works before or after that period.
2. Artists that portray themselves as role models or artists that attack positions of power, but are then shown to engage in the exact kind of behaviour they publicly oppose, will have a far harder time to redeem themselves to me. Nobody likes a hypocrite.
3. This one is really depended on the medium, I guess. It's easier for an actor or penciller to disappear behind their work. A comedian or writer are usually far more 'present' within the work. Also to keep it within comic books for a short moment; there are titles that more or less likely for me to be able to seperate the artist from the work; a run of the mill issue of Iron Man or Justice League is far less likely to make me consider the artist behind it, than say Wonder Woman or Black Panther.
Like I said still formulating on how to address this well, but this is my short response for now.
To react on two other points:
Re. Cosby: like EdoBosnar already mentions; rape is about having power over a victim, it's never an issue of the rapist not being able to get sex in another way.
Re. Amber Heard: As far as I've heard she has actually not been fired from the Aquaman sequel, but there is so much misinformation going around that I understand that people can get confused. That's why it's very important that we always consider sources and verifiability (and the internet is sadly very bad at this).
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Apr 5, 2021 8:30:02 GMT -5
Like many above, my reaction will vary. It depends on the nature and severity of the misdeeds and how long ago they occurred. I'll be more lenient toward historical figures than toward people still active today.
Sometimes human failings will pale when compared to a person's achievements; I mean, who makes a habit of first pointing out Isaac Newton's being a total d*ck to other scientists or H. P. Lovecraft being the worst kind of racist? Their failings might be real, but their achievements are so much greater. It would make no sense, I think, for their legacy to be overshadowed by their human frailties, even if we acknowledge the latter. (The same argument applies to many other historical and artistic figures, five or six of which anyone can name at the drop of a hat).
Other times, I'll find myself unfairly harsh toward certain individuals: I can't separate some people's politics from their work, for example, good as it may be (or "political activism", rather than just "politics"; I actually don't care about what they believe, just what they do).
Politics... it can poison a lot of relationships, either real or virtual. It's not exactly rational, but there we are.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 5, 2021 9:05:21 GMT -5
Like many above, my reaction will vary. It depends on the nature and severity of the misdeeds and how long ago they occurred. I'll be more lenient toward historical figures than toward people still active today. The more I think about it, the more I think it also matters whether: 1. They articulated beliefs that we find unacceptable (H.P. Lovecraft) 2. They used their fame as a platform to articulate such beliefs (Teddy Roosevelt) 3. They hurt some people (Isaac Newton) 4. They deliberately and directly hurt a lot of people or hurt one or more people in a thoroughly morally reprehensible way (Bill Cosby) I think we spend too much time in the present day on #1. Woodrow Wilson remains one of my favorite presidents in U.S. History, and I found this article about him (and about this larger conversation) quite provocative, especially the point that nearly all important figures in American history up through the 1960s were racists, so how do modern citizens approach that history? Do we knock down all the statues and start history over again, or do we find a way to appreciate the good that was done while also recognizing and refusing to dismiss the evil that existed behind the scenes? I'll also add that, while I think it is a good thing that we scrutinize our past heroes and make sure we are revering who we think we are revering, we are losing almost all sense of the word "hero" in our culture. We desperately need exemplars to look up to and believe in, as our culture seems to grow more jaded and distrustful by the day. We can't and shouldn't ignore the bad, but when the offense is vastly outweighed by the good they have done, we still need to be able to put people and the good ideals they stood for on a pedestal. Ghandi and Nelson Mandela were neither heroes through and through. They believed and did some things that I have a real problem with. I still need to be able to put them on a pedestal for what they did RIGHT. I need people to believe in and to inspire me to be the best version of myself, even if those people weren't always the best versions of their selves. Anyone remember the Simpsons episode where Lisa uncovers the truth about Jebediah Springfield?  |
|
|
|
Post by Mister Spaceman on Apr 5, 2021 9:24:05 GMT -5
It's an interesting question. For me, an artist's problematic background in a certain way can enhance my appreciation of their work because I am compelled to recognize that all art is created by human beings, who are, by nature, flawed. It somehow makes the art more powerful knowing that it transcends its creator. So, I can appreciate Roman Polanski's genius when watching Rosemary's Baby, even though he committed a terrible crime. And I can enjoy Mia Farrow's performance in that film, even though I believe she concocted child abuse allegations against Woody Allen. But my reactions are very idiosyncratic. John Wayne was openly racist and John Ford was, by all accounts, a crappy human being, but I love their work together. On the other hand, ever since I heard a story that Walter Brennan did a happy jig on set when the news broke that MLK had been assassinated gives me pause every time I see him on screen. Perhaps the difference there is that his value to me as an artist is much less significant than that of Wayne and Ford.
[The earlier observation about ERB and racism brings up another, somewhat related issue, which is when the art itself is problematic. My wife is African American and if we ever had children, I would want to share my love of comics with them. But it would be challenging to introduce them to Will Eisner's genius and also account for Ebony White. Like I said, a separate issue but it does speak more generally to how we have to navigate a lot of complicated territory when it comes to art. Pardon the expression but things are rarely simply black and white. And today's cultural zeitgeist sadly seems deeply invested in reductive binary thinking.]
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 5, 2021 9:27:23 GMT -5
[The earlier observation about ERB and racism brings up another, somewhat related issue, which is when the art itself is problematic. My wife is African American and if we ever had children, I would want to share my love of comics with them. But it would be challenging to introduce them to Will Eisner's genius and also account for Ebony White. Like I said, a separate issue but it does speak more generally to how we have to navigate a lot of complicated territory when it comes to art. Pardon the expression but things are rarely simply black and white. And today's cultural zeitgeist sadly seems deeply invested in reductive binary thinking.] Different but similar, I am raising two girls to believe they are equal to their male counterparts in rights and in importance. This often requires me to do a lot of explaining when watching my favorite old films with them and reading my favorite old comics with them. I also want them to be champions of equality, so I point out when a group is depicted unfairly, as well as when a group is wholly absent in a wide swarth of films except in minor comedic roles. I think I've gotten pretty good at this. We can watch White Christmas each year and laugh at Bing Crosby and Danny Kay performing "Sisters" while also discussing the latent transphobia at the same time.  I don't think being progressive means tossing our favorite things away. In fact, I think it's important for my kids to know where we've been as a society and what direction we need to be moving in as a result. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Apr 5, 2021 11:27:13 GMT -5
I've still never seen a Woody Allen film, but I'd like to. Do I want my dollars to go into his pocket? No. But I am curious about what made the man a legend until his personal life undid all of that. Please look into the facts regarding his case. They all support him while the other side has nothing. There is too much to type here, but there were two independent and extensive investigations at the time, and they concluded that he was innocent.
He would not have been allowed to adopt any children if any of it was true.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 5, 2021 11:38:13 GMT -5
I've still never seen a Woody Allen film, but I'd like to. Do I want my dollars to go into his pocket? No. But I am curious about what made the man a legend until his personal life undid all of that. Please look into the facts regarding his case. They all support him while the other side has nothing. There is too much to type here, but there were two independent and extensive investigations at the time, and they concluded that he was innocent.
He would not have been allowed to adopt any children if any of it was true.
I was actually thinking of his relationship with Soon-Yi and not the allegations that ensued. What he did was not illegal, but I find it extremely morally questionable to be in a romantic relationship with (or even be able to sexualize) someone who was once your adoptive child. It's the same reason why I as a teacher would never date a former student and would have serious objections if a colleague of mine did. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Apr 5, 2021 12:52:03 GMT -5
Please look into the facts regarding his case. They all support him while the other side has nothing. There is too much to type here, but there were two independent and extensive investigations at the time, and they concluded that he was innocent.
He would not have been allowed to adopt any children if any of it was true.
I was actually thinking of his relationship with Soon-Yi and not the allegations that ensued. What he did was not illegal, but I find it extremely morally questionable to be in a romantic relationship with (or even be able to sexualize) someone who was once your adoptive child. It's the same reason why I as a teacher would never date a former student and would have serious objections if a colleague of mine did. But she was Mia Farrow's adopted child, not his. Soon-Yi and he barely had any contact while he was dating Farrow, and she did not like him then. (She thought he was a sucker for falling for Mia's charm.) She was 21 and in college before they even started connecting socially.
In other words, there was really no kind of relationship at all before then. She was just someone that was there on occasion when he'd visit their house.
|
|
