Seperating the art from the artist

[PaulD]

The idea for discussion in this thread has been touched on in other topics so I thought I'd set this up here so we have a dedicated thread for discussion.

Can you, as a film viewer, separate the personality and actions of a film maker (or actor) from the work they create or are the 2 intertwined?

Can you look at one of Hitler's paintings and get some level of appreciation for it or is it immediately rendered offensive by the man's actions? Could you listen to a Gary Glitter cd and enjoy it or would the same thing apply (assuming that's your sort of music of course). Interestingly, has anyone been a fan of Gary Glitter only to have their opinion of his music change as a result of what he did?

Like I say, this topic's been popping up a little bit on the forum recently so it's been on my mind a lot.

My personal opinion is that I can enjoy a film by someone who's done reprehensible things, as long as that isn't reflected in the film. If I was to go back through Polanski's back catalogue and realise that there was the subtext of promoting under-age sex running through any of his films then I'd change my mind instantly. On the case of Victor Salva and Clownhouse bizarre_eye said he could do likewise "Although, I consider Clownhouse to be a different case entirely, as the actual molestation occurred on set at the time of filming" which I totally agree with. Similarly, I thought Jeepers Creepers was an entertaining and diverting film when I saw it at the cinema. Catching a bit of it years later on the tv being aware of Salva's convictions I couldn't help but feel quite uneasy due to the predatory nature of the opening Duel-like scenes and now must admit to being totally against the film.

That said, the ending of The Hangover 2 (and to a certain extent its prequel, both films I hated with a passion anyway) wound me up as it portrayed Mike Tyson, a notorious misogynist and convicted rapist, in a comedic "Aww look he's singing a song! How funny!" light which turned my stomach, although I think (but not 100% sure) that reaction still ties in with my stance on this issue. (I'm still baffled why they thought Mel Gibson was an inappropriate choice for a cameo but decided Tyson was absolutely fine for a second time)

So what are your views on this? Are films by Polanski, Salva and others (Woody Allen? Von Trier for having an offensive sense of humour?) automatically written off for you on the basis of the artist's public lives or can you separate the two? there are also other areas to perhaps consider to, to muddy the waters a little. What would you consider 'too much' in terms of turning you away from an artist's work? Similarly, if a director serves their time and pays their debt to society is the slate wiped clean and can you enjoy their work once more?

I know this topic could be quite sensitive, dealing in things like child abuse etc so I hope everyone can debate nicely and it doesn't turn into another Serbian Film debate - if someone can't stomach Chinatown because of Roman Polanski's personal life then that's fine! Let them feel that way! Also, as we're discussing the merits of works in relation to the actions of the directors it's a bit pointless just to pipe in with "Well, I don't like Polanski's films anyway, nothing to do with him as a person, just don't think he's very good" and although it would be unfair for me to stop you from saying what you want and posting discussion guidelines, just, y'know, don't ok?

[iluvdvds@Cult Labs]

Fascinating thread PaulD!

Personally speaking whilst I do think that personalities are indeed intertwined with the medium, I don't think audiences (or most audiences!) are that passive and stupid to be unable to seperate the two. Of course people are always going to think about the name behind it, but how much influence their background has on the film is, I believe, at the viewer's control.

I love Gary Glitter's music! The lyrics could be read as being very intertwined with his dodgy past - 'Come on, come on' On one level I can think of the songs AND his disgusting traits but on another I can just appreciate the songs for being so damn catchy.

Of course, everyone is different (both in terms of the viewer and the star). Someone may have more knowledge of Polanski, someone may be more sensitive to matters such as that. But I think the majority of audiences are able to chose how they view something. Obviously some things are harder to seperate than others (again this depends on the viewer's own knowledge, ideologies and interests) such as the past films (and your opinions of their past roles).

Meh.

[Slippery Jack]

Yes I can. Easily. Polanski is one of my favourite directors, and Chris Langham is one of my favourite comedy actors. I have zero interest in their personal lives . . .

[PaulD]

Originally Posted by Slippery Jack

Yes I can. Easily. Polanski is one of my favourite directors, and Chris Langham is one of my favourite comedy actors. I have zero interest in their personal lives . . .

God, I totally forgot about Chris Langham. His career's virtually ended as a result of that

I wouldn't want this discussion to just involve people involved in film making by the way, hence my use of Gary Glitter as an example. It makes the opportunity for discussion more diverse if we can think of more people as examples. Pete Townsend (did he ever actually write that book?) being a good example - I'm sure people still listen to The Who after all.

I'd genuinely interested at which point people think the mark is over-stepped. Do you believe OJ Simpson was guilty of murder? If so, can you still enjoy his performance in The Naked Gun? Or are his other misdemeanors (ie the ones he was convicted of) enough to turn you off from his performance in The Naked Gun? Or is it different for an actor as they bring something different to the film compared to a director?

[Gojirosan]

I have no problem leaving the artist's personal life behind when it comes to appreciating their art.


Can I look at paintings by Hitler or Gacy and appreciate the artistry? - in theory, yes, but neither was much of an artist. I love and still listen, on occasion, to Gary Glitter's music and have no issue watching Salva's films. Remember also, that Gary Glitter and Victor Salva were not the only people involved in the creation of their music and films. You are dismissing the work of others in a knee-jerk reaction to one offender. If this is the case, why not write off films where the key grip was an offender or music where the accordion player was an offender? Because you don't hear about it? Well does that mean it is less of an crime than when someone in the limelight does it? Reject a Polanski film and perhaps you have a duty to research everyone involved in every film you ever watch to see if they offend your sensibilities. Perhaps it is safer just to reject all art in case it is made by a criminal not yet uncovered?


Perhaps I value art too highly or forgive too easily, but it simply is not an issue to me.

What if tomorrow it was found out that the director of your favourite film had been a child abuser/murderer/fascist/etc? Does that film suddenly become rubbish overnight? Can you really lose all the love you had for it in the blink of an eye? I cannot comprehend that.

This is just my view. Please read Paul's final paragraph in his original post.

[PaulD]

Originally Posted by Gojirosan

I have no problem leaving the artist's personal life behind when it comes to appreciating their art.


Can I look at paintings by Hitler or Gacy and appreciate the artistry? - in theory, yes, but neither was much of an artist. I love and still listen, on occasion, to Gary Glitter's music and have no issue watching Salva's films. Remember also, that Gary Glitter and Victor Salva were not the only people involved in the creation of their music and films. You are dismissing the work of others in a knee-jerk reaction to one offender. If this is the case, why not write off films where the key grip was an offender or music where the accordion player was an offender? Because you don't hear about it? Well does that mean it is less of an crime than when someone in the limelight does it? Reject a Polanski film and perhaps you have a duty to research everyone involved in every film you ever watch to see if they offend your sensibilities. Perhaps it is safer just to reject all art in case it is made by a criminal not yet uncovered?


Perhaps I value art too highly or forgive too easily, but it simply is not an issue to me.

What if tomorrow it was found out that the director of your favourite film had been a child abuser/murderer/fascist/etc? Does that film suddenly become rubbish overnight? Can you really lose all the love you had for it in the blink of an eye? I cannot comprehend that.

This is just my view. Please read Paul's final paragraph in his original post.

Really interesting post there Gojirosan and overall I do agree with you.

I'm not sure I agree with the bit I've highlighted though since, although I see your point, we're talking about works of the artist, and not the other hands which also bring that work into fruition. Repulsion, Chinatown etc are the result of Polanski's vision, even with the help he had in creating it (kinda delving into Auteur Theory here I guess) but he is the reason those films are how they are. I'd be really surprised if even the most passionate person who won't watch Polanski's work as a result of what he did would also turn away from watching Inception if they found out that the Lighting Technician had been convicted of sexually assaulting a child.*

You say you enjoy Salva's work. Out of interest, have you seen Clownhouse? And if so, how did you feel about the scenes of the boys in the bath, in their pants, topless, bare-arsed etc?

*Just to point out, as far as I am aware, the Lighting Technician on Inception is not a paedophile

[Gojirosan]

Originally Posted by PaulD

Really interesting post there Gojirosan and overall I do agree with you.

I'm not sure I agree with the bit I've highlighted though since, although I see your point, we're talking about works of the artist, and not the other hands which also bring that work into fruition. Repulsion, Chinatown etc are the result of Polanski's vision, even with the help he had in creating it (kinda delving into Auteur Theory here I guess) but he is the reason those films are how they are. I'd be really surprised if even the most passionate person who won't watch Polanski's work as a result of what he did would also turn away from watching Inception if they found out that the Lighting Technician had been convicted of sexually assaulting a child.*

You say you enjoy Salva's work. Out of interest, have you seen Clownhouse? And if so, how did you feel about the scenes of the boys in the bath, in their pants, topless, bare-arsed etc?

Ah yes, but in rejecting the auteur you are also rejecting the work of many others. Why should they suffer for the actions of one? And if the auteur is worthy of judgement, why not anyone else? Is child abuse acceptable if it's "just a technician" and not a director or lead actor?

Is it OK to watch Beetlejuice because Jeffrey Jones wasn't one of the leads?

Not seen Clownhouse but I don't see why those elements should be an issue of any kind. I will watch it today and let you know, though.

[Susan Foreman]

Originally Posted by PaulD

Pete Townsend (did he ever actually write that book?) being a good example - I'm sure people still listen to The Who after all.

The book, 'Who Am I?', is due to be published on 11th October, 2012

[PaulD]

Originally Posted by Gojirosan

Is it OK to watch Beetlejuice because Jeffrey Jones wasn't one of the leads?

Just read up on him and didn't know that. Again, very interesting. I think it's different between actors and directors in a way as the role of the latter is more creative in terms of the overall vision of the picture. Why this is a difference for me I can't really say.

Originally Posted by Gojirosan

Not seen Clownhouse but I don't see why those elements should be an issue of any kind. I will watch it today and let you know, though.

To me, those elements are an issue since, not only is it an example of a paedophile putting in presumably titillating images of children in a film he's making, but he also sexually abused one of those children during the film's production. Even if Clownhouse was a fantastic and stellar example of horror film making (and it's not; it's the sort of b-grade movie rubbish I'd usually enjoy) I still wouldn't be able to divorce what happened on set from the images in the film. I'm genuinely interested to see what you think about it though.

[PaulD]

Originally Posted by suziginajackson

The book, 'Who Am I?', is due to be published on 11th October, 2012

Took his time!