Open Forum Friday: Will You Support the Work of an Artist Whose Actions You Don’t Agree With?

Posted by on March 19th, 2010   Filed under: Open Forum Friday

openforumghostwriter

With Roman Polanski’s The Ghost Writer expanding to a large number of screens this weekend, I thought this would be a good time to continue a discussion that started on last week’s podcast courtesy of a Junk Mail question from Keith. There seem to be a lot of people who are dead set against going to see Polanski’s latest film because of his past wrongdoings. In fact, I’m a bit surprised we haven’t seen protests or picket lines at any of the screenings (although up until now the movie hasn’t been playing in very many theatres). I can understand this reaction to a degree, but is there really anything wrong with going to see a movie directed by someone who did something morally reprehensible that you personally don’t agree with?

I’m sure there are plenty of people who won’t see it because they just aren’t interested, but let’s assume for a minute that one of your favourite directors did something horrible. If you really enjoy their movies, it might be a hard decision to make, and what would be the end result? Sure a few extra dollars don’t end up in their pocket, but then you’re also holding back money from all of the other people who worked on the film. If it’s about the personal satisfaction of disassociating yourself from that person, then that is your choice, but if you’re trying to make a difference in some way… would it actually matter? I’m not sure if the concern is that you are giving that person money and allowing them to continue to make a living, or if it is that you are simply giving that person validation by appreciating their work. Sometimes it’s hard to separate the artist from their art, but the truth is that some of the most talented people in the world have serious personal problems and make big mistakes. Does that make their art less valid or amazing? What do you think? Will you support an artist who has said or done something that you cannot condone? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.



  • It’s quite the question. A large chunk of Hollywood’s most talented actors today are, for lack of a better word, jerks. Time Magazine said Russell Crowe is “frequently perceived as one of the world’s biggest jerks”, and no one denies that. But at the same time, no one denies that he is a brilliant actor.

    It’s hard to separate the artist from the art, yes, but there’s sometimes an astronomical difference in regards to what someone does off the screen as opposed to what they do on the screen. I see it more as enjoying their work rather than supporting their work, but I suppose that’s a very gray area. My convictions simply aren’t as strong when it comes to such things.

  • It’s simpler for me. I rate the movie separate from the person. Another example was the hub-bub surrounding the release of Powder, when groups were boycotting because the writer/director had been accused/convicted of molestation. This does not mean that a person cannot put out great art, or just a good product.

  • warm gonorrhea

    I hear Hitler was a prodigious poet…

  • MJS

    I could care less if the people who make my movies are good people. In fact I saw The Ghost Writer a couple weeks ago and quite enjoyed it. In fact I enjoyed the movie all the more because I could see some of his problems being expressed through the story.

    Similarly I had no problem seeing Apocalypto even after it was clear that Mel Gibson was an anti-Semetic loon, knowing that the movie was the work of a madman only made it a wilder ride.

  • .. judging from the fact that Ghostwriter (lame title-good movie) bombed big time we can strongly suggest that probably most people do care..

  • Brendan

    I saw an interview with Alec Baldwin who was talking about the effect of his politics on his popularity. He said that some of the biggest actors in Hollywood, you know nothing about their beliefs. So some people will not see anything he’s in just based on his public political actions, while many of the biggest stars are able to maintain their celebrity by not revealing their personal beliefs.

  • swarez

    I know of only one convicted pedophile in Hollywood, Victor Salva and people have flocked to his Jeepers Creepers movies and enjoyed them, regardless of what he has done.

  • Dom

    Have you ever been treated rudely at a restaurant and vowed never to go there again? Sure, not getting your business probably didn’t effect them in the slightest, but it was the principle that mattered to you.
    I saw The Pianist in theaters but bought tickets to some other movie because I didn’t want to contribute to the film’s box office. In the grand scheme of things it didn’t make a difference, but it was the principle that mattered to me. No one is saying that Polanski is not a great director. Nothing will ever change the fact that Chinatown and Repulsion are important films. But I’m not above being offended by his crime, and that was my silly little way of showing it.

  • AdamH

    I hate Nazis, but Leni Riefenstahl is rockin’ :P

  • patrik

    I don´t give a fuck that he fucked a 13 year old girl when I watch one of his movies.. It´s not like, when I´m watching the Pianist I´m thinking “hm I wonder if I should enjoy this movie even though I know that the director once fucked a girl”.. That said, Yes he should be in jail and what he did was most definitely illegal and wrong. But he´s still made some great movies and I don´t feel guilty enjoying them.

  • Christopher

    WHO THE FUCK CARES IF HE IS AN ARTIST? HE BROKE A LAW OUTSIDE WHAT YOU COULD CALL ART. Being an artist (Well everyone is, he is just a famous one) doesn’t make you immune to public law. He broke a law and he needs to stand up for that.

  • Christopher

    **I hate Nazis, but Leni Riefenstahl is rockin’**

    The whole Nazi thing is overrated man. I’m no Nazi, but I’ve read a lot of history. And besides the concentration camps (The Allied knew, but never cared. Besides, the British had their own in Africa in 50 years already), Hitler made Germany greater then any time in history. People in Germany never knew what he did to the jews, and what he did was awful. But anything else then that, I made Germany greater then any nation at that time, and more impressive that any nation in modern history.
    And her film, Triumph of a Will is not as much of propaganda as people seem to call it. She said herself she wanted to show others how people felt at that time, and that was exactly how the German people did as she portrays it. Hitler had brought Germany back on its feet from the unjust Versaille treaty, given the people their pride back, and making it wealthier and stronger then it had ever been. I mean, shit, hed not put out concentration camps, the history books might have portrayed him as a knight.
    But I get what you mean ufcourse, the Nazi era and system is not something we want today. But that doesn’t mean we can’t admire their esthetical art and their ingenious people (first assault rifle, first fighter jet, first jet with stealth, first rocket, helped us 20 years in time to get to moon, etc.). I mean, hey, the US is doing and has been doing horrible shit around the world the last 60 years, but I still love watching American movies (who most of have ‘’America is nice, others are bad’’ attitude on them).

  • Christopher

    @Dom

    Funny thing that you say that. I just hope your not an American, because if you are then you are the biggest HYPOCRITE on this earth.

  • anton

    christopher, you are not far from hypocrite yourself. to talk about the benefits that nazi germany yielded is the same as to say it would be quite beneficial if we could make some medical experiments on your mom. I’m sure you wouldn’t be so philosophical in this case.

  • Primal

    I’m in the same boat as Crews and Deven.
    I think the artist would have to do something directly to me for me to care. Call it ignorance or keeping things impersonal, I try to keep a certain distance when it comes this stuff. If an artist is able to make something of quality, there will be people to appreciate it.

    I remember not wanting to listen to Michael Jackson music when he was in court. But his music is pretty damn good. I guess it heals with time.

  • Tommy

    So pedophiles YAY …. Nazis NAY?

  • Christopher

    **to talk about the benefits that nazi germany yielded is the same as to say it would be quite beneficial if we could make some medical experiments on your mom. I’m sure you wouldn’t be so philosophical in this case.**

    What? Listen man, i’m just describing history like it was, not like the bullshit patriotic passion Hollywood brings to you by portraying everything as sterotypes.

  • Slix

    Working in the justice system, I kind of feel like you have to let that system take its course, regardless of how f’d up you feel the system is. Michael Jackson is a great example Primal. At a certain point, a person either says “In my mind he’s guilty and I’m not supporting him” or they accept the verdict.

    To me, the more interesting aspect of this is where you draw the line.
    If you’re not going see this because he is a molester, would you if he had raped an adult? How about a conviction of kidnapping? On down through Jaywalking.

    What if Polanski’s profits supported terrorism? Or blood diamonds? Slavery? You have to draw a line somewhere, or not, I suppose.

  • Glendon

    Polanski should be in jail. I love The Pianist.

  • Christopher

    What he has done ilegally must be confronted through the hands of the law. What he has done as an artist must be confronted and viewed through the eyes and world of art. I’m gonna watch his movie, but i still want him in jail for doing something illegal.
    Not seeing movie cause i don’t agree with him on another subject is in my opinion just stupid, and gives any person, including myself, double standars, as we for exampe are living and breaded in a society that has its wealth based on poor workers in the third world.

  • Falsk

    Ugh, this is ridiculous. I liked hearing Jay’s passionate response to this from last week’s junk mail. (Nearly brought tears to my eyes, I was so moved.)

    Being a director is a job. It’s work and it’s a paycheck and, sometimes, it’s art. If you’re at a drive through for a hamburger and you pull up to give the cashier your money, do you really want to know what that cashier is going to do when he hangs up the apron and goes home? No. You want your hamburger–that’s what you’re there for. Just for the same reason I’m putting down money for a movie ticket, not a shit load of baggage about the director. Fuck, man, what if the gaffer had MURDERED someone? What if the sound mixer, you know, had a second job operating a puppy mill? Who fucking cares?! I’m not going to dinner with these people. I’m watch a movie that they all made “at work”.

    Personal lives and job lives are two different things and we have no right being uninvited into the personal. It doesn’t involve us.

  • Pete

    agreed .. the bigger prob is any industry that rewards bad behavoir .. he got a standing ovation as a show of support at the ak/awrds .. the bankers in my country remain unprosecuted for their crap .. and got PAID to boot .. Micheal Jackson is worth more dead than alive .. Mel Gibson used his proceeds from the ‘jesus pic’ to buy half of Malibu .. the prophet made a profit

    whatever you buy .. wherever you work .. yr probably involved in act that propogates an evil agenda..
    that said you can still be picky ..

  • Pete

    agreed .. the bigger prob is any industry that rewards bad behavoir .. he got a standing ovation as a show of support at the ak/awrds .. the bankers in my country remain unprosecuted for their crap .. and got PAID to boot .. Micheal Jackson is worth more dead than alive .. Mel Gibson used his proceeds from the ‘jesus pic’ to buy half of Malibu .. the prophet made a profit

    whatever you buy .. wherever you work .. yr probably involved in act that propogates an evil agenda..
    that said you can still be picky ..

  • Maopheus

    I suppose it only really matters if the person’s art is any way directly connected to his personal life or issues. Of course to some degree there are always connections, but for a director who directs fictional movies, it is a lot easier to make that separation. You don’t see his face or hear his voice when watching his movies (except for his occasional cameos, and his acting in other movies). The problem really isn’t whether to support him now. This is pretty much a water under the bridge problem. The main issue is with the enablers and apologizers who allowed him to continue to work after he fled to France for 30 years. Whatever this movie does or doesn’t do, it will have little effect on his legacy. I don’t understand why this is all of a sudden a problem now. Sure his name has been in the news because of the whole renewed talk of extradition, but he’s directed 8 movies since he fled. I don’t think much could have been done about him because his movies don’t make a lot of money so it’s not like boycotting any of his movies would have made much difference. Also, given his stature as a great director, someone would be willing to work with him.

  • Drewsifer

    Well I was going to say something but it won’t look ad good after a spam bot.

  • Justice

    Its a tough decision. I guess I draw the line when a movie/art promotes a crime or a viewpoint I find harmful or disagreeable. We all can (probably) agree Polanski belongs in jail, but he isn’t making movies that celebrate pedophilia or rationalizing the crime he committed. Some argued that the Passion promoted anti-semitism, so I could see why they would boycott it. So while I may dislike Polanski or Gibson personally, it depends on the movie itself.

  • Christopher,

    First, whether or not Polanski is immune to the law is entirely beside the point. The question posed was whether or not you would support the artist.

    Also, I’m not sure what history books you are reading. First, whether the British did something 50 years ago is immaterial. You don’t excuse a wrong with another wrong. That being said, the idea that Germany did not know what was happening to the Jews is not only painting with a wide brush it is also just plain wrong. Some knew, some did not. To assert that Hitler made Germany “greater than any nation at the time” is absurd and needs to be backed up with some evidence. Finally, the idea that TRIUMPH OF THE WIL is not a piece of propaganda is so fucking retarded that I can’t believe this is an argument that actually needs to be made. If you believe that all Riefenstahl wanted to do was show people how the German people felt at the time, if you truly take her as her word, my friend, you’ve not only drunk the kool aid, but need to read a few more history books. No matter what she says, evidence proves otherwise.
    A
    nytime you drug a thirteen year old girl and then proceed to fuck her, that’s rape. Period. End of story. Still, if you’ve seen THE GHOST WRITER, it is an amazing thriller from start the finish. Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite, but APOCOLYPTO is still the best action movie in the last ten years. Woody Allen ended up fucking his girl friend’s adoptive daughter, but since then he’s produced some excellent work, as well as some shit. You can create a list a mile long with artists for thousands of years who were fairly disgusting people.