Can You Separate the Artist's Work from Their Actions?

[RudieCantFail]

I'm just bringing this sort of topic up, since The Birth of a Nation came out last weekend. There's been controversy surrounding it due to director Nate Parker's past coming up, since there are a couple scenes in the film that were written by him and his friend who was also involved in that past incident. It only made $7 million last weekend, but I think it would have made more money if he didn't have a checkered past.

People on iMDB and other areas bring up the examples of Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, and Mel Gibson's conduct, and how they seemingly get a pass. Although Woody is a bit strange, he's the least affected by what he's been accused of before out of the three I mentioned. His films get Oscar noms. Polanski won a best director Oscar for The Pianist in 2003, and Mel Gibson is sort of working but not to the extent of what he has done in the past.

Personally, I haven't seen these guys' films because I haven't gotten around to it. I tried to watch Hannah and Her Sisters, but I stopped b/c I thought it was dull. I've seen only Polanski's Frantic for Harrison Ford, since he's one of my favorite actors. I haven't seen much of Gibson's work b/c I haven't gotten to it yet. Maybe I'm subconsciously avoiding them due to the things they've done in the past, and also, I'd rather watch other movies.

Also, I remembered Phil Spector, so if you have any thoughts on whether you can separate his music production expertise from his involvement in the death of Lana Clarkson, feel free to say anything.

Anyways, you could talk about people in film, TV, music, or etc, and I'd like to hear what you think about this subject. The people you mention don't have to be as extreme as the ones I've mentioned, but you certainly can use extreme examples of people. I mean, they could be mild things, like people that say stupid/ignorant things on late night talk shows, those who act all arrogant in interviews, or etc. I just want to know if their actions affect how you see their work or not.

If you don't really care for this topic or you'd rather not say anything, then it's fine to let this topic die. Also, sorry if this isn't the right discussion area. I just thought that it would be safer here, since some of these artists have done criminal things in the past.

[NightMistBlue]

It's a good topic, Rudie. However I can't claim to be consistent in my attitude. When I read about Nat Parker's case, especially that the poor girl committed suicide, i thought "There's no way I'd ever see a rapist's movie." And yet, I have seen a number of Polanski's films and enjoyed/admired them, especially "Tess" which is one of my all-time favorites.

I would say generally that I can and do separate an artist's work from their actions - otherwise, you'd be judging people all the time. Mel Gibson *is* a talented actor and director. Kind of a creep in real life perhaps, and a mean drunk for sure, but what business is that of mine? There's no doubt that Phil Spector was a talented and hugely influential producer. People always knew he was a weird, dark guy who aimed guns at people and did other bad stuff. Should we stop listening to the Ronettes? I hope not.

[Delilah]

I'm not familiar with the chronology of Nate Parker's situation--when did these things come to light? I agree that Woody Allen gets a pass these days and continues to be the subject of hero worship in Hollywood. Perhaps the difference is that his best work (in my view, anyway) was in the 70s with "Annie Hall", "Manhattan", etc.- a big time lapse between those films and the revelation of his personal indiscretions. I don't think his more recent works get much attention outside of the film industry. Personally, I do not care to see anything by him from the last 20-25 years.

Like with Allen's earlier movies, I saw "Rosemary's Baby" before I ever knew anything about Roman Polanski. It would seem kind of pointless to boycott the movie now after having seen it a number of times even if I were to inclined to.

I think a person could really paint himself in a corner by avoiding all works of art created by someone with a shady past. No one is perfect; I guess it depends on what line is crossed. I came across an article a while back about John Lennon, and all anyone could talk about is how he abused women. His musical legacy seemed not to matter. Maybe this is why McCartney's star has brightened while Lennon's has dimmed.

I guess the answer to your question is, it depends. How important is that artist's work on a personal level and how distasteful is the act? There's a difference between drunken mouthing off (Mel Gibson) or a racist remark (Def Leppard in the 80s) and something like rape.

[WS82Classics]

Absolutely.

[buffyfan145]

For me it depends on what the person is accused of or has done. A few actors I've liked have gotten DUIs in the past (Kiefer Sutherland, Matthew Fox, etc.) and it took me awhile to be ok with them. They let me down a bit but in most cases it hasn't happened again and they seem to be ok now. Same with others that struggle with addiction and I wish the best for them and their sobriety. In some cases though if they do horrible things and it's proven true I'm done with them. With Woody Allen I didn't know about those things when I first started watching his films as I was a teenager. My Dad likes some of his films and some of them and Polanski's are considered classics, so if you're a fan of movies you're going to see them. That being said Woody Allen actually wrote and directed one of my favorite films recently "Midnight in Paris", so it's hard to say. So for me it depends on the case but usually you can separate it.

[Witchy Woman]

All depends on what it is they did. If it's something serious, like abuse, rape, or murder, I don't think I could separate that from their work. Less serious things, like drugs and alcohol (which are pretty much the norm for famous people), can be forgiven and overlooked.

Before anyone gives me grief, I am NOT condoning drug and alcohol use !! And if abuse, rape, or murder occurred because of drugs and alcohol that would be equally as reprehensible.

[WalshFan88]

All depends on what it is they did.

That's it to a T for this guy.

[MortSahlFan]

Absolutely. If one can write a great song, movie, or be funny, I'm happy.

[Brooke]

I think this is an interesting topic, Rudie!

I would agree that it depends on what they've done. I haven't heard about The Birth of a Nation or Nate Parker, so I can't comment on that. (I guess I've been living under a rock maybe! lol)

I do think that since Mel Gibson's indiscretions, I don't love him like I did before, but I will still watch him in a movie. I loved him in the Lethal Weapon movies, What Women Want, and Braveheart.

I was never a big Woody Allen fan, can't comment on him.

I don't usually dig into the past too much and if it looks good at the time, I'll watch it.

[UndertheWire]

I try to keep them separate, although sometimes what little I know can get in the way and I find myself thinking of the actor's story rather than the character being played.

I rarely know much about these cases and I don't want to judge just on headlines but I also don't want to dig into the dirt.

[Jonny Come Lately]

As others have alluded to, my views on this partly depend on how bad their actions are. However, I think there is another important aspect, and that is the quality of the art. I will use musical examples as that (I do enjoy watching some movies but I'm not going to claim I'm any kind of film buff) For instance, Rolf Harris (an Australian entertainer who used to be very popular in the UK) once achieved a hit with a didgeridoo and wobble-board based cover of Stairway To Heaven. I don't think this was because people actually thought his cover was a great piece of music, but because it entertained them to hear it done in that way. When it was discovered that he'd committed numerous counts of sexual assault, offences for which he was found guilty and jailed, his Stairway cover lost any real value - it was no longer an amusing cover by some funny Aussie bloke, but by a convicted criminal, so it stopped being enjoyable.

By contrast (to use a completely ludicrous illustration - in no way do I believe this true!), even if it was discovered that Jimmy Page and Robert Plant had ritually sacrified 35 roadies in tribute to a Hobbit deity during the recording of Led Zeppelin IV, then in my eyes the original Stairway to Heaven would not be devalued, because its worth is in the music itself, not the performer. I'd be a bit weirded out, but I wouldn't listen to the music any differently (Apologies to Jimmy and Robert for using their good names in this way! I wanted to really exaggerate to make my point).

[Scarlet Sun]

Home Is Where You're Happy

[RudieCantFail]

@ScarletSun, you scared me when you posted that. I did a quick copy and paste search of that phrase and Charles Manson came up as the top result for a video thumbnail. It's almost midnight here, and I get really paranoid about bad things happening at night if I look up crime or violent stuff. My paranoia was really bad after watching that 5-part OJ ESPN documentary. It's alright though. No need to feel bad or sorry.

Anyways, I listened to that song, and it's not bad. His voice isn't terrible and I'm surprised that he can sing. It's still creepy though, so no, I can't separate a conspirator to commit murder with his musical abilities. Thanks for sharing that, since it's a fun fact that I'm now aware of. Just like how I'm "proud" of how Susan Atkins, a member of the Manson family, went to my high school. She attended Leigh High, but she did not graduate.

Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts on this subject. I understand still enjoying an artist's work if they've only done minor infractions. If they've done rape, murder, or anything to that extreme, then yeah, that's much more tougher to separate.

[sodascouts]

Yes, for the most part. I evaluate their work on its own merits. I don't delve into the lives of the directors, actors, and musicians I like in order to find out whether or not they are worthy. There's a film adaptation of Macbeth directed by Polanski and funded in part by Playboy, but it's a well-done version of the play and I have no problem watching it. I still enjoy The Cosby Show despite the fact that its star is a rapist. There are good storylines and other actors besides him on that show; I'm not going to throw the DVDs in the trash because of its star.

That said, if something REALLY awful comes to light, it's hard to put that out of your mind. I watched The Cosby Show as a kid. If it premiered now, would I still be able to enjoy it as much, now that I know what the man did? Or would I be too distracted by what I know about the star's personal life to appreciate it?

If it came to light that Stevie Nicks was a practicing witch who takes part in ritual killings where she sacrifices babies to the devil and then drinks their blood.... I don't think I'd be able to listen to her music again without thinking of that, and thus it would be spoilt for me. Thankfully, I doubt I will ever have this problem, lol.

However, for the most part, I separate the art from the personal life of the artist.

[RudieCantFail]

Have any sentiments changed regarding Hollywood? I know that these horrible news stories that have come up in the industry are somewhat an open secret, but now, it's front and center and hard to ignore.

Personally, I will still watch Tarantino films, even though Weinstein did have a hand in popularizing them with his power. It's honestly too bad that Tarantino didn't act as said in his article from earlier this month.

Kevin Spacey is despicable now for his 'out' statement to act as some sort of distraction in light of the allegations. I liked his work a few years ago, when I got into The Usual Suspects directed by Bryan Singer who has gotten into hot water with allegations as well. I like L.A. Confidential, but I haven't seen American Beauty. Haven't seen House of Cards either.

Boy, I sure hope that they weed more of these sickos out. It's sickening that this behavior by the people in charge has been around since the inception of the industry from the silent era and onwards.

[buffyfan145]

TV, movies, and actors are the things in fandom and entertainment I'm the most involved in and love, and this has shaken up the industry so much. I loved Kevin Spacey and I'm just shocked by his actions. It's been rumored for years that he was gay but I had no idea about this. I never really liked Weinstein as something just seemed weird about him whenever I saw him get interviewed, but with Kevin my whole family likes his movies and my Dad is a huge "House of Cards" fan. Have no idea what's in store for that show. I do hope whoever else has done these things do get punished for them now, even if it's just ruining their careers. I'm also glad to see other actors, writers, and directors I'm a fan of on the right side in this and supporting each other through this. Will be hard for a lot of us fans as we realize how these people truly are and if they deserve our love and support.

[MaryCalifornia]

The one I struggle with is Woody Allen. I really like his films, especially the ones from the past 15 years. I don't need any proof of criminal activity, the man married his adopted daughter - that's enough for me to believe that he is deviant, perverted, etc...I don't care if it's legal. He is a man of means and position and could make a life with almost any woman he wants. It's just gross. And, I believe the other daughter that he molested her.

I'm not sure what I think of the actresses who star in his films. They want to be a part of the art, so I get that - the roles are wonderful. But it is condoning him, just like when I buy one of his films OnDemand. Bleccchh.

What if I can watch his upcoming movie without paying for it?! Is that morally better or just the same as if I buy it?

[NightMistBlue]

I totally missed this Kevin Spacey thing.

[New Kid In Town]

OMG - I just heard this on the news tonight ! I am shocked to hear this about him ! I just heard Netflex will not be renewing House of Cards. Needless to say I am shocked by the allegations. I always loved Kevin Spacey films and I used to wish I could have afforded Netflex to see House of Cards. This whole thing is so sad. Based on his statement issued today he pretty much admitted his actions involving the kid. I am shocked and sad.

Mary - I used to like Woody Allen films years ago. They always has a quirky side to them. I always thought he had a kind of creepy side to him. I don't know if I would see a film of his again. I don't think they are as good as they used to be.

Damn..... I bet there are tons more Hollywood people who will be "outed" for their actions in the next few weeks. I hope those who are guilty are punished to the fullest extend. Thank God people like George C. and others have spoken out to support the victims. I do try to separate the "art" from the individual. Soda's example of Roman Polanski is a good example. However, I do have to say I do not like Tom Cruise and will never see a film of his again. He rubs me the wrong way and I don't care for his films.

[WalshFan88]

It depends on the severity of said actions, honestly.

[AlreadyGone95]

It really depends upon the wrongdoing. My opinion of actor/musician/direcror etc. as a prtson would forever be tarnished, but I would still enjoy their work. It's like the old cartoons that are considered racist by today's standards, despite being the norm 50-100 years ago. I do enjoy these cartoons and realize that they're just a showcase of the time period they were made in.

[Annoying Twit]

Like some others on this thread, I will still watch or listen to things by people who have done some awful things.

But, there are things that some could have done which would make it impossible for me to continue listening to anything they'd done. I was never a fan of LostProphets, but if I had have been that would have been the end of it.

It's tricky however. Even if I do listen to things/watch things, it isn't the same.