Do you feel that an artist's sins effects their films?

Karl Hungus

Something that's been on my mind lately, is whether an artist's actions offscreen should have any bearing on their films.

A thread about Roman Polanski came up over on boards.us, and I took the position that regardless of the statutory rape charges, the man was an absolutely fantastic director with many great films under his belt, and I don't think any less of the film Chinatown because of Polanski's actions for exampe.

Likewise with Jeffrey Jones, I was shocked to find out that he was a pederast, but all the same, I still think he's great.

Thoughts?

Jack Sheehan

While I don't think it should effect their work, I think it does. I really couldn't read a cathal o searcaigh poem without thinking of the film or watch hogan knows best (not that I would want to) without remembering the incredible bastard that he is.

Eirebear

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

watch hogan knows best (not that I would want to) without remembering the incredible bastard that he is.

I think we may have different ideas on the word artist here!

For me personally the artist's personal life make no difference to my immediate enjoyment of a film, photograph, song, painting whatever.

But i do keep it in mind when analysing the piece of work.

Nolanger

Leni Riefenstahl was the greatest female film maker and she was a Nazi.

Fysh

While it's difficult to enforce, the ideal approach should be the separation of art from the artist. It's possible to despise an individual but admire the art they produce, but I think there's a perception amongst some people that appreciating the art is an implicit endoresement of the artist, which is where the issue arises.

That said, forcing oneself to set aside concerns about the artist as an individual when observing their art is not always as easy as it ought to be.

Galvasean

Charlton Heston = legend of the screen.
No amount of half baked ideology can change that.

Creature

A similar thread appeared on the music forum a while ago. My opinion would be th esame here a sit was there. That is that their professional career is entirely separate to their private lives, which have nothing to do with me and are none of my business.

I liked War of the Worlds (I know, shoot me) and Collateral. And as much as I have no time for Tom Cruise and his scientologist midgetry it didn't stop my liking of those films.

Also you mostly never really know the true details of the things you hear about people. As much as some people would have you believe that Christian Bale kicks his mother about I think I'll continue to treat the things I hear with buckets full of salt.

I've always said judge the art not the artist.

Mel Gibson may be a drunken, jew basher but the man sure knows story structure. Take someone like Sam Peckinpah or Steve McQueen, both were drunken, women beaters who gave us some of the most entertaining and iconic films of all time.

oclugg

Not for me, and I'm one hell of a sinner myself.

shenanigans1982

Would Robert Downey Jr be looked at in the same light if he hadn't gone through his period of sin? I think the majority of people love seeing the downfall and rebirth of celebrities and in some way makes them seem normal and appear to have more in common with the average person thus providing them with more appeal.

Driver 8

I suppose that given that the Academy felt sufficently strongly to give Polanski a Best Director Oscar in 2002 indicates they can separate the art from the artist.

...of course they then gave best picture to Chicago, so what do they know? :P

aurel

This question unfortunately opens the can of worms called "is there such a thing as objective morality in the first place." i.e. who gets the last say in what's a sin and who's a sinner.

Earthhorse

Hard to know where to draw the line on this one. Yes, separate the art from the artist when assessing the piece but knowing that an artist is a criminal do you really want to give them your money?

Maybe it depends on the crime. If someone's using illegal drugs, I can live with that, but statutory rape? Well, maybe it depends on the circumstance surrounding the crime then. Did the girl lie about her age? Was the artist unaware that the age of consent was higher in this country than his own? None of that matters legally, or morally ultimately when it comes to personal responsibility, but it might shed a different light on the degree of transgression and how willing you are to forgive.

But maybe it's not my place to forgive. Perhaps I should look to the people involved instead. In Polanski's case what he did wasn't just a simple mistake, it was pretty unforgivable. Yet the victim forgave him. On the other hand, the book is still open on Polanski in the US, which is why he won't return, and I believe that the law applies not just to boring, uncreative people but to artists too, no matter how talented.

Time and distance plays its part too. Woody Allen became persona non grata when he announced his marriage to a woman he wasn't related to and who was of legal age. He was never married to Mia Farrow, so the girl was never his daughter but it got painted like she was. Don't get me wrong, I found it all kinds of creepy but had it been some heartthrob and not Allen I wonder how people would have reacted. And everyone has made terms with it now it seems.

It's a tough one, no doubt. You have to make your own mind up about each case. There are plenty of things I'm willing to forgive.

Having a blasphemous username, such as AngelWhore, is not one of them. See you in hell, Hungus.

*pops grenade*

ziedth

shenanigans1982 wrote: »

Would Robert Downey Jr be looked at in the same light if he hadn't gone through his period of sin? I think the majority of people love seeing the downfall and rebirth of celebrities and in some way makes them seem normal and appear to have more in common with the average person thus providing them with more appeal.

Very good point, however i think there would be a difference between sins of downey JR and say R Kelly.

In saying that i wouldn't care what Mel Gibson or Tom Cruise Believe as wrong or wrapped as it maybe provided they dont hurt anyone in particular and they are good at what they do leave them off.

Take Russle Crowe one of my favouraite actors bar none and i would say he's a complete ass

Karl Hungus

shenanigans1982 wrote: »

Would Robert Downey Jr be looked at in the same light if he hadn't gone through his period of sin? I think the majority of people love seeing the downfall and rebirth of celebrities and in some way makes them seem normal and appear to have more in common with the average person thus providing them with more appeal.

Hmm, I'd think the interest in Downey Jr's wild period would be more down to the tabloid obsession with celebrity, the same reason people seem so interested in Britney Spears debasing herself, the difference being that Downey is actually talented.

I think he's a terrific actor, and I don't think his rise and fall has ever come into my reckoning of him as an actor.

grames_bond

i think seperation is needed (as has been said before) roger avery is the example i can give, legend of a director, he wrote part of pulp fiction, but could be done for manslaughter, you have got to seperate the art fro mthe artist!

van gough cutting off his ear didnt take away from his art, he just couldnt hear the critisisms as well!

Galvasean

grames_bond wrote: »

van gough cutting off his ear didnt take away from his art, he just couldnt hear the critisisms as well!

I'll get your coat.

Dudess

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Hmm, I'd think the interest in Downey Jr's wild period would be more down to the tabloid obsession with celebrity, the same reason people seem so interested in Britney Spears debasing herself, the difference being that Downey is actually talented.

I think he's a terrific actor, and I don't think his rise and fall has ever come into my reckoning of him as an actor.

And he's hot!

Yeah, I suppose Polanski would be one of the ultimate "villains" in this context (for want of a better word). But nope, I love his movies so that's that. I suppose it would be more difficult to disassociate the artist from their "sins" if you weren't a fan of their work - e.g. I'm not a fan of John Wayne's acting style, so it makes it easier for me to moan about his very conservative leanings. Clint Eastwood, on the other hand, I'm a big fan of (and not just because he was hot - I swear!) and he was quite the homewrecking womaniser but I've no problem seeing past that. I know: I should anyway, but my point is, information like that sometimes only serves to solidify a sense of bias when you don't like an actor's work.

D.W. Griffith also springs to mind - Birth of a Nation is a groundbreaking film but it's hideously racist.

Wow, my first time learning about that Jeffrey Jones dude - I really liked him in Amadeus.

Jack Sheehan

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Hmm, I'd think the interest in Downey Jr's wild period would be more down to the tabloid obsession with celebrity, the same reason people seem so interested in Britney Spears debasing herself, the difference being that Downey is actually talented.

I think he's a terrific actor, and I don't think his rise and fall has ever come into my reckoning of him as an actor.

Agreed, I'd urge anyone to see his performance in A Scanner Darkly. The only opinion I have on his drug use is that it's a shame he was damaged so much by the drugs that he wasted years of his life he could have spent making great films.

Jack Sheehan

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

Agreed, I'd urge anyone to see his performance in A Scanner Darkly. The only opinion I have on his drug use is that it's a shame he was damaged so much by the drugs that he wasted years of his life he could have spent making great films.

But if he had'nt done drugs then one of my favourite cheesy action B movies would not exist. The quite decent and magnificently shot Danger Zone.

Downey's drug abuse defined who he was for so long much like it now defines Tom Sizemore, both saw their careers destroyed, spent time in prison and the most tragic aspect of all is that both are truly talented actors. Downey is back on top and hopefully Sizemore will get a second chance.