Jesus your videos are too damn good, how the heck hasn't your channel blown up yet? 3rd video in and immediately subbed, best film related channel. period
"Rosemary's Baby" is one of my favorite films of all time, and I say that unapologetically, even though Polanski has shown himself to be a despicable human being. (I would describe him as more than a "flawed" person, but that doesn't negate his artistic brilliance.) I think admiring his work isn't the same as condoning his reprehensible behavior. I've always had similarly mixed feelings about, say, Miles Davis, who, by all accounts, was a pretty terrible person, but has made some of the most unforgettable music of the 20th century. I think you can admire someone's work, without losing sight of what a terrible person they are/were. Enjoy your channel very much.
There are too many great artists that are bad people to throw out their art. It does bum me out when I find out that an artist I like is a bad person. The internet has brought the audience closer than ever to the artist. We read their wiki pages. We read/watch their interviews. Many are on social media. We feel like we know the artist so when they let us down it hurts that much more, but the art still remains. Though if it turns out David Lynch is a bad dude I might cry.
It seems that great talent often has moral hazard bundled in with the bargain. I think that this is the proverbial Faustian bargian; when given great power/fame from one's gifts, you are usually getting more than you bargained for and one's mortal soul is often at hazard. So many great artists were and are tortured by addiction (both sex and drug), psychological and personality disorders (narcissism first and foremost), criminality, etc., etc. The problem I see it from a consumer standpoint is that young people often look to artists as role models and they are pretty much only good role models for artistic vision, not for anything else, and young folks rarely can make that distinction. As far as Polanski goes the greatest hypocrisy I see is the way Hollywood so often holds themselves up as arbiters of moral rectitude or "humanity" and yet celebrate cretinous people like Polanski and Weinstein. I hate that kind of hypocrisy more than almost anything else, and I've almost gotten to the point where I don't even bother watching most Hollywood output at this point. It's mostly SJW garbage.
I could not agree with you more. Wagner was a pretty unpleasant man, but does that mean his music should be dismissed or censored? Picasso was abusive toward women. Does that lessen the importance or impact of his paintings? And as for writers... Goodness, this becomes one very slippery slope indeed if one conflates the personal morality (or lack thereof) of any artist with their artistic output. I've heard it said that no work of art is moral or immoral. It is either good or it is bad. And even that, of course, is subjective. There are many creative people whose personal lives and actions I have found, in some regard, repugnant and objectionable. And yet I have been impressed and even moved by the artistry inherent in their work. Hitchcock was, by all accounts, a very disturbed man in his interactions with Tippi Hedren. And, much as I disapprove of his mistreatment of her, I still admire the end result of their work together. Similarly, 'Vertigo' will continue to dazzle, enthrall and touch me emotionally even though the film is pretty much a self-portrait of Hitchcock's dark obessions about controlling the feminine objects of his thwarted desire. When I hear a beautiful symphony, gaze on a gorgeous painting, read a brilliantly compelling novel or see a remarkable film my first thought is not about the morality or immorality of the person who created the art I'm experiencing. Later on I may find myself growing curious about the individual behind the artistry. But initially, at least for me, those concerns are beside the point. The fact that Stanley Kubrick was extremely demanding and not always a sweetheart to deal with has zero bearing on how much I adore his films. Of course, when an artist has become particularly notorious through their actions it may influence one's continuing perceptions. I freely admit it would be problematic for me to watch the Cosby Show in light of what has transpired in more recent years. Watching Bill Cosby now as a lovable and funny dad/husband would present major problems for me at this point. And yet I'm still able to appreciate the films of Polanski and Woody Allen, despite my ambivalence toward them as individuals. Is that hypocrisy? Perhaps. But this is a complex subject which, whether viewed as black & white or greyscale, invites inherent subjectivity.
Personally I find it absurd sometimes that this has to be explained to people. If we 'delegitimized' people's work based off a past that is predominantly filtered by the media, then we'd be dismissing James Brown's talent because of his domestic abuse, or Chuck Berry because of his kidnapping, for example. Separation of art from artist has always been important for art itself. You can make anyone look evil if you had a hold of everything in their past.
By the same account, I don't think anyone should judge anyone who can't separate the actions of the artist from the art they create. It doesn't make them less intelligent or less able to understand great art. I think the only important thing is to not justify any of the action of the artists which we may find reprehensible just because they make great art. The problem for me comes if, say, people excused James Brown's domestic abuse on t he basis that he was a great entertainer.
Chris Sayer's right. Each point of view is valid to whomever decides to live by it. The world has deemed someone like Bill Cosby a deviant and has taken down his show and ppl rebuke his work. Nate Parker this year was publicly attacked for a case HE WAS ACQUITTED OF! Now who knows what happened but we obviously live in a world where ppl feel different about this. I felt the way you did for a long time TheMusoBloke, but I saw a video about how one's art IS a reflection of how that person views the world. You can see in some of Woody Allen's films that directly address some of the bad things he has been accussed of (and not in a good way). These artists who are "terrible" human beings make art that reflect how "terrible" they are. That's just how it is sometimes.
WTF.........!! Chuck Berry,went across state lines with a minor,at worst;and racist laws were deployed,in order to trump up charges,by calling that "kidnap". and,what of people;that support,tacitly and directly;hate organizations? your sense of moral proportion, is totally fucked up. oh,and, you pick a couple of black men,exploited by a mafia influenced musical industry,living in an already racist society. No mention ,of Frank Sinatra[who was a complex mixed bag],James Woods[a racist shit],Mel Gibson[an anti-semitic bottom feeder]. We most clearly see,what the hell YOU are;you morally selective,hypocritical moral reprobate.
Humans are naturally hypocritical and self-contradictory species. We love to adulate and idolize, but we also love to demonize and tear others down. It's a fucking mess.
I think separating artist from art is also important because, quite literally, you don't want to judge a book by its cover. There was a certain science fiction series that I read and really enjoyed. Many years after I read them, that writer got in a lot of controversy for homophobic statements that he frequently made. The thing is, I was really surprised, because when I read his novels, I didn't get a sense of how the writer as that kind of person. In fact, based on the novels, I imagined a very different person than he apparently was. And obviously, a person is a far more complicated entity than one problematic aspect of their character.
I've been exploring some of Polanski's filmography lately and have been loving his films! I always have a mindset of judge the art, not the artist. I get what he did, or supposedly did, was despicable. But all I care about is the art. I won't let what he did prevent me from enjoying his phenomenal films. Everyone else should learn to do the same.
totally agree Jake ive seen many of his films i havent seen Repulsion but ive seen Chinatown, rosemarys baby, the ghost writer, tess, the pianist and carnage all great movies I think The Pianist is his most personal great performance from Adrien Brody and great film
Great response with depth and humility. Seeing people (and their work) as all good or all bad is a narcissistic defense mechanism, "splitting." A person needs to trust their own judgment. People are incredibly complex.
Art is often a collaborative endeavor, and it is especially true for film. Roman Polanski's films were made not only by himself, but also hundreds of other people in his cast and crew. Chances are good that at least some of those people have done bad things. More to the point, even if all cast and crew were "bad people," such as films made in the Nazi era, films made by racially insensitive people such as "Birth of a Nation," we still have to devote certain amount of attention to the art only (if it is good). Sometimes we have to acknowledge the art, even if we don't acknowledge the person. Incidentally, after the death of the pro-Nazi filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, the Oscar did acknowledge her in the "In Memoriam" segment, as a nod to her art.
Excellent video. I completely agree with you, art should not be judged by the separate actions of the artist. I've been having this argument a lot lately for some reason. I think its a big mistake to gauge the validity of art, or the willingness to enjoy or appreciate art based upon the lifestyles or actions of the artist. It is not the role of art to educate or be a moral guide. If we boycotted everything that was created by a problematic artist, we wouldn't be left with much to appreciate, would we?
Most things in life are not black and white, even if others try to make them out to be. People are complex, even if someones actions are reprehensible or immoral that doesn't sum up their whole person. They could be in all accounts a terrible person and at the same time have a certain principle that is seen as virtuous and even admirable.
Would you say the same about Ted Bundy, Bill Cosby, Ed Gein, or the guy who directed Jeepers Creepers (who turned out to be like a horrible child molester and child pornographer) or even like Donald J. Trump? It tends to be if they make something you like you can forgive. Not to attack you; It's just a thought.
I see what you mean. I don't think what I said is the case all of the time, but I imagine it is some of the time. I guess it depends on the specifics of the persons personality.
There is difference between enjoying someone's art and supporting them. For example, I will watch Polanski and Woody Allen movies, and older movies produced by Harvey Weinstein (Pulp Fiction and Clerks), but I won't give them my money. Under capitalism we have to learn to separate art, artist and profits
Woody Allen was deemed innocent in a court of law after being accused by a single person. Polanski confessed to drugging and having sex with a 13 year old and fled the country, and Weinstein was accused by dozens of women of rape and other similar offenses. Don't lob Woody Allen in with the others.
Unpopular view: most of the great film artists grew up wealthy. They are from a different class than film consumers, and that class, the wealth class, does nothing for the working class but provide art. Outside of that, they are oppressors to the working class. And thus, most great film artists are bad people.
I love Taxi Driver explicitly because the main character is contemptible and pathetic. He's completely flawed but in a way that invites analysis and discussion, and it makes him an extremely compelling character compared to many other movies in spite of morals.
Falling Down. William Foster was a man who was frustrated with the current state of society so he decides to wreak havoc and cause chaos to numerous people whether they were Innocent or not. William's goal was to get his life back to how it used to be. William was a sadistic control freak
Interesting topic and well put! I LOVE ‘Rosemary’s Baby’, and the work of Polanski. I’m about to review ‘The Tenant’, great film, and I know I’m, probably, going to get some comments about his personal life/legal issues, and I can’t stress enough that I DONT condone what he did, and I don’t feel his art reflects his exploits. It’s like reviewing a film by Victor Salva. I like how you explained this topic and separated the art/artist from the crime and that part of him, or, rather, see the art in the person that did what he did. I can’t put it as elegantly as you could haha but I appreciated what you said! Great video!
I'll say this, polanski's done some nasty, inexcusable stuff, but he's also had a lot of nasty, inexcusable stuff done to him... And I genuinely feel very sorry for him.
You should apply for a spot with the guys in Collider in Burbank if you live in the greater Los Angeles area because you are very articulate and obviously have a lot of passion for movies and that's cool to see haha and great content! Keep it up lol
Never thought of it in the opposite way, but yeah if a fluff artist found the cure for cancer does his fluff art become elevated? Of course not, so why is the opposite true?
"i am a flawed person, i've done many immoral things in my life. roman polanski is a flawed person, and he's done many immoral things in his life..." and i am a flawed person too. also agree that i don't condone what polanski has done, but maybe a big difference here is that our past isn't a headline on the news..?
I've never let someone's personal flaws or distasteful deeds stop me from appreciating their work. I just can't. I can't do it anymore than I can appreciate something I find unimpressive just because I like the artist. In the case of Polanski in particular, he's made some of my favorite films and I believe he is one our greatest filmmakers in the history of the medium. I can't imagine a context where that changes, either. Great video.
This is why I subscribed to your channel...you genuinely put interest into others thoughts and ideals and form your own [fair] opinion....and do so with a basically open mind🙂👍
Your lens (intended) isn't qualified to contrast male morality, no offense. As a dude, morally (the VAST majority of "dudes", also Anne Hathaway was sexy AF as that version of "Catwoman", and she's not my type :)) speaking, thinking Megan Fox was stunning and putting her in a robot cartoon movie in the same category as the guy who ruined children forever in real life right? Morally speaking, not just them, their parents.....that girl was a little child, incapable of Sodom or Gamorrah, let alone thoughts of independence. A child, who's older brother still wants him to return to the states for example, would be qualified to explain these elusive goggles. There isn't the same onus on the viewer, which is the MAJOR hole in the "what conspiracy?", non-ledge-risky feminism you often celebrate via pineal "fashion". You'd have to be a man to understand what a man thinks of that moral (see: non-) quandary, or look at how they fare when we are at our most primal (incarcerated). I don't believe you're a mother either. Polanski in all of his "brilliant character building of women" abused the sh*t out of them during filming, and that's not a secret (Rosemary/walking etc.). I'm not qualified to speak to morality, and like drugs too, but I worry what DMT does to some. I can't figure out why smart enough to say Khabib, yet not smart enough to say hello.....
That's a conundrum for common people! Usually those who aren't into art or philosophy have a very limited understanding of life and everything is just in terms of black and white for them. So if a person is bad, he must be completely bad and vice versa! It's hard for people to digest a simple fact that life is too complicated and you can't oversimplify life which most people do. So that's why we need art and literature to have a better and precise understanding of the world we live in!
my take is that trying to apply logic the subject is a waste of time, because people. how many can be reached with reason? how many are susceptible to logic? this is one place where most will have an opinion n will not consider another
Yes, without a doubt "bad people" can make great art. Lots of great art made in modern times was made by terrible people. Hollywood and the music industry is loaded with people who've made phenomenal art who had sex with underage kids, got themselves and friends addicted to hard drugs, steal writing credits, use sex as a commodity etc. Do you actually think think the public perception of these "stars" is the true and correct portrayal of who they really are??? These industries are hotbeds of narcissistic personalities. Enjoy the art but don't bother with the person.
The real question is: Should we burn Adolf Hitler's paintings or preserve them? If you can answer this question, then you know exactly where you stand on this subject.
There’s no such thing as a good dog or a bad dog. Does the room have dynamic quality or does dynamic quality have the room. Big difference. Goodness or badness has the dog. Not the other way around. Imagine how silly one sounds when calling a stove a ‘Damn Stove’ because you get burnt bumping into it! Then later that night it saves your life because your furnace breaks down on the coldest night of the year. So much for the stove being bad. Western culture communicates as if the Tolkien ring of power .. the one ring .. is how real life works. As if a thing can be inherently evil. Redic Same with a dog Same with a nun Same with a serial killer Same with a comet heading for our Earth. Same with everything. Experience is Quality. Quality is a noun Everything else is just an adjective of it! Nice vid!
When you first lay your eyes on a piece of art you make your own impressions of it, you indirectly try to relate to it. Make sense of it in your own way. It is only when you realize or find out that the creator behind the art piece has done something horrible and you maybe even judge the human to be a bad person. That is when you hate the person and the art that is related to sed person. It is only when the art is presented alone when you don’t judge. Good or bad? idk. Maybe everyone is entitled to their own opinion
This is a pretty fantastic video what raises a really interesting debate, I have thought about this myself and I appreciate art and the artists but take Chinatown for example the ending was kind of a big fuck you moment to me, and was kind of a bragging right “This is Chinatown Jack.” It’s kind of a kick in the mouth, you can’t touch me because I am above the law and we don’t answer to anyone. What’s a bit ironic that a pedophile who fled the country to avoid prosecution is telling me that because I’m an artist I don’t adhere to the same moral principles and laws the regular folk do. I get the point about him having a hard life with the Nazi’s & Manson killing his wife but we can’t use that as a argument that he is damaged because of what happened to him, the events of your past Shape you but we can’t let them define us and our actions either. I appreciate him as a filmmaker but hate him as a man for doing the worst possible thing imaginable and not serving his time like a man.
I would think more like what makes people bad? Cause I really think that there can be bad sides in person but nearly no one is completely bad as person.
For some people it will always be March 1977. It's as if nothing else ever happened in the life of the director and the girl. Polanski was a one-time offender, not an habitual offender. He did one bad thing. He satisfied the court's judgments and made financial restitution as soon as he could earn the money. Since then he has lived a perfectly regular normal life raising a family. The saga took a bizarre turn when his victim Samantha Geimer began to defend him and advocate legal forgiveness. She actually went to France to meet with Polanski and his wife. What do you make of this interview with her: th-cam.com/video/ks4DmdF5bh8/w-d-xo.html
Hi, I wondered if you have ever thought about this question in reverse. What do you think of great artists who make morally repulsive films? See for example sensesofcinema.com/2004/feature-articles/kapo_daney/ By the way I really love your reviews. Cinema tells us something about the world and ourselves and your reviews are always about this very fundament and how it affects you. And by sharing your views and your vulnerability we all feel a little bit more connected, a little less lost and alone in the world.
Thank you very much. It happens, I think. There are artists out there that have made films that I hated. I think Lars Von Trier is a perfect example. I think he is a very gifted artist. I love some of his films and detest others. But I think he is a great artist. Sometimes a great artist has morals that I question, but they often eventually address them, which is why I find them to be great artists. I love Hitchcock but at times I don't like the way he portrays women from such a masochistic angle on such a consistent basis. However, he addresses those deep-rooted issues and male desires masterfully in Vertigo.
I don't believe there is such a thing as morally repulsive films. As I see it only humans can be moral how could a movie or a song or a painting be moral?
Hey, Just want to say my play next cue on TH-cam got it right this time. Was looking for videos discussing this due to the flak that JK Rowling has been getting for her stupid tweets. Had a few channels that focus on matters of cinema and books and such that touched on it lightly. This is a good, deeper examination. It helps elaborate on my own feelings as during my own debate with someone my through line for my argument was simply "Just because someone is a good artist, it doesn't make them a good person by default nor should becoming a good person by default be a mandatory requirement."(Especially in this specific case, a story about Witches and Wizards). In fact, if one had enough steam to argue this out to it's bitter end it would probably tally up in favour of the bad people being better at art. Anyway just wanted to say, good video, interesting views, and an inticing collection of reading material on the shelves (from what I could make out). Subbing due to this video and hope you're still at it as I'm gonna have a nosy gander at your page.
Look at all the art in museums or books written. We would be foolish to think every artist/writer was/is perfectly moral. We can appreciate the works created by a person without approving how they live their lives. It does not mean we condone their behavior towards others. Someone said - even the bad guy loves his family.
There's a difference between supporting an artist and supporting their body of work, as I see it, because one day Polanski will die and what is left is his films. That said, I feel no shame in pirating his movies or watching them from the library. He won't get a cent from me so long as he draws in a breath
I saw Rosemary's Baby when I was a teenager in the 80s and loved it, my mom then told me the whole Roman Polanski story and I thought "Oh that's interesting" and went on about my life with absolutely no compunction about enjoying his movies. I've never felt any issue with enjoying the art of bad people. I mean David Bowie fucked a 13-year-old when he was 25, Oh well I'm not gonna stop listening to him, his music was the single biggest artistic influence in my formative years. The fact is if I were to shun the work of every morally objectionable artist in the world there be no art left to appreciate.
I personally have 2 different points regarding this issue. I like to see art independently from the artist or the world that has made it. Although it is common sense that an artwork will heavily depend on the personality and psychology of the person who made it, as well as the time that it was made in, it doesn't have to make up the context while experiencing the artwork itself. One is free to see it as though if it came from space. This highlights the timeless, transcendental side of art and provides a very unique experience, and I am all for it. It makes me see and interact with the artwork as though if it is a person in its own right, which I believe is absolutely true. It is a very liberating feeling to say the least, and I would suggest anyone to try this approach if they already don't. Now, my second point will seem to counteract this, but in truth it doesn't really. Although an artwork may be from space, there is actually no such space in any place that there is human consciousness. Way way below our conscious awareness, there are things that shape our whole existence that are actually specific tendencies. Like a story played by archetypes, points in time and people reflect different stances. These is something about this that requires cautioning. Because it is by nature very unconscious, we do not fully grasp the truth about them and accidentally let ourselves open to their influences. So for example, you may say that you like Aristotle's philosophy without agreeing on his beliefs on women. But can Aristotle's philosophy REALLY be separated from her beliefs on women? (For example, as a lover of philosophy and a woman, I found myself unconsciously nurturing similar beliefs towards femininity. I am talking about something truly unconscious here, nothing apparent, nothing that reaches the surface unless you happen to dig it up.) So my point goes, I would approach Polanski's films with a grain of salt, because if the accusations on him are true and he is a despicable human being, there is little chance that it won't be reflected in his movies in some obscure manner, which may stick to me if I let myself bluntly absorb them. (Which is usually what you do if you are young, naive, and have come across something that looks cool and interesting to you because you don't understand it well enough.) It is not like I'm desperately trying to protect myself from shadows, it is more so that I am reasonably protecting myself from psychological rapists that I came to know through experience. Then again, I approach all movies as such, not just those whose directors were accused by abuse or so. Most people are not innocent at heart. But I give the movie it's own right and once the movie gains my trust, which is if I feel it to be genuine and truthful (NOT if it is compatible with my moral standards), I start to let my guard down and dive into the experience. Movies are like acid trips, they really get to you. Life is dangerous y'all, even when it is least expected. That's the truth of it. I think the key is always to know your own self, your own heart. Then whatever ill you may witness won't really touch you, although it may still hurt. But it is easier said than done!
Love that you tackled this topic. It's a tricky subject, and you did a beautiful job articulating how art can be judged separately from someone's moral character.
I always think about it as there is many more people involved in the making of a film, besides the "bad" person, that poured their heart and soul into it too. It wouldn't be fair to them if we up and just canceled their movie.
Wonderfully articulated (as always). This argument gets down to what is the function of art. I see art as a tool, a means of probing truth, of expressing the reality of not just the outer world, but of dreams, of instincts, of psychic reality - this involves the good, the bad and the ugly. I don't feel that art needs to be instructive, that it needs to direct us to what is morally commendable (it seems to me that for centuries many people, and most frustratingly, many critics, have seen it this way). The truth can be a very gnarly thing, it can be offensive, but I don't feel it should be seen as something ideological because then it comes close to propaganda. So, artists aren't priests or even politicians, they don't need to be pillars of the community. Miles Davis recorded many masterpieces, opened up many musical vistas, his personal behavior could be seen as highly questionable. What I use to say to people when this argument came up was that if Hitler had recorded "Kind of Blue", it would still be a work of great beauty, no matter the crimes of the creator. Picasso was a supreme artistic genius, but he also was a real s.o.b. to many - it's complicated, because, as you so beautifully put it, humans are complicated.
Dang. It's crazy how you can watch movies from the 1920s, like the Cabinet of Dr. Whats-his-name. I usually steer clear of anything prior to 1935. I just feel like Pre-Code films are incredibly dated and would go right over my head. Think I should reconsider 1920s films? Any recs?? Oh, and I just subscribed..
Thanks! I guess it depends on what kind of films you're in the mood for. I usually recommend some more easy to digest films such as the comedies of Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin for the newbies. But definitely work your way through all kinds of different genres. Metropolis, Pandora's Box, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Battleship Potemkin, and many many others.
I love motion pictures from various genres, from various countries, from various time periods. Allot of films are art to me and I treat it as such. Art is and will always be in the eye of the beholder and that goes beyond the personalities of the artists; moral and immoral. It is the decision to the individual ONLY to choose what they will watch or not watched based on the actions of the artist. I've enjoyed a great many films made by people I probably wouldn't want to meet in person. As you've stated, name one person who isn't flawed. :)
With the amount of people involved in the making of every people, you are always going to be lining the pockets of some bad people whether you know it or not.
Can you do some more classic British film reviews of films like withnail and I, peeping tom (1960) and the elephant man. It would be good to here your opinion on them
People who say they can't like movies made by "bad" people: So if you like a movie and 20 years later you find out that the movie was written/directed by a rapist (for example), will you now suddenly think that movie is bad? Polanski may be a morally corrupt person, but his movies are great. To me, it doesn't bother me if the director is an asshole. It is another matter if we want to continue support the director by paying for tickets.... I probably would not pay for Polanski's movies anymore, but I definately think Repulsion is one of the best movies I have ever seen. It won't make a difference to me if I watch it gain and again since I already bought the DVD long time ago! :D
I don't agree with Polanski on what he has done as a human being. You can't deny has directed great film but at the same time there has been also talented cast and crew that has made his film happen. Filmmaking is a collabrative art form. If you decide to hate a film like Chinatown because of Polanski past. What about the other great talents behind the film like writer Robert Towne, composer Jerry Goldsmith and cast and crew all made that happen and they got their fingerprints. Why should their talents be damned because of one man? What about Paul Bateson? Bateson appeared as a radiological technologist in a scene from the 1973 horror film The Exorcist, he actually murdered a journalist in 1979. Does that mean no one is going to watch The Exorcist because there was a real life killer on the set, or is it for only high profile celebrities? There are many great and even bad films made by cast and crew that has committed crimes. If we stop watching or looking any artform because some wrongdoer we wouldn't have any art. I will be like killing any person that makes a mistake. We all be dead.
When The Jackson 5 rapidly become very famous Michael Jackson was the biggest draw. When Michael Jackson left the band that had became "The Jacksons" he became one of the biggest stars in the world bar none. That is what the casual fan or person see. Michael Jackson the superstar. The Jackson 5 was several brothers and while Michael was the star I am pretty certain a big part of the appeal was young kids dancing around. They also became a focus for the big machine that was Motown. After that.. Quincy Jones started working with Michael Jackson. All along songwriters helped both The Jackson 5 and Michael Jackson reach his place. My point? Even if Michael Jackson was/is quilty as sin should the work of SO MANY PEOPLE around him get drawn in the mud, become forgotten or banned? Why should some songwriter from 1972 suffer? The guy who filmed Thriller? The guys in Toto? Janet Jackson? In the making of the star that is Michael Jackson there wasn't one person. There was hundred or even thousands. Now Michael Jackson has been dead for over a decade. If someone bans his music, his Sega Game, his DVD's or something who do you think will suffer? It's certainly not Michael Jackson. I think similar about movies. Let's say Roman Polanski, Kevin Spacey and others really are guily 100 %. Should the movies they've done that many thousands of people helped create be put in the shadows? Making a huge Hollywood movie isn't a one man job. There certainly must be smarter ways to handle the situation.
Greg Cunningham That's not wasn't what I got out what she said. The Artist morality and quality of their Art aren't/shouldn't be connected. So was Adolf Hitler immoral? Yes, does that makes everything he wrote/painted/etc bad? Not necessarily (I haven't examined).
the answer is 42 ... and the question is what is the meaning of it all. If there is a heaven and a hell then the good guy is the one who visits hell by sneaking out of heaven, and he goes just to make sure everyone's doing alright in hell. All of these ideas have things in common. Some say to live life with no regrets but isn't that the worst way to do it? The enlightened person they say must decide whether to float away or to hang around in this world that is both a cesspool and a garden and to stay means to embrace it all. The funny part is even if there is an answer, it's not necessary. Just the question existing is answer enough.
This is a great, intelligent, very interesting video. Not banal at all. People often forget that Caravaggio was a killer and H.P. Lovecraft was racist. So what?
Seventh Art history is literally studded with moot, when not exactly despicable, characters at various levels (ideological, moral, behavioral). Some examples: ...despite never officially joining the Nazi party, Leni Riefenstahl has given voice like no other filmmaker to the aesthetics of the regime; however, today I believe it is possible to appreciate works such as “The Holy Mountain” (’26), “The Witch of Santa Maria” (’32) or “Olympia” (’32) from a purely artistic point of view... Claude Autant-Lara, one of the masters of French cinema, has never hidden his anti-Semitism and his words often hurt; at the same time, one cannot remain indifferent to the refined beauty of “Douce” (’43) or the scandalous force of the anti-war message that incorporates “Thou shalt not kill” (’61)... In the past, Clint Eastwood has behaved very shamefully, in my opinion, towards his ex-wife Sondra Locke. Yet, paradoxically, “Madison County” (’95) e “Changeling” (2008) attest to an uncommon sensitivity towards female courage and sensibility.... Klaus Kinski was and remains one of the greatest German theater and film actors but... God only knows the atrocities, the cases of sexual abuse, the improprieties, the outbursts of brutality that this man has left behind! It sounds easy and ambiguous but... the human being is incredibly contradictory and fragile! Human too human, wrote a german philosopher. If the talent is really talent then it will remain while the deceptive human factor will fall into oblivion. An affectionate embrace from La Spezia (Italy), Giordano 🎞️ 💖... P.S.: I apologize for my chaotic English 🤭
From Wikipedia: «Polanski was indicted on six counts of criminal behavior, including rape. At his arraignment, he pleaded not guilty to all charges. Many executives in Hollywood came to his defense. Gailey's attorney arranged a plea bargain in which five of the six charges would be dismissed, and Polanski accepted. As a result of the plea bargain, Polanski pleaded guilty to the charge of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor", and was ordered to undergo 90 days of psychiatric evaluation at California Institution for Men at Chino. Upon release from prison after 42 days, Polanski agreed to the plea bargain, his penalty to be time served along with probation. However, he learned afterward that the judge, Laurence J. Rittenband, had told some friends that he was going to disregard the plea bargain and sentence Polanski to 50 years in prison: "I'll see this man never gets out of jail," he told Polanski's friend, screenwriter Howard E. Koch. Gailey's attorney confirmed the judge changed his mind after he met the judge in his chambers: Polanski was told by his attorney that "the judge could no longer be trusted" and that the judge's representations were "worthless". Polanski decided not to appear at his sentencing. He told his friend, producer Dino De Laurentiis, "I've made up my mind. I'm getting out of here. In 1988, Gailey sued Polanski. Among other things, the suit alleged sexual assault, false imprisonment, seduction of a minor, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In 1993, Polanski agreed to settle with his victim. In August 1996, Polanski still owed her $604,416; court filings confirm that the settlement was completed by 1997 via a confidential financial arrangement. The victim, now married and going by the name Samantha Geimer, stated in a 2003 interview with Larry King that the police and media had been slow at the time of the assault to believe her account, which she attributed to the social climate of the era.[ In 2008, she stated, "I don't wish for him to be held to further punishment or consequences."»
im 4 years too late to this but yea for all those that were on epstein island do we just bin their movies now? oh it contains kevin spacey. in the bin.
Michael Bay's 13 Hours is a very good, serious movie, far away from his Transformers movies. And the cinematographer was robbed in not getting an Oscar nomination. So if Bay is a "bad" guy, he made at least one good movie. (I actually liked the first Transformers, not so much the sequels. Those movies are also produced by Steven Spielberg)
Of course the answer is an unqualified and uncomplicated "yes." The fact that anyone thinks otherwise is one of the (many) reasons there is such a dearth of creativity and genuinely engaging art in America (and really the entire west) since around 2013 or so.
Did you ever think of how this kind of controversy in film is an example of the auteur theory run amok? I consider myself an auteurist, but it’s amazing the extent to which Polanski is just unthinkingly assumed to be the one significant auteur of his films . Let’s take Chinatown as an example, is it not at the very same time a Robert Towne film, a Jack Nicholson film, a Faye Dunaway film, a John Huston film, a John Alonzo film, a Richarch Sylbert film, a Jerry Goldsmith film, et cetera… ad nauseum? It’s even partially a Stanley “Magnificent Ambersons” Cortez film. Of course it’s all of these. (and let me also add that if you research the life of John Huston, he turns out to be about as creepy as you can get. Among other things it appears a very good liklihood that he was the best friend of the alleged Black Dahlia murderer, George Hodell) I just confined myself to contributors whose work could be argued to be significant in Chinatown. And that makes Rosemary’s Baby an even better example. It you have pro “Me Too” sympathies it’s bad art because of Polanski. In the other camp we have Mia Farrow. If you are a critic of “Me Too”, Mia makes it a bad film. By the way if you know of a great director who was a good person, please tell me. It also funny how many directors were out and out mega mythomaniacs. Hawks, Fellini, Bergman, Ulmer, etc. Capra for one, on the basis of his autobiography was a big liar. The list is endless.
Picasso was a total asshole to his wives. "Chinatown" is a masterpiece. "Rosemary's Baby," "The Fearless Vampire Killers," "Macbeth," "Carnage"--great stuff.
As an example, think about all the old authors that had a touch of racism or supported segregation. If we were to judge every maker of art by their current or past actions, half the world's great achievements in art would be tossed to the curb. You can indeed separate the art from the artist. But how about this, maybe torrent Polanski's movies and buy Steve McQueen's. Or if you collect Blu Rays, buy it second hand and this way you still aren't supporting the creator. Or if the creator's dead then you are just supporting their family who done nothing wrong. You can also look at it like you're also supporting an entire crew of people and not just a director/producer. 100's of people make every film, and just because one employee is a psychopath doesn't mean you can't support everyone else in the cast and crew. Personally I support anything that has a creative voice, but will just torrent everything, and buy Blu Rays of the good.
If you admire the art and believe it has artistic, moral/philosophical, or cultural value, but you also loathe the artist...just steal it. Yes. I am encouraging you to steal the art. Let me explain. A good example is Orson Scott Card. I consider Ender's Game to be one of the most important science fiction novels of the 20th century. But I don't want to support Card as a person. So I utilize my local library, which is a kind of legal book-theft. Then I get to experience the art, the author gets no compensation, a library gets my business (please support your local library!), and all is right in the world. There are also more illegal means of stealing bad people's good art. But I'm sure you don't need my guidance on that.
Fantastic essay on Polanski and other "bad" people. Would Polanski, Allen, and all those out there who were caught with sexual misconduct have been the same artists otherwise? Is the personal life of an artist a separate compartment from his creative output? I believe artistic inspiration, but most of all, artistic sensitivity and sensibility doesn't exist independently. Art is the expression of somebody as a whole individual, including what we would consider as immorality, even criminal conduct. Anybody who would attempt to make the case for "good" art as opposed to "bad" art based on whether an artist has ever transgressed anything condemnable, would illusion oneself plain and simple. Among the various motivations behind artistic creation are inner moral conflucts, and whether such conflicts resolved themselves through, let's say, sexual misconduct or crime, or not, is secondary to the point, from the strict artistic perspective. One may disapprove so much of Polanski's or Allen's actions in their personal lives that he/she feels obliged to condemn their output entirely out of principle. And yet, the whole issue of the artistic merit of their work remains open to one's esthetic appreciation and criticism. More often than not, artists are tormented souls and whether we like it or not, their life is often undissociable from scandal. Oscar Wilde, Verlaine, Rimbaud, Villon, even Da Vinci, have led personal lives that resulted in controversies, personal injuries, criminal pursuits, etc. My personal view has long been: that the one who never sinned tgrow the first stone. Next: let's talk about the merits of their art ! And it so happens that too many people have missed the merits of Polanski's movies since he left America, out of concern for the director's judiciary condemnation. I couldn't care less. If I knew Polanski's victim (s?) personally, it mught be different, but I won't feint concern if the movies are as good as they have been in many cases. He is a great director, and nothing he's done ever changed that. From his adaptation of 'Tess', to 'Venus in Fur', Le Locataire to 'The Pianist' even a minor fantastic thriller such as The Ninth Door, Polanski's cinema has brought light in my life and I admire his films for their undeniable qualities.
Late to this discussion, but I agree with much of what you've said deepfocuslens. There is no excusing what we know of the poor judgment that Polanski displayed at Jack Nicholson's home on that evening, more than likely under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. I submit that NONE of us are as bad as our worst day, or by way of perception, as good as our best. If you go beyond snap judgment, and look at a bigger pattern of trauma in his life, he was a child of the holocaust, as well as his pregnant wife being murdered by the Manson family just a few years prior to the assault. Again, not excusing what he did, simply attempting to better understand where he was as a human being at this time in life. I feel sorry for him, and the fact that the damage he experienced manifest itself by damaging another. As a filmmaker, he displayed a very strong empathy with, and sensitivity to, the female experience in such films as Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby, and Tess. There are many others listed on this thread that have displayed a 'pattern' of despicable behavior such as Woody Allen, but for some reason they have never been focused on and persecuted anywhere near as harshly as Polanski due to his worst day. It is well documented that the victim herself has long since forgiven him. I feel that at very least, he should simply be left alone at this point. I personally admire his art, and would never wish to be judged solely by my darkest known act in life. I will continue to celebrate the work, if not the flawed human that created it. Thanks for the topic and I will continue to support your channel.
Well... Think about all the privately cruel people, that we vaguely know about, or never find out about? Or, the racists, of varying degrees, to whom too many white women; mean little, to nothing, as far as any personal offense is concerned. At the end of the day; it's a personal choice, whether the person could/should, cancel the artist. So, for that woman who contacted you; to want to unilaterally impose her notions on others; is really sort of idiotic, if not perverse.
Great video! I think "bad" people can make good art. Bad people can be talented in a lot of ways. I think I wouldn't have a problem watching some despicable person's film, but that's only because I can't see or hear the actual artist making the product. Your video made me think of the band Lostprophets and its lead singer Ian Watkins. The music is fine, but hearing that guy sing just makes me feel disgusted because of what he did outside of his art making. Hence, I'll never listen to that music ever again even though the music itself is totally innocent of any crime. Artists can get away with a lot, but there are limits.
Chinatown is one of my favorite movies. + I agree that one can applaud the art and dislike the artist. I, for one, refuse to purchase certain music from questionable characters (I do hear them for free) and I have only captured Polanski on Cable TV. It's my little protest. However, I do believe that an artist's behavior can influence one's enjoyment of their art. I once caught myself physically trying not to laugh at ANTZ when Woody Allen's cartoon character did something. Ridiculous, maybe, but the annoying back story of the artist was there, interfering with my enjoyment of the art. I also get frustrated with the notion that it's been 40 years and we should let it go. We didn't exile Polanski, he fled. It was a self imposed exile and if he had decided to face the music, this would have been over long ago. (as to someone's comment below that he was threatened with 50 years, I highly, highly, highly doubt it. Anyway, yes, he is a talent but I have zero sympathies.
Really enjoyed this subject.In other forms of art there have been many instances where the artist wasn't a very nice person,such as Richard Wagner who was not only morally very dubious but was a very extreme anti-semite who contributed towards the crazy ideas of Hitler,but who did write some very important music.In a distortion of another composer,the Nazis abused "Moonlight Sonata" by Beethoven by using the name as the codeword for the worst blitz inflicted on Coventry in WW2
I agree. I put a big Rosemary's Baby poster on my wall before finding this out. 😂 Pulp Fiction is worshipped and Harvey Weinstein was the producer. If you want to take it that far, could argue if a special effects/costume design person is accused, they've contributed to the picture, not to the extent of the actors and directors, but nevertheless they've worked on the film. And when putting a poster on a wall, I would like to think people do so for the film rather than an individual. Interesting topic and everybody entitled to opinion but I believe I make a decent argument on it.
A great example of this now is Joss Whedon. Apparently, his bad treatment of people was rampant, yet I would never discount the value of Buffy the Vampire Slayer series. I struggled regarding I felt about this sort of topic when it all came out.
I as a person don’t let myself get hung up by people’s beliefs or crimes versus Art or business. If I went around and took a hard stance on things like this I couldn’t buy or be entertained by anyone or anything. I’m sad when Bill Cosby or Roman Polanski but their work or art I’ll watch
If we didn't separate art from the artist some of the greatest art would be erased or we would only stick with lame art.
Jesus your videos are too damn good, how the heck hasn't your channel blown up yet? 3rd video in and immediately subbed, best film related channel. period
"Rosemary's Baby" is one of my favorite films of all time, and I say that unapologetically, even though Polanski has shown himself to be a despicable human being. (I would describe him as more than a "flawed" person, but that doesn't negate his artistic brilliance.) I think admiring his work isn't the same as condoning his reprehensible behavior. I've always had similarly mixed feelings about, say, Miles Davis, who, by all accounts, was a pretty terrible person, but has made some of the most unforgettable music of the 20th century. I think you can admire someone's work, without losing sight of what a terrible person they are/were. Enjoy your channel very much.
Well said!
There are too many great artists that are bad people to throw out their art. It does bum me out when I find out that an artist I like is a bad person. The internet has brought the audience closer than ever to the artist. We read their wiki pages. We read/watch their interviews. Many are on social media. We feel like we know the artist so when they let us down it hurts that much more, but the art still remains. Though if it turns out David Lynch is a bad dude I might cry.
This is a great subject and video. Separating art and artist is complicated.
It seems that great talent often has moral hazard bundled in with the bargain. I think that this is the proverbial Faustian bargian; when given great power/fame from one's gifts, you are usually getting more than you bargained for and one's mortal soul is often at hazard. So many great artists were and are tortured by addiction (both sex and drug), psychological and personality disorders (narcissism first and foremost), criminality, etc., etc. The problem I see it from a consumer standpoint is that young people often look to artists as role models and they are pretty much only good role models for artistic vision, not for anything else, and young folks rarely can make that distinction.
As far as Polanski goes the greatest hypocrisy I see is the way Hollywood so often holds themselves up as arbiters of moral rectitude or "humanity" and yet celebrate cretinous people like Polanski and Weinstein. I hate that kind of hypocrisy more than almost anything else, and I've almost gotten to the point where I don't even bother watching most Hollywood output at this point. It's mostly SJW garbage.
I could not agree with you more. Wagner was a pretty unpleasant man, but does that mean his music should be dismissed or censored? Picasso was abusive toward women. Does that lessen the importance or impact of his paintings? And as for writers... Goodness, this becomes one very slippery slope indeed if one conflates the personal morality (or lack thereof) of any artist with their artistic output. I've heard it said that no work of art is moral or immoral. It is either good or it is bad. And even that, of course, is subjective. There are many creative people whose personal lives and actions I have found, in some regard, repugnant and objectionable. And yet I have been impressed and even moved by the artistry inherent in their work. Hitchcock was, by all accounts, a very disturbed man in his interactions with Tippi Hedren. And, much as I disapprove of his mistreatment of her, I still admire the end result of their work together. Similarly, 'Vertigo' will continue to dazzle, enthrall and touch me emotionally even though the film is pretty much a self-portrait of Hitchcock's dark obessions about controlling the feminine objects of his thwarted desire. When I hear a beautiful symphony, gaze on a gorgeous painting, read a brilliantly compelling novel or see a remarkable film my first thought is not about the morality or immorality of the person who created the art I'm experiencing. Later on I may find myself growing curious about the individual behind the artistry. But initially, at least for me, those concerns are beside the point. The fact that Stanley Kubrick was extremely demanding and not always a sweetheart to deal with has zero bearing on how much I adore his films. Of course, when an artist has become particularly notorious through their actions it may influence one's continuing perceptions. I freely admit it would be problematic for me to watch the Cosby Show in light of what has transpired in more recent years. Watching Bill Cosby now as a lovable and funny dad/husband would present major problems for me at this point. And yet I'm still able to appreciate the films of Polanski and Woody Allen, despite my ambivalence toward them as individuals. Is that hypocrisy? Perhaps. But this is a complex subject which, whether viewed as black & white or greyscale, invites inherent subjectivity.
At times, it is about no more than whose ''ox is being gored'', which, is on some level selfish, and morally vulgar.
you think so? me personly find it effortlessly easy to separate art from artist
Personally I find it absurd sometimes that this has to be explained to people. If we 'delegitimized' people's work based off a past that is predominantly filtered by the media, then we'd be dismissing James Brown's talent because of his domestic abuse, or Chuck Berry because of his kidnapping, for example. Separation of art from artist has always been important for art itself. You can make anyone look evil if you had a hold of everything in their past.
By the same account, I don't think anyone should judge anyone who can't separate the actions of the artist from the art they create. It doesn't make them less intelligent or less able to understand great art. I think the only important thing is to not justify any of the action of the artists which we may find reprehensible just because they make great art. The problem for me comes if, say, people excused James Brown's domestic abuse on t he basis that he was a great entertainer.
Chris Sayer's right. Each point of view is valid to whomever decides to live by it. The world has deemed someone like Bill Cosby a deviant and has taken down his show and ppl rebuke his work. Nate Parker this year was publicly attacked for a case HE WAS ACQUITTED OF! Now who knows what happened but we obviously live in a world where ppl feel different about this.
I felt the way you did for a long time TheMusoBloke, but I saw a video about how one's art IS a reflection of how that person views the world. You can see in some of Woody Allen's films that directly address some of the bad things he has been accussed of (and not in a good way). These artists who are "terrible" human beings make art that reflect how "terrible" they are. That's just how it is sometimes.
WTF.........!! Chuck Berry,went across state lines with a minor,at worst;and racist laws were deployed,in order to trump up charges,by calling that "kidnap". and,what of people;that support,tacitly and directly;hate organizations? your sense of moral proportion, is totally fucked up. oh,and, you pick a couple of black men,exploited by a mafia influenced musical industry,living in an already racist society. No mention ,of Frank Sinatra[who was a complex mixed bag],James Woods[a racist shit],Mel Gibson[an anti-semitic bottom feeder]. We most clearly see,what the hell YOU are;you morally selective,hypocritical moral reprobate.
Humans are naturally hypocritical and self-contradictory species. We love to adulate and idolize, but we also love to demonize and tear others down. It's a fucking mess.
I think separating artist from art is also important because, quite literally, you don't want to judge a book by its cover. There was a certain science fiction series that I read and really enjoyed. Many years after I read them, that writer got in a lot of controversy for homophobic statements that he frequently made. The thing is, I was really surprised, because when I read his novels, I didn't get a sense of how the writer as that kind of person. In fact, based on the novels, I imagined a very different person than he apparently was. And obviously, a person is a far more complicated entity than one problematic aspect of their character.
I've been exploring some of Polanski's filmography lately and have been loving his films! I always have a mindset of judge the art, not the artist. I get what he did, or supposedly did, was despicable. But all I care about is the art. I won't let what he did prevent me from enjoying his phenomenal films. Everyone else should learn to do the same.
totally agree Jake ive seen many of his films i havent seen Repulsion but ive seen Chinatown, rosemarys baby, the ghost writer, tess, the pianist and carnage all great movies I think The Pianist is his most personal great performance from Adrien Brody and great film
@@65g4 bro trust me on this watch the tenant you will cream yourself
You have to separate the Art from the Artist. The movies are still good regardless.
Great response with depth and humility. Seeing people (and their work) as all good or all bad is a narcissistic defense mechanism, "splitting." A person needs to trust their own judgment. People are incredibly complex.
Art is often a collaborative endeavor, and it is especially true for film. Roman Polanski's films were made not only by himself, but also hundreds of other people in his cast and crew. Chances are good that at least some of those people have done bad things. More to the point, even if all cast and crew were "bad people," such as films made in the Nazi era, films made by racially insensitive people such as "Birth of a Nation," we still have to devote certain amount of attention to the art only (if it is good). Sometimes we have to acknowledge the art, even if we don't acknowledge the person. Incidentally, after the death of the pro-Nazi filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, the Oscar did acknowledge her in the "In Memoriam" segment, as a nod to her art.
Excellent video. I completely agree with you, art should not be judged by the separate actions of the artist. I've been having this argument a lot lately for some reason. I think its a big mistake to gauge the validity of art, or the willingness to enjoy or appreciate art based upon the lifestyles or actions of the artist. It is not the role of art to educate or be a moral guide. If we boycotted everything that was created by a problematic artist, we wouldn't be left with much to appreciate, would we?
Thanks for making the video. Should be said!
Most things in life are not black and white, even if others try to make them out to be. People are complex, even if someones actions are reprehensible or immoral that doesn't sum up their whole person. They could be in all accounts a terrible person and at the same time have a certain principle that is seen as virtuous and even admirable.
Would you say the same about Ted Bundy, Bill Cosby, Ed Gein, or the guy who directed Jeepers Creepers (who turned out to be like a horrible child molester and child pornographer) or even like Donald J. Trump? It tends to be if they make something you like you can forgive. Not to attack you; It's just a thought.
I see what you mean. I don't think what I said is the case all of the time, but I imagine it is some of the time. I guess it depends on the specifics of the persons personality.
There is difference between enjoying someone's art and supporting them.
For example, I will watch Polanski and Woody Allen movies, and older movies produced by Harvey Weinstein (Pulp Fiction and Clerks), but I won't give them my money.
Under capitalism we have to learn to separate art, artist and profits
Woody Allen was deemed innocent in a court of law after being accused by a single person. Polanski confessed to drugging and having sex with a 13 year old and fled the country, and Weinstein was accused by dozens of women of rape and other similar offenses. Don't lob Woody Allen in with the others.
Unpopular view: most of the great film artists grew up wealthy. They are from a different class than film consumers, and that class, the wealth class, does nothing for the working class but provide art. Outside of that, they are oppressors to the working class. And thus, most great film artists are bad people.
I love Taxi Driver explicitly because the main character is contemptible and pathetic. He's completely flawed but in a way that invites analysis and discussion, and it makes him an extremely compelling character compared to many other movies in spite of morals.
Falling Down. William Foster was a man who was frustrated with the current state of society so he decides to wreak havoc and cause chaos to numerous people whether they were Innocent or not. William's goal was to get his life back to how it used to be. William was a sadistic control freak
Interesting topic and well put! I LOVE ‘Rosemary’s Baby’, and the work of Polanski. I’m about to review ‘The Tenant’, great film, and I know I’m, probably, going to get some comments about his personal life/legal issues, and I can’t stress enough that I DONT condone what he did, and I don’t feel his art reflects his exploits. It’s like reviewing a film by Victor Salva. I like how you explained this topic and separated the art/artist from the crime and that part of him, or, rather, see the art in the person that did what he did. I can’t put it as elegantly as you could haha but I appreciated what you said!
Great video!
The pyramids were built by slaves … yet it is still a tourist attraction . So yep you can separate .
I'll say this, polanski's done some nasty, inexcusable stuff, but he's also had a lot of nasty, inexcusable stuff done to him... And I genuinely feel very sorry for him.
I don't. At what point does the abuse stop. It's up to him to not hurt others
You should apply for a spot with the guys in Collider in Burbank if you live in the greater Los Angeles area because you are very articulate and obviously have a lot of passion for movies and that's cool to see haha and great content! Keep it up lol
I’m reminded of what Toscanini said about Richard Strauss: “To Strauss the composer I take off my hat; to Strauss the man I put it back on again.”
Never thought of it in the opposite way, but yeah if a fluff artist found the cure for cancer does his fluff art become elevated? Of course not, so why is the opposite true?
"i am a flawed person, i've done many immoral things in my life. roman polanski is a flawed person, and he's done many immoral things in his life..." and i am a flawed person too.
also agree that i don't condone what polanski has done, but maybe a big difference here is that our past isn't a headline on the news..?
"Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault."- Oscar Wilde.
Ars gratia Artis!
I've never let someone's personal flaws or distasteful deeds stop me from appreciating their work. I just can't. I can't do it anymore than I can appreciate something I find unimpressive just because I like the artist.
In the case of Polanski in particular, he's made some of my favorite films and I believe he is one our greatest filmmakers in the history of the medium. I can't imagine a context where that changes, either.
Great video.
10:00 Cinnamon fans unite!
This is why I subscribed to your channel...you genuinely put interest into others thoughts and ideals and form your own [fair] opinion....and do so with a basically open mind🙂👍
Your lens (intended) isn't qualified to contrast male morality, no offense.
As a dude, morally (the VAST majority of "dudes", also Anne Hathaway was sexy AF as that version of "Catwoman", and she's not my type :)) speaking, thinking Megan Fox was stunning and putting her in a robot cartoon movie in the same category as the guy who ruined children forever in real life right?
Morally speaking, not just them, their parents.....that girl was a little child, incapable of Sodom or Gamorrah, let alone thoughts of independence. A child, who's older brother still wants him to return to the states for example, would be qualified to explain these elusive goggles.
There isn't the same onus on the viewer, which is the MAJOR hole in the "what conspiracy?", non-ledge-risky feminism you often celebrate via pineal "fashion".
You'd have to be a man to understand what a man thinks of that moral (see: non-) quandary, or look at how they fare when we are at our most primal (incarcerated). I don't believe you're a mother either.
Polanski in all of his "brilliant character building of women" abused the sh*t out of them during filming, and that's not a secret (Rosemary/walking etc.).
I'm not qualified to speak to morality, and like drugs too, but I worry what DMT does to some. I can't figure out why smart enough to say Khabib, yet not smart enough to say hello.....
That's a conundrum for common people! Usually those who aren't into art or philosophy have a very limited understanding of life and everything is just in terms of black and white for them. So if a person is bad, he must be completely bad and vice versa! It's hard for people to digest a simple fact that life is too complicated and you can't oversimplify life which most people do. So that's why we need art and literature to have a better and precise understanding of the world we live in!
It’s irrelevant.
Or - if anything - it makes the Art more interesting.
They’re not bloody schoolteachers.
my take is that trying to apply logic the subject is a waste of time, because people. how many can be reached with reason? how many are susceptible to logic? this is one place where most will have an opinion n will not consider another
Readers of H.P. Lovecraft be like: "We paved these roads so your kids could play in them!"
Yes, without a doubt "bad people" can make great art. Lots of great art made in modern times was made by terrible people. Hollywood and the music industry is loaded with people who've made phenomenal art who had sex with underage kids, got themselves and friends addicted to hard drugs, steal writing credits, use sex as a commodity etc. Do you actually think think the public perception of these "stars" is the true and correct portrayal of who they really are??? These industries are hotbeds of narcissistic personalities. Enjoy the art but don't bother with the person.
This video is way better than the one made by wisecrack
The real question is: Should we burn Adolf Hitler's paintings or preserve them? If you can answer this question, then you know exactly where you stand on this subject.
Tbh, given how average his paintings are, I don't think anything would be lost in the world of art if they were burnt.
Charles Bukowski was, to me, sort of a scumbag and I still love his poetry.
There’s no such thing as a good dog or a bad dog.
Does the room have dynamic quality or does dynamic quality have the room.
Big difference.
Goodness or badness has the dog. Not the other way around.
Imagine how silly one sounds when calling a stove a ‘Damn Stove’ because you get burnt bumping into it!
Then later that night it saves your life because your furnace breaks down on the coldest night of the year.
So much for the stove being bad.
Western culture communicates as if the Tolkien ring of power .. the one ring .. is how real life works. As if a thing can be inherently evil.
Redic
Same with a dog
Same with a nun
Same with a serial killer
Same with a comet heading for our Earth.
Same with everything.
Experience is Quality. Quality is a noun
Everything else is just an adjective of it!
Nice vid!
When you first lay your eyes on a piece of art you make your own impressions of it, you indirectly try to relate to it. Make sense of it in your own way. It is only when you realize or find out that the creator behind the art piece has done something horrible and you maybe even judge the human to be a bad person. That is when you hate the person and the art that is related to sed person. It is only when the art is presented alone when you don’t judge. Good or bad? idk. Maybe everyone is entitled to their own opinion
This is a pretty fantastic video what raises a really interesting debate, I have thought about this myself and I appreciate art and the artists but take Chinatown for example the ending was kind of a big fuck you moment to me, and was kind of a bragging right “This is Chinatown Jack.” It’s kind of a kick in the mouth, you can’t touch me because I am above the law and we don’t answer to anyone. What’s a bit ironic that a pedophile who fled the country to avoid prosecution is telling me that because I’m an artist I don’t adhere to the same moral principles and laws the regular folk do. I get the point about him having a hard life with the Nazi’s & Manson killing his wife but we can’t use that as a argument that he is damaged because of what happened to him, the events of your past Shape you but we can’t let them define us and our actions either. I appreciate him as a filmmaker but hate him as a man for doing the worst possible thing imaginable and not serving his time like a man.
Was Woody Allen Ever Accused Of Anything Offically>
I wish there were more deep thinkers like you, your videos are the most refreshing film reviews i know of on youtube
Also, what about Polanski the Holocaust survivor AND Manson family survivor? Where do.they fit in?.@
I would think more like what makes people bad? Cause I really think that there can be bad sides in person but nearly no one is completely bad as person.
I'm surprised you haven't reviewed TESS (1979)
For some people it will always be March 1977. It's as if nothing else ever happened in the life of the director and the girl. Polanski was a one-time offender, not an habitual offender. He did one bad thing. He satisfied the court's judgments and made financial restitution as soon as he could earn the money. Since then he has lived a perfectly regular normal life raising a family. The saga took a bizarre turn when his victim Samantha Geimer began to defend him and advocate legal forgiveness. She actually went to France to meet with Polanski and his wife. What do you make of this interview with her:
th-cam.com/video/ks4DmdF5bh8/w-d-xo.html
I thought "America" had forgiven Polanski when they gave him the Oscar for The Pianist
Hi, I wondered if you have ever thought about this question in reverse. What do you think of great artists who make morally repulsive films?
See for example sensesofcinema.com/2004/feature-articles/kapo_daney/
By the way I really love your reviews. Cinema tells us something about the world and ourselves and your reviews are always about this very fundament and how it affects you. And by sharing your views and your vulnerability we all feel a little bit more connected, a little less lost and alone in the world.
Thank you very much. It happens, I think. There are artists out there that have made films that I hated. I think Lars Von Trier is a perfect example. I think he is a very gifted artist. I love some of his films and detest others. But I think he is a great artist. Sometimes a great artist has morals that I question, but they often eventually address them, which is why I find them to be great artists. I love Hitchcock but at times I don't like the way he portrays women from such a masochistic angle on such a consistent basis. However, he addresses those deep-rooted issues and male desires masterfully in Vertigo.
I don't believe there is such a thing as morally repulsive films. As I see it only humans can be moral how could a movie or a song or a painting be moral?
Hey, Just want to say my play next cue on TH-cam got it right this time. Was looking for videos discussing this due to the flak that JK Rowling has been getting for her stupid tweets. Had a few channels that focus on matters of cinema and books and such that touched on it lightly. This is a good, deeper examination. It helps elaborate on my own feelings as during my own debate with someone my through line for my argument was simply "Just because someone is a good artist, it doesn't make them a good person by default nor should becoming a good person by default be a mandatory requirement."(Especially in this specific case, a story about Witches and Wizards). In fact, if one had enough steam to argue this out to it's bitter end it would probably tally up in favour of the bad people being better at art.
Anyway just wanted to say, good video, interesting views, and an inticing collection of reading material on the shelves (from what I could make out).
Subbing due to this video and hope you're still at it as I'm gonna have a nosy gander at your page.
Look at all the art in museums or books written. We would be foolish to think every artist/writer was/is perfectly moral. We can appreciate the works created by a person without approving how they live their lives. It does not mean we condone their behavior towards others. Someone said - even the bad guy loves his family.
Could you imagine if only "good" people made art?
Anyways... your insights are always on point
There's a difference between supporting an artist and supporting their body of work, as I see it, because one day Polanski will die and what is left is his films. That said, I feel no shame in pirating his movies or watching them from the library. He won't get a cent from me so long as he draws in a breath
Michael bay is a legendary cataclysmic sandstorm of dumb action movie magic the films he makes make you laugh and smile because there so bombastic
Omg I found this. PLEASE just listen to her
Pah-lease
I saw Rosemary's Baby when I was a teenager in the 80s and loved it, my mom then told me the whole Roman Polanski story and I thought "Oh that's interesting" and went on about my life with absolutely no compunction about enjoying his movies. I've never felt any issue with enjoying the art of bad people. I mean David Bowie fucked a 13-year-old when he was 25, Oh well I'm not gonna stop listening to him, his music was the single biggest artistic influence in my formative years. The fact is if I were to shun the work of every morally objectionable artist in the world there be no art left to appreciate.
I personally have 2 different points regarding this issue.
I like to see art independently from the artist or the world that has made it. Although it is common sense that an artwork will heavily depend on the personality and psychology of the person who made it, as well as the time that it was made in, it doesn't have to make up the context while experiencing the artwork itself. One is free to see it as though if it came from space. This highlights the timeless, transcendental side of art and provides a very unique experience, and I am all for it. It makes me see and interact with the artwork as though if it is a person in its own right, which I believe is absolutely true. It is a very liberating feeling to say the least, and I would suggest anyone to try this approach if they already don't.
Now, my second point will seem to counteract this, but in truth it doesn't really. Although an artwork may be from space, there is actually no such space in any place that there is human consciousness. Way way below our conscious awareness, there are things that shape our whole existence that are actually specific tendencies. Like a story played by archetypes, points in time and people reflect different stances. These is something about this that requires cautioning. Because it is by nature very unconscious, we do not fully grasp the truth about them and accidentally let ourselves open to their influences. So for example, you may say that you like Aristotle's philosophy without agreeing on his beliefs on women. But can Aristotle's philosophy REALLY be separated from her beliefs on women? (For example, as a lover of philosophy and a woman, I found myself unconsciously nurturing similar beliefs towards femininity. I am talking about something truly unconscious here, nothing apparent, nothing that reaches the surface unless you happen to dig it up.)
So my point goes, I would approach Polanski's films with a grain of salt, because if the accusations on him are true and he is a despicable human being, there is little chance that it won't be reflected in his movies in some obscure manner, which may stick to me if I let myself bluntly absorb them. (Which is usually what you do if you are young, naive, and have come across something that looks cool and interesting to you because you don't understand it well enough.) It is not like I'm desperately trying to protect myself from shadows, it is more so that I am reasonably protecting myself from psychological rapists that I came to know through experience.
Then again, I approach all movies as such, not just those whose directors were accused by abuse or so. Most people are not innocent at heart. But I give the movie it's own right and once the movie gains my trust, which is if I feel it to be genuine and truthful (NOT if it is compatible with my moral standards), I start to let my guard down and dive into the experience. Movies are like acid trips, they really get to you. Life is dangerous y'all, even when it is least expected. That's the truth of it. I think the key is always to know your own self, your own heart. Then whatever ill you may witness won't really touch you, although it may still hurt. But it is easier said than done!
RE: "Can bad people make good art?" Yes. Wagner.
Short answer is yes. Caravaggio murdered someone and he's a brilliant artist.
Love that you tackled this topic. It's a tricky subject, and you did a beautiful job articulating how art can be judged separately from someone's moral character.
I always think about it as there is many more people involved in the making of a film, besides the "bad" person, that poured their heart and soul into it too. It wouldn't be fair to them if we up and just canceled their movie.
The man is nothing; the work is everything. - G. Flaubert
Wonderfully articulated (as always). This argument gets down to what is the function of art. I see art as a tool, a means of probing truth, of expressing the reality of not just the outer world, but of dreams, of instincts, of psychic reality - this involves the good, the bad and the ugly. I don't feel that art needs to be instructive, that it needs to direct us to what is morally commendable (it seems to me that for centuries many people, and most frustratingly, many critics, have seen it this way). The truth can be a very gnarly thing, it can be offensive, but I don't feel it should be seen as something ideological because then it comes close to propaganda. So, artists aren't priests or even politicians, they don't need to be pillars of the community. Miles Davis recorded many masterpieces, opened up many musical vistas, his personal behavior could be seen as highly questionable. What I use to say to people when this argument came up was that if Hitler had recorded "Kind of Blue", it would still be a work of great beauty, no matter the crimes of the creator. Picasso was a supreme artistic genius, but he also was a real s.o.b. to many - it's complicated, because, as you so beautifully put it, humans are complicated.
Dang. It's crazy how you can watch movies from the 1920s, like the Cabinet of Dr. Whats-his-name. I usually steer clear of anything prior to 1935. I just feel like Pre-Code films are incredibly dated and would go right over my head. Think I should reconsider 1920s films? Any recs?? Oh, and I just subscribed..
Thanks! I guess it depends on what kind of films you're in the mood for. I usually recommend some more easy to digest films such as the comedies of Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin for the newbies. But definitely work your way through all kinds of different genres. Metropolis, Pandora's Box, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Battleship Potemkin, and many many others.
This video just served to remind me that taxi driver is one of the greatest films of all time
"Each" as subject of sentence takes a singular verb
Two things are allowed to be true at the same time. 🤷🏻♂
Certainly. I try to separate the person from his works, although not always easily with auteur directors.
I only watch movies by bad people.
I love motion pictures from various genres, from various countries, from various time periods. Allot of films are art to me and I treat it as such. Art is and will always be in the eye of the beholder and that goes beyond the personalities of the artists; moral and immoral. It is the decision to the individual ONLY to choose what they will watch or not watched based on the actions of the artist. I've enjoyed a great many films made by people I probably wouldn't want to meet in person. As you've stated, name one person who isn't flawed. :)
Yes. sometimes "bad people" make the greatest art
With the amount of people involved in the making of every people, you are always going to be lining the pockets of some bad people whether you know it or not.
Exactly.
Look at Mansons performance art.
Read the title as 'immortal' and thought to myself that they probably could due to all the time they could dedicate to making it.
Totally agree with her view.
Can you do some more classic British film reviews of films like withnail and I, peeping tom (1960) and the elephant man. It would be good to here your opinion on them
At some point, yes. I talked about Peeping Tom in a video years ago, but I definitely want to do a real review for it. I'm a huge Michael Powell fan.
People who say they can't like movies made by "bad" people: So if you like a movie and 20 years later you find out that the movie was written/directed by a rapist (for example), will you now suddenly think that movie is bad? Polanski may be a morally corrupt person, but his movies are great. To me, it doesn't bother me if the director is an asshole. It is another matter if we want to continue support the director by paying for tickets.... I probably would not pay for Polanski's movies anymore, but I definately think Repulsion is one of the best movies I have ever seen. It won't make a difference to me if I watch it gain and again since I already bought the DVD long time ago! :D
I don't agree with Polanski on what he has done as a human being. You can't deny has directed great film but at the same time there has been also talented cast and crew that has made his film happen. Filmmaking is a collabrative art form. If you decide to hate a film like Chinatown because of Polanski past. What about the other great talents behind the film like writer Robert Towne, composer Jerry Goldsmith and cast and crew all made that happen and they got their fingerprints. Why should their talents be damned because of one man?
What about Paul Bateson? Bateson appeared as a radiological technologist in a scene from the 1973 horror film The Exorcist, he actually murdered a journalist in 1979. Does that mean no one is going to watch The Exorcist because there was a real life killer on the set, or is it for only high profile celebrities?
There are many great and even bad films made by cast and crew that has committed crimes. If we stop watching or looking any artform because some wrongdoer we wouldn't have any art. I will be like killing any person that makes a mistake. We all be dead.
When The Jackson 5 rapidly become very famous Michael Jackson was the biggest draw. When Michael Jackson left the band that had became "The Jacksons" he became one of the biggest stars in the world bar none. That is what the casual fan or person see. Michael Jackson the superstar.
The Jackson 5 was several brothers and while Michael was the star I am pretty certain a big part of the appeal was young kids dancing around. They also became a focus for the big machine that was Motown. After that.. Quincy Jones started working with Michael Jackson. All along songwriters helped both The Jackson 5 and Michael Jackson reach his place.
My point? Even if Michael Jackson was/is quilty as sin should the work of SO MANY PEOPLE around him get drawn in the mud, become forgotten or banned? Why should some songwriter from 1972 suffer? The guy who filmed Thriller? The guys in Toto? Janet Jackson? In the making of the star that is Michael Jackson there wasn't one person. There was hundred or even thousands. Now Michael Jackson has been dead for over a decade. If someone bans his music, his Sega Game, his DVD's or something who do you think will suffer? It's certainly not Michael Jackson.
I think similar about movies. Let's say Roman Polanski, Kevin Spacey and others really are guily 100 %. Should the movies they've done that many thousands of people helped create be put in the shadows? Making a huge Hollywood movie isn't a one man job. There certainly must be smarter ways to handle the situation.
Up next, a book review of Mein Kampf... Obviously I'm joking, but to say it's possible to ignore the "Artist" in every circumstance is fatuous.
Greg Cunningham
That's not wasn't what I got out what she said. The Artist morality and quality of their Art aren't/shouldn't be connected.
So was Adolf Hitler immoral? Yes, does that makes everything he wrote/painted/etc bad? Not necessarily (I haven't examined).
Do you believe people shouldn't read Mein Kampf, then?
Caravaggio killed a man. Does that make it possible to ignore the artist? My goodness... of course not!
the answer is 42 ... and the question is what is the meaning of it all. If there is a heaven and a hell then the good guy is the one who visits hell by sneaking out of heaven, and he goes just to make sure everyone's doing alright in hell. All of these ideas have things in common. Some say to live life with no regrets but isn't that the worst way to do it? The enlightened person they say must decide whether to float away or to hang around in this world that is both a cesspool and a garden and to stay means to embrace it all. The funny part is even if there is an answer, it's not necessary. Just the question existing is answer enough.
This is a great, intelligent, very interesting video. Not banal at all. People often forget that Caravaggio was a killer and H.P. Lovecraft was racist. So what?
Seventh Art history is literally studded with moot, when not exactly despicable, characters at various levels (ideological, moral, behavioral). Some examples:
...despite never officially joining the Nazi party, Leni Riefenstahl has given voice like no other filmmaker to the aesthetics of the regime; however, today I believe it is possible to appreciate works such as “The Holy Mountain” (’26), “The Witch of Santa Maria” (’32) or “Olympia” (’32) from a purely artistic point of view... Claude Autant-Lara, one of the masters of French cinema, has never hidden his anti-Semitism and his words often hurt; at the same time, one cannot remain indifferent to the refined beauty of “Douce” (’43) or the scandalous force of the anti-war message that incorporates “Thou shalt not kill” (’61)... In the past, Clint Eastwood has behaved very shamefully, in my opinion, towards his ex-wife Sondra Locke. Yet, paradoxically, “Madison County” (’95) e “Changeling” (2008) attest to an uncommon sensitivity towards female courage and sensibility.... Klaus Kinski was and remains one of the greatest German theater and film actors but... God only knows the atrocities, the cases of sexual abuse, the improprieties, the outbursts of brutality that this man has left behind!
It sounds easy and ambiguous but... the human being is incredibly contradictory and fragile! Human too human, wrote a german philosopher. If the talent is really talent then it will remain while the deceptive human factor will fall into oblivion. An affectionate embrace from La Spezia (Italy), Giordano 🎞️ 💖... P.S.: I apologize for my chaotic English 🤭
From Wikipedia: «Polanski was indicted on six counts of criminal behavior, including rape. At his arraignment, he pleaded not guilty to all charges. Many executives in Hollywood came to his defense. Gailey's attorney arranged a plea bargain in which five of the six charges would be dismissed, and Polanski accepted.
As a result of the plea bargain, Polanski pleaded guilty to the charge of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor", and was ordered to undergo 90 days of psychiatric evaluation at California Institution for Men at Chino. Upon release from prison after 42 days, Polanski agreed to the plea bargain, his penalty to be time served along with probation. However, he learned afterward that the judge, Laurence J. Rittenband, had told some friends that he was going to disregard the plea bargain and sentence Polanski to 50 years in prison: "I'll see this man never gets out of jail," he told Polanski's friend, screenwriter Howard E. Koch. Gailey's attorney confirmed the judge changed his mind after he met the judge in his chambers: Polanski was told by his attorney that "the judge could no longer be trusted" and that the judge's representations were "worthless". Polanski decided not to appear at his sentencing. He told his friend, producer Dino De Laurentiis, "I've made up my mind. I'm getting out of here.
In 1988, Gailey sued Polanski. Among other things, the suit alleged sexual assault, false imprisonment, seduction of a minor, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In 1993, Polanski agreed to settle with his victim. In August 1996, Polanski still owed her $604,416; court filings confirm that the settlement was completed by 1997 via a confidential financial arrangement. The victim, now married and going by the name Samantha Geimer, stated in a 2003 interview with Larry King that the police and media had been slow at the time of the assault to believe her account, which she attributed to the social climate of the era.[ In 2008, she stated, "I don't wish for him to be held to further punishment or consequences."»
im 4 years too late to this but yea for all those that were on epstein island do we just bin their movies now? oh it contains kevin spacey. in the bin.
Michael Bay's 13 Hours is a very good, serious movie, far away from his Transformers movies.
And the cinematographer was robbed in not getting an Oscar nomination.
So if Bay is a "bad" guy, he made at least one good movie. (I actually liked the first Transformers, not so much the sequels. Those movies are also produced by Steven Spielberg)
Of course the answer is an unqualified and uncomplicated "yes." The fact that anyone thinks otherwise is one of the (many) reasons there is such a dearth of creativity and genuinely engaging art in America (and really the entire west) since around 2013 or so.
Did you ever think of how this kind of controversy in film is an example of the auteur theory run amok? I consider myself an auteurist, but it’s amazing the extent to which Polanski is just unthinkingly assumed to be the one significant auteur of his films . Let’s take Chinatown as an example, is it not at the very same time a Robert Towne film, a Jack Nicholson film, a Faye Dunaway film, a John Huston film, a John Alonzo film, a Richarch Sylbert film, a Jerry Goldsmith film, et cetera… ad nauseum? It’s even partially a Stanley “Magnificent Ambersons” Cortez film. Of course it’s all of these. (and let me also add that if you research the life of John Huston, he turns out to be about as creepy as you can get. Among other things it appears a very good liklihood that he was the best friend of the alleged Black Dahlia murderer, George Hodell) I just confined myself to contributors whose work could be argued to be significant in Chinatown. And that makes Rosemary’s Baby an even better example. It you have pro “Me Too” sympathies it’s bad art because of Polanski. In the other camp we have Mia Farrow. If you are a critic of “Me Too”, Mia makes it a bad film.
By the way if you know of a great director who was a good person, please tell me. It also funny how many directors were out and out mega mythomaniacs. Hawks, Fellini, Bergman, Ulmer, etc. Capra for one, on the basis of his autobiography was a big liar. The list is endless.
Picasso was a total asshole to his wives. "Chinatown" is a masterpiece. "Rosemary's Baby," "The Fearless Vampire Killers," "Macbeth," "Carnage"--great stuff.
As an example, think about all the old authors that had a touch of racism or supported segregation. If we were to judge every maker of art by their current or past actions, half the world's great achievements in art would be tossed to the curb. You can indeed separate the art from the artist. But how about this, maybe torrent Polanski's movies and buy Steve McQueen's. Or if you collect Blu Rays, buy it second hand and this way you still aren't supporting the creator. Or if the creator's dead then you are just supporting their family who done nothing wrong. You can also look at it like you're also supporting an entire crew of people and not just a director/producer. 100's of people make every film, and just because one employee is a psychopath doesn't mean you can't support everyone else in the cast and crew.
Personally I support anything that has a creative voice, but will just torrent everything, and buy Blu Rays of the good.
If you admire the art and believe it has artistic, moral/philosophical, or cultural value, but you also loathe the artist...just steal it.
Yes. I am encouraging you to steal the art. Let me explain.
A good example is Orson Scott Card. I consider Ender's Game to be one of the most important science fiction novels of the 20th century. But I don't want to support Card as a person. So I utilize my local library, which is a kind of legal book-theft. Then I get to experience the art, the author gets no compensation, a library gets my business (please support your local library!), and all is right in the world.
There are also more illegal means of stealing bad people's good art. But I'm sure you don't need my guidance on that.
Fantastic essay on Polanski and other "bad" people. Would Polanski, Allen, and all those out there who were caught with sexual misconduct have been the same artists otherwise? Is the personal life of an artist a separate compartment from his creative output? I believe artistic inspiration, but most of all, artistic sensitivity and sensibility doesn't exist independently. Art is the expression of somebody as a whole individual, including what we would consider as immorality, even criminal conduct.
Anybody who would attempt to make the case for "good" art as opposed to "bad" art based on whether an artist has ever transgressed anything condemnable, would illusion oneself plain and simple.
Among the various motivations behind artistic creation are inner moral conflucts, and whether such conflicts resolved themselves through, let's say, sexual misconduct or crime, or not, is secondary to the point, from the strict artistic perspective.
One may disapprove so much of Polanski's or Allen's actions in their personal lives that he/she feels obliged to condemn their output entirely out of principle. And yet, the whole issue of the artistic merit of their work remains open to one's esthetic appreciation and criticism. More often than not, artists are tormented souls and whether we like it or not, their life is often undissociable from scandal. Oscar Wilde, Verlaine, Rimbaud, Villon, even Da Vinci, have led personal lives that resulted in controversies, personal injuries, criminal pursuits, etc.
My personal view has long been: that the one who never sinned tgrow the first stone. Next: let's talk about the merits of their art !
And it so happens that too many people have missed the merits of Polanski's movies since he left America, out of concern for the director's judiciary condemnation. I couldn't care less. If I knew Polanski's victim (s?) personally, it mught be different, but I won't feint concern if the movies are as good as they have been in many cases. He is a great director, and nothing he's done ever changed that. From his adaptation of 'Tess', to 'Venus in Fur', Le Locataire to 'The Pianist' even a minor fantastic thriller such as The Ninth Door, Polanski's cinema has brought light in my life and I admire his films for their undeniable qualities.
Late to this discussion, but I agree with much of what you've said deepfocuslens.
There is no excusing what we know of the poor judgment that Polanski displayed
at Jack Nicholson's home on that evening, more than likely under the influence of
alcohol and/or drugs.
I submit that NONE of us are as bad as our worst day, or by way of perception, as
good as our best.
If you go beyond snap judgment, and look at a bigger pattern of trauma in his life,
he was a child of the holocaust, as well as his pregnant wife being murdered by the
Manson family just a few years prior to the assault.
Again, not excusing what he did, simply attempting to better understand where he
was as a human being at this time in life.
I feel sorry for him, and the fact that the damage he experienced manifest itself by
damaging another.
As a filmmaker, he displayed a very strong empathy with, and sensitivity to, the
female experience in such films as Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby, and Tess.
There are many others listed on this thread that have displayed a 'pattern' of
despicable behavior such as Woody Allen, but for some reason they have never been
focused on and persecuted anywhere near as harshly as Polanski due to his worst day.
It is well documented that the victim herself has long since forgiven him.
I feel that at very least, he should simply be left alone at this point.
I personally admire his art, and would never wish to be judged solely by my darkest
known act in life.
I will continue to celebrate the work, if not the flawed human that created it.
Thanks for the topic and I will continue to support your channel.
Well...
Think about all the privately cruel people, that we vaguely know about, or never find out about?
Or, the racists, of varying degrees, to whom too many white women; mean little, to nothing, as far as any personal offense is concerned. At the end of the day; it's a personal choice, whether the person could/should, cancel the artist. So, for that woman who contacted you; to want to unilaterally impose her notions on others; is really sort of idiotic, if not perverse.
Great video! I think "bad" people can make good art. Bad people can be talented in a lot of ways. I think I wouldn't have a problem watching some despicable person's film, but that's only because I can't see or hear the actual artist making the product. Your video made me think of the band Lostprophets and its lead singer Ian Watkins. The music is fine, but hearing that guy sing just makes me feel disgusted because of what he did outside of his art making. Hence, I'll never listen to that music ever again even though the music itself is totally innocent of any crime. Artists can get away with a lot, but there are limits.
Chinatown is one of my favorite movies. +
I agree that one can applaud the art and dislike the artist. I, for one, refuse to purchase certain music from questionable characters (I do hear them for free) and I have only captured Polanski on Cable TV. It's my little protest. However, I do believe that an artist's behavior can influence one's enjoyment of their art. I once caught myself physically trying not to laugh at ANTZ when Woody Allen's cartoon character did something. Ridiculous, maybe, but the annoying back story of the artist was there, interfering with my enjoyment of the art.
I also get frustrated with the notion that it's been 40 years and we should let it go. We didn't exile Polanski, he fled. It was a self imposed exile and if he had decided to face the music, this would have been over long ago. (as to someone's comment below that he was threatened with 50 years, I highly, highly, highly doubt it. Anyway, yes, he is a talent but I have zero sympathies.
Really enjoyed this subject.In other forms of art there have been many instances where the artist wasn't a very nice person,such as Richard Wagner who was not only morally very dubious but was a very extreme anti-semite who contributed towards the crazy ideas of Hitler,but who did write some very important music.In a distortion of another composer,the Nazis abused "Moonlight Sonata" by Beethoven by using the name as the codeword for the worst blitz inflicted on Coventry in WW2
Your counter example using Michael Bay is brilliant. I’m going to have to use that.
I agree. I put a big Rosemary's Baby poster on my wall before finding this out. 😂 Pulp Fiction is worshipped and Harvey Weinstein was the producer. If you want to take it that far, could argue if a special effects/costume design person is accused, they've contributed to the picture, not to the extent of the actors and directors, but nevertheless they've worked on the film. And when putting a poster on a wall, I would like to think people do so for the film rather than an individual. Interesting topic and everybody entitled to opinion but I believe I make a decent argument on it.
A great example of this now is Joss Whedon. Apparently, his bad treatment of people was rampant, yet I would never discount the value of Buffy the Vampire Slayer series.
I struggled regarding I felt about this sort of topic when it all came out.
I as a person don’t let myself get hung up by people’s beliefs or crimes versus Art or business. If I went around and took a hard stance on things like this I couldn’t buy or be entertained by anyone or anything. I’m sad when Bill Cosby or Roman Polanski but their work or art I’ll watch