Separating Art from the Artist? Not today... (2018 - Allen, Spacey, Franco etc. edition)

[polishgenius]

25 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Half of Myskin and winterfell is burnings argument has to do with Dylan not being the right type of victim.

I honestly think you're misreading them there. But then I'm not really sure what you think they'd mean by 'right type' in this context.


 

 

30 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Court records also indicate that multiple people, some unrelated to the family, observed highly unusual behavior and focus from Allen towards Dylan over a period of time, all of which began before his grooming and relationship (it's really disgusting to identify it as such and not as abuse) of Soon yi was discovered.

I can't find it now, but wasn't there something about Farrow having already instructed her babysitters never to leave Dylan alone with Allen? And the judge in the custody case decided that even if they can't prove the incident in question, "the credible testimony of Ms. Farrow, Dr. Coates, Dr. Leventhal and Mr. Allen does, however, prove that Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her": in other words, even if he didn't do what she accused him of doing that day, there was plenty of reason to believe that his behaviour to her was just wrong.
Also the coaching theory that still gets floated was presented by an investigative team that never bothered to talk to Dylan herself, that was criticised by the judge and by others in the field for inappropriate modes of questioning for what their job was and who later destroyed all their notes. Yeah, that's not suspicious at all. I have no idea why that theory still ever gets airtime.

[Dr. Pepper]

4 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I honestly think you're misreading them there. But then I'm not really sure what you think they'd mean by 'right type' in this context.


 

 

I can't find it now, but wasn't there something about Farrow having already instructed her babysitters never to leave Dylan alone with Allen? And the judge in the custody case decided that even if they can't prove the incident in question, "the credible testimony of Ms. Farrow, Dr. Coates, Dr. Leventhal and Mr. Allen does, however, prove that Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her": in other words, even if he didn't do what she accused him of doing that day, there was plenty of reason to believe that his behaviour to her was just wrong.
Also the coaching theory that still gets floated was presented by an investigative team that never bothered to talk to Dylan herself, that was criticised by the judge and by others in the field for inappropriate modes of questioning for what their job was and who later destroyed all their notes. Yeah, that's not suspicious at all. I have no idea why that theory still ever gets airtime.

Yes, that's the gist of it.  The Daily Beast has a pretty good rundown on the timeline and what was presented in the court case and how early the concerns with Allen's behavior toward Dylan started.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-shocking-custody-case-court-documents-that-shed-light-on-the-dylan-farrow-woody-allen-saga

Some of the other concerning aspects were that Mia hired on therapists who were also seeing Allen at the time so there was a clear conflict of interest.  Those therapists were ones who lost their notes and then refused to testify in court.  But an important part is that there were a lot of people who were witness to the inappropriate behavior and these are commonly ignored in favor of selling Woody's story that Dylan was the victim of implanted memories.  Which is mind boggling considering this comes from the dude who married Dylan's sister, his partner's daughter and he now openly admits to having taken on a paternal role for Soon-yi and groomed her by using that role to make her feel special.  

[Mladen]

3 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I can have flexible morals with certain things, but I seem to be unique in understanding that things like rape and child molestation are particularly heinous crimes.  I couldn't knowingly support a rapist or child molester and if I did consume some of their art unknowingly, I simply couldn't be such a shitbag that I'd excuse it with something lame like "but I really liked it!"  No, I don't separate rapist artists from their art.  There is plenty of other art to enjoy.

Please, let we not do this. There is no need to claim higher moral ground when in fact, none here had claimed otherwise. The thing is that, unlike you, who have made the judgement, many others haven't. Or are simply unable to do so. That doesn't make them "champions of rape and child molestation". That said, while Allen is particularly gifted writer and director, he never "spoke to me" as many others have. So, it is not about "liking". The other question is whether we can ever be certain with Allen to make that call. I am not sure about that.

[Dr. Pepper]

14 minutes ago, Risto said:

Please, let we not do this. There is no need to claim higher moral ground when in fact, none here had claimed otherwise. The thing is that, unlike you, who have made the judgement, many others haven't. Or are simply unable to do so. That doesn't make them "champions of rape and child molestation". That said, while Allen is particularly gifted writer and director, he never "spoke to me" as many others have. So, it is not about "liking". The other question is whether we can ever be certain with Allen to make that call. I am not sure about that.

If you didn't want to do this then why did you create the thread.  You clearly have decided that the art is too important to separate from the artist and are more than willing to support an artist who is a rapist or child molester. If that's not the way you want to be perceived, then don't be that way.  I know that I have the moral high ground here.  There's no question about it.  I understand completely that things like rape are heinous acts.  

[Mladen]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

If you didn't want to do this then why did you create the thread.  You clearly have decided that the art is too important to separate from the artist and are more than willing to support an artist who is a rapist or child molester. If that's not the way you want to be perceived, then don't be that way.  I know that I have the moral high ground here.  There's no question about it.  I understand completely that things like rape are heinous acts.  

First, there is a number of articles both for and against the idea of separation. I personally wouldn't cry if tomorrow Polanski ends up on an electric chair, but I won't lie, "The Pianist", so far the only thing I have watched by Polanski, was indeed something that I had found truly amazing piece of art. With Allen, as we have said numerous times, we can't make an informed conclusion about what happened, and while we all sympathize with Dylan Farrow. the fact remains that it would be difficult to so easily claim that we know the truth.

As for art. I don't think it is more important. But I do think it is a reasonable debate to have. Yes, we will all draw line with Polanski and when the news of Brando, Spacey arrived, it is natural to feel confused and to now know how to think. Many spent entire lives admiring them. Asking people how they positioned themselves after lifelong admiration of someone's work. Furthermore, movies are product of collaboration of many people. 

I do acknowledge that I made a mistake with this. I had no idea we would stipulate it to this. Lastly, I have to quote Dowager Countess of Grantham...

https://cosmopolitewannabe.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/tumblr_nv1cbbtecb1qzpabso2_4001.gif

 

[Dr. Pepper]

1 minute ago, Risto said:

First, there is a number of articles both for and against the idea of separation. I personally wouldn't cry if tomorrow Polanski ends up on an electric chair, but I won't lie, "The Pianist", so far the only thing I have watched by Polanski, was indeed something that I had found truly amazing piece of art. With Allen, as we have said numerous times, we can't make an informed conclusion about what happened, and while we all sympathize with Dylan Farrow. the fact remains that it would be difficult to so easily claim that we know the truth.

As for art. I don't think it is more important. But I do think it is a reasonable debate to have. Yes, we will all draw line with Polanski and when the news of Brando, Spacey arrived, it is natural to feel confused and to now know how to think. Many spent entire lives admiring them. Asking people how they positioned themselves after lifelong admiration of someone's work. Furthermore, movies are product of collaboration of many people. 

I do acknowledge that I made a mistake with this. I had no idea we would stipulate it to this. Lastly, I have to quote Dowager Countess of Grantham...

https://cosmopolitewannabe.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/tumblr_nv1cbbtecb1qzpabso2_4001.gif

 

Sure, it's one thing to consume the art without knowing your supporting a rapist.  You can't unview something.  But the way you behave and think about it after something terrible has been revealed determines who you are and how you approach things.  

As for Dylan Farrow...sure, the easy way out is to say you can't know definitively and all those witnesses to inappropriate behavior don't matter and Allen's own admission of grooming his stepdaughter doesn't matter because we weren't there so can't know, but you can argue that for anything.  It's the cowards away out and so you don't have to make a decision.

There are some shitbag artists who I don't care when I find out that they are shitbags or rapists or child molesters.  I didn't care for their art anyway so no longer supporting them is no big loss.  Then there are some where I was immensely fond of their art and it's actually difficult or emotional to come to terms with the fact that I simply can't support them anymore because doing so means supporting who they are and what they've done.  

Yes, I know many people are involved in producing a film.  It's how people like Weinstein, Allen or Polanski are protected for all these years.  Too many claim that what they do is too important for us to worry about the things they've done and so everyone turns a blind eye and continues on as though nothing happened.  You see how simple it is to make all that stop and go away when people start believing their victims or at least taking the claims seriously and acknowledging that rape is bad.

As for it being cold up here, nope.  You'd be surprised how many people, at the very least, understand that rape and child abuse are wrong.  

[polishgenius]

DP, what's your take on appreciating the art, despite the artist? Because you're using the word 'support' a lot, and that's certainly an important part of the discussion, but I think what people are also talking about when they say 'separate art from artist' is not just the practical aspect of giving money to the perpetrator but on the emotional connection to the art and whether it affects their enjoyment. Like, in many cases people are talking about works they already own. Or that they can pirate. Or instances where the perpetrator is dead (which in some cases, such as Klaus Kinski, means the money if you do buy it is going to the victim instead).
And I'm not sure if you are meaning support just financially, or saying that continuing to connect with such a work after finding things out is a form of moral support (even if, say, you never discuss it in ways that would encourage someone to buy it themselves).

 

[Mladen]

23 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Sure, it's one thing to consume the art without knowing your supporting a rapist.  You can't unview something.  But the way you behave and think about it after something terrible has been revealed determines who you are and how you approach things.  

As for Dylan Farrow...sure, the easy way out is to say you can't know definitively and all those witnesses to inappropriate behavior don't matter and Allen's own admission of grooming his stepdaughter doesn't matter because we weren't there so can't know, but you can argue that for anything.  It's the cowards away out and so you don't have to make a decision.

I would agree that how we approach things determine who we are, but I simply can't say that everything is so black and white. I understand your position but you also have to understand ours. It isn't coward's way out as, I feel, many of us have no THAT strong connection to Allen. Even our support to Allen, is flimsy at least. Perhaps it is because I live in Serbia and my "support" is truly nonexistant. Most of the small movies, I can't even watch in cinemas, buying DVD and transcontinental delivery is not very lucrative. So, there is a bit of separation for me when it comes to what, you Americans, would call "support" as I have no active role in it. Heck, I even stopped writing reviews for IMDb.

36 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Then there are some where I was immensely fond of their art and it's actually difficult or emotional to come to terms with the fact that I simply can't support them anymore because doing so means supporting who they are and what they've done.  

And you can understand how some of us feel. Make no mistake, if I am in a jury that is to determine the fate of Allen or Polanski and I have all the evidence I need of their guilt, their art would have no impact on me. 

41 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Yes, I know many people are involved in producing a film.  It's how people like Weinstein, Allen or Polanski are protected for all these years.  Too many claim that what they do is too important for us to worry about the things they've done and so everyone turns a blind eye and continues on as though nothing happened.  You see how simple it is to make all that stop and go away when people start believing their victims or at least taking the claims seriously and acknowledging that rape is bad

Regarding Weinstein, do you know that I more hate the fact that everyone is still playing the same game he invented in 1999? His impact on Hollywood hasn't been diminished, because they are all still playing the game he created for them. That is one of the reasons I hate Awards season. But I won't lie, it also represent the fun part of it.

46 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

As for it being cold up here, nope.  You'd be surprised how many people, at the very least, understand that rape and child abuse are wrong. 

I really don't believe anyone here actually said they were supporting rapists. 

[Dr. Pepper]

15 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

DP, what's your take on appreciating the art, despite the artist? Because you're using the word 'support' a lot, and that's certainly an important part of the discussion, but I think what people are also talking about when they say 'separate art from artist' is not just the practical aspect of giving money to the perpetrator but on the emotional connection to the art and whether it affects their enjoyment. Like, in many cases people are talking about works they already own. Or that they can pirate. Or instances where the perpetrator is dead (which in some cases, such as Klaus Kinski, means the money if you do buy it is going to the victim instead).
And I'm not sure if you are meaning support just financially, or saying that continuing to connect with such a work after finding things out is a form of moral support (even if, say, you never discuss it in ways that would encourage someone to buy it themselves).

 

That seems like a different conversation than what led to this threads resurrection.  The artists being discussed here are ones who are still alive and who have been eagerly supported and promoted by the community despite what they've done.  In Roman Polanski's case, he's freely admitted to what he's done, but his behavior was excused (some of those excuses got ridiculous like that he was a victim of the Holocaust or that his wife and unborn child were murdered and so he couldn't help but rape a 13 year old) because his future art was supposedly so valuable.  In this, continued viewing of their product does constitute supporting them.  It's an entire culture that has been designed so as to make sure these terrible men have this platform that purposely keeps them in the public eye.  People like Polanski or Allen could have easily gone off to have ordinary lives outside of the public eye.  Their victims have pointed out that it's the media attention that accompanies them that has been so incredibly hurtful to their wellbeing.  Yet they stayed in the public eye because producers, showrunners, and the audience allowed it and supported them in that. 

Yes, I think continuing to actively connect with a work of art when the artist is still alive is a form of support. 

As for dead artists, that seems a different thing entirely, imo.  

[Dr. Pepper]

13 minutes ago, Risto said:

That is one of the reasons I hate Awards season.

I can not take you seriously when you are this dishonest.  You, without fail, always start the awards threads and then seem to update them in real time.  That's not a sign of someone who hates awards seasons.

[Mladen]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I can not take you seriously when you are this dishonest.  You, without fail, always start the awards threads and then seem to update them in real time.  That's not a sign of someone who hates awards seasons.

Well, I also said that is also a great fun  I like Awards season, but the politics behind it, the politics Weinstein created with "Shakespeare in Love" in 1999 is something I truly hate. It is all about narrative, not the best movie/performance.

And I start them, because that is kinda my thing. Others let me do it  

[polishgenius]

32 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

That seems like a different conversation than what led to this threads resurrection. 

Possibly, but I think it's still an intrinsic part of the conversation people are having. Like drawckabi's entire post or when Risto says things like this:

11 hours ago, Risto said:

I watched "The Pianist" way back when, at the time fully unaware of the Polanski's case, and it remains, for me, something that deeply impacted me and my love for movies.

I don't think they're talking about giving money to the artist, or supporting them, but simply about how the actions of the artist affect how they percieve the art. I could be wrong, but I think that there are two conversations going on here- the practical, moral one and the more abstract, art-critic one.

 

32 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Yes, I think continuing to actively connect with a work of art when the artist is still alive is a form of support. 

Me too, but what I'm wondering is where the line on 'active' is. Like, I own DVDs of Usual Suspects and LA Confidential. I love those films. I don't know if I'm going to love them the same anyway (well, with Usual Suspects that was already the case coz Bryan Singer ) but is it active support to pull them out again and watch them? I don't think so, even though I haven't yet.
Or if I pirate Baby Driver for example which I want to see but Kevin Spacey has put me off buying. Though moral questions about the pirating of the work of everyone on that film who isn't Kevin Spacey, most of whom I presume didn't know about his behaviour beforehand, come into play there too.

 

32 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

As for dead artists, that seems a different thing entirely, imo.  

Me too, but that's where that emotional thing comes into it. I might practically have decided that I'm fine with watching more Klaus Kinski films - I saw Fitzcarraldo before I knew about what he did and thought it was wonderful- but I never have yet- nor rewatched Fitzcarraldo- because I'm fairly sure I'm going to struggle to separate the character he's playing from the monster I know he was now.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I think it matters whether it's a grey area or if it's black and white. If the accused artist is clearly guilty of the transgression then I think it's wrong to appreciate the art while despising the artist. If the accusations go unproven and there's a giant grey area around the situation then I think it's fine if someone wants to appreciate the art while despising the artist, albeit on a case by case situation. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

36 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think it matters whether it's a grey area or if it's black and white. If the accused artist is clearly guilty of the transgression then I think it's wrong to appreciate the art while despising the artist. If the accusations go unproven and there's a giant grey area around the situation then I think it's fine if someone wants to appreciate the art while despising the artist, albeit on a case by case situation. 

Is this a universal statement or does it only apply to artists that are alive?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is this a universal statement or does it only apply to artists that are alive?

Depends I guess, that's why I said I'd take it case by case. Who did you have in mind? 

[Annara Snow]

OK, here is a question for everyone that has a very strict view on this issue that art should not be separated from the artist:

Where exactly do we draw the line - i.e. when is a work seen as "tainted" by association with a person who has since been revealed to be guilty of a serious crime? Is it only if it's the director or writer, or the main star? Or just one of the stars? Producer? A supporting actor? A producer? A stunt coordinator who abused a young actress who played the main star's daughter on the set? (see: True Lies) Is the work seen as contaminated by that one person only if they were committing the crime during/in the course of making the movie/TV show, or if they did it subsequently? If hundreds of other people were involved in the work (which is usually the case with films and TV shows - it's a collaborative effort), should those works all be thrown into garbage because of one person - even if hundreds of other people who worked on it weren't involved in their crimes, and maybe some of them were the victims? Should the work be discarded only if the perpetrator's personality and opinions are reflected in the work (as with Woody Allen's films), or is it enough that they were involved in any way?

For instance: are all the movies produced by Harvey Weinstein on the "do not watch!" list because of him? Is American Beauty now on the garbage heap due to Spacey? What about L.A. Confidential, where he wasn't the main star? What about Se7en, where he has little screentime but a major role as the main villain? 

What about Lost Highway? Robert Blake was not one of the main stars in that film, he appears in just one scene (under heavy makeup), but it's a very memorable scene. It was years before he was accused and tried for his wife's murder. Does the possibility of him being a murderer make Lost Highway automatically something I should not rewatch? In my opinion, that would be pretty ridiculous. And in terms of "do I feel uncomfortable watching it": in this case, no. I would feel incredibly uncomfortable if I had to watch The Cosby Show now and see Bill Cosby playing a lovable family man - but I feel absolutely no discomfort seeing Robert Blake playing the supporting role of an ultra-creepy person in a movie about a guy who may or may not have murdered his wife. In fact, it kind of makes his role all the more fitting. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Depends I guess, that's why I said I'd take it case by case. Who did you have in mind? 

Well, Wagner came to mind.  He was a pretty rabid anti-semite.  Should fight of the Ring cycle be banned?

[Dr. Pepper]

4 hours ago, polishgenius said:

Possibly, but I think it's still an intrinsic part of the conversation people are having. Like drawckabi's entire post or when Risto says things like this:

I don't think they're talking about giving money to the artist, or supporting them, but simply about how the actions of the artist affect how they percieve the art. I could be wrong, but I think that there are two conversations going on here- the practical, moral one and the more abstract, art-critic one.

 

Me too, but what I'm wondering is where the line on 'active' is. Like, I own DVDs of Usual Suspects and LA Confidential. I love those films. I don't know if I'm going to love them the same anyway (well, with Usual Suspects that was already the case coz Bryan Singer ) but is it active support to pull them out again and watch them? I don't think so, even though I haven't yet.
Or if I pirate Baby Driver for example which I want to see but Kevin Spacey has put me off buying. Though moral questions about the pirating of the work of everyone on that film who isn't Kevin Spacey, most of whom I presume didn't know about his behaviour beforehand, come into play there too.

 

Me too, but that's where that emotional thing comes into it. I might practically have decided that I'm fine with watching more Klaus Kinski films - I saw Fitzcarraldo before I knew about what he did and thought it was wonderful- but I never have yet- nor rewatched Fitzcarraldo- because I'm fairly sure I'm going to struggle to separate the character he's playing from the monster I know he was now.

 

Some of this depends.  For example, it could be significantly less harmful to purchase a ticket for a film made by a rapist, watch it, and then never talk about it after or do anything to promote it in any way than it would be to pirate a film made by a rapist and then go online and tell everyone who can read how great the film is and that they absolutely have to see it.  

We could go on forever with your silly little game of whataboutism where you present ridiculous little scenarios pretending that you're really curious about the morality of each choice or that you care any bit about the victims that might continue to be harmed.  None of this is particularly difficult for a thinking adult.  If you find yourself feeling morally conflicted or squeed out, then you probably shouldn't consume the art.  

And remember this is about high profile artists.  The platform these people are given can serve to harm their victims.  Despite understanding that sex crimes are particularly heinous, you might be surprised to discover that I don't think people who committed these acts need to be cast out of society to live under bridges, not have work, and not pursue their own legal interests.  But that doesn't mean they have the right to a lifestyle that would keep their name and image constantly in the face of their victims.  There was a thread in genchat a while back about a potential professional baseball player who had molested a child, served his time and wanted to play pro.  Yet there were roadblocks because no one was quite sure if it was appropriate for a convicted molester to be in a position where his victim would constantly be confronted with his name and image.  If I recall, a significant number of boarders agreed that he didn't have a right to a pro baseball career.  

People like Polanski should have never been given the platform he had once his crimes became known.  He could have fucked off to France and made films for worker safety or some shit.  Been a film teacher at a small university.  But instead the public repeatedly told his victim that she mattered so little that they'd repeatedly elevate her rapist such that his name and image would constantly be projected into her living room.  It's a black and white issue here.  

[polishgenius]

6 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

We could go on forever with your silly little game of whataboutism where you present ridiculous little scenarios pretending that you're really curious about the morality of each choice or that you care any bit about the victims that might continue to be harmed.  None of this is particularly difficult for a thinking adult.  If you find yourself feeling morally conflicted or squeed out, then you probably shouldn't consume the art.  

For fuck's sake Pepper I'm genuinely trying to engage with you coz I feel it never hurts to get another view and even if I don't like you I genuinely respect your moral stands. I'm quite okay with you going 'work it through for yourself I'm not your sounding board' but why do you have this bone-deep urge to fucking insult and make things up about everyone who doesn't think exactly as you do? What fucking whataboutism, how did you come to the impression that I'm trying to discredit your position here? Where is there even the slightest hint that I don't care about the victims?