Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2018 0:13:01 GMT
Are there any actors/actresses/filmmakers in the past or present where it's virtually impossible for you to enjoy their work because of their celebrity, politics, off-camera antics, etc., even though they may be very well respected or critically acclaimed?
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Aug 30, 2018 0:15:18 GMT
Nope.
|
|
|
Post by thomasjerome on Aug 30, 2018 0:17:12 GMT
Nope.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 30, 2018 0:19:13 GMT
Nope.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Aug 30, 2018 0:25:01 GMT
I’ll say this. It’s tough for me when the entire intention is to blur the line between performer and character (Think Louis CK for example), so the shitty things they do make that portrait feel very disingenuous and sinister.
But for the most part, even if the people behind it are shitty, I’m willing to push that aside because it has no bearing on the art. Fish put it best. You don’t need to appreciate Kevin Spacey to appreciate his work or his films, and I’ll still pop Baby Driver in and have a blast with it.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 30, 2018 0:34:21 GMT
It generally doesn't bother me unless the art/business has given them a platform with which to hurt or victimize people. Someone like Kevin Spacey or Louis C.K., who used film sets and comedy clubs as venues with which to hurt people, come off as much more problematic. I can generally watch an older movie with them in it and it tends not to bother me (although things take on a different sort of context; American Beauty, for instance, is far skeevier now that we know about Spacey's indiscretions), but seeing anything they do after things come to light do tend to bother me a bit more, because at that point, you are actively giving them opportunities and platforms while being keenly aware that whatever issues arose in the first place may not have been given proper credence.
I can watch L.A. Confidential and Se7en and not bat an eye. But I wouldn't blame someone if they couldn't do it.
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Aug 30, 2018 0:51:34 GMT
I can separate, but sometimes it's a little messy. For one instance, I love some of Polanski's work despite the fact he's a child abuser. However, when he tackled sexual abuse and made it the center theme of Death and the Maiden, it was really tough to watch. I don't think I have the guts to watch again a movie about a rape surviver made by a known rapist. It just doesn't add up. I have no problem with Rosemary's Baby (one of the all-time great horror movies) or Chinatown, but I think Death and the Maiden (and to some extention, Repulsion as well) is too much because it bears way too much resemblance with the author's problematic real life. As stephen said above, watching Spacey seduce an underage in American Beauty can nowadays seem very cringe-worth for the same reason.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 30, 2018 0:55:28 GMT
Not a problem for me at all ever.
I actually think people who can't do it or worse refuse to do it are in an odd way really engaging in a form of dangerous celebrity worship in a way - the artist themselves becomes the issue to be judged outside the Art (not the creation itself).
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Aug 30, 2018 1:17:16 GMT
If we were to take away all the art by the creeps throughout history, we'd have sparse film selections and empty museums.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Aug 30, 2018 2:33:28 GMT
None that I can think of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2018 10:57:10 GMT
None that I can think of. Mel Gibson? He's my only real answer. The blatant racism, misogyny, anti-Semitism, and homophobia paired with the savage violence he puts onscreen are beyond revolting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2018 15:54:11 GMT
I'd also have to add Kirk Douglas... I just can't look past the alleged brutal rape of teenage Natalie Wood. I hope that after Douglas dies, Natasha will share what she knows.
|
|
LaraQ
Badass
English Rose
Posts: 2,284
Likes: 2,819
|
Post by LaraQ on Aug 30, 2018 16:08:17 GMT
I`m guessing the majority of people on here who say they CAN separate the art from the artist are men.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 1,386
|
Post by Film Socialism on Aug 30, 2018 16:47:45 GMT
i have 0 reason to
i already don't care much about acting, so actors who are scumbags doesn't make much of an impact there, but yeah directors being assholes can certainly impact their art.
consider nate parker, who probably raped a girl in the 90s and, if not, harassed her about going to the authorities about it, and got his friend who was convicted of rape to do his screenplay for Birth of a Nation. in that movie, it's a biopic with a fictitious scene where nat turner (played BY nate parker) saves a woman from rape and kills her rapist, which like, when it's shit like that i have no idea how you can not be impacted by his personal life.
or consider, for example, when there was that abusive footage from A Dog's Life or whatever. would knowing that something sketch went on behind the scenes, in a movie that's supposedly about loving dogs, not fuck w your ability to enjoy it? is polanski using sexual assault as a plot device for so many of his films not somewhat off-putting? is tarantino saying Kill Bill is a feminist film about a successful independent woman, while he treats uma thurman like actual shit after he literally injures her and endangers her further, not kind of going to impact how one views that film? is griffith's Intolerance somewhat diluted in its message because griffith made a KKK propaganda film before it and said multiple white nationalist things after it? does knowing that Fitzcarraldo's major feat of pushing the boat over the mountain was done by slave labor that herzog used not somewhat alter how you see the picture? does the Last Tango butter scene, considering it was live, recorded, literal rape, not kinda change how you might see the scene and also the movie? how about the actresses of Blue is the Warmest Color repeatedly saying how they hated their experiences on set and would never work with the director again change how you see the film's sexuality and ideas about sex? lars von trier abusing bjork in Dancer in the Dark? ooh or how about obvious shit like Manhattan being about, largely, an underage romance, around the time allen was writing about hooking up with teenagers all of the time? like does none of this shit impact your ability to see these films at all? i would hate to be so narrow-minded
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 1,386
|
Post by Film Socialism on Aug 30, 2018 16:48:56 GMT
If we were to take away all the art by the creeps throughout history, we'd have sparse film selections and empty museums. this is extremely poor justification for most things and nobody has talked about blatant censorship of art so
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Aug 30, 2018 17:08:03 GMT
If we were to take away all the art by the creeps throughout history, we'd have sparse film selections and empty museums. this is extremely poor justification for most things and nobody has talked about blatant censorship of art so a) I didn't call for censorship nor called it censorship. b) It was justified being that I was pointing out that a lot of great art throughout history was done so by not-so-nice people. So to be offended by an artist's real life to the point where you cannot appreciate the work they put forth is asinine. Hell, the NFL is full of great players who are absolute garbage people. I can appreciate their talents on the field while also think they are trash people at the same time. Appreciation of work/art =/= endorsement of person.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2018 17:16:15 GMT
For sure. It doesn't happen too often, but if I personally feel there is a great amount of "dishonesty" (maybe not the perfect word for what I mean) in a movie, I'm always turned off it to some extent - and the extent totally depends on the situation and how much it rubs me the wrong way.
I think the ones Catrician listed are good examples of this concept going beyond "Oh, that guy was a dick, his movies must suck", which I think pretty much anyone will agree is dumb.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Aug 30, 2018 17:45:57 GMT
We use real life to elevate art all the time, talking about how a subject is "timely" for its time or probing into how a director's film is informed by their own experiences to the point where we use calling a film so-and-so's most "personal" as its own commendation. So I find it silly this topic only comes up in regard to problematic artists, where taking outside-the-frame context into consideration suddenly makes one feel queasy instead of more impressed.
I do think one of the underlying issues regarding this topic is how one views films, whether it be as a crafted work or an expression of the artist themselves. Because sure, I can acknowledge that Roman Polanski is a masterful craftsman, but that doesn't mean his rape case is off-limits when a good portion of his films make statements regarding sexual assault, just like I wouldn't ignore his experiences during World War II when discussing The Pianist. Hell, I'll also tell you Leni Riefenstahl had a great eye and with Triumph of the Will and Olympia she did wonders for influencing the craft of cinema, but that doesn't excuse the fact those films were part of the Nazi propaganda machine and were above all else political statements reinforcing Aryan superiority.
|
|
wattsnew
Full Member
Posts: 712
Likes: 346
|
Post by wattsnew on Aug 30, 2018 17:49:09 GMT
I`m guessing the majority of people on here who say they CAN separate the art from the artist are men. Well, yeah. My question is: how can you NOT separate the art from the artist when they are so intrinsically intertwined? This article about the recent "Nannette" has some really good points about the topic. uproxx.com/tv/comedy-after-hannah-gadsby-nanette/2/
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 30, 2018 17:49:34 GMT
i have 0 reason to i already don't care much about acting, so actors who are scumbags doesn't make much of an impact there, but yeah directors being assholes can certainly impact their art. consider nate parker, who probably raped a girl in the 90s and, if not, harassed her about going to the authorities about it, and got his friend who was convicted of rape to do his screenplay for Birth of a Nation. in that movie, it's a biopic with a fictitious scene where nat turner (played BY nate parker) saves a woman from rape and kills her rapist, which like, when it's shit like that i have no idea how you can not be impacted by his personal life. or consider, for example, when there was that abusive footage from A Dog's Life or whatever. would knowing that something sketch went on behind the scenes, in a movie that's supposedly about loving dogs, not fuck w your ability to enjoy it? is polanski using sexual assault as a plot device for so many of his films not somewhat off-putting? is tarantino saying Kill Bill is a feminist film about a successful independent woman, while he treats uma thurman like actual shit after he literally injures her and endangers her further, not kind of going to impact how one views that film? is griffith's Intolerance somewhat diluted in its message because griffith made a KKK propaganda film before it and said multiple white nationalist things after it? does knowing that Fitzcarraldo's major feat of pushing the boat over the mountain was done by slave labor that herzog used not somewhat alter how you see the picture? does the Last Tango butter scene, considering it was live, recorded, literal rape, not kinda change how you might see the scene and also the movie? how about the actresses of Blue is the Warmest Color repeatedly saying how they hated their experiences on set and would never work with the director again change how you see the film's sexuality and ideas about sex? lars von trier abusing bjork in Dancer in the Dark? ooh or how about obvious shit like Manhattan being about, largely, an underage romance, around the time allen was writing about hooking up with teenagers all of the time? like does none of this shit impact your ability to see these films at all? i would hate to be so narrow-mindedWell, you must separate. You don't have to exclude. For example, I consider Roman Polanski a feminist filmmaker - so his moral failings were transcended in his Art - if I didn't feel that way then what would his personal life matter, he either is a feminist filmmaker or he's not, in his Art. I can discuss that without bringing his case up at all or I can prove it in correlation with his case. I consider Herzog's use of slave labor an illustration of the great madness in his Art but what difference does it make who is pushing the boat we can discuss slave labor in his film but we wouldn't be if the scene itself wasn't spectacular - we'd be having a different discussion - ie he killed all those people for a shitty scene................and I consider the Last Tango scene "rape" scene to be a lie - I don't doubt that she felt abused and used by a director but "rape" in the criminal sense didn't occur so now we're fictionalizing the artists behavior as a way to assess the Art? My point there is on film the scenes or themes either work or they don't. It's ok too, Tyler's post was "are there any artists for you that make it hard to enjoy their work" and everyone is different and has to make that call for themselves based on what they know but as I did above we both know the same thing and can assess differently - as I said in my post it's never an issue for me to separate. As long as we keep in mind the playing fields across the viewer too. For example : I think Gaspar Noe makes sick twisted films and probably lives a sick twisted life, but I don't know that, I only know the Art.........I don't define his Art by reading everything about him and then reconsidering all of his work because of what I would come to know about him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2018 18:18:57 GMT
I like what I've seen from Polanski's body of work a good deal - Rosemary's Baby is one of my favorite horror films - but calling him a "feminist filmmaker" is a stretch, you know, all things considered.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 30, 2018 18:37:45 GMT
I like what I've seen from Polanski's body of work a good deal - Rosemary's Baby is one of my favorite horror films - but calling him a "feminist filmmaker" is a stretch, you know, all things considered. I'd say it isn't a stretch at all actually. It's a contradiction, yes, but again if you just look at the films he's made he has a continuous theme - not a continuous "incident" but a theme : Women, heroic and often virtuous, crushed by cruel often rich men. That in some ways encapsulates a theme in several of his masterpieces - Chinatown, Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby, (arguably) The woman we never see in The Tenant where HE assumes the female role (how much more clear can this be?), and of course most majorly his feminist masterpiece Tess. It even appears in lesser but still great films - Death and The Maiden etc. He obviously is a feminist filmmaker, certainly the most feminist of his peers in 1965-1990 ....................and he is a rapist. That is a contradiction but its also the truth. It isn't a stretch at all to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2018 18:54:23 GMT
I like what I've seen from Polanski's body of work a good deal - Rosemary's Baby is one of my favorite horror films - but calling him a "feminist filmmaker" is a stretch, you know, all things considered. I'd say it isn't a stretch at all actually. It's a contradiction, yes, but again if you just look at the films he's made he has a continuous theme - not a continuous "incident" but a theme : Women, heroic and often virtuous, crushed by cruel often rich men. That in some ways encapsulates a theme in several of his masterpieces - Chinatown, Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby, (arguably) The woman we never see in The Tenant where HE assumes the female role (how much more clear can this be?), and of course most majorly his feminist masterpiece Tess. It even appears in lesser but still great films - Death and The Maiden etc. He obviously is a feminist filmmaker, certainly the most feminist of his peers in 1965-1990 ....................and he is a rapist. That is a contradiction but its also the truth. It isn't a stretch at all to me. I'm not saying he isn't a good filmmaker, but I can't get behind the idea at all that he's a feminist one. A feminist also being a rapist is a contradiction, as you pointed out, but unlike you I don't feel the themes of Polanski's movies (and as much as I love movies, they aren't real life, and they don't absolve anyone of anything serious, like rape) allow him to ascend such an enormous contradiction. I would also argue that Chinatown would be a stronger movie if Polanski was not a rapist.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 30, 2018 19:03:08 GMT
I'd say it isn't a stretch at all actually. It's a contradiction, yes, but again if you just look at the films he's made he has a continuous theme - not a continuous "incident" but a theme : Women, heroic and often virtuous, crushed by cruel often rich men. That in some ways encapsulates a theme in several of his masterpieces - Chinatown, Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby, (arguably) The woman we never see in The Tenant where HE assumes the female role (how much more clear can this be?), and of course most majorly his feminist masterpiece Tess. It even appears in lesser but still great films - Death and The Maiden etc. He obviously is a feminist filmmaker, certainly the most feminist of his peers in 1965-1990 ....................and he is a rapist. That is a contradiction but its also the truth. It isn't a stretch at all to me. I'm not saying he isn't a good filmmaker, but I can't get behind the idea at all that he's a feminist one. A feminist also being a rapist is a contradiction, as you pointed out, but unlike you I don't feel the themes of Polanski's movies (and as much as I love movies, they aren't real life, and they don't absolve anyone of anything serious, like rape) allow him to ascend such an enormous contradiction. I would also argue that Chinatown would be a stronger movie if Polanski was not a rapist. Well, it's not just that he's a "good" filmmaker - it's that he is a feminist filmmaker specifically that's in question. Chinatown, Repulsion, Knife in The Water, Rosemary's Baby were all made before he was a rapist so if say I wrote that a week before the Geimer case would it have then been true then but then one week later wouldn't be? How would Chinatown been a stronger movie if he wasn't a rapist? You lost me there. He wasn't a rapist when he made it, it's the same film now as it was then? Who's changed? What's changed? The film or the audience?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2018 20:14:57 GMT
I'm not saying he isn't a good filmmaker, but I can't get behind the idea at all that he's a feminist one. A feminist also being a rapist is a contradiction, as you pointed out, but unlike you I don't feel the themes of Polanski's movies (and as much as I love movies, they aren't real life, and they don't absolve anyone of anything serious, like rape) allow him to ascend such an enormous contradiction. I would also argue that Chinatown would be a stronger movie if Polanski was not a rapist. Well, it's not just that he's a "good" filmmaker - it's that he is a feminist filmmaker specifically that's in question. Chinatown, Repulsion, Knife in The Water, Rosemary's Baby were all made before he was a rapist so if say I wrote that a week before the Geimer case would it have then been true then but then one week later wouldn't be? How would Chinatown been a stronger movie if he wasn't a rapist? You lost me there. He wasn't a rapist when he made it, it's the same film now as it was then? Who's changed? What's changed? The film or the audience? What changed is that the director of the film turned out to be a rapist, and the (attempt at a gut punch) ending of Chinatown depicts a rapist getting away with it. That ending sure seems a whole hell of a lot less sincere knowing who made it. How could this not change the audience's perception of the movie? I already said in my previous post why the themes in some of his movies do not allow him to ascend the enormous contradiction of being both a feminist and a rapist. He is a good filmmaker, but not a feminist one.
|
|