|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Oct 2, 2018 1:06:20 GMT
So now we have changed the meaning of "semantics" too. Rather the fact that Polanski is a rapist won't change the ability to assess his films as feminist (or not) is my specific point - it is not a lengthy debate. It is not "to me a feminist means ______________", there is a definition of the word already. Of course if you classify him as a "feminist filmmaker" (not an abstract concept at all) it won't "undo" what he did to his victim, just as it won't bring back his mother from the camps or his wife and baby from the grave either - because that is life, horrible, complicated life and not film - but that definitely is not semantics either. There is an aesthetic criteria in films and indeed in almost all Art. You may dispute that, but I don't. Once you move away from that POV of an independent aesthetic criteria, even a little bit, well, it becomes critical, moral and intellectual chaos.
I fail to see how that addresses the bulk of what I said and throwing Tate's murder into the mix feels like yet another attempt to guide the conversation elsewhere instead of actually responding to the central issue, but I'll leave it at that. We're allowed to have our opinions and we're allowed to disagree. "I'll leave it at that" = "I got utterly OWNED in this debate, but before I go down even deeper in another round let me just quietly walk away so I can get out of it without having to concede defeat".
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Oct 2, 2018 1:25:31 GMT
Thank you for everyone's opinions and insights in this thread. For many years I've been on the side of "separating the art from the artist" whenever a new celebrity controversy pops up, but things have gotten so crazy post-MeToo that now is a really necessary time to sit back and listen to all points of view. Basically, I'm going to be totally honest here and admit that for me, it really depends on how much I like the art. For example, All You Need Is Love was written by a wife-beater. That adds a level of absurd hypocrisy to the lyrics of many of Lennon's best songs, but I love The Beatles and I love John Lennon so I "separate the art from the artist". However, I think Chris Brown is a shitty rapper that makes terrible music, so whenever his music comes on the radio I think, "I can't believe people still listen to this Rihanna-beating asshole". But then he popped up on the Kanye track Waves and his vocal performance was amazing, so I gave him a pass on that. Also: I grew up loving Michael Jackson, and I personally believe that he did in fact molest several children at the Neverland Ranch. But that doesn't mean I don't still love the album Thriller. I do love it and I always will. On the other hand, I think financiers are disgusting for letting Victor Salva keep making movies, but maybe that has something to do with the fact that he's a terrible director so it's therefore easy to let my morality win that battle. Yet Polanski is a (mostly) good director, so I don't let the fact that he's a rapist influence my decision to go see stuff like Carnage or The Pianist in theaters. Bryan Singer is most certainly a creep and probably a pedophile, but I still love X2, etc. So basically I'm admitting that (like a lot of people) I'm fairly hypocritical on this issue, and I simply compartmentalize my moral reservations on a case by case basis, entirely dependent on how much I love the artist's work. It might not be right, but it's honest. There's a line from those Game of Thrones books that states, "The bad act does not wash out the good, nor the good the bad." I can think Kevin Spacey is a vile scumbag and still enjoy his acting. I can think Mel Gibson is a racist psychopath and still enjoy The Road Warrior. But I recognize that a lot of this comes from the privilege of being a white (half-Hispanic) male who has never been sexually assaulted. If I was Black or Jewish would it be more difficult for me to ignore Gibson's insanely racist comments? If I was an abuse survivor would I ever be able to watch Chinatown again? It's these contradictions that make the issue so difficult in my mind. So once again, thank you all for your opinions on the subject. self crit bro i think putting yourself in these peoples' shoes can be especially useful. it wasn't until i had met people who opened up to me about their abuse and talked to me about this subject specifically that my mind started to change. So talking to people whose personal trauma makes them biased and partial to not seeing things clearly is responsible for you having an illogical & poorly explained position on the topic at hand?? Makes sense.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,555
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Oct 2, 2018 2:04:55 GMT
self crit bro i think putting yourself in these peoples' shoes can be especially useful. it wasn't until i had met people who opened up to me about their abuse and talked to me about this subject specifically that my mind started to change. So talking to people whose personal trauma makes them biased and partial to not seeing things clearly is responsible for you having an illogical & poorly explained position on the topic at hand?? Makes sense. a lot of people without a connection to personal trauma have difficulty with the concept of keeping the art and artist linked. there are many reasons why, say, polanski doing like 7 films focused around sexual exploitation weakens how i feel about is oeuvre, but sometimes it's difficult to see the statistics and data as having true pathos if you're not actually emotionally connected to any of those issues. you can go through my examples elsewhere, and it's mostly about well known films and i stopped when i got bored. there are pretty much an infinite amount of reasons not to separate the artist from the art, and even if you're super conservative in how this is applied, you only need like 1 exception to say that we shouldn't just blindly do it
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 2, 2018 10:15:32 GMT
So talking to people whose personal trauma makes them biased and partial to not seeing things clearly is responsible for you having an illogical & poorly explained position on the topic at hand?? Makes sense. a lot of people without a connection to personal trauma have difficulty with the concept of keeping the art and artist linked. there are many reasons why, say, polanski doing like 7 films focused around sexual exploitation weakens how i feel about is oeuvre, but sometimes it's difficult to see the statistics and data as having true pathos if you're not actually emotionally connected to any of those issues.you can go through my examples elsewhere, and it's mostly about well known films and i stopped when i got bored. there are pretty much an infinite amount of reasons not to separate the artist from the art, and even if you're super conservative in how this is applied, you only need like 1 exception to say that we shouldn't just blindly do it The Tenant is a parody of this kind of thinking - ie those who are in effect driven to madness by the perceived callousness of others relative to their own sensitivities or weaknesses (the Polanski character in the film). But the inverse of that is true too - ie the mass of people can make any point appear to be rationale by the force of their collective will: true pathos is a dangerous term to me - it suggests the viewer of a film (must?) place themselves in a context outside the film to deeper understand it - which of course misunderstands precisely why artist and art must be separated (again, not excluded, but separated). How would we differentiate "reasonable" pathos from "true" pathos? Well we can't, "reasonable" loses that comparison but only because "true" pathos doesn't exist - pathos is emotive not subject to a defined level of degree in that way. Two viewers can both feel it and react quite the opposite to that feeling. It's a good discussion though - it actually gets into things that are different from the thread topic imo, like how to "read" a film and things like that........
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,555
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Oct 2, 2018 18:13:10 GMT
a lot of people without a connection to personal trauma have difficulty with the concept of keeping the art and artist linked. there are many reasons why, say, polanski doing like 7 films focused around sexual exploitation weakens how i feel about is oeuvre, but sometimes it's difficult to see the statistics and data as having true pathos if you're not actually emotionally connected to any of those issues.you can go through my examples elsewhere, and it's mostly about well known films and i stopped when i got bored. there are pretty much an infinite amount of reasons not to separate the artist from the art, and even if you're super conservative in how this is applied, you only need like 1 exception to say that we shouldn't just blindly do it The Tenant is a parody of this kind of thinking - ie those who are in effect driven to madness by the perceived callousness of others relative to their own sensitivities or weaknesses (the Polanski character in the film). But the inverse of that is true too - ie the mass of people can make any point appear to be rationale by the force of their collective will: true pathos is a dangerous term to me - it suggests the viewer of a film (must?) place themselves in a context outside the film to deeper understand it - which of course misunderstands precisely why artist and art must be separated (again, not excluded, but separated). How would we differentiate "reasonable" pathos from "true" pathos? Well we can't, "reasonable" loses that comparison but only because "true" pathos doesn't exist - pathos is emotive not subject to a defined level of degree in that way. Two viewers can both feel it and react quite the opposite to that feeling. It's a good discussion though - it actually gets into things that are different from the thread topic imo, like how to "read" a film and things like that........ i mean sure, the idea is that you need some form of balance, and i think people can oftentimes lose track of that if they're simply looking at numbers or whatever (not that i think the person i responded to is big on that either...). that is, the problem in the "opposite" direction is one i rarely encounter. that is what the viewer needs to do in order to get a deeper understanding of it. i haven't heard a reasonable argument otherwise. if you want to view films in a more shallow way, that's your prerogative, and i won't blame anyone for doing that and going on about their day. the whole reason i brought up the true pathos thing is because, in my own life, there was a pretty direct turn from how i felt about this issue when i started interacting with people who were rape victims when i was 17 or 18. before that, i think that pathos in general existed for sex crime, but it wasn't something i could directly link to in a first or second hand experience. similarly, since the art is the extension of the artist, i was able to connect more with how there were such contradictions in the works of filmmakers like polanski, allen (his constant idolization of teenage girls, not necessarily his scandal), Last Tango in Paris, etc when i was more enlightened by this reality in a direct way.
|
|
AKenjiB
Badass
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 653
|
Post by AKenjiB on Oct 3, 2018 6:44:33 GMT
I’m usually able to separate the art from the artist, though admittedly it’s somewhat more difficult if they’re apparently playing “themselves” on screen. Take Louis C.K. for example. I love the show Louie and one of my favorite episodes is the one where he’s on tv arguing a pro-masturbation stance. But now I can’t watch that episode without thinking about the scandal. Maybe it wouldn’t have been a problem if the character wasn’t a stand-up, divorced comedian named Louie with two daughters. It’s worth noting that I did recently listen to some of Louie’s old standup about flying and cellphones and it was as hilarious as I remembered and I didn’t feel uncomfortable listening to it.
In contrast. Roman Polanski is pretty easy to separate from his work for me, probably since he’s not an onscreen presence in his films.
Sometimes I view the film a bit differently but am still able to enjoy it regardless of who’s involved. Like I rewatched Baby Driver recently and Kevin Spacey’s appearance didn’t really bother my experience but there were a few times when it felt a bit...uncomfortable seeing his character hold all of this power over a young man he calls “baby”.
Separating the art from the artist isn’t a problem at all for me if it’s for non-sexual assault reasons. I have no issue enjoying a film regardless of the politics of an actor. I think Heat is a great film and that’s got both Robert De Niro and Jon Voight in it, who are currently basically opposites politically. When I’m watching the film, I’m not thinking about their personal beliefs. I wouldn’t call myself fond of Scientology but I’m still happy to watch Elisabeth Moss, Tom Cruise, and Giovanni Ribisi.
I suppose I just wanna see movies from all kinds of filmmakers and don’t really wanna limit myself for reasons unrelated to the film’s quality. But people can do what they want. I can certainly understand why sexual assault victims wouldn’t wanna watch movies with people who have committed sexual assault, though admittedly I don’t really understand why people reject films based on an actor/directors politics or personality (i.e. being cocky).
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 14, 2019 14:37:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Feb 14, 2019 16:10:03 GMT
Polanski is a filthy rapist pig but I still dig some of his movies.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Feb 14, 2019 19:31:41 GMT
I'm going to privately enjoy Apocalypse Now and not talk about the power of Wagner's music that is used in it, because Wagner was an antisemitic piece of garbage.
(I really do know some Christians that have called Wagner's music "the work of the devil" because of his antisemitic beliefs. This discussion isn't new, folks.)
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 14, 2019 19:37:10 GMT
I'm going to privately enjoy Apocalypse Now and not talk about the power of Wagner's music that is used in it, because Wagner was an antisemitic piece of garbage. (I really do know some Christians that have called Wagner's music "the work of the devil" because of his antisemitic beliefs. This discussion isn't new, folks.) The usage of Wagner in Apocalypse Now is almost always misinterpreted. Coppola intended its use to invoke the connection Wagner had to the Nazis, with the wanton carnage inflicted on-screen. Problem is, the music (which despite its creator/message is fucking powerful stuff) paired with the sequence (beautifully shot and staged) make it look badass.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Feb 14, 2019 19:49:34 GMT
I'm going to privately enjoy Apocalypse Now and not talk about the power of Wagner's music that is used in it, because Wagner was an antisemitic piece of garbage. (I really do know some Christians that have called Wagner's music "the work of the devil" because of his antisemitic beliefs. This discussion isn't new, folks.) The usage of Wagner in Apocalypse Now is almost always misinterpreted. Coppola intended its use to invoke the connection Wagner had to the Nazis, with the wanton carnage inflicted on-screen. Problem is, the music (which despite its creator/message is fucking powerful stuff) paired with the sequence (beautifully shot and staged) make it look badass. I don't misinterpret it, but that article is basically saying that we're not allowed to share interpretations of it. The article basically states that the connection between Wagner's music and Nazism means that we can't actually discuss the use of his music in AN, even though the connection is a lot of the point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 14:32:03 GMT
Here's another instance - Coco Chanel was an avowed anti-Semite and collaborated with the Nazis during WWII. This was mainly for personal reasons - because of her "Aryan" heritage, she thought she'd be able to wrest control of the major shares of Chanel No. 5 from the Jewish Wertheimer brothers under the Nazi occupation. She was also the lover of a prominent SS agent. After the American liberation of Paris, it's rumored that she received no punishment because Winston Churchill personally intervened on her behalf.
This majorly complicates her legacy.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,670
Likes: 2,107
|
Post by cherry68 on Nov 6, 2019 16:14:13 GMT
Here's another instance - Coco Chanel was an avowed anti-Semite and collaborated with the Nazis during WWII. This was mainly for personal reasons - because of her "Aryan" heritage, she thought she'd be able to wrest control of the major shares of Chanel No. 5 from the Jewish Wertheimer brothers under the Nazi occupation. She was also the lover of a prominent SS agent. After the American liberation of Paris, it's rumored that she received no punishment because Winston Churchill personally intervened on her behalf. This majorly complicates her legacy. As long as I know, Gabrielle wasn't an aryan... Her ancestors were very poor and obscure. She grew up in an orphanage. But she always dated wealthy men and aristocrats. Probably she wasn't accused at the end of WWII because in 1944 she had to contact British government to make a deal for an armistice with Germany. She was denounced as a German spy, but released few hours later. Apparently she had important friends on both sides.
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Nov 6, 2019 17:15:48 GMT
Oh honeys, the trouble is when you're a public figure there's always wild stories flying around about you. People print or say sensationalist things to journalists to make or sell a story... Everybody knows me better to know that I'm not a money obsessed, Nicole hating, gold digger, narcissistic actress who trying to sleep her way to the top... and that I'm often drunk and violent... I will smash this Champagne glass and cut anyone who says these lies about me...
I really should sue those nuns at the convent school I went to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 17:25:29 GMT
cherry68 - I really don't want to get into another pissing match with you, but by the 19th- and 20th-century definition of the word, as a white Christian she was indeed considered "aryan."
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Nov 6, 2019 17:32:49 GMT
I tried this once... but then the alarm went off and I spent 3 years in Federal Prison for theft.
|
|
|
Post by themoviesinner on Dec 28, 2020 9:35:05 GMT
There's been huge discussion about this dilemma in the film world (and not only). A film (or any piece of art) can be read and decrypted in various ways. One of the basic ways of reading a film (as in exploring it's thematic ideas, not only in a formalist way) is that of "Structuralism", where a film is seen as a "finished", self-contained object that is composed of various different elements (shots, montage, ect.) that relate and interact with one another and through studying those relations, the meaning of the film can be found. In this theory, outside factors (like the sociopolitical circumstances the film was made in, or the backstory of the director) are irrelevant when studying a film, the meaning can only be derived from elements found within the film itself. It's probably the most clear example of an approach were the artist is separated from the art.
So, I want to give everyone a clear example of what I'm talking about and show some differences between the "structuralist" approach and other readings of a film that take into account several outside factors. So, I'm going to briefly analyze Widows (2018) by Steve McQueen.
1) The film can be read as a feminist film, as it shows several women gradually gaining power and control over their own lives and making their own life-altering decisions while facing the difficulties that society is placing in their path. This conclusion can be derived mainly by viewing the film in a structuralist way as there is nothing in Steve McQueen's previous work that gives us the assumption that he is interested in exploring feminist themes.
2) The film can be read as a Marxist film, as it quite clearly criticizes the structures of capitalism and the economic and general inequality it creates. It is clear by the film that these women are forced to crime by a series of state and societal injustices. This meaning can be derived not only by structuralist means but also by using elements of Steve McQueen's life to enhance it (he was born in a poor family and generally had economic struggles while growing up).
3) The film can also be seen as a portrayal of the struggle that people from different cultural backgrounds face while trying to fit in a society that sees them as "outcasts". Most of the main female characters in McQueen's film are from different cultural backgrounds and the struggles they are facing can be extracted from that fact. Although elements of the film that suggest this are not as clear as with the two above readings, if one takes McQueen's background into account (a Grenadian who grew up in London) this take makes as much sense as the previous ones.
As one can see, a film can be read in various manners. If the viewer decides to include elements of the director's background into his analysis of the film, it just gives him more meat to chew from.
So, what is everyone's opinion on this matter? Is separating the art from the artist an effective decision when analyzing a work of art, or does it limit the viewer's perspective on it?
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 28, 2020 10:41:01 GMT
The way you've structured the question in your post is intellectually honest - since it focuses on THE real issue - how you "read" a movie. However this one part is a false dichotomy I think :
Is separating the art from the artist an effective decision when analyzing a work of art, or does it limit the viewer's perspective on it?
For me, there is never, ever a "real life" situation or fact about the creator/artist that then makes a great movie lesser or a bad movie better. I always judge the work itself.
However if you do learn something about the artist in addition that is not then the "opposite" to "separating the artist from the Art", that is just merely not removing the artist from the Art which is a different question.
Whether my "perspective" is limited or not is somewhat meaningless and a different discussion too - the film has not changed and will not change, it exists independent of facts within its own rules, and it functions on its own logic too entirely independent from "mere facts" (the movie is functioning on principles inherent in Art not Life (principles related to drama, or tragedy, or comedy, etc).
The introduction of any outside "information" is not essential or relevant to me in my critical analysis and often can confuse the viewers perspective anyway even too (rather than enhance it - ie as a way to compensate for a failure in the execution of artistic principles themselves).
|
|
|
Post by themoviesinner on Dec 28, 2020 11:11:28 GMT
The way you've structured the question in your post is intellectually honest - since it focuses on THE real issue - how you "read" a movie. However this one part is a false dichotomy I think : Is separating the art from the artist an effective decision when analyzing a work of art, or does it limit the viewer's perspective on it?For me, there is never, ever a "real life" situation or fact about the creator/artist that then makes a great movie lesser or a bad movie better. I always judge the work itself. However if you do learn something about the artist in addition that is not then the "opposite" to "separating the artist from the Art", that is just merely not removing the artist from the Art which is a different question. Whether my "perspective" is limited or not is somewhat meaningless and a different discussion too - the film has not changed and will not change, it exists independent of facts within its own rules, and it functions on its own logic too entirely independent from "mere facts" (the movie is functioning on principles inherent in Art not Life (principles related to drama, or tragedy, or comedy, etc). The introduction of any outside "information" is not essential or relevant to me in my critical analysis and often can confuse the viewers perspective anyway even too (rather than enhance it - ie as a way to compensate for a failure in the execution of artistic principles themselves). Yeah, I get what you are saying. I probably didn't phrase my last question properly. What I was meaning to ask was if when reading a film does taking into account the social and cultural background of a director open a bigger thematic pool from which the viewer can extract meaning from, or it doesn't really matter in the end? I'm not saying that the quality of the film changes, only that, thematically, it can offer more opportunities to the viewer. Also, I think the reading of certain films can be fairly limited if only a strict structuralist approach is applied. For instance 8 1/2 (1963) is a film that is closely interwoven with the life, dreams and fears of it's director, so not taking those into account when analyzing it will likely limit one's perspective on the themes it is dealing with. But, this isn't necessarily applied only to directors. For instance Jerry Lewis has said that he portrayed his character in The King Of Comedy (1982), using mostly his own experiences as a comedy star. Some scenes were even improvised with stuff that actually happened to him in real life (like the passerby that cursed him to get cancer). If someone decides to include these facts when analyzing the film will offer him a very different perspective on the film, as opposed to if he decides not to take them into account.
|
|
|
Post by michael128 on Dec 28, 2020 18:41:23 GMT
Just grow up and watch the movie.
|
|
|
Post by themoviesinner on Dec 28, 2020 18:46:48 GMT
Just grow up and watch the movie. Read the opening post before replying, not just the title, because your reply shows that you have no clue at all of what this thread is about.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Dec 28, 2020 19:06:50 GMT
I like to keep my perspectives and read of a film as wide open as possible, so any outside context that may enlighten the piece is fair game since art is not only always actively engaging with the semiotics of the form but also with the context of its own creation.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Dec 29, 2020 2:22:14 GMT
Just grow up and watch the movie. Read the opening post before replying, not just the title, because your reply shows that you have no clue at all of what this thread is about. Or you know, he's just an ignorant troll.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Dec 29, 2020 2:29:22 GMT
Zero trouble. I think it's silly. A guy can be on death row for killing my family and I'd watch his movie like any other. I can be a member of the firing squad and still acknowledge the artistic value of the work.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Dec 29, 2020 2:43:42 GMT
Zero trouble. I think it's silly. A guy can be on death row for killing my family and I'd watch his movie like any other. I can be a member of the firing squad and still acknowledge the artistic value of the work. Well that's just deeply concerning. Would hate to be a part of your family.
|
|