|
I don't think there's a simple one size fits all answer. For example, it's a lot easier for me to watch a film that Harvey Weinstein was involved in because he wasn't the creative force, just simply the monetary force behind the film. Jeffrey Jones is another example - what he did was heinous, but I am able to watch films that he stars in and not really get distracted by his presence. I think part of it is that he isn't really a personality - nobody is watching a film for Jeffrey Jones. On the other hand, watching a film with Kevin Spacey is a lot harder. I will never revisit House of Cards because he's such a focal point of the show. His acting is what people tuned into watch, and so it's harder to separate the man from the movie. Maybe I can watch something like Se7en, where he stars, but he's not the primary role in the movie. It's also tough because films are made by a lot of people, and so should we lose other people's great performances because of Spacey? I refuse to watch Roman Polanski films until he dies. And part of that is because it's a rebellion against a system that empowered him even though everybody knew what he was doing. Really, this conversation is torn between two realities. On the first side - the fact is we want to be careful who we give our money to. Giving someone money is giving them power, and the way that we view films also elevates the people who make these films. There's an ideal of separating the art from the artist, but that's never really been true. Polanski doesn't release his movies anonymously. You don't have to dig through archives to find out what films he worked on. His name is right there. It's a loving selling point. We give these people our money and our attention, and we elevate them. There's also the downstream impacts of these decisions. Who else doesn't get a shot to make a film because we still give time to Roman Polanski? Who else doesn't get their films released because Roman Polanski get his films released? If everybody agreed to stop watching films made by Polanski - nobody would release his films anymore. On the second side - these films exist. And they do exist outside of the artist. After all, I know next to nothing about Akira Kurosawa as a person. Which means, his films are a blank slate. And when I watch a movie, I'm not looking at what the director is saying. I'm looking at what the film says to me. What it makes me think. At some point, Polanski will be dead. He will be mostly forgotten. And his films will continue to exist. And people will watch them. At that point, what material harm is being done? For me, I've come to accept that watching/not watching a film doesn't make as much of a difference in the current culture war that we face against misogny, sexual assault, and rape culture. I'm not going to solve sexual harassment by not watching Roman Polanski films. My energies are better focused on what I can do to make things better. Being more mindful of how I treat women - do I treat them as fairly as I like to believe I do? Do I hold views that are actually toxic? Things like that. My energies are better focused on calling out people who do this and get away with it. Honestly, if Polanski went to jail tomorrow, I would become a lot more comfortable watching his films because at least then he would have owned up to his behavior. But I won't begrudge someone who won't watch a film for whatever reason. It may be distracting or distressing to them. Or they may just not want to do that. It's a loving film choice. I don't think there will ever be consistent rules, and there doesn't need to be. There are going to be films that people are going to be uncomfortable watching because of certain facts around them. I think part of why we have this conversation is that for too long, we have pushed these issues aside. We've normalized harassment and abusive behaviors. We say "boys will be boys." And at least for me, this has been a useful framework in rethinking how I approach the world. And maybe some day, it won't matter because when somebody does this, we don't excuse it. But until that day, we're going to have to deal with the mess we're in. And if something as small as not watching a movie helps change it, then it's a good thing.
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2021 05:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
fr0id posted:This is a really great post! How do you feel about filmmakers or artists who may have politically conservative or alt-right (how much daylight exists between those in America may be kind of difficult to pose)? That's a harder question, just because conservative can be such a broad term in American politics. For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger defined himself as conservative, but he's been a staunch opponent of Donald Trump's, and his recent statements on the coronavirus are things that make me less concerned. I think there are a lot of people out there who describe themselves as conservative who really haven't bought into the alt right push. I'm less concerned about the George Will's of the world. Of course nowadays, conservative media has definitely gone full alt right. Which is changing the discourse for the worst. I don't want the argument to be between me, a self-identified liberal, and a literal Nazi. I want people to have a choice, and you can't when the other side looks at Marjorie Taylor Green and hems and haws but actually never holds her accountable. For alt right, it's really easy. gently caress that noise if it's coming from the people involved in making the film. I'll still watch movies with James Woods in them because he's an actor, and I'm not going to lose Casino because of one bad egg. And with actors, you're not worried about them pushing the story into uncomfortable places. But writers and directors? I won't engage with J.K. Rowling's work because of her transphobia. I ain't got time for that. Which means I've never seen or read anything Harry Potter and I never will. I don't think I'm missing much. But yeah, you're more likely to encounter messages that are scary or uncomfortable. A personal example for me is Morrissey. I used to love his music and what he had to say. But then he started tacking really far to the right, making islamophobic statements and saying some icky things about sexual assault. I just can't bear to listen to his music anymore. He had always been a provocateur and saying things that were edgy, but usually you could either excuse it as not really that important or something said in a really inelegant way. But recently, his statements are just the gasps of an old pop star who has faded from the limelight and refuses to engage with the world around him. I can't listen to his music without wondering what he's actually saying. Is National Front Disco really against that, as I had initially thought. But now he's embracing England for the English. Suddenly, I'm not so sure. So for me, I tend to look at actors for the most part as working people. Sometimes they are shaping the production, but I'm a little less concerned with their views. It's like finding out the electrician thinks Trump won the 2020 election. Like yeah, it's not cool, but I'm not going to avoid a movie the electrician worked on. But for writers and directors, they're more likely to have the ability to set the film's agenda. So that alt right stuff gets scary. However, if someone descended into madness, I'm more concerned about what happened after the fact. Sometimes you just get tragic cases where people change for the worse. See David Mamet.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2021 15:12
|
|
|
There's nothing inherently evil about the police, as a concept. The problems that exist today with policing are systemic and are issues to the core of our system, but good people want to and do become police officers. And as an ideal, the police should be a force of good. They're trying to fight crime! You're not going to root for the guy who murders grandmothers and steals their belongings. So I don't have a problem with shows like Brooklyn 99, which acknowledges the real issues of actual policing in America and acknowledges that it presents an idealized version, or NYPD Blue, which at least in the early seasons was willing to portray the police as more mixed overall, or Law & Order because Sam Waterston's eyebrows are absolutely hypnotic and I can't turn away from the eyebrows of justice. I find Dirty Harry to be a hard watch because of the message it sends - which the ends justifies the means and violating rights is okay as long as the person is actually guilty. It's basically Nancy Grace, the action movie.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2021 14:52
|
|