Controversial People in Films

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Controversial People in Films

fr0id: Jul 27, 2016; Goodness no, now that wouldn't do at all!

Edit: I'm going to add a content warning up front. This thread is going to include mentions of crimes committed by people working in the film industry including sexual crimes and crimes of violence. Folks beware of that, thanks!

Fair warning, I�m not a great poster, but I know lots of folks on here are. I would like to hear people�s thoughts on watching content with artistic input from controversial people. I think the arguments at their most basic level go between not wanting to provide monetary support to bad people versus the benefit of learning about these peoples� expressions of art.

I think there are several points to discuss in this. There�s the idea of �ethical consumption under capitalism� which kind of implies a �gently caress it� approach. There�s the idea of having more impact on smaller scale artists versus big corporate ones. Is it more important to express your beliefs with your wallet where they hurt most with small scale operations, to be morally consistent and not watch movies out out by corporations that are consistently evil, or to find some in-between? There�s the idea of finding ways to view the controversial art without paying anyone. How meaningful is this?

I�d also like to list off some different controversial artists as additional jumping off points.

Joe Bob Briggs: well known horror host and advocate for �trashy� horror not being censored or buried. Often has edgy rants during his shows has written for an alt-right magazine including an opinion that seemingly endorsed the �good people on both sides� interpretation of Charlottesville.

Craig Zahler: director of some critically well-regarded films who is also openly conservative. His films often have a conservative or racist bent to them.

Roman Polanski: Critically acclaimed director of several films that are counted in the canon of their genres. Committed statutory rape of a minor and has actively fled the American criminal system being able to try and sentence him for it.

Victor Salva: director of some well-regarded horror films and convicted of sexual abuse of a minor and possession or child pornography.

Eric Red: writer of The Hitcher and multiple other films involving vehicular murder. Two people were killed in a car crash when Red drove a vehicle into a restaurant. No criminal charges were filed and Red has since written and pushed other scripts involving vehicular manslaughter.

Jeffrey Jones: critically well-regarded actor and convicted sex offender of soliciting a minor. Essentially black listed or retired from acting.

Kevin Spacey: critically well-regarded actor with multiple accusations of sexual assault and assault of a minor. Currently black listed from acting, but continues to be in the public eye.

Harvey Weinstein: producer of a major production company involved in multiple allegations of rape and sexual abuse.

These figures� controversies range from dissemination of right wing or far right opinions, to possible murder, to sexual abuse. Some of them are more prominent and famous, and some of them are associated with more or less well-regarded works and genres.

I�d be curious to see what peoples� thoughts are on viewing these associated films, where lines may be drawn, and where lines become blurry. I do not want this thread to devolve into personal attacks or insinuations about other posters.

I want to have a firm rule for this thread that the opinion on whose work to view and whose not to should be treated as an opinion to discuss rather than a moral crusade against fellow posters. I also do not want this thread to discuss the credibility of different specific allegations, or the morality of what the actions were. If someone feels that the credibility of the allegation affects their opinion on viewing the art, that is fine, but I don�t want to see arguing about the actual accusations. If you don�t think the allegations against someone are credible, I�d prefer that you instead focus on your thoughts around the art of people whom you do find to have credible allegations against them. Also, some of the above allegations involve �having right wing beliefs in the American mainstream.� This is a very leftist forum and I�m personally very leftist, but I do think it�s okay to have a little more discussion on what folks feel about the morality of viewing art that portrays a viewpoint they may find politically immoral or is made by someone with that viewpoint.

Please be civil and respectful, everyone!

fr0id fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Feb 3, 2021

# ¿ Jan 29, 2021 23:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 01:47

fr0id: Jul 27, 2016; Goodness no, now that wouldn't do at all!

I did just forget him. I don�t want this to just be a list of controversial people, though, so I�ll ask what your thoughts on his films are.

# ¿ Jan 30, 2021 00:05

fr0id: Jul 27, 2016; Goodness no, now that wouldn't do at all!

Peaceful Anarchy posted:

No it doesn't, it implies exactly what you're asking in this thread. That all consumption under capitalism is unethical to some degree, but it is not all the same and you need to consider the relative harms vs need vs convenience of the choices you make while accepting that perfection is unachievable. The whole point is that saying "I must be completely perfectly ethical" is impossible, but saying "gently caress it" is still an unethical and destructive choice despite that because many middle grounds exist. It also means being mindful that other people may choose (or be forced into) different middle grounds and while you can be judgemental about their choices if you wish, you should at least be aware that yours are not clean either and have at least some sense of perspective about what you do and what you criticize.

To the particular consumption in this thread, my general position is: I won't pay explicitly for entertainment from people I find reprehensible, but my line for consumption (whether for free, or bundled, or purchased before knowing) is blurrier and mostly falls on "can I watch this without being mentally distracted by the person" and "is this product that espouses a view I dislike informative or interesting in some way?"

That's a good point, thank you! Is there a line you would draw for "I find this person distracting" but want to watch anyway?

# ¿ Jan 30, 2021 05:01

fr0id: Jul 27, 2016; Goodness no, now that wouldn't do at all!

Cemetry Gator posted:

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.

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)?

# ¿ Jan 30, 2021 06:01

fr0id: Jul 27, 2016; Goodness no, now that wouldn't do at all!

twerking on the railroad posted:

I think just saying "Controversial" is underselling it almost to the point of dishonesty when you're talking about Polanski, Spacey, etc. More accurate would be "lovely dudes" (can't help but noting they are all men) or perhaps more simply "Bad people who make good art."

As mentioned above, I�ve included a variety of industry people whom I�ve heard people talk about not wanting to view their content, and it it ranges from political differences to abhorrent crimes. Controversial was more a way to note that not everyone agrees about how to treat these people or their art.

# ¿ Feb 1, 2021 16:32

fr0id: Jul 27, 2016; Goodness no, now that wouldn't do at all!

A lot of folks have mentioned not wanting the artist to get any money from them if they view their content. So, if we�re talking a movie ticket, broadcast television, or movie rental, that is presumably giving the artist some money (depending on their contracts). I think most movies in streaming services are just contracted for a flat fee rather than individual watches, so that�s a more indirect (telling Netflix you like content with this artist who wants to buy more from movie studios who may fund more content from the artist). There�s also piracy, which generally guarantees that no one gets money from a movie, or watching a movie that someone else has already paid to play. It�s also generally hard to know what the contracts for different artists are for different forms of media. Back in the 70s, you�d have been giving more money to George Lucas by purchasing a greedo toy than you would a movie ticket.

Another thing to consider is whether the estates of some of these artists whom have died have people in them who enabled their abuse. Should that factor in to the equation? It seems like a lot of research would be required to really know where your money is going.

# ¿ Feb 2, 2021 15:54

fr0id: Jul 27, 2016; Goodness no, now that wouldn't do at all!

I think a few folks are getting at, from different points of view, one of my core questions that lead me to start this thread. Some folks have mentioned not watching films due to the impacts on their own viewing experiences from knowing or seeing controversial people involved. There�s also been talk about whether watching the film gives money to the artists and trying to avoid that. Some folks, however, have kind of implied that the act of restricting oneself from watching the movie is moral. What do folks think of that? I get the idea of wanting to show solidarity with victims/survivors of the artists involved. But is that solidarity of actual value, or just tooting your own horn, so to speak?

# ¿ Feb 8, 2021 22:38

fr0id: Jul 27, 2016; Goodness no, now that wouldn't do at all!

Y�all this is verging on �arguing about the credibility of accusations� but it�s arguing about the credibility of apologies. And you�re getting personal. You�ve both said your piece.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2021 08:14

fr0id: Jul 27, 2016; Goodness no, now that wouldn't do at all!

I do think Woody Allen is a good personal example of someone whose work I�m not interested in because it�s a direct reflection of what he�s famously a creep for. I have no interest in a romantic comedy about a dude in his 40s and a teenager/child. Maybe that was more accepted back in the 70s? But I kind of question what it was a bunch of critics saw in the movie that would make them recommend it and not really bring up �oh hey this is creepy.�

# ¿ Feb 9, 2021 21:48

fr0id: Jul 27, 2016; Goodness no, now that wouldn't do at all!

This thread is kind of getting away from its original topic, and there�s already a whole thread to talk about abuse in Hollywood and the culture around it. I�m probably gonna close this one at the end of this week, so if anyone has any parting contributions get them in before then.

# ¿ Feb 10, 2021 22:43

fr0id: Jul 27, 2016; Goodness no, now that wouldn't do at all!

TrixRabbi posted:

I feel like this thread is entirely on topic? We're largely discussing how lovely people have depicted/hid/managed their lovely behavior through their works and why the two things are interconnected. Is that not the exact point of the OP?

- Woody Allen is accused of molesting his daughter and his work belies an unhealthy obsession with young girls.
- Louis CK made a career of telling everybody he's a terrible person and how awful men are and lo and behold everything he said wasn't really a joke
- Roman Polanski is a misogynist and a child rapist and his films are filled with explorations of traumatized and abused women and frank sexuality
- Joss Whedon presented himself as a feminist who sought to empower women but really was an abusive rear end in a top hat, showing the overarching thesis of his body of work (badass women being empowered) was fraudulent
- James Cameron is a dick to work with, is that on par with what any of these guys have done? Does that extend into abuse? Do you feel uncomfortable watching his films cause sometimes he screams at his employees?

Seems like everything you made the thread to discuss.

I was more interested in peoples� opinions on viewing the films rather than being a cataloguing of abusers and debate about the the abusers themselves. The latter in particular seems to be causing some folks to get snippy with each other. And I don�t want to just be overlap with the existing abusers in Hollywood thread.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2021 00:29

fr0id: Jul 27, 2016; Goodness no, now that wouldn't do at all!

Edit: double post, sorry.

fr0id fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Feb 11, 2021

# ¿ Feb 11, 2021 00:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 01:47

fr0id: Jul 27, 2016; Goodness no, now that wouldn't do at all!

Closing the thread! Thanks for a lot of mostly good and mature posting!

# ¿ Feb 21, 2021 05:34

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Controversial People in Films