JCC [Woody Allen, among others]Can you separate a person's art, work and/or career from their actions?

Another infamous example in entertainment of course is Roman Polanski... terrible sexual behavior among famous folks isn't limited towards just entertainers of the Hollywood realm, but sports figures as well. Kobe Bryant, Jameis Winston, Lawrence Taylor & Ben Roethlisberger (Amerisports figures anyway) come to mind.


For the current context on Woody Allen: http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/an-open-letter-from-dylan-farrow/]An[/url] Open Letter from Dylan Farrow.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast.html

Tagging AaylaSecurOWNED so she can hit me the next time she sees me, as per last request. And Whitey for deleting it from his feed. <3

PS - I in no way endorse the article other than as a talking point. Dylan Farrow claims she was molested at age 7; that's all that really needs to be said, other than her entire family are totally cray-cray.

PPS - I voted yes, as does Mia Farrow. But some things are harder to separate than others, which I'm sure is the same for everyone.

 

1. Yes, but each situation is different.

2. No one knows if the allegations against Woody Allen are true.

3. Roman Polanski plead guilty to drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl. He still doesn't deny he did it, just claims that it was "consensual." Dylan Farrow's allegations were investigated, but Woody Allen was never charged.

4. The bitter custody dispute from which the allegations first arose doesn't make either party look very good.

5. Whatever happened, Dylan is the victim. Either she was molested or she was coached into believing she was. Ugh.

 

yes

 

I kind of have to or I'd never be able to watch Fitzcarraldo or Chinatown. Woody Allen just gets filed into the "Piece of **** who happened to make some movies I like" category.

 

I kind of wanted to throw something at the TV today when Barbara Walters said that Dylan was only saying to A) get attention and B) Because Allan was up for an Oscar and she and Mia wanted to derail it, or some **** like that.

Seriously between this and the Polanski defending bullcrap that whole panel at that time did (Note: It didn't include McCarthy at the time Whoopi went about her "it wasn't rape - rape" speech), I really really hope the View is canceled altogether once Walters retires in May.

 

you don't have to watch it juliet.

 

I didn't watch the View itself today (sometimes I'll wake up to it, if I fall asleep with that particular channel on, but I don't often deliberately turn to the view), but one of the Entertainment Newsmag shows (what? I was trying to catch up on all the Super Bowl halftime stuff and parties), showed a clip of what she said today.

 

I get that they're both famous directors accused of sexually assaulting young girls, but I wish the knee-jerk comparisons between the vastly different Polanski and Allen situations would stop. It either makes Polanski look better than he really is or Allen worse than he's proven to be. Investigators had enough evidence to bring a case against Polanski. He plead guilty and fled the country to avoid punishment. In contrast, the extensive criminal investigation against Allen turned up insufficient evidence-- which does happen a lot in these cases even if they're true, yes-- and Allen has always denied the charges. That's without going into more detail about each case.

 

Well, what exactly do we mean here? Certainly, I think we can separate technical accomplishments from value judgments. Birth of A Nation, for instance, was a huge stride forward in film-making technology. It was also deeply racist and ahistorical, literally serving as an inspiration for the resurgence of the Klu Klux Klan. The two points don't really contradict each other.But there are a couple of directions we can go from here: 1)How should private behavior influence our perception of public individuals? 2) Should the participation of disreputable individuals have the potential to de-legitimize projects in which they participate? 3) Should objectionable content trump desirable form?

 

According to the Dylan Farrow article, it wasn't just a he-said she-said situation:

I'm still working out whether to vote yes or no. Farrow sounds 100% legit to me.

 

I think all three should definitely apply when somebody pleads guilty to drugging and raping a 13 year old girl and flees the country to avoid prison time for it.

 

It can be profoundly difficult, but in the realm of art, yes. There's little doubt in my mind that Woody Allen is a pedophile, yet despite this, he happens to be one of my favorite artists and, with the death of George Carlin (who, thank Christ, was not a degenerate criminal), preeminent comic. The man is a genius; his Bergmanesque sensibility/worldview speaks to me like few others.

With that said, Farrow's letter is heartbreaking, and compounds my discomfort, even guilt, with enjoying and absorbing said genius's work. As was the case with several of his protagonists, Allen got away with murder.

 

Never mind Woody Allen. Or indeed Roman Polanski, who was so innocent and misunderstood he stayed out of the US for thirty years to avoid being sentenced for his crime. There are artists whose work you can't separate from their actions when the distasteful, if not criminal, stuff they do is in the course of their work and career, and goes unchecked by virtue of their status acquired within that career.

 

Dealing with the three questions...

(1) I don't know that this one is really that relevant. The private behaviour of our closer associates alters how we see them. I don't see there's a "should" here. Private behaviour will (EDIT: when revealed, that is) always have an effect on the public persona. For those who trade on their public persona, that is an occupational risk -- particularly for those celebrities who alert the paparazzi as to their movements for the purposes of looking good in public.

(2) Well, at the risk of Godwin, and in hindsight, but the 1936 Berlin Olympics -- hosted by, attended by, paid for, and subverted due to rampant anti-Semitism by, Adolf Hitler -- in my personal view deserves more than just a cultural cringe on the part of the Olympic movement. And it certainly deserves more than the cringe of the head of the IOC, up until his retirement in the eighties or so, calling the 1936 Berlin Olympics unquestionably the best ever.

(3) Similarly Godwinning it: how do you regard Triumph of the Will, being technically brilliant but also a testament to Nazism?

 

what's with the "Yes" and "NO" options? what if i mean just "No"? or "YES" for that matter

 

you must

 

Artists are their art so... no.

 

Every situation is different. I can easily enjoy the work of scumbags, but that doesn't mean I separate the work from the person and their actions. I don't forget, absolve, forgive, or approve just because I viewed their work.

It's easy for me because I just don't give one **** about these people (I don't care about much in general, these people aren't rousing me from my apathy). They're not even people to me, they might as well be androids designed to entertain. I don't care about their behavior, I don't have to deal with it. If I don't feel like funding their life, I can easily withhold my money and still view their work some other way, assuming I have some passion for it.

Woody Allen and Roman Polanski are easy for me since I'm not a particular fan of either.

I haven't watched a single sporting event in years so they mean nothing to me.

But let's use Mike Tyson. I find him amusing, but he's always been a horrible human being. His violence, including the sexual variety, has been well documented. During his best boxing years, he was a gladiator inflicting violence on others for my entertainment. During his later boxing years, he became a total circus to be laughed at, claiming that he would eat your children, or your *******. Alive. Now, he's a has been living on his legend. A monkey dancing for food. Put him on camera, let's see what crazy things he'll say. Have him do a song and dance. Have him tell wild stories about his insane life.

I'll still watch his old fights, look up his crazy quotes on Youtube, but I think the animal exhibit has run its course, it's gotten old and it's no longer entertaining.

But I wouldn't want to be in the same room with him for an instant. He can have my amusement, but he'll never have my respect, friendship or even my presence.

Same goes for all the other criminal entertainers.

This would all be much easier if these people were held accountable for their actions by the law more consistently. Then there wouldn't be a dilemma, because many of these entertainers cannot entertain from prison. Not all, but many. Those that can, like writers, can have the profits from their work go straight to restitution for their crimes.

 

Something good did come from Triumph of the Will:

 

Do you think the artist who did this was a talented person?

If so, you're going to hell!!!!1!!111

 

for instance i appreciate the high performance art of mayor rob ford of toronto, despite his embarassing, abhorrant and uncanadian political beliefs and policies

 

Wait, that crappy perspective... is this by Hitler?

 

I'm sure if had it the other way around, you'd take notice of it anyway.


Sent from my iPhone 5... take that, Wocky!

 

Yeah. its not the best painting but the average joe couldn't paint that.