Sounder SIGN UP FOR FREE
Talking Images
Talking Images

Episode 49 · 2 months ago

Should We Separate the Art From the Artist?

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

Get ready for our possibly most controversial episode to date as we try to answer the hot topic issues of the art vs. artist debate.

We will explore just how much we can separate between the art and artist, and how knowledge from their life and possible misdeeds affect how we see their work.

You will get exclusive insights into our psyche and hear just who puts us off or make us feel uneasy. You will also discover which film Matthieu snuck into so that he would not give the director a cent of his own money.

The question of morality, both by those working with possibly immoral audiences, and even us, the audience that consumes their work, will be questioned!

HOWEVER: We will also flip the script we punch back against the set narrative and argue that knowledge of immorality can actually make the films more intriguing.

Listener discretion is advised.

You are listening to talking images, the official podcast of ICM Forumcom. Hello Everyone, I'm Chris and I have the bitter sweet honor of welcoming you to potentially grim, soul crushing and possibly controversial episode as Yes, we will look into the time old question of whether or not we can truly separate the art from the artist, it's even possible to do so. Can we erase what we know about their personal lives and beliefs when we see them on screen or engage with their work? But the debate goes much further than that. Listening to some of the discourse surrounding art and the artist that created, especially from the last decade, this may not even be a question of how we interact with and consume film, music, books and other arch but whether there are actually moral questions involved. Could it be that not only should we avoid separating the art from the artist, but that there is in fact immoral not to? That is, is it im moral to consume art from a more artists? Are you actually supporting them or, worse, supporting their actions if you watch just one of their films? So that viewpoint can also be flipped, because it is their problematic elements in that view in itself. Who decides where the line goes and what does this kind of thinking, due to how we interact with art, maybe actually be losing something in the process? As always, we will attempt to be as nuance as we can, but the temperature on this debate is already running quite high. So let me actually start with a very unusual opening question to each of my cohost do you actually feel comfortable discussing the subject? Hi, and met you. I feel quite comfortable talking about this subjects. In fact, I kind of love talking about these kind of subject I think they're some of the most interesting issues we are facing, precisely because they are kind of complex, and I generating that talking about them directly face to face. So this case, not the true emits, stilly close to it is the best way to do it, rather than on stuff like twitter et Sech Alia, it's much harder to come to a common understanding, even if there is disagreements. I had saw from a U earlier. Yes, I feel comfortable talking about the subject while talking to you guys, at least on the podcast, about it. With some people in real life I might dance around a little bit of not make clear view points, but I feel with the right people you can have a frank and honest discussion about this. Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head. They're both of you at it. Don't think. I feel uncomfortable talking about this because it is a very interesting topic and as long as we can manage to be nuanced about it that. There's just so much to unpacked and and bite into her. So, with that out of the way, let's just take a really quick Straw poll just to see where we are all coming from. Should we separate the art from the artist? You can do yes or no answers to that or if you're somewhere in between, the trying to quickly lay out your bass position and then we'll get into the details along the way. YEA, at the risk of being a dicto bothing, I'm going to say it depends. I think in general may view is that we should take into account what consequences are of separating out from the artist or not doing so. And so when it comes to your personal consumption, I guess watching a film, the consequences is not huge, but when it comes to other things the consequences can be larger. So I think it depends on what's it actually implies to do them. So Chris said, throw a whole short, sharp hants. That my short stop hands. SS. Yes, we should always separate the artist from the art, but I can deal more into that light of people won't very good. So I guess I can reveal my answer to which is a partial no, but not in the way you may expect, because I do think that what the artist personal beliefs and what their lives are could at least in some way change how we think about the work, as the artist is always part of the work. That doesn't necessarily mean I'll avoid their work, but I think it's an interesting, at least an interesting till bit...

...to consider while watching a film, as it can add something extra to the experience. But but to turn this towards not just this general question of separating art from the artist, because that's not really what people talk about when they talked about this question, that they're talking about artists that have done something that they find morally apprehensible. Perhaps they even done something that is criminal. So other any directors or actors or anyone else involved in the film industry that you're actually avoiding due to their actions? So this is a tougher question to answer them. Then it seems my first inclination would be to say no, because even someone like Hma Bronski, which I think the most obvious example for me, when his latest film came in theaters, what I did is I bought a ticket for another Saman went to see it anyway, which is I guess we can discuss whether or not that works as an approach or not. So, but you know. And then but then there's the other cases where it's just it's not so much about making a more decision that I don't want to support this artist. It's more about being uncomfortable. When I watched Manhattan would yet in Fin I don't know if we Y hadn't hasn't anything one. Actually I don't know the question. We're enough, but it's certainly has some things that make me feel uncomfortable, and so I guess I have not been as enthusiastic about exploring history momography because of that. But it's not like a conscious decision of on the like. I don't want to to see a thing by him and generally I don't think if a film is something that I disagree with profoundly, that kind of know, the birth of a nation. I don't think that means I shouldn't watch it. So again again, I'm not answering this or that's a very interesting APP so about maybe going and purchasing a ticket to another film and going and sing a plant sky film. But to me, I guess that doesn't make a sense at all, because the way that I look at movie making is that it's a collaborative process and if there's one person involved we's done something, maybe a bond save real or worse, it doesn't actually mean that everybody else should be penalized for that is such. So thinking about sort of things like American beauty. Okay, yes, Kevin Space has done some pretty terrible things, but it's not fair on Sam Mandy's and Alan Ball and Thomas Newman and Qudra old hall every belt Ley else involved. We suddenly tarnish that one film based on the fact that might be an actor and there in a key role who's done something wrong. I think with directors, to the same account over there like Roman Plansky, his films are not just films that he's made. Doesn't actually rises films that usually written by other people. They're produced by the people have got different actors and talents involved. So to me it doesn't make any sense to avoid films based on a filmmaker and less, let's say, everybody involved in the film was a DV in him some sort of way. Otherwise I think it's just, I don't want to say silly, but I'd say maybe not sensible. Maybe it's not a sense of the way of approaching center, but it's like, okay, this person's got some involvement, so automatically going to involve the contributions of everybody else involved. I just I just don't see that as a open minded way to prove to approach cinema at all. Very interesting answers. All on my part. This not yet a director or actor actively avoiding. I'm not saying that that could never happen for me. It's possible, but I think I share a very similar view to both of you on the sope that even with someone like Polanski, I will continue to watch their films, and the question is, will I do it at the cinema where I watched them when they are on TV? I'm not sure if I told too much about the extent division may be supporting the financially there had been cases have actively not supported them financially such that's not going to see them opening in San them up. But but they know either there's no actors directors I'm currently entirely boycotting, but at least for me to have been a lot of cases where what they have learned about an actor or director has changed how I see their performances in films or how I see their actual films. So, even though this is not as extreme as act actively boycotting or avoiding films, are there any directors or actors that what has been a real about them after has changed how you see them in certain film or see their work? Well, definitely yes, I think it's inevitable. Right, it's just some knowledge that you're bringing to a film. I'm generally I guess I can, we can discuss what's so mentioned earlier, but I generally think that a film is kind of it exists in and know itself after it's been created, and then it's the person watching a film that...

...is meeting with that film, right, and that that creates what the what the film is for that person. And so you are bringing something when you watching a film. So you are bringing in the knowledge that Kevin Spacey did some things when you're watching a film with coming spacing now and that's is inevitably going to influence you in the same way that's knowing that Tom Hanks is has a reputation for being a super nice guy is also going to influence how you view him in Fens and more obviously, perhaps just the previous times you've seen with that actor that they also influenced it. So I mean, I think the answer to that is definitely yes. If yes, more specifically thinking about people who have done like they that thinks, yeah, it definitely has influenced me, but I think it's like anything that's aout there countless number of things that influence how you watch a thin mall interact with any piece of arts, and so that's just one those men I agree with for the idea that films exist in and of themselves and that it's what we bring to them as viewers. So I don't think whether somebody's done something bad or not actually changes the film at all, but viewing it, I think it does, but only for the better. I actually find Plantski's films extremely interesting and he is one of my favorite directors, not because I think is a great human being, but because he has had all this persecution, some but warranted, some of it maybe not during his lifetime, and you've got these really great paranoia field tails because of that. So with any stuff from plant ski, you know, I can see, you know, a bit of myself and then, which makes it extremely interesting for me. But that goes for any director, not just directors have done the wrong thing. I mean I think of directors like Catherine Bigelow and the film point break has got some really over the top for frontal female and you could see in there and I'm watching it going think of my mind going this is actually really interesting coming from a female director rather than a male directors gays. So just knowing stuff about the director, whether it's stuff which is positive, negative, when neutral, does influence why that I watch the film, but outside only for the better. The more I know about a director and the more I know about the history, what they're like, the cultural background, the more interesting and actually makes me to watch a film that's really interesting. Point Sol and I think, for instance, look at even reason. FEM Second, know you hate to Yo your rabbit, didn't you? I know, Judge Rabbi was on my top five feels. There any lines? You know, I love that. I didn't like it. If it haps okay, okay, so that that. That was the circle now, but obviously it's I think it adds something to know that. Obviously there this is a film where Hitler is portrayed, as you know, this lovable imaginary friend through most of it and it has a lot of jokes around the Nazis and this the childhoods and dued in the not see ideology is not treated as evil and the kind of just is a very human way of looking at what happened in Germany during that time and I think it's adds a little bit to that to know that type of Kitty. The director is half Jewish and both directed, wrote and start asked the imagine your friend Hitler in it. So I think that, you know, it's there's things that you can learn about the directors or the writers or the actors that do, to an extent, change how you view some of these things and hot a little bit of how you see some of these things, even if, like you said, so there's this information could be good the information or just intriguing information in sense of bad things. It absolutely. I think you know youing films with Kevin Space and now it's a little bit different than you can certainly say that the House of card character is even more leurving now than than before. And I think to your earlier point too, make you're like you like. Nobody knows what's actually happened with Rudy Allen, but obviously seeing films where he's interacting with very young women in a romantic way, knowing a lot of the rumors about him, that cannot at least for me, that Kenvin have a little bit of a great a little bit of a queasy feeling. No matter what the truth about the matter is, even if it would turn out to not be completely innocent of any any such wrongdoings, the just knowing that those rumors are about that can make you quite queasies. So I think it's definitely many times when knowing something about an actor or a director, knowing about the real life and reactions and beliefs, just changes something. But how much does it change? That's actually an interesting question too. Like, for instance, knowing that Emileonings was one of the greatest stars of sound cinema was a not see, like how much does that change about how we enjoy the films? Like to they do these things, knowing that, Kevin Spacey, it's very least you know, a Predator. How much does this actually hurt the films they're in? For us? Well, it's not like we can decide,...

...right. I think it's just it just ends up being how we feel. I think it's interesting. You you mentioned well, we have to go out Nutsis a quite a bit. And when example that comes to mind, which is not an example related to the life of an individual person, but it's the the fitslane film, what me hopodies howbody is it ends with this kind of savior who is going to bring it together, the different parts of the people, and watching it now with historical knowledge, it feels a lot like the message that Hitler was sending right, which is not, of course, what at all what metropolis is doing, but it's impossible, at least for me, to watch it. We are thinking about it. Well, I think this did. This actually really interesting too, because metropolis was Hitler's favorite film, like that, that's documented. That's what they said. Like the prop it was his all time favorite film, and while fits land was not, not, say he fled the country due to the NATZIS. So that that part lay. From a director perspective, that film should be fine. His ex wife, who wrote the film, was actually a not sick. That's why they divorced as well, because she got in dud like she she entered essentially did not see side guys. He did not, and then everything went to help with that marriage and he ended up in America. But there's clearly like if you look at it from the perspective of the writer, they're probably were at least inclinations of that system in that film. It's a very interesting film to discuss. Just becaar. I love metropolis as well. It's one of my favorite film of so I do share that. The income at the way addle Hitler, but I'm sure many feel those th aroound the road do too. But it's really interesting that they have that to have that. Oh, so this did research. It says that Hitler's favory film might actually been King Kong or lives of the Bangal Lancers or in that case, but dropless may actually add history is slightly better. Thank yourself. Yeah, and I think to get back to something you said so earlier. You said any knowledge you might have is always going to make the feel better, and I guess I'm really personal by that. I don't see how that's possible, I guess. Can You? You you really cannot think of a case where even knowledge, that is again not with the CE, related to the personal life of someone. Right, just if you've seen someone in a whole ten times, the eleventh time you're just going to enjoy it a little less, maybe understand doing something interesting with it. I guess you generally knowledge it can often end whiches, I agree, but it can sometimes be probabison the well, don't you think? In not really think so. I just think it makes it more dynamic experience because you're looking at different things and yes, some things might be a bit more creepy, but parts that might have to seem the bill innocent before taken an entirely new meeting. So yeah, I mean watching the film might make you feel uncomfortable in different ways, but it actually makes it more cuming a better word than dynamic. It makes it more of an alive experience rather than just possibly watching. You've got other things that you're taking and pros using it. Yes, it just naturally, to me, makes them more interesting. I'm thinking of even like a film called Clownhouse, which is from director Victor Selva, who was actually prosecutor and it was found guilty of kitty fiddling with his young lead actor, and he's got like shots in there where the teenagers, you know, taking his underwear off and everything. And just watching that film with that knowledge in my yes, it does make it a bit more creepy, but also makes it may be interestings, a wrong word or whatever, but you know, I was totally like trance fixed, you know, the whole time I was watching clownhouse, because sort of your clued in already about what's happened to the directors who's look like looking out for those different things, and you go off ones for directors haven't done bad things, like I sent Catherine Bigelow before, and you stink about other directors are bring other things to the table, like directors who might've been secretly gay and stuff like that. When you watch those films and pick up on those shoes and using different actors in my different things in their past, it just makes it a much more enriching experience. For me, I can't say, maybe enjoyable. Enjoyable, maybe not. Might not be the right word, but I think it's always more enriching for me and I always got something more out of it then more that I know of the people are involved, either it's positive or negative. I don't know if that makes any sense, but that makes some pleets and soult and this actually actually got me my ending question for the entire episode. But since you brought brought it up now, I just said that I for hardly agree, and I'm actually really bothers me that the question of separate thing are from the artist only seems to come up in terms of actually avoiding artist because, like you said, the same concept, whether or not argument separated from artist. It really does add something to the film, at least for me. I mean to take to the really extreme example, I think a lot of people have gone to, for instance, Charles Manson's music specifically because of what he did and are finding interesting things in it because of what he did. So they're trying to see, okay, how did someone who did this music do these things, but what's the...

...relationship between the art and artist? And that that's a very different process entirely, and I don't think any major filmmaker or star led the homicidal cultest. Probably Tom some similarities to other things, but there's really extremely different direction. But it can actually be that knowing about the artist life, even if it's knowing something terrible or potentially terrible, that adds a different dimension. Knowing those rumors about wood the Alan, for instance, opens us up to read those films in a very different way and see darker element, and that is actually an interesting discussion in itself. And I remember, Matre, that we discuss related on plunced the film and officer and as by, or the accus as it's known in French, and you had a very specific reading on it that it was essentially an attack on the people criticize seeing him and how he felt accused. So I think that there's so many other things we can read into films and bring into films that make those films, like so all said, more alive, more interesting, and I actually think it's a positive to connect the art and the artist and look at their art through that Lens. It doesn't need to be the only way we look at the art. I think that there's ways to set seeing them separately from the artist as well, but I really think that there's a lot of extra things we can get from a film if we know more about their lives, even if they were terrible, terrible people. Knowing their actions, knowing their belief systems, can make those films more interesting to unpact. So I don't necessarily agree that knowledge always and which is watching a him, but often it does, and I do think in some ways it is the case of Bronski. Pransky is a directors who who I generally respect and I enjoy some of his friends, including has nice baby and my porsion, which I'm at your favorites from him, which I think that we read very differently when you think about him being guilty of wake. But in the case of Acuse, the reason I did this Le by you, not the ticket. It's because I think there's a difference between one's individual reaction to a film, which is purely individual, and we can deal with all of that knowledge ourselves, it's fine, and the real life consequences of it. And so solom mentioned a good point about the consequences on the other people working with Polanski who are innocent in all this, except they chose to work with him knowing his past. Right. Yes, so it's a question of looking at the real life consequences of your choices, and so I personally didn't want to finance but on ski's film. So that that's to choice I made. But I think it's a very different question when you're talking about interacting with the piece of art as an individual. But it does not have any consequences for anyone but yourself really, unless you're like a major critic and your opinion is really influential. In that case I think it's untirely fine to engage without coming from anywhere, even the most repulsive places. That again, that's a nation I think is worth letching. I just think it's a different question when you're talking about promoting things and contributing to them financially. Yeah, look, I know what you're saying in terms of the fact that these people have chosen to work with Lantski, but they've chosen to work for him for his artistic vision, not because they support what he has done. Okay, we yeah, that's a bit of a more very taking point, because no Jacquius was made after, know, the allegations came out. But if we're talking about like films that he's done previously before the allegations, do we you know so okay. Well, look, everybody was involved in repulsion or Chinatown or whatever. You know it's we're not going to support them either in terms of buying leaf tick and not by the ticket. It's a really strange way. I mean, I guess if it makes you feel comfortable in yourself that you haven't given a tiny percentage of the tickets all possibly towards the director, all the producers, because plots getting produce the film. I don't even know which of US send you is getting from it. I guess if it's making you or making other people as a viewer, feel happier if they're not contributing a little bit. It's a choice to make, but everything is collaborative in filmmaking. Everything's collaborative. Yes, people could choose to the work you're just because you working with somebody. Does it support, you know, things which they did or didn't do? And I think this is a lot of people who respect his visual I guess, as a filmmaker, and you know I wanted to keep making films, not because I like the fact that he might have done something and savory, but because he makes, you know, the best paranoia thrillers and of everybody out there and I wanted to continue to make films like that because that's a sort of cinema that I'm interested in, not because, you know, I want to finance and to do something which isn't savory. But Yeah, look, it's it's a slippery Roy. But getting back to the original question over there, which was, even if they do terrible things, conorbate the formal interesting? I'd say yes, every single case, even the victor salber films. It makes those films more interesting. I...

...think whatever you learn about a filmmaker makes them interest to film watching experience. Yeah, I think they're all more or less agree on this. Done that, knowing what actors or directive believe, even if they were really terrible things, can actually make the films more interesting. I mean, I mean, this is there's so many rabbitals to get into here, but just this is why, for instance, is really interesting to, you know, consume propaganda from various countries to see social impact of these films like that. You mentioned gird of a nation Mat you. That's such an interesting film to explore. Now, as our films from not to Germany. Were you both thinking of? What are they? What are they trying to instill in the population. What are their population getting from them? That there's there's so many additional things that can make even mediocre or terrible films, because a lot, and that's the films in particular, are quite terrible, in just how a bad propaganda is. That can just make these really interesting experiences in how we can analyze them and talk about them. From that perspective. I really do think that the artists and the systems they're working within and just the context around them can and do matter, though. Reading the films just without any of that as well, just as a story, for instance, it's obviously completely valid as well. Moving the conversation on a little bit, but you're you mentioned that you already tend my boycott blond ski, at least financially, so I kind of have a half answer on this this question from you. But how do we feel about boycotts off Pacific Films, TV shows, at etc. Would you make that choice yourself, and I all that you have might do and, more importantly, like you do, do you understand people who feel that they cannot support or watch something because of what one or more of the people involved the project have done? But obviously I do understand people who do that. I'm could definitely consider borkutting something for, yeah, for more political reasons. I definitely could consider it. Just to expand a bits on the specific case, because it's the only time I've done it right. With that Bronski film. It was also in the context where Bronski is a pretty well known figure, I guess, in France, and it was a whole public debate around it and the fact that the film was a financial success was bended about as being her success for him, right, and then he got caesarre words right. You. It was really hard how to separate it out from the artist right in this case, because just the general conversation around him was not doing that. And I think, yeah, generally my position is that as an individual watching a him, you can do whatever you want. I think there is no yeah, you can watch whatever you want and appreciate whatever you want also, but when you're looking at the larger reality, at stuff that has real world consequences, yeah, I do have a bit of a different position, I think. Again, it's not something that we as individuals have much influence over. But why can Miss Canonical or not? So the birth of a nation is the perfect example of that's is a film that is in any film class about silent fame. You would always see that fin and now that's being put into question by many people, because the thing is, when you're not watching that thin you can also watch something else which might also have values without having some of the issue that that team has. And so it gets into the question of a film's historical value as opposed to its esthetic value, and that, I guess that's a whole other kind of words which maybe we don't have time to open. So so yeah, I guess to get back to your question, Chris, I think both watching. I definitely understand it because I would put acually do it and arguably kind of done it already. I can understand people who want to boycott films. I can definitely understand that, but I think it's a bit shortsighted and they think that they are personally missing out if they're making snap judge, or not quite snap judgments, but all miss snap judgments on what to watch based on what one out of a few hundred people involved in the making of a film has done or may have done. So I can understand it and with all this cats a cultural crap which is going on at the moment. We're going to council different shows based on something being said here or there that might be a bit on savory. I can understand there's bit of a climate towards these days, I guess, in social media, or the Hashtag me to with all people like James Frankomssy out of the Best Oscar nomination because it was boycotted against other disaster artist and stuff like that. You know, I can understand that. It's the...

...big thing these days not wanting to, you know, support in any way and sort of counsel out people who have done things that society doesn't Deign to be appropriate or worse. However, I just think the people are doing that, I just missing out on a whole world or tentionally great or even absolutely masterful cinema and it's just a real shame when it comes down to that end, there's just any one person involved in the whole project and everybody else getting paig white cotted because of that. So I think it's a shame, but I do understand it. I think the sort of things you guys both look at there, which is, you know, the films that are part of our kinematic Canon, how we approach them, what they do about films that are no openly reprehensible, like bird of a nation in this some of like the Coo close and are little heroes of this, you know, essential action summer blockbuster, and also what we do with the artists today because, like I said, interacting with their art and how these stars and directors that are greeted off screen is also completely different debate in any ways, because it's not how we interact with art but how those people face consequences for their action and also how that trickles back into the work they do and the people who work with them. And there's there's so much nuance in that discussion as well that I think that honestly deserves it's highly own episode and I think that there's just so much told dive into right there. But to give a slight preview of that potential debate if we ever do that episode, and also give my answer to I do despcaly. I completely understand people who do want to boycott films and stars, though I also do a wait a point with salt that they may be losing out and agree with Mato that there's a big difference between art devels done in the past by filmmakers who are dead and people who are alive and working today and are financially benefiting and maybe actually it just escaping what they did and not facing any consequences. It's a very just it's such a such a very fascinating discussion to have. How far, and I again this is the slight preview of that potential discussion, how far would you go in being understanding of boycotts? So would it reach all the waiters? CENSORSHIP OR BANNING CERTAIN FILMS? Are Removing films from TV, from the Yar rowing songs from the radio, potentially having them, you know, blacklisted? How far would your understanding go here? What's a reasonable or an understandable approach to artist who have done terrible things and their artwork? But so I generally think that definitely censorship is not not an answer to that. The answer would be more context rising right to be but even then it's not really the case for stuff, stuff like Polonski. I think films by Pelonski don't need to be you know. You don't need to know that Polonski is has been convicted actually of rape. When you're watching a film that's not. I don't think you need to know that it's not, as opposed to like the birth of a nation, where I think it's a good idea, when presenting that film, to say, Oh yeah, this is a film that was made like basically at a promotion for the actors ten right. So I think it's different in terms of in this discuestion of supermenting out from the artist. No, I don't think just because an artist has done terrible things that it should be, in the way we treat the film institutionally, right, in the way we presented, that they should impact it. So I definitely don't think it should be censored and I don't even think you should have a card at the start of Hoseby's baby to say, Oh yeah, later he read someone. I don't I mean I think that's relevant, but I don't think it's an essential part of what the film is. It's just something that wants you know, it's is part of the film and in the case of a film that cousnize baby or repulsion, which I think that deal with Hepe more or less directly, it's it could actually enriches, as you guys mentioned, earlier. So yeah, I'm definitely generally against censorship them, not against considering what is put forth as being the exemplary of Pier Your door and how we present it. Right there was we simply the case of gone with the winds, where they added past to explain. Or yet the way black people are represented in this film was all the day had whatever. I think generally steps like that can be good because they only end which the conversation around it's I think I'll stay en which the people's knowledge of it, as opposed to obvious the kind of trying to forget about things like that, which I think would definitely be mistake. Going off on a slight tangent here, because the gone with the wind situation is a bit different to separating half from the artist with stuffy like God. Yeah, but look, because it's come up a conversation anyway. The stuff like...

...going with the wind, I don't know if it really needs warnings like that. I don't really see. You know, we're getting something going to have a and Andt you know, African American movement starting up was because a few people having to watch are with the wind and thought slavery was a good idea. I don't think that's likely to happen. I don't make giving people in general much credit. If we feel we need right stuff like that at the start of a film and, you know, make it very clear. You know these things weren't acceptable. I think. Yeah, any censorship or whatever likewise and not in favor of that. A non favorite boycotting. But I can't control other people want to do. If other people don't want to see a single plants give film their life, that's finely. Going to miss it on tons of great cinema. Same with Woody Allen. Not so much big to salve. Is Not such a great director. But you know, people can choose what they choose to watch and not to watch. You know, some people won't watch more of films because they find them too scary or whatever. People will make choices that they think. You know, it's up to I don't think it's up to us as a film love and community and make those decisions for them or to put didactic warnings at the beginning of films about filmmakers, about the content of a film. You know, I think we have to give people more credit. Movies aren't as influential as people would like them to believe. You know, just because you see a film that's being a little bit racist or because you see a film which maybe kids being invested isn't going to make everybody want to go out there and be a racist or less kids or whatever. That's just that's just ridiculous thinking. You know, just because it happens in a film doesn't mean people are going to go out and support it. So No, I think it's I think it's actually a bit of reversing and I'd saying it's actually a bit harmful to you know, sort of like have those things at the start of the film and drilling over there. It's, you know, let people experience films what they are. I think I slightly disagree there, which is that I actually do think that having these title cars are coming front of films, they explaining some part of the nature of the film the filmmaker's life, as ever, can be positive, both if the filmmakers did get an important things like I remember there were a flash guards, for instance, as certain I don't remember the name of it right now, but it was the film direct but someone to actually watch in that concentration camp and it was about their experiences, for instance, the things like that can be really interesting to get that additional knowledge about films. I think that contextualizing films can be especially important. In regard to Romit have been debate. I think you're quite right, sould, that this is the very different debate because if we're not actually discus semi part of national actually discussing the artist behind it, we're stressing the effects of the film, what the film's May represent, and it's about the content itself and not the artist. So it's a very different debate. I think that debate should be opened up in a different episode. But I will actually this is a really little bit there too, because if we look at films are gone with the Wind, I think Adam from New York, for instance, could probably illuminate this a little bit more too. But that's actually become a bit of a white power symbol. I Love Gone With the wind, just to be clear, but that I think it's one of the best films of the thirties, but it's clearly become a symbol for certain that's a let's Ay. It is is a very endless savory savory groups and it's interesting how works are used today and how the just how people are act them I think that's a very different discussion, but it's it's definitely it's definitely a really strong and important debate. So let me just say my opinions on the matter. I'm always entirely against any form of censorship of art. There might be some elements where art could theoretically enter the criminal realm, but that's never really the case. So in general I am strongly opposed to any kind of censorship with boycotts. That's a matter of free speech. As far as I'm concerned. I think anyone should be able to boycott anything they want to and I can be understanding of it. But obviously this is on the case, the case basis of where not they will agree with the boy cut. That all these things are extremely important, extremely nuanced and extremely complex issues with real life remifications. I guess what I like to add to that because it is just that. Yeah, I'm sorry for kind of debating us on to the gone with the wind thing the way that it's another subject entirely. It's related, but it's not a subject. But I think the most important thing to keep in mind with this thing is to respect other people's you know opinion to not categorize. I mean it's may be obvious to say, but those are the kinds of subject where it's easy to forget. And so, yeah, we'LD urge anyone kind of thinking about this the subject to kind of take the time to put themselves in on another person choose and to try to be the kinder and more understanding to people. Maybe it's just a general message, but I do think these discussions could stand often...

...to be more classified, and with that I think we're actually covered a large amount of just what we can get out of not separating the art and artist, but also just allowing for the fact that it is a very difficult thing to do, because we cannot be the arbiters they like. You are not allowed to feel awful when you see Kevin's based on screen, or feel so queasy with the side of bill cospit due to the large amounts of terrible crimes in and a rape that you know you cannot stomach seeing these people. I think that that's not something that is up to anyone to say. But obviously there is the most extreme type of proposition that's been a voltaire, which is that they're actually the actually is immoral to consume art by people who have crossed certain lines, and since this is more dark and more controversial and more bombastic episode, I think we can dive into that as our very final question. So is there a moral line in consuming art from artists that have done terrible things and to Inflame our Commons as much as possible? And it's we clear all angry messages can be posted at ICM forum dot calm. And because Rombolanski has been so central in this discussion, let's just go to the most extreme question you, any of us, could really ask in this debate, the question that certain people seem to stand, a certain people actually seem to hold, and just asked. Is it the case that you, you could be argued to be supporting statutory rape if you watch a film by Roman Polanski? Well, when you said that Christion a lie and my microphriend me, but act, you said my good or what if the when you said that, you know, I can totally rolled my eyes in the air. Yeah, look, I think that's absolutely ridiculous to say that you're supporting, you know, statutory way because you've watched the film in which one out of a few hundred people involved in it has been convicted or possibly or charged with something. I think that's absolutely ridiculous. Yeah, I mean you're being intentionally provocative there, because I would not say that, even though I have qualms, I would definitely not say to anyone wash re Bronski film that they do anything wrong. I think everyone should make their own choices in accordance to what they believe in, right, and I definitely would not think that someone watching Bronski or whatever. On another example, like we've talked a lot about Bronz, keep it out after her examples, is explicitly supporting statuatory because, yeah, the these questions are as we've discussed a bit, then just no complex right, just become, because finish, a collaborative medium, because art is not, you know, it's not the direct expression with no filter of someone to someone else. Right, it's not like Tet talk that Bronski is giving. He's making a film that there's a difference. So yeah, know, I would answer a clear note to that question, even though I do think Bronski's morality is relevant to choosing what films watch or not. Yeah, I can't really disagree with that. I don't think it is going too far to say that you know anyone who walk as a film Byron Blanski in some way of support that. It's a rape, though, like you said before, it could be argued that anyone actually gives money to Roman Planski to continue working in the film industry and continue to be popular is in some way giving him a free path. Would you agree with that more moderate prober proposition? I mean, I would that that that is how I consider it, but in the same time, I don't think it's that simple either. Right, I think again, souls, you is of you that I completely understand a few. That is basically to say that Ronski is not the only one, and and that's you are unfairly punishing other people by espousing that you, because of him, is not just one person. Yeah, I'd say, unless it's something like a book that plants kids written by himself, or giving him money to write a speech or to write song works or something, or is only involved in himself, yes, you can say that you maybe that's not the best choice of what you do with your money, but otherwise, yeah, I think it's ridiculous to pretend that the film is just the director's work. I mean also theory might be something for another episode, but yeah, a film does not exist just as the directors work. Oh and I also have a special announcement for you. We are getting a surprise guest for this episode. Has a couple of hard hitting questions he would like to ask us all. Take it away. Out them the more in listing. Question is, are the...

...people who are like financing the film or working with Polanski, condoning what he did rather than put in the focus on the audience? I mean, yeah, I agree with that. I think that that's a whole another kind of kind of arms, but it's also something we really have very little influence of. It might one we can decide is what we do as individuals. So yeah, we can judge people for financing forensca his films or whatever, but it's not something we actually have any control over. But I suppose that's where the boycotts come in then, and you know, the kind of financial disincentimments towards working with people who you find immoral. So what? And what Adam is just raise there is definitely interesting point, even though it's ridiculous to say that you're endorsing it if you watch a film by them, if you work with them. You know that's ridiculous that you endorsing it. I can dining it well outside as a possibility. Look out there, but let's might be something for another episode. It's a very moral question. It's very philosophical question of does the fact that you work with someone who's done something terrible mean that you in any way condoned that? I think I don't think so actually, but I do think that you are at least. I don't think that the people working with them think of it that way, to be more precise, but I do think that it's certainly means. This is unquestionable that these people are willing to overlook the fact that this person did this thing. But if that's the same as condoning it or the same as, you know, following the largely that that this is just one in the visual amount money, or following the principle that build simply ferentaniful interest, that you know, this is a twel the director. He's going to make something that will make money and it's going to make something that will win, quite possibly win awards, and that there's no no moral steak involved or no moral thought involded like that. There's so many different things that can be going on in the people mind. That's certainly the case that these people are choosing to work with someone who was convicted as the rapist and we did escape as do not serve the rest of his sentence, though. It's a very complicated question and one that maybe we are not the best people to even answer, but it's definitely a can of worm and a lot of really interesting and new ones, not some new ones. Points can be made about that, and that could possibly be an episode in this own right as well, because it's just this is so many things to look at their yeah, I don't think we should expect ourselves to find answers to these questions. That just trying point of use. I also think there's a big difference between working with someone who's been convicted of someone of something and has, like, serve time in prison and then being no waste. If you've been convicted of something and serve time, then it's a different argument about if you have a right to work or not after that. But I think in the case of Polanski it's a little bit different in terms of how you might led prosecution. So I think there's a distinction between someone having been convicted and served their time and then maybe being vehabilitated and someone who avoided facing up to what they did. Yeah, it's interesting one, but the Polanski crises me extremely complicise to churge get away for Pransky to have a maybe a cleaner example of what Alan was talking about. With we have an eighty rehabilitation. There was a French singer who killed his girlfriend essentially, and went to prison for like eight years and then came out and he was not allowed to reform his group, which had to form another group and another name. But he was a whole legal thing where he could not profit from the name of the groups. What is he which was a very famous Bat in France, and so I guess that's kind of an example of how you can have also legal ways to kind of limits the ways in which people can profit of the fame they have, which is related to the crime, and it's very complicated issue, but at the same time they have a right work. I agree with Adam that if someone has been convicted has served this time fully, it's a very different question than I'm someone who, from the certain point of view, has not really been cunished. Yeah, I agree with that as well. I think that the Poloskey case is special because he escaped just this essentially. I mean I think if he had gone to Dal so the sentence out and going back to making films, I think that the backlash would probably have been much, much less than it is. So that's not something I can really focus. I do also think that's a real big distinction between artists who hold terrible beliefs are done something that's itself is not criminal and people are actually murdered someone and or raped someone, not the worst crimes you you can imagine. I think that that's that's a very different line as well, and I think it's just so, so difficult because I can see many people, you know, including Polanski fans, actually wanting him to serve it sentence and then go back to making films, for instance, like that's a but it's perfectly plausible stands to have. Is there a lot of we're getting it, a lot of a legal issues here. That and moral issues are that's it's just...

...really, really difficult to answer really, but I would absolutely like to thank Adam for joining in as our surprise guest and the cohost bringing in some really difficult questions before we could let this episode the go, because those are the questions that are on everybody it's mind, even though we might struggle to give definitive answers to them, it is such a big part of the conversation. I'm sure so many of our listeners have opinions on these cases as well. I mean, if you're a Polaski Fan, do you wish that he would actually be sentenced to jail now and serve his time? What are your views on all of this? What our general stands of any of the issues that they have discussed so far? Is there anywhere you think that we were just completely off? If you disagree with us on anything, if you agree with us in anything, or if you just want to extend this conversation bring your own views and stanzas to this debate, go to ICM Forumcom, find the topic related to this and just add your comments there and we will apply to them and we can continue this indepth discussion even more. But until then, thank you so much for listening and join us again soon. You have been listening to talking images, official podcast of ICM Forumcom.

In-Stream Audio Search

NEW

Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (54)