"Rosemary's Baby" is one of my favorite films of all time, and I say that unapologetically, even though Polanski has shown himself to be a despicable human being. (I would describe him as more than a "flawed" person, but that doesn't negate his artistic brilliance.) I think admiring his work isn't the same as condoning his reprehensible behavior. I've always had similarly mixed feelings about, say, Miles Davis, who, by all accounts, was a pretty terrible person, but has made some of the most unforgettable music of the 20th century. I think you can admire someone's work, without losing sight of what a terrible person they are/were. Enjoy your channel very much.
It seems that great talent often has moral hazard bundled in with the bargain. I think that this is the proverbial Faustian bargian; when given great power/fame from one's gifts, you are usually getting more than you bargained for and one's mortal soul is often at hazard. So many great artists were and are tortured by addiction (both sex and drug), psychological and personality disorders (narcissism first and foremost), criminality, etc., etc. The problem I see it from a consumer standpoint is that young people often look to artists as role models and they are pretty much only good role models for artistic vision, not for anything else, and young folks rarely can make that distinction. As far as Polanski goes the greatest hypocrisy I see is the way Hollywood so often holds themselves up as arbiters of moral rectitude or "humanity" and yet celebrate cretinous people like Polanski and Weinstein. I hate that kind of hypocrisy more than almost anything else, and I've almost gotten to the point where I don't even bother watching most Hollywood output at this point. It's mostly SJW garbage.
I could not agree with you more. Wagner was a pretty unpleasant man, but does that mean his music should be dismissed or censored? Picasso was abusive toward women. Does that lessen the importance or impact of his paintings? And as for writers... Goodness, this becomes one very slippery slope indeed if one conflates the personal morality (or lack thereof) of any artist with their artistic output. I've heard it said that no work of art is moral or immoral. It is either good or it is bad. And even that, of course, is subjective. There are many creative people whose personal lives and actions I have found, in some regard, repugnant and objectionable. And yet I have been impressed and even moved by the artistry inherent in their work. Hitchcock was, by all accounts, a very disturbed man in his interactions with Tippi Hedren. And, much as I disapprove of his mistreatment of her, I still admire the end result of their work together. Similarly, 'Vertigo' will continue to dazzle, enthrall and touch me emotionally even though the film is pretty much a self-portrait of Hitchcock's dark obessions about controlling the feminine objects of his thwarted desire. When I hear a beautiful symphony, gaze on a gorgeous painting, read a brilliantly compelling novel or see a remarkable film my first thought is not about the morality or immorality of the person who created the art I'm experiencing. Later on I may find myself growing curious about the individual behind the artistry. But initially, at least for me, those concerns are beside the point. The fact that Stanley Kubrick was extremely demanding and not always a sweetheart to deal with has zero bearing on how much I adore his films. Of course, when an artist has become particularly notorious through their actions it may influence one's continuing perceptions. I freely admit it would be problematic for me to watch the Cosby Show in light of what has transpired in more recent years. Watching Bill Cosby now as a lovable and funny dad/husband would present major problems for me at this point. And yet I'm still able to appreciate the films of Polanski and Woody Allen, despite my ambivalence toward them as individuals. Is that hypocrisy? Perhaps. But this is a complex subject which, whether viewed as black & white or greyscale, invites inherent subjectivity.
There are too many great artists that are bad people to throw out their art. It does bum me out when I find out that an artist I like is a bad person. The internet has brought the audience closer than ever to the artist. We read their wiki pages. We read/watch their interviews. Many are on social media. We feel like we know the artist so when they let us down it hurts that much more, but the art still remains. Though if it turns out David Lynch is a bad dude I might cry.
Jesus your videos are too damn good, how the heck hasn't your channel blown up yet? 3rd video in and immediately subbed, best film related channel. period
Personally I find it absurd sometimes that this has to be explained to people. If we 'delegitimized' people's work based off a past that is predominantly filtered by the media, then we'd be dismissing James Brown's talent because of his domestic abuse, or Chuck Berry because of his kidnapping, for example. Separation of art from artist has always been important for art itself. You can make anyone look evil if you had a hold of everything in their past.
By the same account, I don't think anyone should judge anyone who can't separate the actions of the artist from the art they create. It doesn't make them less intelligent or less able to understand great art. I think the only important thing is to not justify any of the action of the artists which we may find reprehensible just because they make great art. The problem for me comes if, say, people excused James Brown's domestic abuse on t he basis that he was a great entertainer.
Chris Sayer's right. Each point of view is valid to whomever decides to live by it. The world has deemed someone like Bill Cosby a deviant and has taken down his show and ppl rebuke his work. Nate Parker this year was publicly attacked for a case HE WAS ACQUITTED OF! Now who knows what happened but we obviously live in a world where ppl feel different about this. I felt the way you did for a long time TheMusoBloke, but I saw a video about how one's art IS a reflection of how that person views the world. You can see in some of Woody Allen's films that directly address some of the bad things he has been accussed of (and not in a good way). These artists who are "terrible" human beings make art that reflect how "terrible" they are. That's just how it is sometimes.
WTF.........!! Chuck Berry,went across state lines with a minor,at worst;and racist laws were deployed,in order to trump up charges,by calling that "kidnap". and,what of people;that support,tacitly and directly;hate organizations? your sense of moral proportion, is totally fucked up. oh,and, you pick a couple of black men,exploited by a mafia influenced musical industry,living in an already racist society. No mention ,of Frank Sinatra[who was a complex mixed bag],James Woods[a racist shit],Mel Gibson[an anti-semitic bottom feeder]. We most clearly see,what the hell YOU are;you morally selective,hypocritical moral reprobate.
Humans are naturally hypocritical and self-contradictory species. We love to adulate and idolize, but we also love to demonize and tear others down. It's a fucking mess.
I think separating artist from art is also important because, quite literally, you don't want to judge a book by its cover. There was a certain science fiction series that I read and really enjoyed. Many years after I read them, that writer got in a lot of controversy for homophobic statements that he frequently made. The thing is, I was really surprised, because when I read his novels, I didn't get a sense of how the writer as that kind of person. In fact, based on the novels, I imagined a very different person than he apparently was. And obviously, a person is a far more complicated entity than one problematic aspect of their character.
Great response with depth and humility. Seeing people (and their work) as all good or all bad is a narcissistic defense mechanism, "splitting." A person needs to trust their own judgment. People are incredibly complex.
Love that you tackled this topic. It's a tricky subject, and you did a beautiful job articulating how art can be judged separately from someone's moral character.
This is why I subscribed to your channel...you genuinely put interest into others thoughts and ideals and form your own [fair] opinion....and do so with a basically open mind🙂👍
I've been exploring some of Polanski's filmography lately and have been loving his films! I always have a mindset of judge the art, not the artist. I get what he did, or supposedly did, was despicable. But all I care about is the art. I won't let what he did prevent me from enjoying his phenomenal films. Everyone else should learn to do the same.
totally agree Jake ive seen many of his films i havent seen Repulsion but ive seen Chinatown, rosemarys baby, the ghost writer, tess, the pianist and carnage all great movies I think The Pianist is his most personal great performance from Adrien Brody and great film
I've never let someone's personal flaws or distasteful deeds stop me from appreciating their work. I just can't. I can't do it anymore than I can appreciate something I find unimpressive just because I like the artist. In the case of Polanski in particular, he's made some of my favorite films and I believe he is one our greatest filmmakers in the history of the medium. I can't imagine a context where that changes, either. Great video.
You should apply for a spot with the guys in Collider in Burbank if you live in the greater Los Angeles area because you are very articulate and obviously have a lot of passion for movies and that's cool to see haha and great content! Keep it up lol
Art is often a collaborative endeavor, and it is especially true for film. Roman Polanski's films were made not only by himself, but also hundreds of other people in his cast and crew. Chances are good that at least some of those people have done bad things. More to the point, even if all cast and crew were "bad people," such as films made in the Nazi era, films made by racially insensitive people such as "Birth of a Nation," we still have to devote certain amount of attention to the art only (if it is good). Sometimes we have to acknowledge the art, even if we don't acknowledge the person. Incidentally, after the death of the pro-Nazi filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, the Oscar did acknowledge her in the "In Memoriam" segment, as a nod to her art.
Interesting topic and well put! I LOVE ‘Rosemary’s Baby’, and the work of Polanski. I’m about to review ‘The Tenant’, great film, and I know I’m, probably, going to get some comments about his personal life/legal issues, and I can’t stress enough that I DONT condone what he did, and I don’t feel his art reflects his exploits. It’s like reviewing a film by Victor Salva. I like how you explained this topic and separated the art/artist from the crime and that part of him, or, rather, see the art in the person that did what he did. I can’t put it as elegantly as you could haha but I appreciated what you said! Great video!
Excellent points! One of my fave regarding young girl->woman social transformation. Her look in the last shots, old photo, young, she was looking disturbed.
Excellent video. I completely agree with you, art should not be judged by the separate actions of the artist. I've been having this argument a lot lately for some reason. I think its a big mistake to gauge the validity of art, or the willingness to enjoy or appreciate art based upon the lifestyles or actions of the artist. It is not the role of art to educate or be a moral guide. If we boycotted everything that was created by a problematic artist, we wouldn't be left with much to appreciate, would we?
Most things in life are not black and white, even if others try to make them out to be. People are complex, even if someones actions are reprehensible or immoral that doesn't sum up their whole person. They could be in all accounts a terrible person and at the same time have a certain principle that is seen as virtuous and even admirable.
Would you say the same about Ted Bundy, Bill Cosby, Ed Gein, or the guy who directed Jeepers Creepers (who turned out to be like a horrible child molester and child pornographer) or even like Donald J. Trump? It tends to be if they make something you like you can forgive. Not to attack you; It's just a thought.
I see what you mean. I don't think what I said is the case all of the time, but I imagine it is some of the time. I guess it depends on the specifics of the persons personality.
Wonderfully articulated (as always). This argument gets down to what is the function of art. I see art as a tool, a means of probing truth, of expressing the reality of not just the outer world, but of dreams, of instincts, of psychic reality - this involves the good, the bad and the ugly. I don't feel that art needs to be instructive, that it needs to direct us to what is morally commendable (it seems to me that for centuries many people, and most frustratingly, many critics, have seen it this way). The truth can be a very gnarly thing, it can be offensive, but I don't feel it should be seen as something ideological because then it comes close to propaganda. So, artists aren't priests or even politicians, they don't need to be pillars of the community. Miles Davis recorded many masterpieces, opened up many musical vistas, his personal behavior could be seen as highly questionable. What I use to say to people when this argument came up was that if Hitler had recorded "Kind of Blue", it would still be a work of great beauty, no matter the crimes of the creator. Picasso was a supreme artistic genius, but he also was a real s.o.b. to many - it's complicated, because, as you so beautifully put it, humans are complicated.
There is difference between enjoying someone's art and supporting them. For example, I will watch Polanski and Woody Allen movies, and older movies produced by Harvey Weinstein (Pulp Fiction and Clerks), but I won't give them my money. Under capitalism we have to learn to separate art, artist and profits
Woody Allen was deemed innocent in a court of law after being accused by a single person. Polanski confessed to drugging and having sex with a 13 year old and fled the country, and Weinstein was accused by dozens of women of rape and other similar offenses. Don't lob Woody Allen in with the others.
I personally have 2 different points regarding this issue. I like to see art independently from the artist or the world that has made it. Although it is common sense that an artwork will heavily depend on the personality and psychology of the person who made it, as well as the time that it was made in, it doesn't have to make up the context while experiencing the artwork itself. One is free to see it as though if it came from space. This highlights the timeless, transcendental side of art and provides a very unique experience, and I am all for it. It makes me see and interact with the artwork as though if it is a person in its own right, which I believe is absolutely true. It is a very liberating feeling to say the least, and I would suggest anyone to try this approach if they already don't. Now, my second point will seem to counteract this, but in truth it doesn't really. Although an artwork may be from space, there is actually no such space in any place that there is human consciousness. Way way below our conscious awareness, there are things that shape our whole existence that are actually specific tendencies. Like a story played by archetypes, points in time and people reflect different stances. These is something about this that requires cautioning. Because it is by nature very unconscious, we do not fully grasp the truth about them and accidentally let ourselves open to their influences. So for example, you may say that you like Aristotle's philosophy without agreeing on his beliefs on women. But can Aristotle's philosophy REALLY be separated from her beliefs on women? (For example, as a lover of philosophy and a woman, I found myself unconsciously nurturing similar beliefs towards femininity. I am talking about something truly unconscious here, nothing apparent, nothing that reaches the surface unless you happen to dig it up.) So my point goes, I would approach Polanski's films with a grain of salt, because if the accusations on him are true and he is a despicable human being, there is little chance that it won't be reflected in his movies in some obscure manner, which may stick to me if I let myself bluntly absorb them. (Which is usually what you do if you are young, naive, and have come across something that looks cool and interesting to you because you don't understand it well enough.) It is not like I'm desperately trying to protect myself from shadows, it is more so that I am reasonably protecting myself from psychological rapists that I came to know through experience. Then again, I approach all movies as such, not just those whose directors were accused by abuse or so. Most people are not innocent at heart. But I give the movie it's own right and once the movie gains my trust, which is if I feel it to be genuine and truthful (NOT if it is compatible with my moral standards), I start to let my guard down and dive into the experience. Movies are like acid trips, they really get to you. Life is dangerous y'all, even when it is least expected. That's the truth of it. I think the key is always to know your own self, your own heart. Then whatever ill you may witness won't really touch you, although it may still hurt. But it is easier said than done!
I love Taxi Driver explicitly because the main character is contemptible and pathetic. He's completely flawed but in a way that invites analysis and discussion, and it makes him an extremely compelling character compared to many other movies in spite of morals.
Falling Down. William Foster was a man who was frustrated with the current state of society so he decides to wreak havoc and cause chaos to numerous people whether they were Innocent or not. William's goal was to get his life back to how it used to be. William was a sadistic control freak
I love motion pictures from various genres, from various countries, from various time periods. Allot of films are art to me and I treat it as such. Art is and will always be in the eye of the beholder and that goes beyond the personalities of the artists; moral and immoral. It is the decision to the individual ONLY to choose what they will watch or not watched based on the actions of the artist. I've enjoyed a great many films made by people I probably wouldn't want to meet in person. As you've stated, name one person who isn't flawed. :)
That's a conundrum for common people! Usually those who aren't into art or philosophy have a very limited understanding of life and everything is just in terms of black and white for them. So if a person is bad, he must be completely bad and vice versa! It's hard for people to digest a simple fact that life is too complicated and you can't oversimplify life which most people do. So that's why we need art and literature to have a better and precise understanding of the world we live in!
Hey, Just want to say my play next cue on CZcams got it right this time. Was looking for videos discussing this due to the flak that JK Rowling has been getting for her stupid tweets. Had a few channels that focus on matters of cinema and books and such that touched on it lightly. This is a good, deeper examination. It helps elaborate on my own feelings as during my own debate with someone my through line for my argument was simply "Just because someone is a good artist, it doesn't make them a good person by default nor should becoming a good person by default be a mandatory requirement."(Especially in this specific case, a story about Witches and Wizards). In fact, if one had enough steam to argue this out to it's bitter end it would probably tally up in favour of the bad people being better at art. Anyway just wanted to say, good video, interesting views, and an inticing collection of reading material on the shelves (from what I could make out). Subbing due to this video and hope you're still at it as I'm gonna have a nosy gander at your page.
Can you do some more classic British film reviews of films like withnail and I, peeping tom (1960) and the elephant man. It would be good to here your opinion on them
Dang. It's crazy how you can watch movies from the 1920s, like the Cabinet of Dr. Whats-his-name. I usually steer clear of anything prior to 1935. I just feel like Pre-Code films are incredibly dated and would go right over my head. Think I should reconsider 1920s films? Any recs?? Oh, and I just subscribed..
Thanks! I guess it depends on what kind of films you're in the mood for. I usually recommend some more easy to digest films such as the comedies of Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin for the newbies. But definitely work your way through all kinds of different genres. Metropolis, Pandora's Box, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Battleship Potemkin, and many many others.
Look at all the art in museums or books written. We would be foolish to think every artist/writer was/is perfectly moral. We can appreciate the works created by a person without approving how they live their lives. It does not mean we condone their behavior towards others. Someone said - even the bad guy loves his family.
I always think about it as there is many more people involved in the making of a film, besides the "bad" person, that poured their heart and soul into it too. It wouldn't be fair to them if we up and just canceled their movie.
I would think more like what makes people bad? Cause I really think that there can be bad sides in person but nearly no one is completely bad as person.
A great example of this now is Joss Whedon. Apparently, his bad treatment of people was rampant, yet I would never discount the value of Buffy the Vampire Slayer series. I struggled regarding I felt about this sort of topic when it all came out.
I think they can, I remember watching a documentary about people on death row and many of them had took up reading and even painitng things they admitted would have never interested them out in the everyday world. I think if such people have a conscous and are preppared to explore that conscous, then yes they can make "great" art. Its all about delving into our soul and humaity. Have you ever watched Wake in Fright, or The Woodsman? you should check them out, rather dark, intruiging films.
When you first lay your eyes on a piece of art you make your own impressions of it, you indirectly try to relate to it. Make sense of it in your own way. It is only when you realize or find out that the creator behind the art piece has done something horrible and you maybe even judge the human to be a bad person. That is when you hate the person and the art that is related to sed person. It is only when the art is presented alone when you don’t judge. Good or bad? idk. Maybe everyone is entitled to their own opinion
Hi, I wondered if you have ever thought about this question in reverse. What do you think of great artists who make morally repulsive films? See for example sensesofcinema.com/2004/feature-articles/kapo_daney/ By the way I really love your reviews. Cinema tells us something about the world and ourselves and your reviews are always about this very fundament and how it affects you. And by sharing your views and your vulnerability we all feel a little bit more connected, a little less lost and alone in the world.
Thank you very much. It happens, I think. There are artists out there that have made films that I hated. I think Lars Von Trier is a perfect example. I think he is a very gifted artist. I love some of his films and detest others. But I think he is a great artist. Sometimes a great artist has morals that I question, but they often eventually address them, which is why I find them to be great artists. I love Hitchcock but at times I don't like the way he portrays women from such a masochistic angle on such a consistent basis. However, he addresses those deep-rooted issues and male desires masterfully in Vertigo.
I don't believe there is such a thing as morally repulsive films. As I see it only humans can be moral how could a movie or a song or a painting be moral?
Really enjoyed this subject.In other forms of art there have been many instances where the artist wasn't a very nice person,such as Richard Wagner who was not only morally very dubious but was a very extreme anti-semite who contributed towards the crazy ideas of Hitler,but who did write some very important music.In a distortion of another composer,the Nazis abused "Moonlight Sonata" by Beethoven by using the name as the codeword for the worst blitz inflicted on Coventry in WW2
I really loved this video and topic and while I don't agree with everything I do believe art created by "bad" ppl should be examined. I find art made by horrible ppl interesting (you get a very unique and usually unseen world view). I mean, think about Scorsese being a catholic growing up; that shapes his films and their themes IN A MAJOR WAY. If we were to say "all religion is bad and anybody who ever practiced should be exiled" then we'd miss out on his specific ideas about morality, guilt, and repression. I would love to see a film made by a Blood from south central, a sociopathic mental patient, or even from our current president. Now while these films should be allowed to be made, i don't necessarily think you can fully separate art from artist. You may not have to boycott them, but we have to realize that ALL art is a reflection of those who make it. If I am to watch a film written and directed by a serial killer (who feels no remorse for what he's done) then I probably will get an insight into his worldview and perspective. It's very similar to John Wayne Gacy's paintings from prison; You can say they're just paintings, but with the context of who's making them they offer up a very different viewing experience. I think the same can be said about Polanski. I LOVED Repulsion by the way.
Great video. And I also see this issue in literature and music. Some people want to purge art of all the bad people. But what would be left? Depending on your definition of "bad", which could change according to society and time, not so much. Most people have darker spots as you said. I'd say those who pretend to be all perfect should look at themselves. Of course, there are things worse than others, like rape and murder. But I think excluding these artists and keeping only those who are as "perfect" as possible would dehumanize arts. It is funny to hear people saying this or that is inhuman, like the holocaust that you mentioned. As crazy as this may sound, the holocaust was all TOO human, NOT inhuman! All the dark sides of humanity is what makes humans humans, and not like some other animal. People all have their demons, and might struggle with them. It is not because you do a bad thing that you do not realize what you are doing, or that you are even ok with it too. A lot of artists are quite troubled human beings. Artists are often more extroverted and emotional than the general population, and this may show in what they do. It might even be what makes some of them geniuses in the first place. Some of the best artists were very troubled minds and it coloured their work. Like Dostoyevsky and his experience in work prisons and his conversion to Christianity and his atonement for once being a socialist. When you read him and realize that some of his characters are merely two sides of himself, you understand better what was going on in his mind, his conflicts. Or that both Pushkin and Lermontov made fun of duels, but both died in duels (the latter bothered someone until he was demanded a duel). An interesting example in modern music is the Norwegian black metal scene of the early 90s. The most infamous event was the murder of Øystein Aarseth, better known by his stage name Euronymous, the guitarist of Mayhem and also the owner of a label and the central figure of the scene, by Varg Vikernes, sole member of Burzum (who released records under Euronymous' label). The story gets crazier with all that goes around with it. Church burnings by Vikernes and others, suicide of Mayhem's vocalist, Vikernes' probably false story of the murder and his utter lack of remorse (he is clearly a psychopath), and the fact the Mayhem's first LP, which was released after the murder, has Vikernes as the session bassist. These guys were all in their early 20s and were clearly very troubled. And while it is obvious black metal isn't for everyone, it is not hard to see how "black" the music is, and how likely it is that them being "troubled" had a big influence on the sounds recorded by these musicians. Both Burzum and Mayhem are considered classic bands in the genre. I still find it weird to listen from time to time to the music of a murderer. There is also a related issue that I hear more and more nowadays. How art must absolutely explicitly address certain issues. If there is a rape scene in a book, for example, then it must be clearly stated somewhere that raping is bad. Otherwise the book might be seen to be condoning it. But art has no moral obligations. A book can merely tell a story. And there can be bad characters in the story. The vast, vast majority of people are intelligent enough to know that raping is bad! I'm sure most rapists know this themselves! They might just not care! And sometimes there is a message against what is being portrayed, but it is through the force of how it is written that you understand the message, not through some sort of obvious statement. In fact, all the best books of literature deal with subjects in exactly this manner: not by treating them directly, not by writing a pamphlet or something of the like. But by building a story and characters around the issue and making them illustrate it by the strength of the storytelling. Asking for the writer to explicitly address "problematic" events is destroying art's heart. Art that is too "PC" and tries to bother no one and not portray bad things unless they are explicitly criticized makes for very boring stuff with no lasting impact. I really like period and historical movies, but it seems like nowadays, every time a movie has to deal in a close or far manner with nazis, some character has to highly condemn them in an almost anachronistic way, and that it becomes annoying in the end. Or to always explicitly state how women were not free back then and how it was terrible. I mean, this is all very true, but I watch a period film to feel like I was there, or to experience an authentic story for the time, not to feel like I watch a period movie filmed in 2019. In a way it looks like some kind of virtue signalling: "look how much of a good person I am, for I am able to criticize the wrongs of the past from the comfort of the present". There's no courage in this. Certainly, the power of merely showing what the life of women was like back then is enough to show how wrong it was? Isn't it known already that show don't tell is much more powerful than tell?
Of course the answer is an unqualified and uncomplicated "yes." The fact that anyone thinks otherwise is one of the (many) reasons there is such a dearth of creativity and genuinely engaging art in America (and really the entire west) since around 2013 or so.
There are so many people that are good artist, good workers, good athlets, and so forth, but worse person. The art that they make is totally separated and independent from themselves, because it is not about them, it is not directed towards their image or actions, it is just art, generally beautiful and meaningful, which you would be losing if you didn't separate it from the artist. Don't support the person, but appreciate what he has done in an artístic way
I'll say this, polanski's done some nasty, inexcusable stuff, but he's also had a lot of nasty, inexcusable stuff done to him... And I genuinely feel very sorry for him.
"i am a flawed person, i've done many immoral things in my life. roman polanski is a flawed person, and he's done many immoral things in his life..." and i am a flawed person too. also agree that i don't condone what polanski has done, but maybe a big difference here is that our past isn't a headline on the news..?
We ALL have light and dark sides. Does one have to be a saint to be upheld as a great artist? I'm not a Polanski fan personally, but it's not because of his personal flaws/behavior. Maybe it's my age or life experience, but I try really hard not to judge people, to live and let live. To extract the rare pieces of beauty out of life wherever I can find it (regardless of the source) to expand my mind and lift my spirits, and if I'm lucky be able to leave behind some transcendent soul music of my own for others to appreciate. We're all varying degrees of imperfect, so we really have no right to judge or call others out on their sins. Besides, life is too short to judge, better to move through this world with kindness, compassion and grace!
Never thought of it in the opposite way, but yeah if a fluff artist found the cure for cancer does his fluff art become elevated? Of course not, so why is the opposite true?
Did you ever think of how this kind of controversy in film is an example of the auteur theory run amok? I consider myself an auteurist, but it’s amazing the extent to which Polanski is just unthinkingly assumed to be the one significant auteur of his films . Let’s take Chinatown as an example, is it not at the very same time a Robert Towne film, a Jack Nicholson film, a Faye Dunaway film, a John Huston film, a John Alonzo film, a Richarch Sylbert film, a Jerry Goldsmith film, et cetera… ad nauseum? It’s even partially a Stanley “Magnificent Ambersons” Cortez film. Of course it’s all of these. (and let me also add that if you research the life of John Huston, he turns out to be about as creepy as you can get. Among other things it appears a very good liklihood that he was the best friend of the alleged Black Dahlia murderer, George Hodell) I just confined myself to contributors whose work could be argued to be significant in Chinatown. And that makes Rosemary’s Baby an even better example. It you have pro “Me Too” sympathies it’s bad art because of Polanski. In the other camp we have Mia Farrow. If you are a critic of “Me Too”, Mia makes it a bad film. By the way if you know of a great director who was a good person, please tell me. It also funny how many directors were out and out mega mythomaniacs. Hawks, Fellini, Bergman, Ulmer, etc. Capra for one, on the basis of his autobiography was a big liar. The list is endless.
There’s no such thing as a good dog or a bad dog. Does the room have dynamic quality or does dynamic quality have the room. Big difference. Goodness or badness has the dog. Not the other way around. Imagine how silly one sounds when calling a stove a ‘Damn Stove’ because you get burnt bumping into it! Then later that night it saves your life because your furnace breaks down on the coldest night of the year. So much for the stove being bad. Western culture communicates as if the Tolkien ring of power .. the one ring .. is how real life works. As if a thing can be inherently evil. Redic Same with a dog Same with a nun Same with a serial killer Same with a comet heading for our Earth. Same with everything. Experience is Quality. Quality is a noun Everything else is just an adjective of it! Nice vid!
My question's off topic, but could you review Trainspotting? The sequel just came out and I'd be interested in your opinion about the film and Danny Boyle in general
It's funny you mention that. I was just watching the first one. Hadn't seen it since I was a teenager. But I'm not the biggest Danny Boyle fan so that's probably why it took so long.
deepfocuslens Hah fair enough. His filmography's mixed for me; I think his first two films are brilliant, particularly Trainspotting. Then there's the occasional gem like Sunshine, which is really solid. Then he's sort of lost the punch he had earlier on. BUT T2 I think is a real comeback for him.
For some people it will always be March 1977. It's as if nothing else ever happened in the life of the director and the girl. Polanski was a one-time offender, not an habitual offender. He did one bad thing. He satisfied the court's judgments and made financial restitution as soon as he could earn the money. Since then he has lived a perfectly regular normal life raising a family. The saga took a bizarre turn when his victim Samantha Geimer began to defend him and advocate legal forgiveness. She actually went to France to meet with Polanski and his wife. What do you make of this interview with her: czcams.com/video/ks4DmdF5bh8/video.html
This is a pretty fantastic video what raises a really interesting debate, I have thought about this myself and I appreciate art and the artists but take Chinatown for example the ending was kind of a big fuck you moment to me, and was kind of a bragging right “This is Chinatown Jack.” It’s kind of a kick in the mouth, you can’t touch me because I am above the law and we don’t answer to anyone. What’s a bit ironic that a pedophile who fled the country to avoid prosecution is telling me that because I’m an artist I don’t adhere to the same moral principles and laws the regular folk do. I get the point about him having a hard life with the Nazi’s & Manson killing his wife but we can’t use that as a argument that he is damaged because of what happened to him, the events of your past Shape you but we can’t let them define us and our actions either. I appreciate him as a filmmaker but hate him as a man for doing the worst possible thing imaginable and not serving his time like a man.
Great video! I think "bad" people can make good art. Bad people can be talented in a lot of ways. I think I wouldn't have a problem watching some despicable person's film, but that's only because I can't see or hear the actual artist making the product. Your video made me think of the band Lostprophets and its lead singer Ian Watkins. The music is fine, but hearing that guy sing just makes me feel disgusted because of what he did outside of his art making. Hence, I'll never listen to that music ever again even though the music itself is totally innocent of any crime. Artists can get away with a lot, but there are limits.
With the amount of people involved in the making of every people, you are always going to be lining the pockets of some bad people whether you know it or not.
my take is that trying to apply logic the subject is a waste of time, because people. how many can be reached with reason? how many are susceptible to logic? this is one place where most will have an opinion n will not consider another
Thank you, well said. Obviously Polanski and all abusive acts are despicable and odious - but if a person were to avoid all movies, music and art made by morally questionable individuals, then there would be near nothing left. Also do the people who advocate for not supporting financially artists who’ve committed immoral acts apply the same logic to how their clothing or food is made?
Late to this discussion, but I agree with much of what you've said deepfocuslens. There is no excusing what we know of the poor judgment that Polanski displayed at Jack Nicholson's home on that evening, more than likely under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. I submit that NONE of us are as bad as our worst day, or by way of perception, as good as our best. If you go beyond snap judgment, and look at a bigger pattern of trauma in his life, he was a child of the holocaust, as well as his pregnant wife being murdered by the Manson family just a few years prior to the assault. Again, not excusing what he did, simply attempting to better understand where he was as a human being at this time in life. I feel sorry for him, and the fact that the damage he experienced manifest itself by damaging another. As a filmmaker, he displayed a very strong empathy with, and sensitivity to, the female experience in such films as Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby, and Tess. There are many others listed on this thread that have displayed a 'pattern' of despicable behavior such as Woody Allen, but for some reason they have never been focused on and persecuted anywhere near as harshly as Polanski due to his worst day. It is well documented that the victim herself has long since forgiven him. I feel that at very least, he should simply be left alone at this point. I personally admire his art, and would never wish to be judged solely by my darkest known act in life. I will continue to celebrate the work, if not the flawed human that created it. Thanks for the topic and I will continue to support your channel.
The real question is: Should we burn Adolf Hitler's paintings or preserve them? If you can answer this question, then you know exactly where you stand on this subject.
Fantastic essay on Polanski and other "bad" people. Would Polanski, Allen, and all those out there who were caught with sexual misconduct have been the same artists otherwise? Is the personal life of an artist a separate compartment from his creative output? I believe artistic inspiration, but most of all, artistic sensitivity and sensibility doesn't exist independently. Art is the expression of somebody as a whole individual, including what we would consider as immorality, even criminal conduct. Anybody who would attempt to make the case for "good" art as opposed to "bad" art based on whether an artist has ever transgressed anything condemnable, would illusion oneself plain and simple. Among the various motivations behind artistic creation are inner moral conflucts, and whether such conflicts resolved themselves through, let's say, sexual misconduct or crime, or not, is secondary to the point, from the strict artistic perspective. One may disapprove so much of Polanski's or Allen's actions in their personal lives that he/she feels obliged to condemn their output entirely out of principle. And yet, the whole issue of the artistic merit of their work remains open to one's esthetic appreciation and criticism. More often than not, artists are tormented souls and whether we like it or not, their life is often undissociable from scandal. Oscar Wilde, Verlaine, Rimbaud, Villon, even Da Vinci, have led personal lives that resulted in controversies, personal injuries, criminal pursuits, etc. My personal view has long been: that the one who never sinned tgrow the first stone. Next: let's talk about the merits of their art ! And it so happens that too many people have missed the merits of Polanski's movies since he left America, out of concern for the director's judiciary condemnation. I couldn't care less. If I knew Polanski's victim (s?) personally, it mught be different, but I won't feint concern if the movies are as good as they have been in many cases. He is a great director, and nothing he's done ever changed that. From his adaptation of 'Tess', to 'Venus in Fur', Le Locataire to 'The Pianist' even a minor fantastic thriller such as The Ninth Door, Polanski's cinema has brought light in my life and I admire his films for their undeniable qualities.
Chinatown is one of my favorite movies. + I agree that one can applaud the art and dislike the artist. I, for one, refuse to purchase certain music from questionable characters (I do hear them for free) and I have only captured Polanski on Cable TV. It's my little protest. However, I do believe that an artist's behavior can influence one's enjoyment of their art. I once caught myself physically trying not to laugh at ANTZ when Woody Allen's cartoon character did something. Ridiculous, maybe, but the annoying back story of the artist was there, interfering with my enjoyment of the art. I also get frustrated with the notion that it's been 40 years and we should let it go. We didn't exile Polanski, he fled. It was a self imposed exile and if he had decided to face the music, this would have been over long ago. (as to someone's comment below that he was threatened with 50 years, I highly, highly, highly doubt it. Anyway, yes, he is a talent but I have zero sympathies.
Seventh Art history is literally studded with moot, when not exactly despicable, characters at various levels (ideological, moral, behavioral). Some examples: ...despite never officially joining the Nazi party, Leni Riefenstahl has given voice like no other filmmaker to the aesthetics of the regime; however, today I believe it is possible to appreciate works such as “The Holy Mountain” (’26), “The Witch of Santa Maria” (’32) or “Olympia” (’32) from a purely artistic point of view... Claude Autant-Lara, one of the masters of French cinema, has never hidden his anti-Semitism and his words often hurt; at the same time, one cannot remain indifferent to the refined beauty of “Douce” (’43) or the scandalous force of the anti-war message that incorporates “Thou shalt not kill” (’61)... In the past, Clint Eastwood has behaved very shamefully, in my opinion, towards his ex-wife Sondra Locke. Yet, paradoxically, “Madison County” (’95) e “Changeling” (2008) attest to an uncommon sensitivity towards female courage and sensibility.... Klaus Kinski was and remains one of the greatest German theater and film actors but... God only knows the atrocities, the cases of sexual abuse, the improprieties, the outbursts of brutality that this man has left behind! It sounds easy and ambiguous but... the human being is incredibly contradictory and fragile! Human too human, wrote a german philosopher. If the talent is really talent then it will remain while the deceptive human factor will fall into oblivion. An affectionate embrace from La Spezia (Italy), Giordano 🎞️ 💖... P.S.: I apologize for my chaotic English 🤭
the answer is 42 ... and the question is what is the meaning of it all. If there is a heaven and a hell then the good guy is the one who visits hell by sneaking out of heaven, and he goes just to make sure everyone's doing alright in hell. All of these ideas have things in common. Some say to live life with no regrets but isn't that the worst way to do it? The enlightened person they say must decide whether to float away or to hang around in this world that is both a cesspool and a garden and to stay means to embrace it all. The funny part is even if there is an answer, it's not necessary. Just the question existing is answer enough.
I don't know if someone else mentioned it here before, since there're too many comments here for me to read. But what everyone who wants to see the movies of Polanski or the art of artists who've commited similar hard crimes in general should consider, is, that if they pay for the art of these artists they might support "successful" future crimes of them. Because money means power and the ability to get away with crimes, normal people woundn't get away with. So at least don't pay for these artworks, when you want to consume them!
Absolutely. Since I come from things on a spiritual level I have come to the the conclusion that the art itself is sometimes the only evidence that some people have that they are a product of God's creation. If the only measuring stick that I have is just a moral compus I would have very little music or any sort of art that would add enrichment to my life. Charlie Chaplin,Woody Allen , Miles Davis, Frank Zappa,Ray Charles, Pablo Picasso, Salvador Dali, Andrew Wyeth were and are extremely flawed extremely flawed humans. For me my life would be just a silent vacant lot without their artistic presence.
I as a person don’t let myself get hung up by people’s beliefs or crimes versus Art or business. If I went around and took a hard stance on things like this I couldn’t buy or be entertained by anyone or anything. I’m sad when Bill Cosby or Roman Polanski but their work or art I’ll watch
Unpopular view: most of the great film artists grew up wealthy. They are from a different class than film consumers, and that class, the wealth class, does nothing for the working class but provide art. Outside of that, they are oppressors to the working class. And thus, most great film artists are bad people.
If we didn't separate art from the artist some of the greatest art would be erased or we would only stick with lame art.
"Rosemary's Baby" is one of my favorite films of all time, and I say that unapologetically, even though Polanski has shown himself to be a despicable human being. (I would describe him as more than a "flawed" person, but that doesn't negate his artistic brilliance.) I think admiring his work isn't the same as condoning his reprehensible behavior. I've always had similarly mixed feelings about, say, Miles Davis, who, by all accounts, was a pretty terrible person, but has made some of the most unforgettable music of the 20th century. I think you can admire someone's work, without losing sight of what a terrible person they are/were. Enjoy your channel very much.
Well said!
This is a great subject and video. Separating art and artist is complicated.
It seems that great talent often has moral hazard bundled in with the bargain. I think that this is the proverbial Faustian bargian; when given great power/fame from one's gifts, you are usually getting more than you bargained for and one's mortal soul is often at hazard. So many great artists were and are tortured by addiction (both sex and drug), psychological and personality disorders (narcissism first and foremost), criminality, etc., etc. The problem I see it from a consumer standpoint is that young people often look to artists as role models and they are pretty much only good role models for artistic vision, not for anything else, and young folks rarely can make that distinction.
As far as Polanski goes the greatest hypocrisy I see is the way Hollywood so often holds themselves up as arbiters of moral rectitude or "humanity" and yet celebrate cretinous people like Polanski and Weinstein. I hate that kind of hypocrisy more than almost anything else, and I've almost gotten to the point where I don't even bother watching most Hollywood output at this point. It's mostly SJW garbage.
I could not agree with you more. Wagner was a pretty unpleasant man, but does that mean his music should be dismissed or censored? Picasso was abusive toward women. Does that lessen the importance or impact of his paintings? And as for writers... Goodness, this becomes one very slippery slope indeed if one conflates the personal morality (or lack thereof) of any artist with their artistic output. I've heard it said that no work of art is moral or immoral. It is either good or it is bad. And even that, of course, is subjective. There are many creative people whose personal lives and actions I have found, in some regard, repugnant and objectionable. And yet I have been impressed and even moved by the artistry inherent in their work. Hitchcock was, by all accounts, a very disturbed man in his interactions with Tippi Hedren. And, much as I disapprove of his mistreatment of her, I still admire the end result of their work together. Similarly, 'Vertigo' will continue to dazzle, enthrall and touch me emotionally even though the film is pretty much a self-portrait of Hitchcock's dark obessions about controlling the feminine objects of his thwarted desire. When I hear a beautiful symphony, gaze on a gorgeous painting, read a brilliantly compelling novel or see a remarkable film my first thought is not about the morality or immorality of the person who created the art I'm experiencing. Later on I may find myself growing curious about the individual behind the artistry. But initially, at least for me, those concerns are beside the point. The fact that Stanley Kubrick was extremely demanding and not always a sweetheart to deal with has zero bearing on how much I adore his films. Of course, when an artist has become particularly notorious through their actions it may influence one's continuing perceptions. I freely admit it would be problematic for me to watch the Cosby Show in light of what has transpired in more recent years. Watching Bill Cosby now as a lovable and funny dad/husband would present major problems for me at this point. And yet I'm still able to appreciate the films of Polanski and Woody Allen, despite my ambivalence toward them as individuals. Is that hypocrisy? Perhaps. But this is a complex subject which, whether viewed as black & white or greyscale, invites inherent subjectivity.
At times, it is about no more than whose ''ox is being gored'', which, is on some level selfish, and morally vulgar.
you think so? me personly find it effortlessly easy to separate art from artist
There are too many great artists that are bad people to throw out their art. It does bum me out when I find out that an artist I like is a bad person. The internet has brought the audience closer than ever to the artist. We read their wiki pages. We read/watch their interviews. Many are on social media. We feel like we know the artist so when they let us down it hurts that much more, but the art still remains. Though if it turns out David Lynch is a bad dude I might cry.
Jesus your videos are too damn good, how the heck hasn't your channel blown up yet? 3rd video in and immediately subbed, best film related channel. period
Personally I find it absurd sometimes that this has to be explained to people. If we 'delegitimized' people's work based off a past that is predominantly filtered by the media, then we'd be dismissing James Brown's talent because of his domestic abuse, or Chuck Berry because of his kidnapping, for example. Separation of art from artist has always been important for art itself. You can make anyone look evil if you had a hold of everything in their past.
By the same account, I don't think anyone should judge anyone who can't separate the actions of the artist from the art they create. It doesn't make them less intelligent or less able to understand great art. I think the only important thing is to not justify any of the action of the artists which we may find reprehensible just because they make great art. The problem for me comes if, say, people excused James Brown's domestic abuse on t he basis that he was a great entertainer.
Chris Sayer's right. Each point of view is valid to whomever decides to live by it. The world has deemed someone like Bill Cosby a deviant and has taken down his show and ppl rebuke his work. Nate Parker this year was publicly attacked for a case HE WAS ACQUITTED OF! Now who knows what happened but we obviously live in a world where ppl feel different about this.
I felt the way you did for a long time TheMusoBloke, but I saw a video about how one's art IS a reflection of how that person views the world. You can see in some of Woody Allen's films that directly address some of the bad things he has been accussed of (and not in a good way). These artists who are "terrible" human beings make art that reflect how "terrible" they are. That's just how it is sometimes.
WTF.........!! Chuck Berry,went across state lines with a minor,at worst;and racist laws were deployed,in order to trump up charges,by calling that "kidnap". and,what of people;that support,tacitly and directly;hate organizations? your sense of moral proportion, is totally fucked up. oh,and, you pick a couple of black men,exploited by a mafia influenced musical industry,living in an already racist society. No mention ,of Frank Sinatra[who was a complex mixed bag],James Woods[a racist shit],Mel Gibson[an anti-semitic bottom feeder]. We most clearly see,what the hell YOU are;you morally selective,hypocritical moral reprobate.
Humans are naturally hypocritical and self-contradictory species. We love to adulate and idolize, but we also love to demonize and tear others down. It's a fucking mess.
I think separating artist from art is also important because, quite literally, you don't want to judge a book by its cover. There was a certain science fiction series that I read and really enjoyed. Many years after I read them, that writer got in a lot of controversy for homophobic statements that he frequently made. The thing is, I was really surprised, because when I read his novels, I didn't get a sense of how the writer as that kind of person. In fact, based on the novels, I imagined a very different person than he apparently was. And obviously, a person is a far more complicated entity than one problematic aspect of their character.
Great response with depth and humility. Seeing people (and their work) as all good or all bad is a narcissistic defense mechanism, "splitting." A person needs to trust their own judgment. People are incredibly complex.
Love that you tackled this topic. It's a tricky subject, and you did a beautiful job articulating how art can be judged separately from someone's moral character.
This is why I subscribed to your channel...you genuinely put interest into others thoughts and ideals and form your own [fair] opinion....and do so with a basically open mind🙂👍
I've been exploring some of Polanski's filmography lately and have been loving his films! I always have a mindset of judge the art, not the artist. I get what he did, or supposedly did, was despicable. But all I care about is the art. I won't let what he did prevent me from enjoying his phenomenal films. Everyone else should learn to do the same.
totally agree Jake ive seen many of his films i havent seen Repulsion but ive seen Chinatown, rosemarys baby, the ghost writer, tess, the pianist and carnage all great movies I think The Pianist is his most personal great performance from Adrien Brody and great film
@@65g4 bro trust me on this watch the tenant you will cream yourself
You have to separate the Art from the Artist. The movies are still good regardless.
I wish there were more deep thinkers like you, your videos are the most refreshing film reviews i know of on youtube
I've never let someone's personal flaws or distasteful deeds stop me from appreciating their work. I just can't. I can't do it anymore than I can appreciate something I find unimpressive just because I like the artist.
In the case of Polanski in particular, he's made some of my favorite films and I believe he is one our greatest filmmakers in the history of the medium. I can't imagine a context where that changes, either.
Great video.
You should apply for a spot with the guys in Collider in Burbank if you live in the greater Los Angeles area because you are very articulate and obviously have a lot of passion for movies and that's cool to see haha and great content! Keep it up lol
Thanks for making the video. Should be said!
Art is often a collaborative endeavor, and it is especially true for film. Roman Polanski's films were made not only by himself, but also hundreds of other people in his cast and crew. Chances are good that at least some of those people have done bad things. More to the point, even if all cast and crew were "bad people," such as films made in the Nazi era, films made by racially insensitive people such as "Birth of a Nation," we still have to devote certain amount of attention to the art only (if it is good). Sometimes we have to acknowledge the art, even if we don't acknowledge the person. Incidentally, after the death of the pro-Nazi filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, the Oscar did acknowledge her in the "In Memoriam" segment, as a nod to her art.
I’m reminded of what Toscanini said about Richard Strauss: “To Strauss the composer I take off my hat; to Strauss the man I put it back on again.”
Interesting topic and well put! I LOVE ‘Rosemary’s Baby’, and the work of Polanski. I’m about to review ‘The Tenant’, great film, and I know I’m, probably, going to get some comments about his personal life/legal issues, and I can’t stress enough that I DONT condone what he did, and I don’t feel his art reflects his exploits. It’s like reviewing a film by Victor Salva. I like how you explained this topic and separated the art/artist from the crime and that part of him, or, rather, see the art in the person that did what he did. I can’t put it as elegantly as you could haha but I appreciated what you said!
Great video!
Excellent points! One of my fave regarding young girl->woman social transformation. Her look in the last shots, old photo, young, she was looking disturbed.
Fantastic video. Hits the nail right into the dome!
Excellent video. I completely agree with you, art should not be judged by the separate actions of the artist. I've been having this argument a lot lately for some reason. I think its a big mistake to gauge the validity of art, or the willingness to enjoy or appreciate art based upon the lifestyles or actions of the artist. It is not the role of art to educate or be a moral guide. If we boycotted everything that was created by a problematic artist, we wouldn't be left with much to appreciate, would we?
Most things in life are not black and white, even if others try to make them out to be. People are complex, even if someones actions are reprehensible or immoral that doesn't sum up their whole person. They could be in all accounts a terrible person and at the same time have a certain principle that is seen as virtuous and even admirable.
Would you say the same about Ted Bundy, Bill Cosby, Ed Gein, or the guy who directed Jeepers Creepers (who turned out to be like a horrible child molester and child pornographer) or even like Donald J. Trump? It tends to be if they make something you like you can forgive. Not to attack you; It's just a thought.
I see what you mean. I don't think what I said is the case all of the time, but I imagine it is some of the time. I guess it depends on the specifics of the persons personality.
Wonderfully articulated (as always). This argument gets down to what is the function of art. I see art as a tool, a means of probing truth, of expressing the reality of not just the outer world, but of dreams, of instincts, of psychic reality - this involves the good, the bad and the ugly. I don't feel that art needs to be instructive, that it needs to direct us to what is morally commendable (it seems to me that for centuries many people, and most frustratingly, many critics, have seen it this way). The truth can be a very gnarly thing, it can be offensive, but I don't feel it should be seen as something ideological because then it comes close to propaganda. So, artists aren't priests or even politicians, they don't need to be pillars of the community. Miles Davis recorded many masterpieces, opened up many musical vistas, his personal behavior could be seen as highly questionable. What I use to say to people when this argument came up was that if Hitler had recorded "Kind of Blue", it would still be a work of great beauty, no matter the crimes of the creator. Picasso was a supreme artistic genius, but he also was a real s.o.b. to many - it's complicated, because, as you so beautifully put it, humans are complicated.
This video just served to remind me that taxi driver is one of the greatest films of all time
"Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault."- Oscar Wilde.
Ars gratia Artis!
There is difference between enjoying someone's art and supporting them.
For example, I will watch Polanski and Woody Allen movies, and older movies produced by Harvey Weinstein (Pulp Fiction and Clerks), but I won't give them my money.
Under capitalism we have to learn to separate art, artist and profits
Woody Allen was deemed innocent in a court of law after being accused by a single person. Polanski confessed to drugging and having sex with a 13 year old and fled the country, and Weinstein was accused by dozens of women of rape and other similar offenses. Don't lob Woody Allen in with the others.
Your counter example using Michael Bay is brilliant. I’m going to have to use that.
Amen!
Also Sigourney Weaver in Death and the Maiden was a great character!
I personally have 2 different points regarding this issue.
I like to see art independently from the artist or the world that has made it. Although it is common sense that an artwork will heavily depend on the personality and psychology of the person who made it, as well as the time that it was made in, it doesn't have to make up the context while experiencing the artwork itself. One is free to see it as though if it came from space. This highlights the timeless, transcendental side of art and provides a very unique experience, and I am all for it. It makes me see and interact with the artwork as though if it is a person in its own right, which I believe is absolutely true. It is a very liberating feeling to say the least, and I would suggest anyone to try this approach if they already don't.
Now, my second point will seem to counteract this, but in truth it doesn't really. Although an artwork may be from space, there is actually no such space in any place that there is human consciousness. Way way below our conscious awareness, there are things that shape our whole existence that are actually specific tendencies. Like a story played by archetypes, points in time and people reflect different stances. These is something about this that requires cautioning. Because it is by nature very unconscious, we do not fully grasp the truth about them and accidentally let ourselves open to their influences. So for example, you may say that you like Aristotle's philosophy without agreeing on his beliefs on women. But can Aristotle's philosophy REALLY be separated from her beliefs on women? (For example, as a lover of philosophy and a woman, I found myself unconsciously nurturing similar beliefs towards femininity. I am talking about something truly unconscious here, nothing apparent, nothing that reaches the surface unless you happen to dig it up.)
So my point goes, I would approach Polanski's films with a grain of salt, because if the accusations on him are true and he is a despicable human being, there is little chance that it won't be reflected in his movies in some obscure manner, which may stick to me if I let myself bluntly absorb them. (Which is usually what you do if you are young, naive, and have come across something that looks cool and interesting to you because you don't understand it well enough.) It is not like I'm desperately trying to protect myself from shadows, it is more so that I am reasonably protecting myself from psychological rapists that I came to know through experience.
Then again, I approach all movies as such, not just those whose directors were accused by abuse or so. Most people are not innocent at heart. But I give the movie it's own right and once the movie gains my trust, which is if I feel it to be genuine and truthful (NOT if it is compatible with my moral standards), I start to let my guard down and dive into the experience. Movies are like acid trips, they really get to you. Life is dangerous y'all, even when it is least expected. That's the truth of it. I think the key is always to know your own self, your own heart. Then whatever ill you may witness won't really touch you, although it may still hurt. But it is easier said than done!
I love Taxi Driver explicitly because the main character is contemptible and pathetic. He's completely flawed but in a way that invites analysis and discussion, and it makes him an extremely compelling character compared to many other movies in spite of morals.
Falling Down. William Foster was a man who was frustrated with the current state of society so he decides to wreak havoc and cause chaos to numerous people whether they were Innocent or not. William's goal was to get his life back to how it used to be. William was a sadistic control freak
The man is nothing; the work is everything. - G. Flaubert
3:33 - This is a brilliant observation.
I love motion pictures from various genres, from various countries, from various time periods. Allot of films are art to me and I treat it as such. Art is and will always be in the eye of the beholder and that goes beyond the personalities of the artists; moral and immoral. It is the decision to the individual ONLY to choose what they will watch or not watched based on the actions of the artist. I've enjoyed a great many films made by people I probably wouldn't want to meet in person. As you've stated, name one person who isn't flawed. :)
This channel deserves way more subs.
Absolutely on point 👌
That's a conundrum for common people! Usually those who aren't into art or philosophy have a very limited understanding of life and everything is just in terms of black and white for them. So if a person is bad, he must be completely bad and vice versa! It's hard for people to digest a simple fact that life is too complicated and you can't oversimplify life which most people do. So that's why we need art and literature to have a better and precise understanding of the world we live in!
Hey, Just want to say my play next cue on CZcams got it right this time. Was looking for videos discussing this due to the flak that JK Rowling has been getting for her stupid tweets. Had a few channels that focus on matters of cinema and books and such that touched on it lightly. This is a good, deeper examination. It helps elaborate on my own feelings as during my own debate with someone my through line for my argument was simply "Just because someone is a good artist, it doesn't make them a good person by default nor should becoming a good person by default be a mandatory requirement."(Especially in this specific case, a story about Witches and Wizards). In fact, if one had enough steam to argue this out to it's bitter end it would probably tally up in favour of the bad people being better at art.
Anyway just wanted to say, good video, interesting views, and an inticing collection of reading material on the shelves (from what I could make out).
Subbing due to this video and hope you're still at it as I'm gonna have a nosy gander at your page.
I love everything you do
Can you do some more classic British film reviews of films like withnail and I, peeping tom (1960) and the elephant man. It would be good to here your opinion on them
At some point, yes. I talked about Peeping Tom in a video years ago, but I definitely want to do a real review for it. I'm a huge Michael Powell fan.
Dang. It's crazy how you can watch movies from the 1920s, like the Cabinet of Dr. Whats-his-name. I usually steer clear of anything prior to 1935. I just feel like Pre-Code films are incredibly dated and would go right over my head. Think I should reconsider 1920s films? Any recs?? Oh, and I just subscribed..
Thanks! I guess it depends on what kind of films you're in the mood for. I usually recommend some more easy to digest films such as the comedies of Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin for the newbies. But definitely work your way through all kinds of different genres. Metropolis, Pandora's Box, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Battleship Potemkin, and many many others.
Look at all the art in museums or books written. We would be foolish to think every artist/writer was/is perfectly moral. We can appreciate the works created by a person without approving how they live their lives. It does not mean we condone their behavior towards others. Someone said - even the bad guy loves his family.
I always think about it as there is many more people involved in the making of a film, besides the "bad" person, that poured their heart and soul into it too. It wouldn't be fair to them if we up and just canceled their movie.
Readers of H.P. Lovecraft be like: "We paved these roads so your kids could play in them!"
I would think more like what makes people bad? Cause I really think that there can be bad sides in person but nearly no one is completely bad as person.
A great example of this now is Joss Whedon. Apparently, his bad treatment of people was rampant, yet I would never discount the value of Buffy the Vampire Slayer series.
I struggled regarding I felt about this sort of topic when it all came out.
I think they can, I remember watching a documentary about people on death row and many of them had took up reading and even painitng things they admitted would have never interested them out in the everyday world. I think if such people have a conscous and are preppared to explore that conscous, then yes they can make "great" art. Its all about delving into our soul and humaity.
Have you ever watched Wake in Fright, or The Woodsman? you should check them out, rather dark, intruiging films.
Totally agree with her view.
When you first lay your eyes on a piece of art you make your own impressions of it, you indirectly try to relate to it. Make sense of it in your own way. It is only when you realize or find out that the creator behind the art piece has done something horrible and you maybe even judge the human to be a bad person. That is when you hate the person and the art that is related to sed person. It is only when the art is presented alone when you don’t judge. Good or bad? idk. Maybe everyone is entitled to their own opinion
Art is Art
Hi, I wondered if you have ever thought about this question in reverse. What do you think of great artists who make morally repulsive films?
See for example sensesofcinema.com/2004/feature-articles/kapo_daney/
By the way I really love your reviews. Cinema tells us something about the world and ourselves and your reviews are always about this very fundament and how it affects you. And by sharing your views and your vulnerability we all feel a little bit more connected, a little less lost and alone in the world.
Thank you very much. It happens, I think. There are artists out there that have made films that I hated. I think Lars Von Trier is a perfect example. I think he is a very gifted artist. I love some of his films and detest others. But I think he is a great artist. Sometimes a great artist has morals that I question, but they often eventually address them, which is why I find them to be great artists. I love Hitchcock but at times I don't like the way he portrays women from such a masochistic angle on such a consistent basis. However, he addresses those deep-rooted issues and male desires masterfully in Vertigo.
I don't believe there is such a thing as morally repulsive films. As I see it only humans can be moral how could a movie or a song or a painting be moral?
Really enjoyed this subject.In other forms of art there have been many instances where the artist wasn't a very nice person,such as Richard Wagner who was not only morally very dubious but was a very extreme anti-semite who contributed towards the crazy ideas of Hitler,but who did write some very important music.In a distortion of another composer,the Nazis abused "Moonlight Sonata" by Beethoven by using the name as the codeword for the worst blitz inflicted on Coventry in WW2
Read the title as 'immortal' and thought to myself that they probably could due to all the time they could dedicate to making it.
Thanks
Thank you!
I really loved this video and topic and while I don't agree with everything I do believe art created by "bad" ppl should be examined. I find art made by horrible ppl interesting (you get a very unique and usually unseen world view). I mean, think about Scorsese being a catholic growing up; that shapes his films and their themes IN A MAJOR WAY. If we were to say "all religion is bad and anybody who ever practiced should be exiled" then we'd miss out on his specific ideas about morality, guilt, and repression. I would love to see a film made by a Blood from south central, a sociopathic mental patient, or even from our current president.
Now while these films should be allowed to be made, i don't necessarily think you can fully separate art from artist. You may not have to boycott them, but we have to realize that ALL art is a reflection of those who make it. If I am to watch a film written and directed by a serial killer (who feels no remorse for what he's done) then I probably will get an insight into his worldview and perspective. It's very similar to John Wayne Gacy's paintings from prison; You can say they're just paintings, but with the context of who's making them they offer up a very different viewing experience.
I think the same can be said about Polanski. I LOVED Repulsion by the way.
Great video. And I also see this issue in literature and music. Some people want to purge art of all the bad people. But what would be left? Depending on your definition of "bad", which could change according to society and time, not so much. Most people have darker spots as you said. I'd say those who pretend to be all perfect should look at themselves. Of course, there are things worse than others, like rape and murder. But I think excluding these artists and keeping only those who are as "perfect" as possible would dehumanize arts. It is funny to hear people saying this or that is inhuman, like the holocaust that you mentioned. As crazy as this may sound, the holocaust was all TOO human, NOT inhuman! All the dark sides of humanity is what makes humans humans, and not like some other animal. People all have their demons, and might struggle with them. It is not because you do a bad thing that you do not realize what you are doing, or that you are even ok with it too.
A lot of artists are quite troubled human beings. Artists are often more extroverted and emotional than the general population, and this may show in what they do. It might even be what makes some of them geniuses in the first place. Some of the best artists were very troubled minds and it coloured their work. Like Dostoyevsky and his experience in work prisons and his conversion to Christianity and his atonement for once being a socialist. When you read him and realize that some of his characters are merely two sides of himself, you understand better what was going on in his mind, his conflicts. Or that both Pushkin and Lermontov made fun of duels, but both died in duels (the latter bothered someone until he was demanded a duel). An interesting example in modern music is the Norwegian black metal scene of the early 90s. The most infamous event was the murder of Øystein Aarseth, better known by his stage name Euronymous, the guitarist of Mayhem and also the owner of a label and the central figure of the scene, by Varg Vikernes, sole member of Burzum (who released records under Euronymous' label). The story gets crazier with all that goes around with it. Church burnings by Vikernes and others, suicide of Mayhem's vocalist, Vikernes' probably false story of the murder and his utter lack of remorse (he is clearly a psychopath), and the fact the Mayhem's first LP, which was released after the murder, has Vikernes as the session bassist. These guys were all in their early 20s and were clearly very troubled. And while it is obvious black metal isn't for everyone, it is not hard to see how "black" the music is, and how likely it is that them being "troubled" had a big influence on the sounds recorded by these musicians. Both Burzum and Mayhem are considered classic bands in the genre. I still find it weird to listen from time to time to the music of a murderer.
There is also a related issue that I hear more and more nowadays. How art must absolutely explicitly address certain issues. If there is a rape scene in a book, for example, then it must be clearly stated somewhere that raping is bad. Otherwise the book might be seen to be condoning it. But art has no moral obligations. A book can merely tell a story. And there can be bad characters in the story. The vast, vast majority of people are intelligent enough to know that raping is bad! I'm sure most rapists know this themselves! They might just not care! And sometimes there is a message against what is being portrayed, but it is through the force of how it is written that you understand the message, not through some sort of obvious statement. In fact, all the best books of literature deal with subjects in exactly this manner: not by treating them directly, not by writing a pamphlet or something of the like. But by building a story and characters around the issue and making them illustrate it by the strength of the storytelling. Asking for the writer to explicitly address "problematic" events is destroying art's heart. Art that is too "PC" and tries to bother no one and not portray bad things unless they are explicitly criticized makes for very boring stuff with no lasting impact. I really like period and historical movies, but it seems like nowadays, every time a movie has to deal in a close or far manner with nazis, some character has to highly condemn them in an almost anachronistic way, and that it becomes annoying in the end. Or to always explicitly state how women were not free back then and how it was terrible. I mean, this is all very true, but I watch a period film to feel like I was there, or to experience an authentic story for the time, not to feel like I watch a period movie filmed in 2019. In a way it looks like some kind of virtue signalling: "look how much of a good person I am, for I am able to criticize the wrongs of the past from the comfort of the present". There's no courage in this. Certainly, the power of merely showing what the life of women was like back then is enough to show how wrong it was? Isn't it known already that show don't tell is much more powerful than tell?
Of course the answer is an unqualified and uncomplicated "yes." The fact that anyone thinks otherwise is one of the (many) reasons there is such a dearth of creativity and genuinely engaging art in America (and really the entire west) since around 2013 or so.
Yes
There are so many people that are good artist, good workers, good athlets, and so forth, but worse person. The art that they make is totally separated and independent from themselves, because it is not about them, it is not directed towards their image or actions, it is just art, generally beautiful and meaningful, which you would be losing if you didn't separate it from the artist. Don't support the person, but appreciate what he has done in an artístic way
Amen.
Certainly. I try to separate the person from his works, although not always easily with auteur directors.
I'll say this, polanski's done some nasty, inexcusable stuff, but he's also had a lot of nasty, inexcusable stuff done to him... And I genuinely feel very sorry for him.
I don't. At what point does the abuse stop. It's up to him to not hurt others
"Each" as subject of sentence takes a singular verb
"i am a flawed person, i've done many immoral things in my life. roman polanski is a flawed person, and he's done many immoral things in his life..." and i am a flawed person too.
also agree that i don't condone what polanski has done, but maybe a big difference here is that our past isn't a headline on the news..?
We ALL have light and dark sides. Does one have to be a saint to be upheld as a great artist? I'm not a Polanski fan personally, but it's not because of his personal flaws/behavior. Maybe it's my age or life experience, but I try really hard not to judge people, to live and let live. To extract the rare pieces of beauty out of life wherever I can find it (regardless of the source) to expand my mind and lift my spirits, and if I'm lucky be able to leave behind some transcendent soul music of my own for others to appreciate. We're all varying degrees of imperfect, so we really have no right to judge or call others out on their sins. Besides, life is too short to judge, better to move through this world with kindness, compassion and grace!
Could you imagine if only "good" people made art?
Anyways... your insights are always on point
Never thought of it in the opposite way, but yeah if a fluff artist found the cure for cancer does his fluff art become elevated? Of course not, so why is the opposite true?
10:00 Cinnamon fans unite!
Did you ever think of how this kind of controversy in film is an example of the auteur theory run amok? I consider myself an auteurist, but it’s amazing the extent to which Polanski is just unthinkingly assumed to be the one significant auteur of his films . Let’s take Chinatown as an example, is it not at the very same time a Robert Towne film, a Jack Nicholson film, a Faye Dunaway film, a John Huston film, a John Alonzo film, a Richarch Sylbert film, a Jerry Goldsmith film, et cetera… ad nauseum? It’s even partially a Stanley “Magnificent Ambersons” Cortez film. Of course it’s all of these. (and let me also add that if you research the life of John Huston, he turns out to be about as creepy as you can get. Among other things it appears a very good liklihood that he was the best friend of the alleged Black Dahlia murderer, George Hodell) I just confined myself to contributors whose work could be argued to be significant in Chinatown. And that makes Rosemary’s Baby an even better example. It you have pro “Me Too” sympathies it’s bad art because of Polanski. In the other camp we have Mia Farrow. If you are a critic of “Me Too”, Mia makes it a bad film.
By the way if you know of a great director who was a good person, please tell me. It also funny how many directors were out and out mega mythomaniacs. Hawks, Fellini, Bergman, Ulmer, etc. Capra for one, on the basis of his autobiography was a big liar. The list is endless.
I'm surprised you haven't reviewed TESS (1979)
There’s no such thing as a good dog or a bad dog.
Does the room have dynamic quality or does dynamic quality have the room.
Big difference.
Goodness or badness has the dog. Not the other way around.
Imagine how silly one sounds when calling a stove a ‘Damn Stove’ because you get burnt bumping into it!
Then later that night it saves your life because your furnace breaks down on the coldest night of the year.
So much for the stove being bad.
Western culture communicates as if the Tolkien ring of power .. the one ring .. is how real life works. As if a thing can be inherently evil.
Redic
Same with a dog
Same with a nun
Same with a serial killer
Same with a comet heading for our Earth.
Same with everything.
Experience is Quality. Quality is a noun
Everything else is just an adjective of it!
Nice vid!
My question's off topic, but could you review Trainspotting?
The sequel just came out and I'd be interested in your opinion about the film and Danny Boyle in general
It's funny you mention that. I was just watching the first one. Hadn't seen it since I was a teenager. But I'm not the biggest Danny Boyle fan so that's probably why it took so long.
deepfocuslens Hah fair enough.
His filmography's mixed for me; I think his first two films are brilliant, particularly Trainspotting. Then there's the occasional gem like Sunshine, which is really solid. Then he's sort of lost the punch he had earlier on. BUT T2 I think is a real comeback for him.
Please, go & see "Arrival" if you haven't, I have to hear your take on it!
I saw it but didn't review it. I briefly gave my thoughts on it during my Academy Award nominations video.
For some people it will always be March 1977. It's as if nothing else ever happened in the life of the director and the girl. Polanski was a one-time offender, not an habitual offender. He did one bad thing. He satisfied the court's judgments and made financial restitution as soon as he could earn the money. Since then he has lived a perfectly regular normal life raising a family. The saga took a bizarre turn when his victim Samantha Geimer began to defend him and advocate legal forgiveness. She actually went to France to meet with Polanski and his wife. What do you make of this interview with her:
czcams.com/video/ks4DmdF5bh8/video.html
The pyramids were built by slaves … yet it is still a tourist attraction . So yep you can separate .
Another case in point....Leni Riefenstahl.
Omg I found this. PLEASE just listen to her
Pah-lease
This is a pretty fantastic video what raises a really interesting debate, I have thought about this myself and I appreciate art and the artists but take Chinatown for example the ending was kind of a big fuck you moment to me, and was kind of a bragging right “This is Chinatown Jack.” It’s kind of a kick in the mouth, you can’t touch me because I am above the law and we don’t answer to anyone. What’s a bit ironic that a pedophile who fled the country to avoid prosecution is telling me that because I’m an artist I don’t adhere to the same moral principles and laws the regular folk do. I get the point about him having a hard life with the Nazi’s & Manson killing his wife but we can’t use that as a argument that he is damaged because of what happened to him, the events of your past Shape you but we can’t let them define us and our actions either. I appreciate him as a filmmaker but hate him as a man for doing the worst possible thing imaginable and not serving his time like a man.
Great video! I think "bad" people can make good art. Bad people can be talented in a lot of ways. I think I wouldn't have a problem watching some despicable person's film, but that's only because I can't see or hear the actual artist making the product. Your video made me think of the band Lostprophets and its lead singer Ian Watkins. The music is fine, but hearing that guy sing just makes me feel disgusted because of what he did outside of his art making. Hence, I'll never listen to that music ever again even though the music itself is totally innocent of any crime. Artists can get away with a lot, but there are limits.
Was Woody Allen Ever Accused Of Anything Offically>
With the amount of people involved in the making of every people, you are always going to be lining the pockets of some bad people whether you know it or not.
Exactly.
Yes.
my take is that trying to apply logic the subject is a waste of time, because people. how many can be reached with reason? how many are susceptible to logic? this is one place where most will have an opinion n will not consider another
Thank you, well said. Obviously Polanski and all abusive acts are despicable and odious - but if a person were to avoid all movies, music and art made by morally questionable individuals, then there would be near nothing left. Also do the people who advocate for not supporting financially artists who’ve committed immoral acts apply the same logic to how their clothing or food is made?
Late to this discussion, but I agree with much of what you've said deepfocuslens.
There is no excusing what we know of the poor judgment that Polanski displayed
at Jack Nicholson's home on that evening, more than likely under the influence of
alcohol and/or drugs.
I submit that NONE of us are as bad as our worst day, or by way of perception, as
good as our best.
If you go beyond snap judgment, and look at a bigger pattern of trauma in his life,
he was a child of the holocaust, as well as his pregnant wife being murdered by the
Manson family just a few years prior to the assault.
Again, not excusing what he did, simply attempting to better understand where he
was as a human being at this time in life.
I feel sorry for him, and the fact that the damage he experienced manifest itself by
damaging another.
As a filmmaker, he displayed a very strong empathy with, and sensitivity to, the
female experience in such films as Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby, and Tess.
There are many others listed on this thread that have displayed a 'pattern' of
despicable behavior such as Woody Allen, but for some reason they have never been
focused on and persecuted anywhere near as harshly as Polanski due to his worst day.
It is well documented that the victim herself has long since forgiven him.
I feel that at very least, he should simply be left alone at this point.
I personally admire his art, and would never wish to be judged solely by my darkest
known act in life.
I will continue to celebrate the work, if not the flawed human that created it.
Thanks for the topic and I will continue to support your channel.
Charles Bukowski was, to me, sort of a scumbag and I still love his poetry.
The real question is: Should we burn Adolf Hitler's paintings or preserve them? If you can answer this question, then you know exactly where you stand on this subject.
Tbh, given how average his paintings are, I don't think anything would be lost in the world of art if they were burnt.
Fantastic essay on Polanski and other "bad" people. Would Polanski, Allen, and all those out there who were caught with sexual misconduct have been the same artists otherwise? Is the personal life of an artist a separate compartment from his creative output? I believe artistic inspiration, but most of all, artistic sensitivity and sensibility doesn't exist independently. Art is the expression of somebody as a whole individual, including what we would consider as immorality, even criminal conduct.
Anybody who would attempt to make the case for "good" art as opposed to "bad" art based on whether an artist has ever transgressed anything condemnable, would illusion oneself plain and simple.
Among the various motivations behind artistic creation are inner moral conflucts, and whether such conflicts resolved themselves through, let's say, sexual misconduct or crime, or not, is secondary to the point, from the strict artistic perspective.
One may disapprove so much of Polanski's or Allen's actions in their personal lives that he/she feels obliged to condemn their output entirely out of principle. And yet, the whole issue of the artistic merit of their work remains open to one's esthetic appreciation and criticism. More often than not, artists are tormented souls and whether we like it or not, their life is often undissociable from scandal. Oscar Wilde, Verlaine, Rimbaud, Villon, even Da Vinci, have led personal lives that resulted in controversies, personal injuries, criminal pursuits, etc.
My personal view has long been: that the one who never sinned tgrow the first stone. Next: let's talk about the merits of their art !
And it so happens that too many people have missed the merits of Polanski's movies since he left America, out of concern for the director's judiciary condemnation. I couldn't care less. If I knew Polanski's victim (s?) personally, it mught be different, but I won't feint concern if the movies are as good as they have been in many cases. He is a great director, and nothing he's done ever changed that. From his adaptation of 'Tess', to 'Venus in Fur', Le Locataire to 'The Pianist' even a minor fantastic thriller such as The Ninth Door, Polanski's cinema has brought light in my life and I admire his films for their undeniable qualities.
Chinatown is one of my favorite movies. +
I agree that one can applaud the art and dislike the artist. I, for one, refuse to purchase certain music from questionable characters (I do hear them for free) and I have only captured Polanski on Cable TV. It's my little protest. However, I do believe that an artist's behavior can influence one's enjoyment of their art. I once caught myself physically trying not to laugh at ANTZ when Woody Allen's cartoon character did something. Ridiculous, maybe, but the annoying back story of the artist was there, interfering with my enjoyment of the art.
I also get frustrated with the notion that it's been 40 years and we should let it go. We didn't exile Polanski, he fled. It was a self imposed exile and if he had decided to face the music, this would have been over long ago. (as to someone's comment below that he was threatened with 50 years, I highly, highly, highly doubt it. Anyway, yes, he is a talent but I have zero sympathies.
Seventh Art history is literally studded with moot, when not exactly despicable, characters at various levels (ideological, moral, behavioral). Some examples:
...despite never officially joining the Nazi party, Leni Riefenstahl has given voice like no other filmmaker to the aesthetics of the regime; however, today I believe it is possible to appreciate works such as “The Holy Mountain” (’26), “The Witch of Santa Maria” (’32) or “Olympia” (’32) from a purely artistic point of view... Claude Autant-Lara, one of the masters of French cinema, has never hidden his anti-Semitism and his words often hurt; at the same time, one cannot remain indifferent to the refined beauty of “Douce” (’43) or the scandalous force of the anti-war message that incorporates “Thou shalt not kill” (’61)... In the past, Clint Eastwood has behaved very shamefully, in my opinion, towards his ex-wife Sondra Locke. Yet, paradoxically, “Madison County” (’95) e “Changeling” (2008) attest to an uncommon sensitivity towards female courage and sensibility.... Klaus Kinski was and remains one of the greatest German theater and film actors but... God only knows the atrocities, the cases of sexual abuse, the improprieties, the outbursts of brutality that this man has left behind!
It sounds easy and ambiguous but... the human being is incredibly contradictory and fragile! Human too human, wrote a german philosopher. If the talent is really talent then it will remain while the deceptive human factor will fall into oblivion. An affectionate embrace from La Spezia (Italy), Giordano 🎞️ 💖... P.S.: I apologize for my chaotic English 🤭
the answer is 42 ... and the question is what is the meaning of it all. If there is a heaven and a hell then the good guy is the one who visits hell by sneaking out of heaven, and he goes just to make sure everyone's doing alright in hell. All of these ideas have things in common. Some say to live life with no regrets but isn't that the worst way to do it? The enlightened person they say must decide whether to float away or to hang around in this world that is both a cesspool and a garden and to stay means to embrace it all. The funny part is even if there is an answer, it's not necessary. Just the question existing is answer enough.
Michael bay is a legendary cataclysmic sandstorm of dumb action movie magic the films he makes make you laugh and smile because there so bombastic
I don't know if someone else mentioned it here before, since there're too many comments here for me to read. But what everyone who wants to see the movies of Polanski or the art of artists who've commited similar hard crimes in general should consider, is, that if they pay for the art of these artists they might support "successful" future crimes of them. Because money means power and the ability to get away with crimes, normal people woundn't get away with. So at least don't pay for these artworks, when you want to consume them!
Look at Mansons performance art.
This girl is amazing, I agree with her in every way. In my next life I'm going to seek her out and propose, that's for sure.
RE: "Can bad people make good art?" Yes. Wagner.
Absolutely. Since I come from things on a spiritual level I have come to the the conclusion that the art itself is sometimes the only evidence that some people have that they are a product of God's creation. If the only measuring stick that I have is just a moral compus I would have very little music or any sort of art that would add enrichment to my life. Charlie Chaplin,Woody Allen , Miles Davis, Frank Zappa,Ray Charles, Pablo Picasso, Salvador Dali, Andrew Wyeth were and are extremely flawed extremely flawed humans. For me my life would be just a silent vacant lot without their artistic presence.
I thought "America" had forgiven Polanski when they gave him the Oscar for The Pianist
I as a person don’t let myself get hung up by people’s beliefs or crimes versus Art or business. If I went around and took a hard stance on things like this I couldn’t buy or be entertained by anyone or anything. I’m sad when Bill Cosby or Roman Polanski but their work or art I’ll watch
Unpopular view: most of the great film artists grew up wealthy. They are from a different class than film consumers, and that class, the wealth class, does nothing for the working class but provide art. Outside of that, they are oppressors to the working class. And thus, most great film artists are bad people.