A self-serving movie producer bemoans his inability to make money from immorality

I present to you Luca Barbareschi, the producer of Roman Polanski’s most recent film (which I shall not name here, you can find it in the link), who cannot get theater distribution for this film in the US, the UK or France. Here are some of his quoted statements:

And we ask ourselves why there are wars. The Anglo-Saxon world has to respect artists like the rest of the world does.

That’s right, not being willing to spend money to put in the pockets of an admitted child rapist and his enablers, is the same as making war. If there is any respect due, it would be to the work itself, not the artist (if in fact he can claim that title). If the artist behaves badly and ruins peoples’ lives, he should not expect to be treated with respect.

He added that Polanski movies were shown on numerous streamers, such as Netflix, “making millions” for those platforms. “Someone explain to me the logic for that,” he said.

Hey, you’re the producer, if you don’t want the streaming services to make money off the film, don’t sell it to streaming services. On the other hand, if I’m a distributor and I don’t want to buy a product that is stained with the actions of its director, I won’t buy it.

There is no moral judgement on art.

Maybe. But there is moral judgment on artists, and on those around the artist (like you) who are completely amoral when it comes to making money off the work of an admitted child rapist.

So I hope you will forgive me for not boo-hooing about you not making as much money as you think you are entitled to, from the work of an artist who is also a despicable human being.

(I debated making a pit thread about this instead, but since both the subject and the object are in the purview of this forum, I decided to put it here.)

There’s no clear consensus about the morality of viewing or paying for art created by immoral people. The art itself is not immoral. I wouldn’t be in favor of restricting immoral people from producing art, probably others feel differently. This guy sounds clueless about current American society so if he counted on distributing this movie in theaters here he made a big mistake all on his own.

Well said.

He’d have been pretty well restricted from making art if he’d done prison time like he should have.

I wouldn’t have any problem with those restrictions, or the of lack theaters who will show the movie.

Until he got out and was celebrated in France again. But if he’d served even a short sentence it would have hung on him forever. And it would( barely) be enough. Now, if the money from the art allows him to do immoral things, obviously that’s different.

I think it makes a huge difference, at least it does to me, whether the immoral person is going to receive money more or less directly from my paying for their art. In the case of a movie, either he gets a percentage of the gross or net, or if the movie is successful it is easier for him to get another movie job. Neither of these are outcomes to which I wish to contribute.

I probably wouldn’t have brought up this at all, I know there has been a great long thread about the general subject, but the producer’s whining got up my nose. As if it is a moral failing for distributors in these countries not to distribute this film, and that they are showing disrespect for Art for bogus morality reasons. The puffed-up superiority, it is too much.

Bill Cosby.

It does to me also. I won’t pay to see the work of some people, and usually wouldn’t want to see it for free either. I just don’t want to provide excuses to interfere with free expression. A reasonable basis for doing so today will one day be used in an unreasonable manner.

Used by whom? To my mind, it’s more like a boycott, only for bad behavior rather than for, say, political disagreement. There is no restriction of freedom involved, because I should always have the freedom to choose where to spend my money, based on whatever criteria seem good to me. So if you have a scenario in mind, where that freedom of mine can be used to unreasonably interfere with someone else’s free expression, I’d be interested to read about it.

What struck me is that they can’t find a distributor in France - it was my impression that he was lauded there as a great artist.

I knew that name was familiar. Barbareschi starred in the detective series Fog and Crimes that ran on PBS for years.

Here’s another quote from Barbareschi: “I don’t think he ever raped anybody. He was a very sexy man and women were chasing him.” Yuk.

He also supports right-wing fascist nutjob Giorga Meloni, so he can go fuck himself in numerous ways.

That’s fine. All of us can use our free expression to not watch this or any other movie. And to some degree that is working. But what else can we do? Had Polanski not fled he’d probably be out by now. Should the government prevent him from ever making movies again as part of his sentence? That’s a road to an unfortunate destination.

Of course not, and I have not seen any suggestion of that anywhere. Film distributors, streaming services, film producers and directors, are all private persons or organizations and have no connection with law enforcement or the penal system.

Why do we need to do anything else besides express our opinions with our buying choices? I really don’t understand what you think you’re getting at here.

I was trying to respond to you. Just clearing up what I said. I’m not going to actively prevent people’s free expression in principle, but those same people have to suffer the natural consequences of immoral actions which could restrict their ability to express themselves to the means available in a prison cell.

I don’t think it’s difficult to understand what I’m saying, nor do I see it being in opposition to what you say at all either.

I can take or leave the economic arguments about enriching evil people. What I want is to say “X is morally despicable, and you’re all bad people for supporting their stuff” without wrongly being told I’m against free speech.

I am against free speech, but that isn’t what’s happening there. In fact, that’s me exercising my free speech.

And that’s an appeal to the slippery slope fallacy.

Polanski can make all the art he wants. It’s just that the people who choose to do business with him shouldn’t complain that other people don’t feel like doing business with him.

Did Polanski serve any of his sentence? No.
Is the government involved this? No.

Nobody in this country is required to do business with unrepentant child rapists.

Who the fuck calls a 13 year old girl a woman?

Exactly. This producer is being a total whiner. An artist can always make art, but his backers always risk losing their shirts.

And it does not even have to be a truly moral judgement. The distributors would be making a straight business decision that the cost/benefit of taking a chance on this property is not worth it. (I suspect if it were a guaranteed hundreds-of-million$-selling blockbuster they’d quickly find someone more “tolerant” … )

Polanski himself has had what for anyone else would be a fine life of wealth and career of artistic creation for 50 years, save for some restrictions on his movements. So no tears for him.