# I don't get people who say "so and so supports a cause I don't agree with so I won't see his mov **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 30, 2010, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-people-who-say-so-and-so-supports-a-cause-i-dont-agree-with-so-i-wont-see-his-mov/541251 "2010-05-30T02:40:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-people-who-say-so-and-so-supports-a-cause-i-dont-agree-with-so-i-wont-see-his-mov/541251/41 "2010-05-31T14:28:14Z")
What happens if someone just refuses to watch Chinatown because they think it’s boring? Do you burst into flames from the sheer ignorance of great cinema, **jordanr2**? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-people-who-say-so-and-so-supports-a-cause-i-dont-agree-with-so-i-wont-see-his-mov/541251/42 "2010-05-31T14:32:51Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Will Smith is not a Scientologist. I knew that, but, for a while, there were rumors he was headed that way, and at least one publication reported he actually was one. As for the money deal: aren’t most actor’s pay negotiated without regard to how well the movie does in the box office? And, really, is the number of people who boycott significant enough to make a difference? Every time I’ve heard of a national boycott, I’ve never noticed the company hurting. To the point where I tell my Baptist friends that their Disney, Harry Potter, etc. boycotts are totally stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus\_alba](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quercus_alba/32/4061_2.png) [@Quercus\_alba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus_alba)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-people-who-say-so-and-so-supports-a-cause-i-dont-agree-with-so-i-wont-see-his-mov/541251/43 "2010-05-31T15:10:02Z")
> [@RikWriter](#): > > Well who could? They pretty much sucked. He was a great president and a great man though, if a terrible actor. Actually, “Hellcats of the Navy” was pretty entertaining, in an awful-B-movie starring-future-president-and-first-lady kind of way… ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-people-who-say-so-and-so-supports-a-cause-i-dont-agree-with-so-i-wont-see-his-mov/541251/44 "2010-05-31T15:17:35Z")
> [@pinkyvee](#): > > Exactly! > > The only time I get upset about a performer’s political views is when it is shoved down my throat without my permission. > > If I go to a concert, I want to hear the music. Or, see the performance. > I paid for that. > When an “artist” decides to make a political speech instead of give me what I have paid for… I get cheesed off. > Big time. Bingo ---
**Author:** ![middleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9a140/32.png) [@middleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/middleman)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-people-who-say-so-and-so-supports-a-cause-i-dont-agree-with-so-i-wont-see-his-mov/541251/45 "2010-05-31T16:51:03Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I knew that, but, for a while, there were rumors he was headed that way, and at least one publication reported he actually was one. > > As for the money deal: aren’t most actor’s pay negotiated without regard to how well the movie does in the box office? And, really, is the number of people who boycott significant enough to make a difference? Every time I’ve heard of a national boycott, I’ve never noticed the company hurting. To the point where I tell my Baptist friends that their Disney, Harry Potter, etc. boycotts are totally stupid. Box Office definitely affects their NEXT payday, though. > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > But it’s not as simple as that. > > Your friends have some problem with this Christian attitude, I assume. > > Well, if your friends continue to eat there, that means they are giving the owners money. The owner’s wealth will increase, thus giving them more discretionary income to spend on lobbyists. Lobbyists who might push a law urging that no fast food place can be open on Sunday. CfA owners can push the law on 2 fronts and feel good about it: it helps them financially by shutting down their competitors 1 day a week just like they shut down 1 day a week, and it promotes their Christian ideology, which offends your friends so. They can spend more money, thanks to your friends patronizing their business, on elected officials who espouse views much like their own fundamentalist Christian views (the same views that your friends don’t care for much). > > Giving someone money to spend on promoting views you find abhorrent is stupid, IMO. I try not to do it. > > Do you donate to the presidential campaign of the guy you aren’t going to vote for? Is there any evidence that they have tried this tactic? Is there a cite that they have pushed others to close on Sundays (crappy behavior) or do they simply put their money where their mouth is and give up one of the busiest days in fast food because they have certain beliefs (commendable behavior)? A quick google search shows a few overly religious practices, but nothing to suggest that they want to force other businesses to close via blue laws. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-people-who-say-so-and-so-supports-a-cause-i-dont-agree-with-so-i-wont-see-his-mov/541251/46 "2010-05-31T17:48:26Z")
I hated Ronald Reagan the president, but he was not a bad actor. See him in _King’s Row_, _The Voice of the Turtle_, or _The Hasty Heart_. ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-people-who-say-so-and-so-supports-a-cause-i-dont-agree-with-so-i-wont-see-his-mov/541251/47 "2010-05-31T20:40:41Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I knew that, but, for a while, there were rumors he was headed that way, and at least one publication reported he actually was one. > > As for the money deal: aren’t most actor’s pay negotiated without regard to how well the movie does in the box office? And, really, is the number of people who boycott significant enough to make a difference? Why does it have to make a difference to the boycotted person? I will not pay to see a Mickey Rourke movie because he gave financial support to the IRA. I do not want any of my money, even though the amount is infinitesimal to him, going to Rourke (and definitely not to the IRA). It makes a difference to me, and that’s enough for me. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-people-who-say-so-and-so-supports-a-cause-i-dont-agree-with-so-i-wont-see-his-mov/541251/48 "2010-05-31T21:34:58Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > But it’s not as simple as that. > > Your friends have some problem with this Christian attitude, I assume. What Christian attitude are you referring to? Because none of my friends have voiced any particular reasons for avoiding Chik-fil-A other than the fact that they’re owned by Christians who close up shop on Sundays. Seriously, that’s it. No mention of how the owners spend money, whether they pay lobbyist in Washington, or anything of that nature. The simple fact that they know the owners are Christian and close up on Sunday is enough to keep them away. So maybe some of the people you know articulate their reasons a bit better but mine sure don’t. ---
**Author:** ![jordanr2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/838e76/32.png) [@jordanr2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jordanr2)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-people-who-say-so-and-so-supports-a-cause-i-dont-agree-with-so-i-wont-see-his-mov/541251/49 "2010-05-31T22:36:09Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > What happens if someone just refuses to watch Chinatown because they think it’s boring? Do you burst into flames from the sheer ignorance of great cinema, **jordanr2**? 🙂 How would they know unless they were to watch it? ---
**Author:** ![jordanr2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/838e76/32.png) [@jordanr2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jordanr2)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-people-who-say-so-and-so-supports-a-cause-i-dont-agree-with-so-i-wont-see-his-mov/541251/50 "2010-05-31T22:43:05Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > I guess some people are just more concerned about child rape than they are about cinema. Heartbreaking, I know. I’d say it’s more that they’re more concerned with asserting a firm stance on a silly debate and thus appearing to be in the right morally speaking. > [@](#): > > As for me, I’ve seen a couple of Polanski’s movies on TV or from the library but I’ve never paid money for one, and I don’t think I ever would. If he’d done his time then I might feel otherwise, but I’m not going to support him as a fugitive from justice. out of curiosity, have you seen _Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired_? > [@](#): > > I can understand how others might find his crime so repulsive and upsetting that they not only refuse to pay Polanski their money but would rather just not watch his films at all, because knowledge of his behavior would ruin whatever enjoyment they might otherwise get out of them. In the case of _Chinatown_ I think it would be particularly difficult to push Polanski’s crime out of mind, since the rape of a teenage girl is an important plot point. Well, this instance of Polanski’s behavior actually occurred three years after the release of _Chinatown_, so I’d find it odd that anyone might take that into account, but whatever floats your boat. Actually, after the 1977 incident, IMO, Polanski’s only made a few films worth watching so all this may be beside the point. It’s intriguing that this logic isn’t applied to the films of someone like Leni Riefenstahl. Apparently an act of sexual violence whose victim herself is on board with Polanski’s release from future prosecution deserves more flak than aesthetic complicity with the Nazi regime, or so one would think from the comparative hue-and-cry over each filmmaker’s actions. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-people-who-say-so-and-so-supports-a-cause-i-dont-agree-with-so-i-wont-see-his-mov/541251/51 "2010-05-31T23:16:36Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > _He drugged and raped a child_. I cannot in good conscience give money to such a man for something as petty as a few hours entertainment. If that means I “don’t care much about cinema”, so be it. You know who didn’t drug and rape a child? The hundreds of other people who work on the film with him. I work in the industry and there’s hardly a production that likely has an unsavory character somewhere in the mix. As heinous as Polanski’s history is, there are a lot of other people’s livelihoods at stake in his films, not just his. It’s not like 100% of the money goes back directly into his pockets. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-people-who-say-so-and-so-supports-a-cause-i-dont-agree-with-so-i-wont-see-his-mov/541251/52 "2010-06-01T00:36:55Z")
> [@jordanr2](#): > > It’s intriguing that this logic isn’t applied to the films of someone like Leni Riefenstahl. Apparently an act of sexual violence whose victim herself is on board with Polanski’s release from future prosecution deserves more flak than aesthetic complicity with the Nazi regime, or so one would think from the comparative hue-and-cry over each filmmaker’s actions. Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that Riefenstahl has been dead for seven years and directed only one movie (a nature documentary) within the past 50 years. I don’t believe that ever even saw wide theatrical release in the US. Her work aside from _Triumph of the Will_ has been almost entirely forgotten by the general public. And her Nazi ties certainly haven’t been whitewashed; her association with the Nazis largely ended her career, and to the extent that your Average Joe or Jane even recognizes Riefenstahl’s name today then she’s known as the woman who made propaganda films for Hitler. People may not make a point of saying they’re deliberately avoiding her other films, but that’s because the subject doesn’t even come up. Her movies aren’t in the theaters, and I doubt they’re in many folks’ Netflix queues either. If Riefenstahl has spent the last few years of her life directing films that went on to play at American multiplexes then you probably would have heard a lot of people say “I’m not giving a Nazi supporter any of my money!” But she didn’t, and there aren’t a lot of Riefenstahl film festivals for people to boycott. Seriously, do you really find it surprising that no one is up in arms about the behavior of a dead director who was mostly inactive after 1938? ---
**Author:** ![pinkyvee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/6de8d8/32.png) [@pinkyvee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pinkyvee)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-people-who-say-so-and-so-supports-a-cause-i-dont-agree-with-so-i-wont-see-his-mov/541251/53 "2010-06-01T00:55:17Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > You know who didn’t drug and rape a child? The hundreds of other people who work on the film with him. I work in the industry and there’s hardly a production that likely has an unsavory character somewhere in the mix. As heinous as Polanski’s history is, there are a lot of other people’s livelihoods at stake in his films, not just his. It’s not like 100% of the money goes back directly into his pockets. Agree 100%. My husband is a 35 year veteran in the business. He’s worked with amazing stand-up people, and has also worked with some completely effed’up jerks. If a movie is good, I’ll go see it. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-people-who-say-so-and-so-supports-a-cause-i-dont-agree-with-so-i-wont-see-his-mov/541251/54 "2010-06-01T02:16:45Z")
> [@jordanr2](#): > > How would they know unless they were to watch it? Well, I mean someone who’s seen it. I’ve already seen it and I don’t care to see it again just because it bored me. ---
**Author:** ![jordanr2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/838e76/32.png) [@jordanr2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jordanr2)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-people-who-say-so-and-so-supports-a-cause-i-dont-agree-with-so-i-wont-see-his-mov/541251/55 "2010-06-01T04:06:16Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that Riefenstahl has been dead for seven years and directed only one movie (a nature documentary) within the past 50 years. I don’t believe that ever even saw wide theatrical release in the US. Her work aside from _Triumph of the Will_ has been almost entirely forgotten by the general public. And her Nazi ties certainly haven’t been whitewashed; her association with the Nazis largely ended her career, and to the extent that your Average Joe or Jane even recognizes Riefenstahl’s name today then she’s known as the woman who made propaganda films for Hitler. People may not make a point of saying they’re deliberately avoiding her other films, but that’s because the subject doesn’t even come up. Her movies aren’t in the theaters, and I doubt they’re in many folks’ Netflix queues either. Well, to me the basic issue is one of understanding, which is why I think people should see the Polanski documentary before trying to discuss the case. It seems a little odd that folks who would never have heard of Polanski were it not for this case get so very up-in-arms about it all; it just screams “recreational outrage” to me. I bring up the Riefenstahl example because even among cinematically-knowledgable people, i.e. those aware of both the Riefenstahl case and the Polanski case, the latter seems to be much more discussed. > [@](#): > > If Riefenstahl has spent the last few years of her life directing films that went on to play at American multiplexes then you probably would have heard a lot of people say “I’m not giving a Nazi supporter any of my money!” But she didn’t, and there aren’t a lot of Riefenstahl film festivals for people to boycott. > > Seriously, do you really find it surprising that no one is up in arms about the behavior of a dead director who was mostly inactive after 1938? Not surprising at all, but to me the ideal would be a cultural discussion of Polanski - taking into account his work, his biography, his deeds and their consequences - similar to that which has unfolded surrounding Riefenstahl. I can envision that happening sometime in the future, but for now the Polanski discussion is mostly just repetitious and irritates me. Do people really think they’re taking some profound moral stand by refusing to see his movies? ---
**Author:** ![jordanr2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/838e76/32.png) [@jordanr2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jordanr2)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-people-who-say-so-and-so-supports-a-cause-i-dont-agree-with-so-i-wont-see-his-mov/541251/56 "2010-06-01T04:07:24Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Well, I mean someone who’s seen it. I’ve already seen it and I don’t care to see it again just because it bored me. _shrug_ to each his own. I can’t envision ever finding _Chinatown_ boring, but at least you took the effort to see it, which is more than many of the anti-Polanski offenderati seem to be doing. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-people-who-say-so-and-so-supports-a-cause-i-dont-agree-with-so-i-wont-see-his-mov/541251/57 "2010-06-01T04:51:34Z")
> [@jordanr2](#): > > I bring up the Riefenstahl example because even among cinematically-knowledgable people, i.e. those aware of both the Riefenstahl case and the Polanski case, the latter seems to be much more discussed. That’s because Roman Polanski had a new movie in mainstream American theaters within the past few months, one that’s probably still showing some places, so filmgoers have recently had to make a decision about whether or not they were going to give him their business. Recent developments in his case also put his name back in the news, and it remains uncertain what exactly is going to happen to him. No one could give Leni Riefenstahl money if they wanted to because she’s dead, there’s no question about what’s going to become of her because she’s dead, and while she was still alive then there was limited opportunity for even the biggest cinema buffs to go see a revival screening of _Das Blaue Licht_ anyway. Riefenstahl isn’t a currently popular topic of discussion because there’s not much left to discuss, and of what is left then none is new and most is purely academic. Outside an actual history or history of film course there’s little reason for most people to bother talking about her at all. > [@](#): > > \*I can envision that happening sometime in the future, but for now the Polanski discussion is mostly just repetitious and irritates me. \*Well, if it bothers you so much then you could easily stay out of it. No one forced you to engage with the subject in this thread, and the rest of us might be done talking about it already if you hadn’t decided to get involved. > [@](#): > > \*Do people really think they’re taking some profound moral stand by refusing to see his movies? \*I have seen no indication that this is the case. Does every decision people make about how they spend their time and money have to be a profound moral stand? ---
**Author:** ![jordanr2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/838e76/32.png) [@jordanr2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jordanr2)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-people-who-say-so-and-so-supports-a-cause-i-dont-agree-with-so-i-wont-see-his-mov/541251/58 "2010-06-01T23:48:02Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > That’s because Roman Polanski had a new movie in mainstream American theaters within the past few months, one that’s probably still showing some places, so filmgoers have recently had to make a decision about whether or not they were going to give him their business. Recent developments in his case also put his name back in the news, and it remains uncertain what exactly is going to happen to him. No one could give Leni Riefenstahl money if they wanted to because she’s dead, there’s no question about what’s going to become of her because she’s dead, and while she was still alive then there was limited opportunity for even the biggest cinema buffs to go see a revival screening of _Das Blaue Licht_ anyway. > > Riefenstahl isn’t a currently popular topic of discussion because there’s not much left to discuss, and of what is left then none is new and most is purely academic. Outside an actual history or history of film course there’s little reason for most people to bother talking about her at all. Yeah, I do suppose I’m coming at the subject from an advantaged position, in the sense that most people are viewing Polanski and his deeds from a very limited perspective, so I’ll bow out on the debate. I do think the Riefenstahl example remains relevant, but I can see how given the fact that the stir over Polanski amounts to a current event, the comparison might baffle some. > [@](#): > > Does every decision people make about how they spend their time and money have to be a profound moral stand? No, but a lot of people seem to be approaching the decision as if it is one. I don’t care about _The Ghost Writer_ because it looks like a pretty dull piece of work. A lot of people who in all honesty probably wouldn’t have even considered seeing it in the first place appear to be phrasing it as a moral stance. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-people-who-say-so-and-so-supports-a-cause-i-dont-agree-with-so-i-wont-see-his-mov/541251/59 "2010-06-02T00:31:46Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > You know who didn’t drug and rape a child? The hundreds of other people who work on the film with him. I work in the industry and there’s hardly a production that likely has an unsavory character somewhere in the mix. As heinous as Polanski’s history is, there are a lot of other people’s livelihoods at stake in his films, not just his. It’s not like 100% of the money goes back directly into his pockets. You’re right. It’s fortunate that I have no moral obligation to support these people for creating a movie I have no desire to see, or this would present a quandary. > [@jordanr2](#): > > I do think the Riefenstahl example remains relevant, but I can see how given the fact that the stir over Polanski amounts to a current event, the comparison might baffle some. As **Lamia** said, Riefenstahl will become relevant when someone tries to tell me her movies are worth watching, and not a moment sooner. As far as my viewing decisions are concerned, she might as well not exist. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-people-who-say-so-and-so-supports-a-cause-i-dont-agree-with-so-i-wont-see-his-mov/541251/60 "2010-06-02T00:34:51Z")
> [@jordanr2](#): > > Yeah, I do suppose I’m coming at the subject from an advantaged position, in the sense that most people are viewing Polanski and his deeds from a very limited perspective, so I’ll bow out on the debate. I do think the Riefenstahl example remains relevant, but I can see how given the fact that the stir over Polanski amounts to a current event, the comparison might baffle some. Congratulations, you have managed to write one of the most condescending paragraphs I’ve ever seen in this forum. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-people-who-say-so-and-so-supports-a-cause-i-dont-agree-with-so-i-wont-see-his-mov/541251.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-people-who-say-so-and-so-supports-a-cause-i-dont-agree-with-so-i-wont-see-his-mov/541251.md?page=4)