I don’t get this kind of thinking either. Do you buy bananas? chocolate? cell phones? oil/gasoline? All the above (and many more products) are produced by looter companies that have, IMHO, done a lot more damage than Roman Polanski.
Not that I don’t think Roman Polanski shouldn’t go to jail. He should but I’m not going to get on my high horse about seeing his movies when I just bought Dole bananas the other day.
Have you seen Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired?
I think her films, at least one or two, appear on most established canons. You’re free to disregard her work but she’s a huge figure in film history.
Didn’t you say you were done here? If you’re so determined to defend Roman Polanski’s honor, maybe you should start a new thread about it.
The Polanski case is one where the person in question conducted a clearly bad act, but seeing one of his movies wouldn’t necessarily be contributing to another bad act. I’d let the chance of another bad act factor into my decision in that kind of case.
I don’t like Tom Cruise the actor or the Scientologist, or Scientology, but he hasn’t raped any children or aided a monstrous dictator to my knowledge. Like other people who do and say things I don’t like, Cruise isn’t committing crimes. So I’ll see their movies and buy their chicken without worrying about contributing to evil.
But there may be somebody I just don’t like, and I can boycott their movie, and eat something else if I feel like it.
Reminds me of Ty Cobb. He may have been the best baseball player of his time, and one of the most hated men. Life is full of strange dichotomies.
And I just don’t get the kind of thinking that says you are perfectly happy to have your money go to people you despise and to help them continue funding activities that you loath.
As consumers one of our weapons is to vote with our wallet. Yes, I do avoid some products, retailers and service companies for various reasons, including not agreeing with how they spend their money. To do otherwise seems very shallow to me. Yes, he supports murdering scum but hey, the movie’s pretty good so that’s okay then.
Not that I don’t agree with you, it’s just impossible to avoid. As I said, it seems silly to get in a lather over Mickey Rourke or Roman Polasnki when every time you turn the ignition on your car or buy groceries, you’re helping to fund companies that have committed crimes on an order of magnitude far worse than the above. How do you justify one but not the other?
I choose the things that offend me, others choose the things that offend them. If Dole’s activities offended me as much as funding terrorism, then I would not buy Dole products. (I don’t buy Dole strawberries, but that is because they are tasteless).
So I do not need to justify not boycotting someone/thing that you find offensive. Personally, I find the IRA’s activities to be far more offensive than Dole. How many bombs has Dole set in pubs, restaurants and shops? Maybe I have a different perspective on this as I am British, but when I was a young adult living in London there was a small but finite chance that when I went out to eat, drink or Christmas shop I would be blown up by people funded by Mickey Rourke.
Unless you have evidence that the owners do actually spend money on fundamentalist lobbyists, this sort of boycott is extremely paranoid behavior.
It’s a big stretch from “I don’t work on Sundays” to “There ought to be a law”.
Dole (as an example) has funded terrorism. As has Chiquita. As have most oil companies.
Please note, I’m not asking you to justify yourself. It’s my mistake that I quoted you specifically when I should have targeted my comments to a much more general level.
That said my opinion still stands, it’s hypocritical that a great deal of people would boycott a a movie because of an actor or director’s crime but have no qualms about purchasing products from companies that have done far, far worse.
From my perspective, you and many more have an extraordinarily small monkeysphere but then what do I know? Between choosing whether to worry about the IRA or getting my drink on in the Irish bars that lined 2nd Ave in NYC (bars that I’m sure funneled money to the IRA) I always went for my gin and tonics.
That’s risky behavior - they could mark you as being English if g&t is your favorite tipple.
Chick-Fil-A is a sponsor of Focus on the Family, a very vocal and active opponent of gay rights and abortion rights. Chick-Fil-A might not be trying to make everybody close on Sunday, but they’re definitely using their profits to fund fundamentalist lobbyists.
Not the same thing at all.
There is a clear distinction between paying for a specific product or service, and donating money directly to a political or religious cause. My god, do I have to vet the beliefs of every individual who may profit from how I spend my money? Who could do that, realistically?
Sometimes buying a chicken sandwich is just buying a chicken sandwich.
Actually, I would apply that logic to the films of someone who prostitutes the cinematic art to the dissemination of propaganda lies (coffBenSteincoff).
Actually, this is exactly the reason why I’ve never seen or considered purchasing a very highly regarded skiing film with Riefenstahl in it.
Those people have already gotten their paycheck, and a low box office won’t hurt their future industry opportunities. Possibly their royalty checks might be slightly tinier.
But if the headliners – stars and directors – don’t do well that can hurt their future income.
The two sets aren’t mutually exclusive – a bad gross might make the cinematographer less marketable – but there really isn’t much overlap.
And if someone watches the second best movie available instead of the best one (featuring the repugnant star), they are still supporting a similar number of industry professionals… just different ones.
Personally I avoid Tom Cruise movies, but am not obsessive about it. If the movie got great reviews I’d go along with a group of friends to see it.