For 99%+ of the actors, singers, etc I have heard or watched and liked I don’t have a clue as to their real-life personality.
Ditto. And by the same token, those that I truly dislike has nothing to do with their real life personality for the same reason.
I agree - I dislike the trend towards “comedy” becoming someone working out their personal problems on stage (instead of, you know, just being funny.)
I’m not particularly a fan of Jane Fonda, but I find it interesting that, for a lot of people, the fact that she’s apologized for what she said and did over 45 years go means nothing – they hate her, they feel she should have been tried for treason, and nothing can possibly change that.
Similarly, I know some people (my wife’s stepfather, for one) who despised Muhammad Ali, specifically and solely because he refused the draft.
As for me, I suppose that I don’t need to like a performer to enjoy their work, but it can help. On the other hand, there are a (fairly small number) of performers whom I find to be so nasty, jerkish, or abusive that I have a hard time separating my feelings on that, from my feelings on their work – Cosby is the primary example of this. I used to listen to his old comedy albums regularly; I have a very hard time doing so now.
The straw-manning was like what the other person did, engage my argument as if I was arguing solely about her in Hanoi in general and not the specific statements. There’s no other reason to bring up what others may think if I’m speaking about a very specific thing she said.
As for apologizing for them, if you actually look it up every single news article with her own actual words, she literally only apologizes for the photographs of her on the AA gun and her visiting Hanoi in general, nothing of what she said later.
Here’s a statement by Megyn Kelly who elaborates (yes you can be critical of the source, but I’m not seeing anyone actually refute it so for the meantime it stands)
As “the other person” in question, I believe you mischaracterize me. A “Straw Man” argument makes up an untenable argument that nobody is making and proceeds to tear it down. At worst, I asked you to clarify your position and provide a cite for it, which you did like a boss!
I’ve run into a fair number of “Hanoi Jane” haters over the years and you are the first one not to fixate on a wholly imaginary scenario involving a passes note from a POW. I may have jumped the gun a little, but my motives are honest.
We both have biases.
I accept your argument. I replied to your initial post sarcastically since I assumed you too were arguing in bad faith with that red state comment.
What people are like in real life mostly never affects what i watch on TV.
A****s in real life doesn’t make them bad at acting. Then again, I am pretty damn easy going, preferring a peaceful existence over tribulations. And with a terrible memory I also forget want an a people are!
Rgds
Put me in the “Don’t have to like, but have to not hate” camp.
Nope. Louis-Ferdinand Céline’s Voyage au Bout de la Nuit is my ur-example, or ur-argument if you prefer, for distinguishing between artists and their art. It could have been HP Lovecraft, it could be Louis CK too. Point is : those guys were, in their lives, tremendous shitheads in one form or another. But their art is tremendous regardless.
Hell, it doesn’t matter if their art is entirely bullshit made-up self-representation - as is the case of, say, French singer Renaud (don’t get me started). If the art is Truth, or even just if the art speaks to you on some level, it’s Good. And nothing else matters (speaking of talented shitheads… 
).
Well, never go full Tom Cruise.
That would depend on the kind of classical music we’re talking about, wouldn’t it?
Most actors, singers, ect. I know nothing about their personal lifes; there’s people I’d like personally but whose work doesn’t tickle me, there’s the opposite. There’s people whose work has always rubbed me raw and when I found out they were absolute jerks my reaction was “well, that explains why I could never stand anything he did”.
Excellent question.
I do not have to like a performer/artist etc to appreciate their work.
I do not want to know anything about the performer except when the next movie, book, music whatever will be available. However the negative info is out there and I ignore it. I am paying to be entertained and if you do that, whatever* you do in the non-working area of your life is of no consequence to me.
*Exception is of course pedophile and child pornographers.
[Moderating]
A reminder, everyone: We’re in CS, in a thread about artists. A discussion of the merits of Jane Fonda is in bounds for the topic. A discussion of the merits of the Vietnam War is not. If you want to discuss the war, take it to GD.
I should have said “instrumental music”, not “classical”. But yes, an opera, for instance, could certainly have gender and sexual relations in it which might be problematic coming from a composer who was a rapist.
No, not in my view, anyway. I love Mel Gibson movies, and I think he is a racist, intolerant pig in real life.
Talent does not necessarily make you a nice person, and I have a list of really nasty creative people whose works I love. Two from the top are Steve Martin and Roald Dahl (the latter apparently gave new dimensions to the concept of being a “douche.”
I don’t care in any way, shape or form what a famous person does outside of their art for me to enjoy them. I’m kind of an out-of-sight-out-of-mind person for a lot of things in life, this included.
I also realize that they live such a drastically different life than I do that who am I to judge? No, you shouldn’t rape people…but some other jerk-ish tendencies can be written off as circumstance.
Tom Cruise is a great example.
People don’t like him because of the Scientology stuff, but have you read about how the church affected his life? From the time he was, what , 20? The church gave him literally whatever he wanted. Cars, planes, money, girlfriends/wives, homes…everything. I would be a champion for them too probably. But what else has he done? He’s personally saved the lives (and paid for the medical bills) of random people on multiple occasions, he routinesly gives to charity and stand up for causes.
It’s not all black and white, ya know?
To me, Cruise’s entanglement with $cientology doesn’t make him reprehensible; it just makes him stupid, or naive, or easily-manipulated. And I’ve never had any problem with enjoying art by people with those qualities. Now, the people who were manipulating him, they’re reprehensible, but they’re also not artists, so I don’t care. Well, except for Hubbard himself, but there are plenty of reasons to hate his work on its own merits, so it doesn’t matter.
I have to agree that I loathe Tom Cruise’s association with Scientology, and his personality (which is related to his being in Scientology), but I can appreciate and enjoy much of his work (he was great in Born on the Fourth of July, for instance).
I also like several of John Travolta’s roles since he became a Scientology drone (except for Battlefield Earth, of course) – Pulp Fiction, Get Shorty, Hairspray…
so I can dissociate the person from the role. Although I have to admit that my memory of all of Bill Cosby’s work feels somewhat tainted now.