I recently watched The Pianist (directed by Roman Polanski, starring Adrien Brody). I enjoyed it immensely, but that’s off topic. After watching the movie I was interested in digging into some information about the cast/crew and the story of Mr. Szpilman. I ran across some shocking information about Polanski I was unaware of (news reports available here: http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html).
In short, he and plead guilty to one count related to drugging and having sex with a 13 year old. Later, he skips the US in order to avoid serving time for his crime.
So, this leads me to the question. Speaking specifically of Mr. Polanski, does the fact that Roman Polanski is a confessed child-rapist cast shadow of the integrity on his work? On a larger scale, should the personal lives of filmmakers, musicians, etc. affect our view of their work?
I’ve often wondered this about Wagner (nazi), Miles Davis (wife-beater), Roald Dahl (alleged nazi) etc. I think it’s okay, really: by buying their work you’re not supporting their lifestyle or personal choices, you’re supporting their artistic talent.
Otherwise, you’d have to know quite a lot about someone before you bought their CD (“Could I get a police check on this band, please?”) in case they had done something unsavoury that you didn’t know about.
'Course, if you don’t want to give your money to such a person (R Kelly?), that’s your perogative.
I’d also like to add that a lot of other people are involved in these sorts of projects than just the person who’s a child rapist/nazi sympathizer/wife beater. Sure, Roman Polanski directed the film, but what about the actors, actresses, costume people, makeup artists, ect? Don’t they deserve your support as well?
What we’re talking about is a crime. A crime is a disturbance of public order. This isn’t about Roman Polanski’s personal life at all.
Roman Polanski can’t set foot in America to accept his Academy Awards because he’d be arrested if he tried. They don’t arrest you if you’re just a bigoted, awful person.
Mr. Moto: Let’s broaden the perspective… From major crimes to mere pecadillos… Does an artist’s personal behavior influence your opinion of his art?
I had the misery of meeting a well-known author at a cocktail party, and watching him become more and more drunk, offensive, and finally, violent. Now, I can’t read his books without that incident marring my pleasure. But…if I hadn’t been there, and hadn’t seen him devolve from man to ape, I still would enjoy his books without this problem. So… Sometimes, ignorance is bliss?
For some odd reason, I’d never known this about Roman Polanski. It doesn’t change my opinion – now – of the films I’ve already seen. (The Pianist is brilliant, and The Pyrates is sewage…even with Walter Matthau! Alas!) But, knowing what I know now, I would have this filter before my eyes were I to see another Polanski flick…
Should I make an effort to cultivate my ignorance? Should I protect my reading and viewing pleasure by blinding myself to the personal (and public) foibles of my favorite creators?
A work should stand on its own. If the creator(s) committed a crime, then he should be tried accordingly, but the work he created has nothing to do with the matter.
To say “I thought X was great, but I don’t like it because the creator was a scumbag” is just as silly as saying “I thought X was dreck, but because the creator is a humanitarian, I think it should be considered a masterpiece.”
Nope, but it can certainly affect my willingness to pay money for it, some of which will find its way back to the artist. For example, I will not watch any Mickey Rourke movies because of his support for IRA terrorists.
That makes sense… Just as I’d go out of my way to buy a book written by a friend, acquaintance, or even co-worker (or cow-orker?) even if I thought it was likely to be of less-than-stellar quality, just to show support for a pal.
(By the way, an exhibition of my paintings… Oh, never mind…)
I watch a lot of baseball and I have favorite players. I always say that I like Player X or Player Y but don’t want to know too much about them. I don’t want to know if Jim Thome is a jerk in person. I’d have to start rooting against him and I don’t wanna.
Orson Scott Card wrote an interesting book: Ender’s Game. OSC then said stupid things about homosexuals. The rest of OSC’s books can stay in a box forever as far as I’m concerned because I neither want to support OSC or give him an opportunity to pollute my reading experiences.
It’s a tough question. I guess you could have a problem with any actor that would stoop so low as to work with Polanski, but that wouldn’t be fair either. I am able to enjoy the art without cutting him slack for his crime. I’m not sure I would (or could) do the same for Hitler or Saddam.
cowgirl, if you don’t mind, do you have any source for the allegation that Roald Dahl was a Nazi or had Nazi sympathies? I recall hearing this in the past, but on investigation it was always evidence of the “FOAF heard it on the radio” variety. The only thing I turned up on Google was from a neo-Nazi source that claimed Dahl’s books were banned from a bookstore in Toronto because he criticized the Israeli bombing of Beirut.
Be mindful of the difference here between boycotting an artist’s work and actually devaluing an artist’s work. If you want to boycott Orson Scott Card’s books, more power to you. Does it make Ender’s Game a worse book, ipso facto? No. That’s ridiculous.
Carl Theodore Dreyer could murder my whole damn family, La Passion De Jeanne d’Arc would still be the best movie ever made.
First of all, Wagner was not a Nazi. He died in 1883, well before Hitler or the party came into existence. Having said that, it is true he was often an anti-semite and held more than his share of wacky beliefs. Does it bother me? Not at all. For me, he is the greatest composer, the man whose music I hold in the highest regard.
As for Roman Polanski, I did not at all like his two biggest films, Rosemary’s Baby and Chinatown. But I knew all about his sexual escapades with young girls before I watched The Tenant, which I loved. That kind of shit doesn’t bother me.
An artist may be a scumbag or a coward or a pathetic loser in some ways, but the fact that they are able to do some great things means something. They are bringing into the world something no other scumbag or loser could. Besides, in some cases you may have no idea where an artist is coming from, so I think it is a bit childish to condemn them from afar.
have given up letting judgment of a people’s personal lives, including crimes, influence whether or not I expose myself to their art. Sometimes the knowledge does help to interpret the work of art.
In Polanski’s case, his survival as a child in the one of the Polish ghettos (Warsaw, I think) during WWII is perhaps one of the elements that made The Pianist so fantastic. Whatever Polanski brought to the film-making process from that experience must have shaped the jewel that it is.
I disapprove of what Elia Kazan did in getting people blacklisted in the 1950’s. But what would I have missed if I had boycotted his films?! (East of Eden, A Streetcar Named Desire, Splendor in the Grass, On the Waterfront, Gentleman’s Agreement, to name some of his best)
Most people, including myself, are willing to accept that artists can be difficult people, unpleasant on a personal level. There are certainly enough stories concerning individual artists showing that this is often the case.
Committing a crime, though, is crossing the line. It is infringing on the rights of others and the social order, which is not your right. Roman Polanski has no right to rape little girls. Michael Jackson has no right to molest children. Robert Blake, O.J. Simpson and Phil Specter have no right to kill people. Talent excuses no crime.
To be fair, I think this rather misses the point of the OP. No-one (I don’t think) is saying that they should be allowed to behave in an unacceptable manner or commit crimes because of their talent. The question is rather should their personality/behaviour affect our view of their work.
Now on the one hand I don’t think you can ‘un-know’ something about a person, so to that degree a certain knowledge may influence your judgement - you might choose not to spend money/time on the works of someone you don’t agree with for whatever reason. Nonetheless, if you do - and it’s a good film/book/play/etc in your opinion then surely it remains a good filom/book/play regardless of whether the director/author/producer was ‘A Good Person’ or not?
