Weekly questions’ comment sections are left open for one week. This question has expired and the comments section locked.
I take a pragmatic approach to art created by problematic human beings: I remind myself that so many of the films, books, music, paintings, and so on that I’ve consumed and enjoyed in my life were created by people who were, essentially, repulsive. Even if that’s not a matter of record I’m aware of, the odds are many of the great composers, the great painters, the great sculptors, the great everything were inhuman pieces of shit. I mean, Ernest Hemingway? Total monster to everyone he loved. J.D. Salinger? Misogynistic ghoul. Woody Allen? Well, shit. You’ll note most people you would classify as problematic artists are indeed male, but there are plenty of female artists who the same can be said of. The point is, it’s nearly impossible to draw moral lines because our culture is both historically and currently so fundamentally immoral. You’d be left with nobody but Mr. Rogers to entertain and illuminate your understanding of the world (which, now that I say it, might not be that bad).
As Halloween is approaching, I’m reminded of how much I loved Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” (1983) as a kid. The music video, directed by John Landis, is as iconic as the song. The zombie special effects. The choreography. Vincent Price! It was made for me. But it’s been years since I’ve been able to watch it. Even listening to the song upsets me. Listening to anything by Jackson makes me feel this way. I can only think of his victims. Children. I don’t think I’ll ever get past that.
What problematic artists do you find yourself unable to enjoy anymore?
I’d love to hear your thoughts on how you feel about any aspect of this subject.
Are you actually unable to list to the music of or watch the work of these artists? Are are these just the ones you find problematic? For example, if you were on my couch right now and hit play on LETHAL WEAPON, would you not enjoy yourself? Or do you draw a distinction between art created before you knew someone was a POS and afterward?
Yes I can't watch or listen to these people anymore Gibson is a perfect example. I love the original Mad Max trilogy but I'm unable to watch it now because every time I do I hear his voice huffing and puffing like a psycho on the tapes that were released a few years back. Liam Neeson talking about leaving the hospital after visiting his freind who was attacked by a black person and looking for the first black person he came across so he could attack them makes it impossible for me to see him as any kind of hero and so on.
Your line is, I think, much stricter than mine. Though I won't deny I just didn't find myself enjoying BRAVEHEART as much recently when I rewatched. I had the same experience a couple years ago when I rewatched LETHAL WEAPON. That said, I'm very forgiving of problematic artists when it comes to their art, but only because so much of the art that exists would be problematic to me if I imposed that rule. I couldn't even visit a museum, if you follow. Rock and roll? Yeah, even if we don't *know*, we *know* what happens on tour.
I've had issues with Gibson ever since Lethal Weapon 2 when I read that Gibson was paid way more than Glover. I can't find the number but I think it was like he got 10 million and Glove got 4? Which blew me away because I always thought he was a costar.
To be fair, I don't think actors used to co-conspire about fees. The fact that actors more and more refuse to star in roles unless their co-stars are paid equally is a very recent phenomenon. Of all the things I judge Gibson for, doing what literally every single star around him would do, including Black stars such as Denzel, does not make the cut...at least for me.
I don’t think I have a list. There’s work & artists that people love who I loathe, and those people haven’t been exposed and probably nice people. So I’d be cutting out far too much material and works.
If I raised the specter of racism and bigotry toward people of color, I’d probably enjoy 95% less of what I’ve enjoyed. Across the board in every form of the arts.
Certain things, like Braveheart as you mentioned, either remain good/satisfying or they become less so because time & life beating down on us has effected how one experiences something one once enjoyed a through the different lens of youth.
I started watching MY DARLING CLEMENTINE on the train back from Rome, and the treatment of a Native American which laid the groundwork for Henry Fonda’s Wyatt Earp to be offered the sheriff’s position, would shock people today. Did I stop watching the film? No. Should I have? I don’t know, the scene would be dubbed very offensive today. Do I not watch anything by John Ford?
I took offense at a scene in PROMISING YOUNG WOMAN for how it depicted a Black man, yet that movie was hailed as a fresh voice from a new filmmaker. Do I pass on her next film even though she’s not “problematic”? Possibly, because her of sensibility.
What happens behind the scenes in the (devil’s) workshop can range from tedious to awful to traumatic; and people don’t surmount the notorious odds of achieving their definition of success by being pleasant or exhibiting moral behavior at all times.
Do I not watch CHINATOWN because of Polanski? Nope, I watch it whenever I want.
Does it make me a morally suspect person? I hope not.
I don't think it does make you morally suspect, but, as we know, many people have dramatic lines here or there we shall not cross. I think you and I are being realistic about art and most of the art that we've been allowed to access over the years, both historical and more contemporary. You can't erase history at the movie theater or museum anymore than you can in the school library. You can understand, you can contextualize, you can help culture evolve in response. But I don't know what value there is in deleting pieces of art from our existences because they're offensive or "dated" except ignorance. That all said, I think there's a very real event that happens for each of us when a contemporary artist makes or, in their personal lives, does something malicious. Something heinous. You bring up Polanksi. My rule is sort of past tense. I'm not pretending away CHINATOWN or ROSEMARY'S BABY happened, but I won't buy tickets or rent anymore or his films. In fact, I don't think I've seen one of his films since I learned what he did. Are they good? Maybe. But I won't fully enjoy or measure the experience based on the art alone, so why waste my time? There are so many other films I've yet to see, so I should watch one of them instead.
Oct 23, 2023·edited Oct 23, 2023Liked by Cole Haddon
Seconding your feelings on Michael Jackson. My list includes him, Ryan Adams, Morrissey, Louis CK, any film where The Weinstein Company logo - or Scott Rudin's name - appears... Sadly, as Edward Laroche says, the list goes on. I now also feel iffy about listening to Lizzo, given the current allegations against her.
I really loved Ryan Adams' music in and of itself, and when you find out artists are arseholes or abusers it makes me so desperately sad. Primarily for their victims of course; then to a much lesser degree for those of us who loved their work, and who have now had that work (and probably by extension, the lovely associations we had attached to it) ruined for them.
I totally understand your point about problematic artists being always with us. I can't begin to imagine how many creatives' work I enjoy, and have enjoyed, without having the slightest inkling how awful they were/are... :/
Do you actually skip films with, say, the Weinsteins' name on it now? And with Louis CK, I've never discussed with others his continuing presence in the credits of "BETTER THINGS", which he co-created but left as soon as the controversy started. It was Pamela Adlon's baby, a profoundly feminist series, and, in my opinion, one of the best TV series produced in the 21st century. Where is the line for you where you just won't watch something anymore and does it apply to, say, early Hollywood and someone such as Errol Flynn who worked in the slave trade? It's such a sprawling, mess thing.
I wouldn't necessarily skip them - I mean, some of them are undoubtedly brilliant movies (see also, while I think about it, Bryan Singer's The Usual Suspects) - but it definitely taints my experience of them. (I hear you on Better Things, which I am finally now watching and LOVE. I guess - per Linehan/Matthews and Father Ted - I like to attribute its greatness to Pamela Adlon! And I hear it gets even better in the post-CK seasons, is that your view too?).
It's all very messy, as you say, and I don't think there's any easy or 'correct' route, it's all imperfect... Personally I guess the line for me on whether I would watch something is largely due to how visceral my reaction is to that person - which may or may not be dependent on what they've done/are accused of - and whether it's a new piece of work. ie I will choose not to give that person my support or hard-earned £ by buying a ticket for their film, or watching their show (as opposed to an old Errol Flynn film from the past). I guess because known abusers continuing to get work, be rewarded etc, feels especially heinous imho.
I think your final point overlaps with how I approach these things. I haven't watched a Mel Gibson film, for example, since my discovery of his racism, misogyny, and Christian extremism. It's impossible to support him now. As for "BETTER THINGS", every season is better than the last, I think.
Linehan infuriates me every day. Mostly because "THE IT CROWD" made me laugh so hard. I cringed at several jokes, assuming they were just frustrating "products of their time", but in hindsight, he always had a warped agenda.
The IT Crowd largely passed me by, I'm glad to say... For me it's Father Ted, which I absolutely adored. But now of course I attribute all its brilliance and sweetness to Arthur Matthews ;)
I enjoyed the first season of "FATHER TED", but watched it long after the fact as it never made it to the States. It didn't hold up, I found. But I could easily understand why it was such a smash at the time. I can still watch "THE IT CROWD". I mean, Harry Potter exists. I'm not a fan, but it exists in my family. I loathe the person who created it and discuss that often in public, but, again, my line is more forgiving than many people's and far less forgiving than other's.
Morrissey, Mel Gibson, Jackson, Liam Neeson, Tara Patrick, Louis C.K, Michael Richards, The List goes on.
Are you actually unable to list to the music of or watch the work of these artists? Are are these just the ones you find problematic? For example, if you were on my couch right now and hit play on LETHAL WEAPON, would you not enjoy yourself? Or do you draw a distinction between art created before you knew someone was a POS and afterward?
Yes I can't watch or listen to these people anymore Gibson is a perfect example. I love the original Mad Max trilogy but I'm unable to watch it now because every time I do I hear his voice huffing and puffing like a psycho on the tapes that were released a few years back. Liam Neeson talking about leaving the hospital after visiting his freind who was attacked by a black person and looking for the first black person he came across so he could attack them makes it impossible for me to see him as any kind of hero and so on.
Your line is, I think, much stricter than mine. Though I won't deny I just didn't find myself enjoying BRAVEHEART as much recently when I rewatched. I had the same experience a couple years ago when I rewatched LETHAL WEAPON. That said, I'm very forgiving of problematic artists when it comes to their art, but only because so much of the art that exists would be problematic to me if I imposed that rule. I couldn't even visit a museum, if you follow. Rock and roll? Yeah, even if we don't *know*, we *know* what happens on tour.
I've had issues with Gibson ever since Lethal Weapon 2 when I read that Gibson was paid way more than Glover. I can't find the number but I think it was like he got 10 million and Glove got 4? Which blew me away because I always thought he was a costar.
To be fair, I don't think actors used to co-conspire about fees. The fact that actors more and more refuse to star in roles unless their co-stars are paid equally is a very recent phenomenon. Of all the things I judge Gibson for, doing what literally every single star around him would do, including Black stars such as Denzel, does not make the cut...at least for me.
I don’t think I have a list. There’s work & artists that people love who I loathe, and those people haven’t been exposed and probably nice people. So I’d be cutting out far too much material and works.
If I raised the specter of racism and bigotry toward people of color, I’d probably enjoy 95% less of what I’ve enjoyed. Across the board in every form of the arts.
Certain things, like Braveheart as you mentioned, either remain good/satisfying or they become less so because time & life beating down on us has effected how one experiences something one once enjoyed a through the different lens of youth.
I started watching MY DARLING CLEMENTINE on the train back from Rome, and the treatment of a Native American which laid the groundwork for Henry Fonda’s Wyatt Earp to be offered the sheriff’s position, would shock people today. Did I stop watching the film? No. Should I have? I don’t know, the scene would be dubbed very offensive today. Do I not watch anything by John Ford?
I took offense at a scene in PROMISING YOUNG WOMAN for how it depicted a Black man, yet that movie was hailed as a fresh voice from a new filmmaker. Do I pass on her next film even though she’s not “problematic”? Possibly, because her of sensibility.
What happens behind the scenes in the (devil’s) workshop can range from tedious to awful to traumatic; and people don’t surmount the notorious odds of achieving their definition of success by being pleasant or exhibiting moral behavior at all times.
Do I not watch CHINATOWN because of Polanski? Nope, I watch it whenever I want.
Does it make me a morally suspect person? I hope not.
I don't think it does make you morally suspect, but, as we know, many people have dramatic lines here or there we shall not cross. I think you and I are being realistic about art and most of the art that we've been allowed to access over the years, both historical and more contemporary. You can't erase history at the movie theater or museum anymore than you can in the school library. You can understand, you can contextualize, you can help culture evolve in response. But I don't know what value there is in deleting pieces of art from our existences because they're offensive or "dated" except ignorance. That all said, I think there's a very real event that happens for each of us when a contemporary artist makes or, in their personal lives, does something malicious. Something heinous. You bring up Polanksi. My rule is sort of past tense. I'm not pretending away CHINATOWN or ROSEMARY'S BABY happened, but I won't buy tickets or rent anymore or his films. In fact, I don't think I've seen one of his films since I learned what he did. Are they good? Maybe. But I won't fully enjoy or measure the experience based on the art alone, so why waste my time? There are so many other films I've yet to see, so I should watch one of them instead.
Seconding your feelings on Michael Jackson. My list includes him, Ryan Adams, Morrissey, Louis CK, any film where The Weinstein Company logo - or Scott Rudin's name - appears... Sadly, as Edward Laroche says, the list goes on. I now also feel iffy about listening to Lizzo, given the current allegations against her.
I really loved Ryan Adams' music in and of itself, and when you find out artists are arseholes or abusers it makes me so desperately sad. Primarily for their victims of course; then to a much lesser degree for those of us who loved their work, and who have now had that work (and probably by extension, the lovely associations we had attached to it) ruined for them.
I totally understand your point about problematic artists being always with us. I can't begin to imagine how many creatives' work I enjoy, and have enjoyed, without having the slightest inkling how awful they were/are... :/
Do you actually skip films with, say, the Weinsteins' name on it now? And with Louis CK, I've never discussed with others his continuing presence in the credits of "BETTER THINGS", which he co-created but left as soon as the controversy started. It was Pamela Adlon's baby, a profoundly feminist series, and, in my opinion, one of the best TV series produced in the 21st century. Where is the line for you where you just won't watch something anymore and does it apply to, say, early Hollywood and someone such as Errol Flynn who worked in the slave trade? It's such a sprawling, mess thing.
I wouldn't necessarily skip them - I mean, some of them are undoubtedly brilliant movies (see also, while I think about it, Bryan Singer's The Usual Suspects) - but it definitely taints my experience of them. (I hear you on Better Things, which I am finally now watching and LOVE. I guess - per Linehan/Matthews and Father Ted - I like to attribute its greatness to Pamela Adlon! And I hear it gets even better in the post-CK seasons, is that your view too?).
It's all very messy, as you say, and I don't think there's any easy or 'correct' route, it's all imperfect... Personally I guess the line for me on whether I would watch something is largely due to how visceral my reaction is to that person - which may or may not be dependent on what they've done/are accused of - and whether it's a new piece of work. ie I will choose not to give that person my support or hard-earned £ by buying a ticket for their film, or watching their show (as opposed to an old Errol Flynn film from the past). I guess because known abusers continuing to get work, be rewarded etc, feels especially heinous imho.
I think your final point overlaps with how I approach these things. I haven't watched a Mel Gibson film, for example, since my discovery of his racism, misogyny, and Christian extremism. It's impossible to support him now. As for "BETTER THINGS", every season is better than the last, I think.
Oh and one more for my list: Graham Linehan :(
Linehan infuriates me every day. Mostly because "THE IT CROWD" made me laugh so hard. I cringed at several jokes, assuming they were just frustrating "products of their time", but in hindsight, he always had a warped agenda.
The IT Crowd largely passed me by, I'm glad to say... For me it's Father Ted, which I absolutely adored. But now of course I attribute all its brilliance and sweetness to Arthur Matthews ;)
I enjoyed the first season of "FATHER TED", but watched it long after the fact as it never made it to the States. It didn't hold up, I found. But I could easily understand why it was such a smash at the time. I can still watch "THE IT CROWD". I mean, Harry Potter exists. I'm not a fan, but it exists in my family. I loathe the person who created it and discuss that often in public, but, again, my line is more forgiving than many people's and far less forgiving than other's.