Would you be willing to see Mel Gibson's new movie?

[yovargas]

What right does America have to judge anyone? The same right any individual has, which is plenty. I have no problem condeming racist viewpoints and if this is how I, or America, choose to express their disapproval, so be it. Freedom cuts both ways - he's free to spout racist views, everyone else is free to tell him to go to hell for it (figuratively, I presume).

Again, assuming, for the sake of conversation, that he's very clearly a racist.

[Alatar]

Which is far from clear in this case. So I guess we should really be leaving Mel out of the discussion.

[yovargas]

That's okay. I only used Mel because he's the one that made me think of the topic, not because I wanted to talk about him. We can make it something else...how about...a convicted pedophile instead.

[MithLuin]

but I truly think Melly made his characters all rather Christ-like, suffering guys because that's how he sees himself.

But I like stories about guys who suffer nobly for a good cause. (*Frodo*) Even ones about guys who suffer nobly for a not-so-great cause (*Maedhros*). My favorite scene in the original Star Wars movies is when Luke is being fried by the Emperor while (whining) "Father, please!" And my favorite part of Les Mis is the Barricade. I haven't read anything on the new movie, so all I know is that it has to do with Aztecs, and it has subtitles.

Braveheart is a good story, and well done. It has nothing to do with actual real history, of course, but I don't require my stories to be real in that sense. I actually prefer if they are not (hence my interest in fantasy and sci-fi). I thought "Gladiator" was a good movie as well, for the same sorts of reasons.

That being said, Mel Gibson is far from my favorite actor. He's....well, he was in Hamlet, wasn't he? And What Women Want, a horribly stupid movie.


If this movie is rated R for violence (including a graphic rape scene), I'm probably not interested. I prefer movies that stay in the PG-13 strata, but I usually don't enjoy anything that's rated R for language or sex. Stictly war-scene violence is okay with me; I understand why you have to show people getting shot to death in (for instance) Black Hawk Down or Saving Private Ryan.

Edit
But to answer the question, I don't think it's wrong to go see a movie you are interested in just because you disagree with the filmaker. But I do think it is effective to 'speak' with your dollars and let someone know you won't support tripe. But I guess I see that as more clear if the movie itself promoted racism. For instance, a movie like O Brother Where Art Thou? would obvoiusly have a bunch of racist characters in it. How this was handled should be appropriate - if not, people would be justified in being outraged and refusing to pay to see it.


I would not (for instance) pay to see an exhibit of art that was intentionally sacriligous.

[Alatar]

Ouch. Gotta say, I still think the same. The guy may be a toerag, but if his film, art or anything else is worthwhile it should transcend.

Besides if he's convicted and done his time isn't that supposed to be his punishment? Or does he stay guilty after he's paid his dues?

[Alys]

Braveheart is a good story, and well done. It has nothing to do with actual real history, of course, but I don't require my stories to be real in that sense. I actually prefer if they are not (hence my interest in fantasy and sci-fi). I thought "Gladiator" was a good movie as well, for the same sorts of reasons.

Gack! Braveheart was a pile of mince, it anything would stop me from watching Mel Gibson films it would be that.

[narya]

I don't think you'd have to dig very far in Hollywood to find discrimination against Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Muslims, Catholics, Jews, women or gays, especially if you go back a few years. I don't know enough about the various directors, producers, or actors to know what their political and personal leanings are. That said, I'm not going to go to this one because it sounds too violent for my tastes.

[Primula Baggins]

I haven't been reading about it, narya, but if it's as graphically violent as has been mentioned here, I wouldn't be seeing it in any case.

[Andri]

Someone elsewhere recently pointed out that Wagner was a blatant bigot but made some classic and important music. I'd have no problem enjoying such a work - I have no problem separating the art from the artist - but I do have a problem supporting such a work with my money. But I also don't want to deny myself a potentially good piece of art because the creator is a bastard. What do you think? What would you do?

Sorry, Yovargas but I find the above statement a bit confusing for me. You say that you do not object to watching and enjoying a piece of art whose creator you know to be a bastard. At the same time, you refuse to give money in order to watch this art because you do not want to support it. Right?

So, to my thinking, it all comes down to a matter of money. But offering your support to a work of art is not done only in financial terms. How about your enjoyment and appreciation of this art? Isn't this a form of support? And when you go on-line and tell your friends that 'oh, I watched this movie/listened to that music/etc by this guy, I know that he is a bastard but the movie/music is great' isn't that again a form of support? So, what is so special about giving money in order to watch it that you object to it? No attack there, just wondering how you think about it.

[yovargas]

I dunno. It's weird. If there is a piece of art and I like it, I think it's good, I think I'd be honest and say so. I'm not sure the art must be "punished", if you know what I mean. But, I'm not sure of that either really, since, as I said, I'd feel like I should "speak out" against certain kinds of behavior...would that message be louder if I refused to see it altogether? I'm not really sure it would be.

[anthriel]

I think narya makes a good point... mel is just one of the ones who got caught, right now. I'm sure if we knew more about the hearts of more Hollywood types, we'd be in permanent rebellion.

Sometimes I wish I didn't know so much about the people behind the art. I used to be a huge Sean Connery fan, but then read one interview with him years ago where he was fairly clear that he felt women had "their place". I know he said he wouldn't golf with a woman... they had their times, their leagues, and were not to disturb him playing "real golf". He even said something about women needing a good smack from time to time, if memory serves and hasn't augmented the story over time.

I still watch his movies, and try to push my horror at his words out of my mind, because the guy was FUNNY in that Raiders of the Lost Ark movie, you know? It's not about what he feels about women. It's about that story that he is acting in.

But I wish I didn't have that in the back of my mind.

[Primula Baggins]

I agree about that kind of thing, Anthy.

On the other hand, sometimes I learn something about an artist that impresses or pleases or interests me, and it enhances my enjoyment of their work. This applies to most of the people associated with the LotR films, for example: I loved the almost universal enthusiasm. What a chilling effect it would have had if, say, Ian McKellen expressed contempt for Tolkien, or there was enmity on the set. Instead the background knowledge helped me enjoy the films even more.

I imagine we will hear less and less of the kind of thing that turned you off Sean Connery. It used to be that you could give an interview to a niche magazine and expect your message not to travel beyond that niche. Not so any more, and publicists are catching on. People's public statements are getting more bland.

[vison]

It's an odd situation. I do think we should be able to separate an artist's work from his person, but there are times when it's difficult.

Tolkien is the perfect example. Nothing I've learned about him has changed my love for LOTR. Yet I have a friend who feels the opposite, she is constantly reminded of what she sees as his sexism (for example) in the book, and cannot love it as she used to.

Mel Gibson, on the other hand? I guess his lesser genius is the issue with me: if he was truly great I could overlook his flaws. But he's not great, only mediocre, and when I weigh him in my scales of value, his flaws (as I know them) far outweigh his talents.

I won't see Gibson's new movie because, first, I loathe the little twerp, and second, his movies are all the same. Seen one, ya seen 'em all.
Now, in a twist of fate he might just be able to appreciate, he really is a suffering guy, and he brought it all on himself. Sweet.

[halplm]

I don't pay attention to what hollywood types think or say or believe. If I did, and I boycotted the ones I didn't agree with... well, yeah, I'd never see anything again.

If I do find out something I like... then yeah, it makes me enjoy that person's work more.

And if I find out something I don't like... it generally clouds my judegement of them... but also only if it's brought out by their character or story or whatever... for instance, I know Ian Mckellen is rabidly anti-religion... which bothers me, but It doesn't bother me in LOTR or X-Men or something... but it DID bother me in The Da Vinci Code. I don't know if that makes sense, but it's just how my mind works...

The other thing about all that is, though... the reason you don't hear about a lot of the good stuff... and the reason you don't hear a lot about ALL the bad stuff... is that it's just not news.... In order to make such things news... it usually has to be blown out of proportion... so I usually take it with a grain of salt.

I like Mel Gibson for Sgt Riggs, and his version of Maverick. I like Braveheart too, but find I don't enjoy watching it any more. I doubt I'd enjoy apocalypto either.

But as for the money thing... how much of the ticket do you actually think goes to Mel Gibson? I mean... you could say half of it goes to his company or whatever... but how much of THAT goes to all the people who work for him? Or all the people he pays for the advertising?

Yes, he'll get a chunk of it... and maybe he should be punished for whatever reasons (as should we all, I would imagine)... But do all the rest of the people involved need to be punished as well?

[Inanna]

Yes, he'll get a chunk of it... and maybe he should be punished for whatever reasons (as should we all, I would imagine)... But do all the rest of the people involved need to be punished as well?

This is where I also get into all sorts of mental arguments with myself. When people in India launched a (silly, in my opinion) boycott against Coke/Pepsi etc - I was like - do you know they have factories in India where Indians are employed and paid well? Do you want them to go unemployed? Whom are you rewarding with this behaviour?

But.... does it mean you support art which is brought forth by a not-so-clean person??

[Jnyusa]

Hmmm ... some of these issues are more complicated than they appear at first glance, I think.

Wagner is a good example of the ambivalence that can come with great art. He was a notorious anti-Semite, as most of you probably know by now. There was a time in the history of the Israeli philharmonic when they were a world class orchestra under the direction of Zuben Mehta. Mehta had the ability, as a conductor, and the orchestra had the talent at that time among its musicians, to perform Wagner. Mehta wanted to put Wagner in their repertoire. There was an outcry against this in Israel, and I believe that they may have done one season and then just tabled Wagner voluntarily afterwards.

But the issue was not really that Wagner should be boycotted because he was an anti-Semite. The issue was that there were still people in the audience who had to listen to Wagner broadcast over the loudspeakers in the death camps, and the evocations of this music were equivalent to emotional abuse. Israel is the one place on earth where they should not have to confront that kind of abuse.

At the time, my personal feeling was that Wagner should be removed from the repertoire under those circumstances. This is not the same as thinking he should be permanently boycotted, because those people who find him unendurable for personal reasons will eventually die, and their issue will not be an issue any longer but Wagnerian music will still be around.

Wagner is the apex of musical achievement. Every professional musician wants to be capable of performing Wagner. His importance to the history of humanity so eclipses his importance as a public anti-Semite that it would be ludicrous, in my opinion, to say he should not be performed because of his attitude toward Jews. I am first of all a human, and only secondly a Jewish human, and a contribution of such magnitude to humanity should not be supressed.

(Ironic sidebar -- I know Wagner's grand-daughter through my ex-husband's family. She has a daughter a bit older than my oldest and when we would spend weeks in Germany she was kind enough to make play-dates so that my kids wouldn't be bored out of their minds. I never thought it strange that my children played with the great-granddaughter of one of the most infamous anti-Semites in history. On the contrary, it feels quite right and natural to me that all people eventually die and their harm dies with them, and what is preserved is only their positive contribution.)

I feel to a lesser extent the same way about Salvador Dali. He was a pedophile and this is something I despise. But he was also an artistic genius (imo) and his long-run importance to art eclipses his personal imperfection. The more time that goes by the more the personal imperfections of the artist recede in importance.

Someone like Mel Gibson is in a different category, imo. Very little that comes out of Hollywood is enduring art, and I can't think of anything Mel Gibson has done that I would place in the category, "contribution to humanity." He does what he does for money. Don't kid yourself that it is otherwise. On the one occassion that he rose above pecuniary interests I thought that his work product was deliberately deceptive and perverted and unworthy of preservation. I do not call it art. Obviously others will think differently about it, and whether history judges it as art will depend on what future generations think. My suspicion is that the medium itself will eventually obscure this work because it is a medium that depends very much on the currrency of its technology, and nothing changes so fast as technology in the present day. The controversy surrounding that work may survive as an historical curiosity, but the work itself will not continue to be enjoyed because it will become obsolete. In the same way that Griffith's Kingdom of Heaven continues to be a curiosity, but no one other than students of the history of film bother to watch it.

What makes Wagner and Dali enduring is the fact that each successive generation wants to re-experience and enjoy their work. As long as that is so, they will remain important artists who cannot be ignored.

What Mahima is talking about is a different kind of consideration, I think. Well, first of all, markets are removed from products all the time just because people get bored with the product and don't buy it any longer. Whoever was employed making that product has to find a new job when that happens, and we don't generally spend too much time worrying about that unless really vast numbers of people are involved (like when Chrysler went bankrupt). Mel Gibson is not the only director in Hollywood, and if he ceases to be popular, the guy who holds to boom when Mel Gibson is filming will just go work for some other director. I don't feel obligated to see every movie that comes out just so people in Hollywood will have employment, so why should I feel obligated to see a Mel Gibson movie for that reason?

When masses of people join together and boycott a company that is the singular provider of a lot of jobs, or where trade sanctions are levied against a whole country, this is a different story. But where international boycotts are concerned, as we've had against South Africa and Burma and Iraq before the war, there is a consensus that the final decision as to the appropriateness of such action should be made by the people who live in the affected country. If their need for social change is great enough that they are willing to endure the resulting hardship, then we should honor their rights by refusing to patronize companies that abuse those rights. One thing I try to impress upon my students is that social decisions always precede economic decisions. It is not my job as an economist to tell anyone what they should or should not buy, or on what basis they should make that decision, because that is a social decision and not an economic one. My obligation is to tell them what economic consequences to expect from their social decision, so that their decision will be well-informed. Nothing more.

There are two directors/producers whose movies I am currently boycotting because I feel that their so-called 'works of art' are detrimental to the human cause and in particular to the "Jewish cause." One is Mel Gibson and the other is Steven Spielburg.

The events of the 1930s and 40s are unparalleled in this history of the Jews. This is my private opinion, and others may disagree on factual basis. But my personal feeling is that the Jewish community needs to have, and has not yet had, some very serious and difficult discussions about what those events have done to shape us as a People, and what kind of future we are going to build for ourselves as a result. People like Mel Gibson make it impossible to raise these issues in public. People like Steven Spielburg - and I'm referring now to his great opus Schindler's List - make it impossible to raise those issues even within the privacy of our own community. Both these men are both shallow, egotistical, and slightly crazy. They have set themselves up as the sole voice of entire communities and their voices are anything but thoughtful. They have done what I consider to be irreparable harm to my own community by pursuing some megalomaniacal project without asking whether it was true or valuable or what long-term impact their throwing their own weight around might have. I cannot bring myself to give either of them one dime of my money as a result, however little difference this might make in the big scheme of things.

Jn

[narya]

I feel to a lesser extent the same way about Salvador Dali. He was a pedophile and this is something I despise. But he was also an artistic genius (imo) and his long-run importance to art eclipses his personal imperfection. The more time that goes by the more the personal imperfections of the artist recede in importance.

I have the same mixed feelings about Caravaggio.

[Frelga]

I don't like Wagner. I don't care what he is the pinnacle of, I don't like his music.
TheWagner, now, that's different.

I don't like Mel Gibson, either. Never did. I won't see the movie, but as I see about three movies a year, and most of them either star Orlando Bloom (whom I don't adore either, go figure) or are animated it's not much of a boycotte.

However. My stand it the opposite of Alatar's. Art is supposed to be a projection of the Artist's soul into the world. If the soul is mean and evil, I don't want to have anything to do with its projection.

I'm not saying that Mr. Gibson is actually * doom doom doom * Evil, but I don't think I can enjoy anything he creates after his little episode.

[Andri]

Art is supposed to be a projection of the Artist's soul into the world.

I think that a lot of the discussion here has to do with this statement. This is a perception of Art that was created in 19th c Europe. Thus, it is a limited way of understanding Art (as it is bound by time and place) I think it should apply only to those pieces of art created under this concept.

Before the 19th c as wll as in other places in the globe outside the western world, art was created for a number of reasons that had nothing to do with what we like to call "artistic expression". For example, a vast majority of classical music prior to the 19th c was written as a comission to put bread on the table and not because of the composer's need to express his soul. Does this make Mozart's Requiem or Bach's Cantatas any less wonderful than they are? I think not. And how about all that Folk Art where the artist in unknown? Is it a less form of art just because we do not know the name of the creator? Again I think not.

So maybe, we need first to examine the intellectual tools that we have and according to which we attribute value to some pieces of art whereas we do not consider art some others. If we follow the concept of Art being only an expression of the soul of the artist and we go to an exreme, then, we will end up with the absurd situation where people with goodness in them (but no hint of talent) would be considered great artists even though their work is mediocre whereas people whose souls have been covered by darkness can create nothing more than monsters (even what we hear/see can be divine). Again, this is an exreme situation.

So maybe we shouldn't use moral criteria in order to judge whether a piece of art is great or not.

[Alatar]

What Andri said...