Can we seperate the art from the artist? Is that OK?

String said:
@ttaskmaster I find your post a little surprising, could you elaborate on what exactly it was that Tim Allen did to provoke that comment regarding Tom Hanks?
Click to expand...

Age 25, after dealing drugs to make money on the side, he was caught and convicted of trafficking 1½ pounds of cocaine into Michigan, sentenced to 3-7 years (was facing a Life but gave up his dealers names in exchange for leniency), ultimately served 2½ years in Federal Correction.

Age 44, arrested for DUI, again in Michigan (he really should avoid that place), served one year probation and was required by the court to enter rehab clinic - Made all the more shocking since, when Allen was 11, his own father was killed by a drunk driver.

Age 54 - Starred in the film Wild Hogs. Criminal charges have yet to be brought against him for this.
 
Building Candy said:
Im not defending Polanski BUT that guy had a rough time with his wife and child being murdered by those Manson nutcases. Im not surprised some people might think that affected him mentally and want to give him a break. Almost like he did the time before he did the crime, if you get me.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, heard this argument a few times and I don't buy it at all. I think it should be taken into consideration, but NEVER used to flat out justify what he did.
 
ttaskmaster said:
That'd be a lot of actors who never worked again, though. Not everyone is Harrison Ford and able to choose what roles they get. Also, many cast and crew get signed up to projects before they get a director committed and there are severe penalties for breaking that contract. It's not always so simple.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what your point is - no one is forced to work on say the pianist lest they never work again.

Just certain crimes, then, no matter what price they may have since paid for it?
Click to expand...

Severity of crime and position in the production, I already explained this in the previous post.

The context is that some very great people have done very great work, with the involvement (knowingly or otherwise) of some very seedy other people. Kevin Spacey was an awesome actor before the latest news broke. Now "he's scum and no-one will ever buy his films (new or old) again"... which then punishes a lot of other innocent cast and crew.

So would you swear off anything Tina Turner has ever done, because some of it involved Ike?
Would you swear off everything Tom Hanks has done, because he did Toy Story with Tim Allen?
How far does this go?
Click to expand...

Did they anally rape a 13 year old girl after drugging her? Again you did this in the previous post, list some people and ask what about them etc.. like I said I'm not going to not watch something on principle because someone with some minor involvement may have committed a crime. On the other hand drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl then going on to direct a major film is something I'd object to.
 
dowie said:
I'm not really sure what your point is - no one is forced to work on say the pianist lest they never work again.
Click to expand...
No, you're not forced to stay.... but if you do break or breach your contract you can potentially be sued for millions and, with a breach on your history, unless you're one of the big shots you'll have at least some trouble finding work in incestuous little Hollywood again.
Even Kim Basinger, Robert Redford, Marlon Brando and Woody Harrelson, all fairly big names who were sued for several million when they quit films, with a fair few others forced to stay under threat of lawsuits. Whoopi Goldberg was threated with 50mil, IIRC.
So how do you think a no-name actor with only one or two previous credits will fare against that kind of pressure?

dowie said:
Severity of crime and position in the production, I already explained this in the previous post.
Click to expand...
But why should it make a difference if it's Bobby the Director or Jimmy the Editor or Susan the Lighting Technician who drugged and anally raped a 13 year old girl? They still drugged and anally raped a 13 year old girl and still worked on the production, other people still worked alongside them and they still might even win an award for their work.

dowie said:
Did they anally rape a 13 year old girl after drugging her?
Click to expand...
Well, we don't know for certain yet - Maybe read the news again in a month's time, see who else is up the creek?

dowie said:
Again you did this in the previous post, list some people and ask what about them etc.. like I said I'm not going to not watch something on principle because someone with some minor involvement may have committed a crime.
Click to expand...
Actually those were people with pretty darn major involvements (as in Ike of Ike and Tina, Tim Allen top billed in Toy Story 1, 2, 3, etc).

dowie said:
On the other hand drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl then going on to direct a major film is something I'd object to.
Click to expand...
So it's only about drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girls, then?
You keep talking about drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl, as if drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl is the one and only crime this thread relates to.

You're also ignoring the question specifically about past works and associated works, perhaps even from the days before they were out drugging and anally raping 13 year old girls...
 
ttaskmaster said:
No, you're not forced to stay.... but if you do break or breach your contract you can potentially be sued for millions and, with a breach on your history, unless you're one of the big shots you'll have at least some trouble finding work in incestuous little Hollywood again.
Even Kim Basinger, Robert Redford, Marlon Brando and Woody Harrelson, all fairly big names who were sued for several million when they quit films, with a fair few others forced to stay under threat of lawsuits. Whoopi Goldberg was threated with 50mil, IIRC.
So how do you think a no-name actor with only one or two previous credits will fare against that kind of pressure?
Click to expand...

I'm really not sure how breaching contract has anything to do with this - in the example of the pianist this was filmed well after Polanski's offences.

So it's only about drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girls, then?
You keep talking about drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl, as if drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl is the one and only crime this thread relates to.
Click to expand...

No, as I've already explained in two posts now IMO it depends on the severity of the crime and the position in the production - I've already given you examples too - for example Casino hired some former mobsters to give them some advice

You're also ignoring the question specifically about past works and associated works, perhaps even from the days before they were out drugging and anally raping 13 year old girls...
Click to expand...

What question exactly - please do ask again? I might well have missed it as you have a habit of splitting down posts and chucking in multiple replies to single line quotes so perhaps it has been missed... I don't really want to reply to multiple quotes and generate ever expanding posts. The POV I'm presenting is fairly straightforward to follow.
 
dowie said:
I'm really not sure how breaching contract has anything to do with this - in the example of the pianist this was filmed well after Polanski's offences.
Click to expand...
Err... The part I already explained, about how cast and crew can often be signed to a project before they even decide on a director?
At that point they are contracted, so leaving will cost them dearly - Too dearly in some cases.
You follow?

dowie said:
No, as I've already explained in two posts now IMO it depends on the severity of the crime and the position in the production - I've already given you examples too - for example Casino hired some former mobsters to give them some advice
Click to expand...
OK, so aside from drugging and raping 13 year old girls, where is the line drawn?
Do you have a line?
At what point does their crime no longer make them seperable from their art, even if they pay whatever debt society in general deems suitable?
And since we're talking the art of the artist, it's pretty safe to say it's gonna be someone whose name and position will be directly associated with that work/art.

dowie said:
What question exactly - please do ask again? I might well have missed it as you have a habit of splitting down posts and chucking in multiple replies to single line quotes so perhaps it has been missed... I don't really want to reply to multiple quotes and generate ever expanding posts. The POV I'm presenting is fairly straightforward to follow.
Click to expand...
If someone does something, is ALL their previous work off the cards, or just everything thereafter?

For the purposes of this, you may assume that someone to be a major part of that work, if not directly owning it. For something, pick pretty much any crime you deem to be as inseperable as drugging and raping a 13 year old girl.
I really don't know that can be any clearer....
 
ttaskmaster said:
Err... The part I already explained, about how cast and crew can often be signed to a project before they even decide on a director?
At that point they are contracted, so leaving will cost them dearly - Too dearly in some cases.
You follow?
Click to expand...

He was both producer and director - people working on the pianist knew full well it was a Polanski film and chose to work on it anyway regardless it doesn't change anything for me. If somehow someone accidentally ended up working on the pianist then so what - they get paid anyway.

OK, so aside from drugging and raping 13 year old girls, where is the line drawn?
Do you have a line?
At what point does their crime no longer make them seperable from their art, even if they pay whatever debt society in general deems suitable?
And since we're talking the art of the artist, it's pretty safe to say it's gonna be someone whose name and position will be directly associated with that work/art.
Click to expand...

It depends... I can state on one had that drugging and anally raping a 13 year old is something I'm not a fan of and as a result I'm pretty disappointed to see the guy still creating films and winning awards. On the other hand minor crimes I don't really have an issue with... obviously somewhere in the middle it becomes a bit blurred.

If someone does something, is ALL their previous work off the cards, or just everything thereafter?

For the purposes of this, you may assume that someone to be a major part of that work, if not directly owning it. For something, pick pretty much any crime you deem to be as inseperable as drugging and raping a 13 year old girl.
I really don't know that can be any clearer....
Click to expand...

as far as say someone like Polanski is concerned I wouldn't want to purchase anything that would lead to him being financially rewarded
 
Right, right... so what's your beef with this Roman Polanski fella, anyway? You seem kinda fixated...
Why is he so despised in your eyes?
Has he done something wrong?
 
ttaskmaster said:
Right, right... so what's your beef with this Roman Polanski fella, anyway? You seem kinda fixated...
Why is he so despised in your eyes?
Has he done something wrong?
Click to expand...

it was simply the example I raised some pages back and probably quite a good example of someone who people would quite justifiably not want to support etc.. regardless of them serving their time
 
Ah, I see.... and what did he do again?

So my question still stands - Does all previous work get struck off the list once the artist crosses whatever line(s) you draw, likely at the expense of everyone else involved with that work?
 
ttaskmaster said:
Ah, I see.... and what did he do again?

So my question still stands - Does all previous work get struck off the list once the artist crosses whatever line(s) you draw, likely at the expense of everyone else involved with that work?
Click to expand...

What do you mean struck off the list? What list? What do you mean by the expense of everyone else involved in that work - do the film crew suddenly get their salary refunded if people don't buy say a DVD of the pianist decades later? (I don't think they get a cut of those sales in the first place). I did already answer this question and say it didn't matter regardless, you also know what he did.

dowie said:
He was both producer and director - people working on the pianist knew full well it was a Polanski film and chose to work on it anyway regardless it doesn't change anything for me.
Click to expand...

dowie said:
as far as say someone like Polanski is concerned I wouldn't want to purchase anything that would lead to him being financially rewarded
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
What do you mean struck off the list? What list?
Click to expand...
Have you been reading the thread at all?
Do you realise this is not just limited to Roman Polanski?

Go back and re-read everything, remembering the context that this thread is about separating art from artists in general not just, specifically and only Roman Polanski who drugged and anally raped a 13 year old girl.... because you seem so unable to get past this part, I'm starting to wonder if you're a 13 year old girl, or something...

dowie said:
What do you mean by the expense of everyone else involved in that work - do the film crew suddenly get their salary refunded if people don't buy say a DVD of the pianist decades later? (I don't think they get a cut of those sales in the first place).
Click to expand...
Actually a good number of them do get affected by sales and things, especially with broadcast works. Actors, singers, writers, producers, directors, generally anyone with creative input or a performance that remains in the final work can earn royalties or residuals, as well as the likes of pilots, dancers and stunt performers. Even very minor actors who might only appear on screen for a few seconds in the whole film and not speak so much as a word, so long as they have a credit in the final release they can continue to get royalty cheques, if so entitled.

dowie said:
I did already answer this question and say it didn't matter regardless, you also know what he did.
Click to expand...
Yes, but play it again, Sam....

And no, you didn't answer the question. You just harped on about Roman Polanski who drugged and anally raped a 13 year old girl, rather than addressing the question about any and all artists... unless your assertion is that the crime changes nothing (as per the bold bit), unless it's someone like Roman Polanski in which case it all changes, contrary to what you said, and you'll never pay for their film again..... but will happily make them famous by pirating their stuff without directly admitting to it on a forum.... that sound right?
 
ttaskmaster said:
And no, you didn't answer the question. You just harped on about Roman Polanski who drugged and anally raped a 13 year old girl, rather than addressing the question about any and all artists... unless your assertion is that the crime changes nothing (as per the bold bit), unless it's someone like Roman Polanski in which case it all changes, contrary to what you said, and you'll never pay for their film again..... but will happily make them famous by pirating their stuff without directly admitting to it on a forum.... that sound right?
Click to expand...

I have already answered this, you seem to want to ask me questions for the sake of it now because you don't like my opinion or something. I mean you've asked me twice about what Polanski did for some bizarre reason then unironically told me to go back and read the thread when I asked you about what list you're referring to? I've not confined my views only to Polanski either.

dowie said:
No, as I've already explained in two posts now IMO it depends on the severity of the crime and the position in the production - I've already given you examples too
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom