I've been reading a bit about how Mel Gibson's career may be ruined by his drunken anti-Semitic rant in Malibu. I hear rumors that his career may be over and Hollywood may never forgive him for his behavior.Now I respect a lot of Mel Gibson's work as a director and actor, but I can't condone this kind of activity. I'm not sure if I should take a stand and not view his movies anymore. Should the acts of the man come before my enjoyment of his art?
At least he didn't drug and anal rape a 13 year old. That sure would end someone's career in Hollywood. I mean who the hell would want to go see a film made by someone who did such an unspeakable act? Oh wait....
"If you have a great passion it seems that the logical thing is to see the fruit of it, and the fruit are children." - Roman Polanski
2 comments:
Considering that the last Gibson film I really liked was 7 years ago (Payback), I don't care much what he does. I'm no more likely to go see Apocalypto than I was Passion of the Christ.
But it is, ethically speaking, a hard question. Polanski for instance, is a great filmmaker. Ninth Gate remains one of my favorite movies to star Johnny Depp. But Polanski himself is a bastard. If I watch one of his movies, I am giving financial support to a fugitive pedophile. I hate that idea.
Allen Ginsberg was a brilliant poet. Howl changed the face of literature in the 50's. But he was a member and supporter of NAMBLA.
It's hard to separate the art from the artist. And sometimes, it can't be done. So how do we punish them for their misdeeds, assuming the law doesn't do it for us? A tough question indeed.
Mattbear - Yes a tough question indeed. Given that art is not a necessity should we really take a larger look at the artists we enjoy and stop funding them however indirectly?
Should the same be with former and current heads of state? Should their personal actions overshadow their cultural and political acheivments?
Post a Comment