Media from "artists" whos ethics are seemingly very different from yours... (1 Viewer)

[CRyan]

Oh but I said knowingly and willingly. Of course in everyday life you simply cannot (nor would I want to) know what everyone is doing... Ignorance can be bliss.

And that is fundamentally the point of this thread as stated in the original post. I do know and am willingly giving my money in the case of many directors, actors or musicians. Because some are so vocal and they have the cash and platform to spew their beliefs and promote their causes.

And certainly in cases of large organizations the same can be said. Enron comes to mind or WalMart for some. Even Sony when they introduced a rootkit in an audio CD. People boycott organizations everyday for different ideals.

Me, I just want to watch a movie. I am just trying to get past the idea that my money is in some cases knowingly going to a cause I despise.

 

[DaveF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben )

Indeed. Any time you buy a car, you're certainly putting money in the pocket of someone who's repulsive -- too many worked on that vehicle for it to be otherwise.

But if I'm trying to buy a car, and the salesman rubs me the wrong way, he won't get my business. He could be offensive that I swear off the whole dealership. I've also sworn off an entire pet-supplies company because of a past incident where one store killed a friend's dog. Their corporate attitude was so malevolent that I won't do business with them.

I don't mean these as badges of pride, nor advocate you do the same. But we're influenced by our emotions on these things. So, sure, some may be swayed away from an actor because of emotional reaction to their public affairs.

As long as this isn't pathological, interfering with daily life, what's it matter? If you can't function, can't work with anyone because you know they're secretly loathsome, you need therapy. But if you're swearing off the rare actor or salesperson because they're pedophiles, nutjobs, or simply annoy the heck out of you, you're simply a normal person.

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by CRyan


For example. The whole Polanski thing. Some of the comments made from directors or actors in support of this guy were appaling to me. Now this is where I dont really want to get into a big thing about the rights and wrongs of Polanski - Suffice it to say I just cannot bring myself to support another movie of his. Prior to this I will admit I was blissfully unaware of the situation. But now I even find myself not wanting to spend money on movies of those in support of him.

What I find interesting is that some of the people exclaiming "oh, you musn't be judgmental of Polanski for being a pedophile" and/or "you must keep your views of his personal and professional lives separate" have no trouble abandoning such "principles" when it comes to the apparently much greater "crime" of having a differing political view. George Clooney expressed satisfaction that Charlton Heston was suffering from Altzheimer's disease.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by CRyan /forum/thread/297504/media-from-art...mingly-very-different-from-yours#post_3655010


And that is fundamentally the point of this thread as stated in the original post. I do know and am willingly giving my money in the case of many directors, actors or musicians. Because some are so vocal and they have the cash and platform to spew their beliefs and promote their causes.


We're surrounded 24/7 by people and organizations spewing beliefs and promoting causes. It's the nature of a free society. Directors, actors and musicians aren't entitled to be part of that?

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by RobertR




George Clooney expressed satisfaction that Charlton Heston was suffering from Altzheimer's disease.

"Satisfaction"? That's pushing it. Clooney made a joke about it at a National Board of Review event, as reported by gossip columnist Liz Smith: "Charlton Heston announced again today that he is suffering from Alzheimer's." He subsequently apologized to Heston.

(But even though I pick up this stuff, because I'm a junkie for show business gossip and trivia, I forget all about it when I'm watching Omega Man or Michael Clayton. I just see the characters, because both men are terrific actors.)

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben /forum/thread/297504/media-from-art...mingly-very-different-from-yours#post_3655105

 

[WillG]

But if I'm trying to buy a car, and the salesman rubs me the wrong way, he won't get my business. He could be offensive that I swear off the whole dealership. I've also sworn off an entire pet-supplies company because of a past incident where one store killed a friend's dog. Their corporate attitude was so malevolent that I won't do business with them.

I'm not sure that can be a direct comparison. If you want to buy a specific car and the salesperson at that paticular dealership offends you, you can likely find that same model car at another dealership. There are also other pet supply companies that sell a lot of the same stuff. If there is a specific movie that you are interested in seeing, yet it stars, say, Tom Cruise, you either have to accept his presence or you don't see the movie period.

I guess it's just kind of a choose your battles kind of thing. When I saw Avatar, I appreciated the film of a visual level and found the story thin, which is okay, not every film needs a convoluted plot. It was the allegories and the horribly stereotypical characters that made my eyes roll, but I'm sure I'll be buying it on Blu-Ray anyway.

But if I had to eschew all artistic entertainment made by people who's opinions are different from mine, it wouldn't leave me with much.

I loathe Sean Penn's politics, but he's a hell of an actor. He's never broken the law or hurt anyone (that I know of),

I believe he did famously assault a photographer.

I won't buy any Woody Allen film. They are geniuses, but they are also sick, creepy old men who preyed on young girls.

I can look past the Woody Allen thing. I don't remember all the details of the story, but as far as I know, all he did was engage in a very frowned upon relationship. Yeah, it's kind of creepy, but Soon Yi was not underage and as far as I know they're still married so the relationship seems to have worked out (although you'd could consider him a prick for putting Mia Farrow through that). But it's not like he did the same thing as Polanski.

 

[Greg_S_H]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben
With all due respect, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you guys seem to agree with Hollywood's viewpoint for the most part. Let's get away from what a celebrity says or does and get down to what happens in modern movies and television shows: I'll be watching a television show, enjoying it, minding my own business, and they'll throw in some partisan jab that wasn't even necessary to the script. If I was allowed to come on here and complain about it, no doubt one of you or one like you would reply, "You're upset about something that minor? Just get over it and enjoy the show." I've seen it done here. And, on a certain level, I could understand where you'd be coming from, but you have to understand that you don't get the same kind of treatment from Hollywood that I do. When your beliefs are ridiculed and assaulted every time you turn on the TV or step into a movie theater, "get over it" tends to turn into "just sit there, shut up and take it." But, you can't understand it if you don't have to experience it in turn.

On the other hand, on the extremely rare occasion where the tables are turned, all hell breaks loose. I'm thinking of a certain figure drummed off of a sports program and sure to cause howls of outrage and calls for boycotts this weekend when a beauty pagent is broadcast.

But, yeah. It sucks watching a show with open affection and being slapped down. From then on, there is a certain distance between yourself and the show that tempers your level of enjoyment. If you don't ever feel that--something people like me are made to feel all the time--consider yourself lucky.

To make clear, I would never say Hollywood can never nor should ever tackle a partisan or political issue. It's just that when it's unnecessary red meat to their side that you wish someone in the writers' room would follow Michael Jordan's lead and say, "Republicans buys shoes, too." But, I think I understand that as well. Hollywood is a pretty closed world and they don't even really believe there are regular people out there who disagree with them.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Greg_S_H

As best as I could tell, the original question was about individuals: actors, songwriters, directors, musicians. That's how the discussion has proceeded so far.

Now it's something bigger and more loosely defined: "Hollywood's viewpoint". And this is usually the point where these threads start to wander.

I'm not even sure what "Hollywood" is anymore, given the multi-national ownership of the studios and the international financial interests that fund the movies (leave aside the international array of talent that makes them). But I'm pretty sure that there's no such thing as a univocal "Hollywood viewpoint", except maybe "let's sell as many tickets and units of merchandise as possible so that our corporate parent companies don't fire us!"

That's a viewpoint I understand, and in that sense I guess you could say I agree with it.

/forum/thread/297504/media-from-art...mingly-very-different-from-yours#post_3655169

 

[Chris Lockwood]

When it's just a difference of opinion, I overlook it. I'm not going to avoid watching someone in a movie because I disagree with them, although I might avoid a movie that pushes a viewpoint I don't like.

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben




"Satisfaction"? That's pushing it. Clooney made a joke about it at a National Board of Review event, as reported by gossip columnist Liz Smith: "Charlton Heston announced again today that he is suffering from Alzheimer's." He subsequently apologized to Heston.

While it's good that he eventually apologized, my comment was directed at what Clooney said after the joke, based on the Wikipedia description of the incident:

Actor George Clooney joked about Heston's failing health at a 2003 National Board of Review award ceremony, saying that Heston "announced again today that he is suffering from Alzheimer's." When questioned, Clooney said Heston deserved whatever was said about him for his involvement with the NRA.

As far as I'm concerned, neither Heston nor Clooney has done anything to deserve the kind of condemnation that Polanski or, say, OJ Simpson should be subject to.

 

[DaveF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillG

I'm not sure that can be a direct comparison. If you want to buy a specific car and the salesperson at that paticular dealership offends you, you can likely find that same model car at another dealership. There are also other pet supply companies that sell a lot of the same stuff. If there is a specific movie that you are interested in seeing, yet it stars, say, Tom Cruise, you either have to accept his presence or you don't see the movie period.

I agree. It's not a perfect comparison. I observe that our decisions are emotionally influenced. It's not that we *should* avoid watch a movie because we don't like e.g. a pedophile actor; but that we *do* avoid them. To say otherwise is to deny human nature.

 

[RobertR]

We can like or dislike people for any reason we wish. What's distasteful to many people is the idea being put forth by some Hollywood people that "just because" some members of their community engage in certain actions, that's no reason to think ill of them, even though such a reaction is is exactly what people outside of Hollywood WOULD have.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Greg_S_H

I'll be watching a television show, enjoying it, minding my own business, and they'll throw in some partisan jab that wasn't even necessary to the script.

That's different from what I'm talking about though. I can understand being bothered if you're watching a movie or TV show and they decided to have a joke about a politician or party in there. Personally, I find the bulk of jokes like that to be lame because it's usually a safe joke (they know that most of their peers agree with them so there's no real chance of lasting repurcussions) pretending to be cutting edge satire.

What I'm mostly referring to is someone that uses their celebrity to constantly let the world know their 'important' thoughts on everything. I'll be the first to say that I find Sean Penn going on about x, y or z to be boring and self-important (even if I agree with him) but I'm not going skip Mystic River or Fast Times At Ridgemont High because of that.

 

[Nathan*W]

Originally Posted by Steve Schaffer

These are people doing jobs. They get paid for those jobs when I buy their product. I buy the product based on whether or not I want the product, not the behavior of the people making the product. The guy who dropped the engine into your car might be a serial killer. If you knew he was a serial killer would you not buy the car?

If I knew about it, then no I wouldn't buy the car, and my rationale would be why reward a car company that employs serial killers? If enought people thoight in the same manner, the company would either maintain the status quo (and suffer financially) or change their hiring practices. In a capatalist market, people talk with their wallets. The 90's and 2000's Nike and Walmart overseas labor scandals are examples on a large scale of poor corporate choices that have damaged reputations and caused short-term financial harm for those businesses. Once they made changes to their business practices, all was forgiven.

Numerous people base their purchasing decisions every day on information like that because it works, and it is not at all the odd thing that you seem to be making it out to be.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Originally Posted by WillG

Remember, I did say "(or seemingly criminal) acts," which may as well be called my "Woody Allen" clause. A 50 something man has no business with a 17 year old girl. Period.

/forum/thread/297504/media-from-art...mingly-very-different-from-yours#post_3655152

 

[gene c]

I guess there's a balance between what music/movies they've made vs. what they've said or done. If it was so Hannis or horrible than I might not be able to enjoy their music/movie as much as I did then I might not buy or listen/watch as much as I had in the past, or maybe not at all. And that balance could change from day-to-day depending my own attitude at the time.

But for the most part I can put aside that other stuff for a couple of hours for my own selfish enjoyment. I don't know if that means I can separate fact from fiction (art) or if I'm just morally corrupt. But life's short and I've spent a fortune on all this junk so I'll lean towards morally corrupt.

And remember, What about the things people have said or done that we don't know about yet? If you spend too much time worrying about all of this then you won't enjoy any of it.

BTW, my opinions are subject to change without notice, and frequently do. And Boz Skaggs better keep his nose clean or I'm gonna have a moral dilemma to contend with! Or, maybe not.

 

[Nathan*W]

Originally Posted by gene c /forum/thread/297504/media-from-art...gly-very-different-from-yours/30#post_3655354

 

[Win Joy Jr]

Well, look at it this way. What if your employer found out about your support of a political position that they did not want to support. They do not want "their money", ie your salary, to go to the cause you are supporting. The chose to cut off the source of those funds, your salary, by firing you.

How would you feel?

I personally do not associate an entertainers personal beliefs to their craft. For me, Martin Sheen's support of Mumia goes against my personal beliefs. But I enjoyed him in "The Wast Wing". So much so that I bought the DVD's...

 

[Nathan*W]

That argument is a fallacy because an employer/employee relationship has specific obligations under the law to pay employees for the work that they do, and to not infringe on their freedom of expression. There are no such obligations for individuals deciding on what goods or services to purchase.

For example, if you were hiring a lawn service to mow your yard, and you found out that one company was pro-Dallas Cowboys, while another was Pro-Washington Redskins, you would be free to hire which ever lawn company you wish, based on whatever criteria you want. But within that company itself (the pro-Cowboys one for instance), if one of the employees came out as pro-Redskins, the company owner could not fire that employee for holding that view.