Just watched 12 Monkeys (1996), and it’s a little uncomfortable seeing Bruce Willis portray a character struggling mentally, know of his real-life problems with frontotemporal dementia. It’s not the time of year yet, but I’m wondering if my enjoyment of Die Hard will be reduced, since the hearing loss he suffered on that film may have been a contributing factor.
The Crow (1994) - on which Brandon Lee died, and Rust (upcoming) - on which Halyna Hutchins died - aren’t films I’d normally watch anyway, so I don’t know how the deaths would have affected my decision to watch them. Conversely, Kevin Spacey is in a lot of films I like, but it’s a bit queasy seeing his performances, with the suspicion that we all now know why he’s so good at portraying creeps.
So do you just try to enjoy a film as a film, or does real-life events ever stop you re-watching them?
Those are two very different examples…
For Bruce Willis, yeah, watch the heck out of his films and celebrate his talent and the joy and entertainment that he brought to us. Everyone ends up dead, and it’s rarely pretty, so perhaps we shouldn’t let it ruin our past.
However… Lee died during the making of the crow and that’s more complex. Was the film finished to honour his life and his skills, or was it finished purely for financial reasons?
I’d like to think it was the former, and that when we see a film it is never the work of one actor, not even a bunch of actors and a director, but hundreds of people all bringing themselves to the endeavour of making.
And that’s how they live for ever. Scratching their name into the desk of the world by making something that will be here long after they have gone.
And I think that should be celebrated.
And then the spacey thing… First, let’s not forget he just got found not guilty… Not saying he didn’t do anything, but a jury of his peers didn’t send him down.
Again though, should everyone that worked on those films lose their work because of him?
I don’t know much about the current status of the Spacey trial, but even if he was found not guilty in a court of law, he can still be found to be a creep in the court of public opinion. In law, a person must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (a fairly high bar), but in public the bar is, and should be, much lower.
Of course we are each allowed our own opinions and that includes whether we watch his movies or not. You also make a good point that he was not the only person in the movies that he was part of, and I think it is ok to celebrate the great performances of his co-stars. Besides, he’s not exactly the hero in se7en or unusual suspects, so it isn’t hard to still enjoy those movies.
Fuck absolutely everything about your assertion that the court of public opinion holds a single ounce of merit…
The court of public opinion at one point in time held that a human being with a measure of melanin beyond a certain amount was a piece of fucking property.
You’re also suggesting a news outlet has almost omnipotent power of judgement.
Fuck that. Fuck. that.
The court of public opinion is fickle, it’s easily manipulated, it’s standards are as fluid as anything can be. No…
It’s “innocent until proven guilty”, not “guilty because we think so”.
You’ve misinterpreted my statement. I think we’re largely in agreement.
I think the only place that we disagree is that the public opinion doesn’t matter. I think it can matter a lot, for better or wrose. You rightly point out that public opinion has been wrong a lot, and I don’t disagree with that or defend any time that it has been wrong.
My point was that courts should use innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Public opinion shouldn’t be held to the same standard though, but it should also only be deciding “do I like them” or “did they do something I don’t like”.
Yes, he’s a creep. But that doesn’t take away the value of watching movies he was in. He was just an actor, it’s not like he was some kind of puppet master making movies to normalize rape. I don’t like the guy, but he was in some great movies. We shouldn’t let the vision of the director or the work of everyone else involved be lost to time just because he’s scumbag
I agree. I’ll watch Seven or Usual Suspects any day of the week.
I won’t watch anything he did recently though.I haven’t seen Seven and didn’t really get into House of Cards, so I don’t know what he even did recently. Usual Suspects is amazing tho, I make Keyzer SoZe jokes like once a week even tho nobody gets them lmao
Seven and Usual Suspects are back to back masterpieces.
I have no idea what he’s done in probably a decade or more, tbh.
How recently? Is Baby Driver in the cards?
My original post is a loose collection of ideas that sort-of fit together and sort-of don’t.
I think if properly examine why you should still see a film, you’ll find lots of reasons to support doing so. I guess I’m mostly interested in what the instinctual reaction is, and whether anybody has to convince themselves to watch something, after initially finding something off-putting about it.
Sounds like you are talking about two different things. Some of these things are outside the control of the creators :12 Monkeys, Crow, Rust and some are are a result of the art they create and within their control : Miramax, Polanski, Gary Glitter. I hate to say it but there is most likely some sort of art in everyones life that that they absolutely love that was created by someone who did something terrible and I’m not talking small stuff like an inappropriate joke or statement they didn’t actually mean. I think there is difference between supporting and ignoring bad actions vs enjoyment of art. I think I can separate real life and art enough to listen to a Gary Glitter album, watch a Polanski or Miramax film but would I wouldn’t want to condone or support the individuals awful and criminal behavior.
There was a nagging doubt when I wrote the question on whether there was enough of a connection between what I was using as examples of meta-knowledge about particular films. From the responses received so far, it looks like there isn’t.
Also, I’ve been more controversial than I meant to be, so I’ll avoid compounding it by trying to explain myself. Harder than it looks, this whole posting stuff on social media thing.
The question has always intriguid me. How our experiences or knowledge change our perception of art and film.
When I was in college I discovered Woody Allen and I became a huge fan. I find it hard now to even want to watch his films. Yes, I know, he was never convicted of anything. But you gotta admit leaving his longtime girlfriend for her adpopted daughter which he helped raise (some would say “groom”) is off-putting and makes it very hard to ignore all the allegations.
Maybe it’s for a different talk but bad situations surrounding movies don’t tend to affect my viewing of them. It’s only when it comes to bad social engineering attempts like Hollywood’s recent obsession with blackwashing character’s who are canonically ginger that really make me think twice about watching a film.
Removed by mod
Everytime I rewatch The Hateful Eight, I get a little excited when Kurt Russell smashes the guitar. I have a similar reaction to Viggo breaking his toe in LOTR. I suppose it does affect my enjoyment but not in a bad way. More that I like knowing those little details about how the sausage is made.
Id say I can easily separate these things. E.g. I still love Woody Allen movies
Altho if I find out the creator’s a weirdo, I’m unlikely to financially support the film by purchasing it
To me, NO. Good movies are art, like any other art, painting, music, poetry, etc. In general art can’t be judge by its creators lives. Extreme examples: Marquis of Sade or William Burroughs in literatura. Movies are a team work, to me “mistakes” from one member do not spoil the whole movie.
Frequently great artist are not good persons, if that were true almost everybody will be a (great) artist.
Yes, it does influence me. Especially when I find out some of the creators or actors are/were jerks, I loose all interest in watching the film.
