Great article! I have grappled with this issue for years. I consider both Roman Polanski and Woody Allen to be artists of the first rank, but I haven't seen many of their works because... well, you know why. By the way, you went easy in your description of Polanski. Read about what he actually did to a ninth grader, and how people excused him because of the Manson murders, which have literally nothing to do with it.
Thanks for reading! I tried to not let RP take over the article— if you read the one before this, I go into his crimes more specifically, but even that could’ve been its own post. Thanks again.
Thanks for the mention! Btw, here’s another example: John Landis’s landmark promotional film, “Michael Jackson’s Thriller.” MJ is, er, controversial for well-known reasons, but Jackson hired Landis to direct the $900k “video” a year after three actors (including two illegally hired children, aged 6-7 years) were killed in an onset accident while filming the climax of Landis’s original segment of The Twilight Zone: The Movie (1982). Landis hadn’t been indicted yet, let alone tried for manslaughter, but he was very much under a cloud when cameras rolled on “Thriller” in October 1983. Landis made Trading Places during this period, too! 😳
It’s an ethical conundrum because I couldn’t be a bigger fan of Landis’s work. Animal House, Blues Brothers, American Werewolf, Trading Places, even his documentary about a used car salesman, Slasher, are some of my favorite films. And his wife designs a mean costume, too! 🤠
What’s interesting about this one is that I, too, am a great admirer of those films, but the helicopter crash never made me think about or question my enjoyment of them.
Same here, BITD. But now, as a father, I think about those children more, and more generally with what the right calls “cancel culture,” there seems to be a higher bar for artists to clear with their potential audience as far as their personal conduct is concerned. Would Harrison Ford make Frantic today?
Well it is a question which everyone should consider, I suppose. But a difference may exist between public repudiation of an artist and the private response to their art. I guess I come down in general in the camp of condemnation whenever I think about a specific person for a time. But that’s an emotional response rather than adherence to a particular principle.
Another great post and thanks for the shout out. I like the idea of anonymity, where ideas and art are utterly separate from their creators. I reckon that great ideas and great art, music and writing are great regardless of the actions or beliefs of their creators because they are still true or beautiful in a univerdal way despite the creator's flaws. It wouldn't make sense to throw out the good because of the bad. The exception I would understand to an extent is if the ideas or art directly pertain to the terrible ideas or actions, although even some of these could have been viewed as normal at the time.
Makes perfect sense. Somebody responded the other day that the same holds true for politicians: he didn’t care what they were like as people as long as they endorsed the policies with which he agreed. I thought that was a pretty good analogy. Thanks for reading!
Speaking of having it and eating it too — this guy’s got more “cake”than a royal wedding, having appropriately weaponized the comment section.
Most (not all) praise of good art is bragging. Most (almost all) holding dead artists to “account” is virtue signaling.
What I want to know before I actually read the article is this: Does Dan eat toast butter side up? If he’s a butter side down-er, I shall neither tolle or lege.
Great article! I have grappled with this issue for years. I consider both Roman Polanski and Woody Allen to be artists of the first rank, but I haven't seen many of their works because... well, you know why. By the way, you went easy in your description of Polanski. Read about what he actually did to a ninth grader, and how people excused him because of the Manson murders, which have literally nothing to do with it.
Thanks for reading! I tried to not let RP take over the article— if you read the one before this, I go into his crimes more specifically, but even that could’ve been its own post. Thanks again.
Thanks for the mention! Btw, here’s another example: John Landis’s landmark promotional film, “Michael Jackson’s Thriller.” MJ is, er, controversial for well-known reasons, but Jackson hired Landis to direct the $900k “video” a year after three actors (including two illegally hired children, aged 6-7 years) were killed in an onset accident while filming the climax of Landis’s original segment of The Twilight Zone: The Movie (1982). Landis hadn’t been indicted yet, let alone tried for manslaughter, but he was very much under a cloud when cameras rolled on “Thriller” in October 1983. Landis made Trading Places during this period, too! 😳
That’s a great example. I remember when all of that happened with Vic Morrow. Thanks for reading and commenting!
It’s an ethical conundrum because I couldn’t be a bigger fan of Landis’s work. Animal House, Blues Brothers, American Werewolf, Trading Places, even his documentary about a used car salesman, Slasher, are some of my favorite films. And his wife designs a mean costume, too! 🤠
What’s interesting about this one is that I, too, am a great admirer of those films, but the helicopter crash never made me think about or question my enjoyment of them.
Same here, BITD. But now, as a father, I think about those children more, and more generally with what the right calls “cancel culture,” there seems to be a higher bar for artists to clear with their potential audience as far as their personal conduct is concerned. Would Harrison Ford make Frantic today?
I imagine he wouldn’t. But Polanski still gets A-listers, as seen in The Ghost Writer (which is a pretty good movie).
I agree.
Well it is a question which everyone should consider, I suppose. But a difference may exist between public repudiation of an artist and the private response to their art. I guess I come down in general in the camp of condemnation whenever I think about a specific person for a time. But that’s an emotional response rather than adherence to a particular principle.
Exactly—it’s far more emotional than rational. Thanks for reading!
Another great post and thanks for the shout out. I like the idea of anonymity, where ideas and art are utterly separate from their creators. I reckon that great ideas and great art, music and writing are great regardless of the actions or beliefs of their creators because they are still true or beautiful in a univerdal way despite the creator's flaws. It wouldn't make sense to throw out the good because of the bad. The exception I would understand to an extent is if the ideas or art directly pertain to the terrible ideas or actions, although even some of these could have been viewed as normal at the time.
Makes perfect sense. Somebody responded the other day that the same holds true for politicians: he didn’t care what they were like as people as long as they endorsed the policies with which he agreed. I thought that was a pretty good analogy. Thanks for reading!
Speaking of having it and eating it too — this guy’s got more “cake”than a royal wedding, having appropriately weaponized the comment section.
Most (not all) praise of good art is bragging. Most (almost all) holding dead artists to “account” is virtue signaling.
What I want to know before I actually read the article is this: Does Dan eat toast butter side up? If he’s a butter side down-er, I shall neither tolle or lege.
My weapons are howitzers of literary and cinematic enthusiasm!
I don’t know anybody who eats toast butter-side down. I’ve never seen that happen and if it did, I would call it out as an affectation.
Dude are you kidding? Some phd wrote a whole book about it.
Coming soon on Pages and Frames: “They Don’t Know on Which Side Their Bread Is Buttered: Toward a Reading of the Great Toast Wars 2025-2026.”
I had no idea this existed …