Does art live indpeendently of its creators?

Post Reply New Topic

Just got to the part where Mrs Mowlray admits to a certain relationship she had at 15. I was just managing to get over the fact that I was watching a film made by a child rapist when that occurred. Amazing film Faye Dunaway and Jack Nicholson are breathtaking but I cant get over the fact that there might be a parallel between what Polanski did and the event in the film. Of course it might just be wish fulfilment or it might be coincidence but every Polanski film I watch is tainted by this knowledge I have. It shouldnt matter because art stands apart from its creator, but when you see possible fingerprints of that creator all over the artwork you cannot help but feel a sense of the identity and character of said creator in his/her work.

How would you feel if you were to watch a film created by Hitler or Pol Pot? Would you be able to separate the art from the artist or would it be too much to ask? Is my attitude somewhat Phillistine? Should I just suspend my moral judgement or would a moral boycott of Polanski's work be justified given the magnitude of his crime and the fact that he eluded justice

When I worked for the Sundance Institute annual filmmakers' lab in the 1980s, I lived with and became friends with former Czech filmmakers Franti?ek "Frank" Daniel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Daniel and Vojtěch "Vojtě" Jasný https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vojt%C4%9Bch_Jasn%C3%BD who built their careers in Czechoslovokia during the Nazi invasion and before the Soviet invasion. Vojtě escaped the Soviet invasion with a 16mm copy of just one of his films. His other films were burned as subversive propaganda. They taught upcoming filmmakers that audiences always bring their morals with them while watching a film, and that filmmakers should appreciate that. For either the filmmaker or the audience to intentionally disregard that fact harms a film's effect. Some films are intended to offend precisely for the reasons that the audience will find it repugnant, yet still redeeming in some small way.

I can certainly appreciate this idea of a morally repugnant film having redeeming virtues. I just finished Chinatown and the ending just gave me a sick feeling. It seems as if Polanski was trying to show that the cycle of greed corruption and decay cant simply be waved away with a touch of tinseltown fairy dust. The young girl Catherine will probably play the same part as her mother and the entire thing is just a spectacle.

Actually I dont think Polanski wanted to show anything, he probably isnt that didactic a director. My guess is that the film is what it is. Its a piece of undeniably beautiful storytelling with death corruption and decay at its core. Its impossible to escape this sense that Polanski was trying to say something along the lines of "everything is s**t". Evelyn tries to preserve the young girl from Cross but cannot. The best intentions of our hero actually lead to the final crisis at the end, the city elite are still in power and nothing is resolved. Is that kind of nihilistic storytelling common to Polanski?

EDIT: I hope its ok to reveal spoilers.... I might put a warning at the beginning

I can't say. The only Polanski film I have watched is Rosemary's Baby. But, yes, I would say that film was nihilistic in its own way.

Art can only stand independent of its' creator when you know nothing about its' creator.


It would be too much to ask of me, although professional critics do have more practice in separating art from artist, so it is theoretically possible. This situation did come up when the world discovered that Hitler was a painter before he was a tyrant. It is nearly impossible to assess his paintings objectively, although some have tried.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paintings_by_Adolf_Hitler


I don't think so. Professional critics struggle mightily with trying to be objective and separate art from artist but it's a lot to ask from anybody. In a way, it's like trying to assess art without the context of the culture it was made in. Your knowledge interacts meaningfully with the art. So do your values.


I recommend neither. Don't suspend moral judgement. Bring it with you as you assess his work. Let it bring up things to ponder. Was he condoning or condemning what her Father did? Was it that it was her Father or that she was a child that was seen as bad? Or both? And so on. I would only do a boycott if you would be enriching him, and I doubt he got any money at all from your viewing of Chinatown.

I haven't seen a Woody Allen movie for years. But that's not an intentional boycott so much as that what he did sapped all the joy out of his movies for me. For the record, what he did was marry Soon Yi, the daughter of his ex-girlfriend Mia Farrow. Soon Yi was a child while he was dating Farrow and he was certainly a father figure to her if not a legal father. So it was incest-adjacent, although not legally incest. (She was an adult by the time they had a relationship.) The utter skeeviness of that is something that prevents me from enjoying his movies like I used to. Hypocritically, I was able to enjoy "Chinatown" even though Polanski did something far worse and criminal. That's because I wasn't familiar with Polanski's movies like I was with Allen's and didn't even think "oh, that was directed by Polanski" until I saw it on the DVD box.

Are the rest of his movies as nihilistic? "Rosemary's Baby" sure is (Satan wins in the end) but it's the only other one of his I've seen. I had seen every single one of Allen's movies right up until the scandal so it was on my mind more and I was literally unable to separate art from artist.

First of all: While Roman Polanski is a nasty piece of work (he even did a video interview where he was completely indifferent to his crime), he is no Hitler or Pol Pot...

Second of all: I suppose people could just get over Polanski - even his victim, Samantha Gailey, expressed desire to put the case to rest - but the fact is that some people continue to defend him, and as long as this is the case - especially since some of his defenders are high-profile Hollywood celebrities - I believe he should be hounded to the gates of Hell with abandon.

I will never willingly pay a single cent to watch a Roman Polanski movie, regardless of its artistic value.

I wasnt comparing him with them at all. Different orders of magnitude certainly

The girl probably just doesnt want what happened to be brandished all over newspapers and television. I think people use that desire as a way to suggest that she has reconciled herself with what happened. Has she categorically stated that she has forgiven him and it is no longer important?

The difficulty I have is that many artists were total scumbags. Where do we draw the line? Do we have a moral duty or is a personal choice?

It's impossible to separate artists from their work, but to ignore them is folly. Woody Allen has made good films and bad films. Do you ignore the better ones because he had an affair with his step daughter? Is Manhattan or Annie Hall lesser films because of personal events 20 years after the films were made? Hardly. Take Richard Wagner. A repulsive human being whose music is still banned in Israel. You deny yourself a musical education by ignoring the music of Wagner. Beethoven was hardly an angel either.