great artists and directors are imune to criticism

1. 61

   lizzieBooposted 12 years ago

   We've just heard Lars von Trier make some outrageous claim about sympathising with Hitler. Polanski has also got away with seducing under age girls. Carravagio was a blatant peodophile, and yet all is forgiven because they are great artists. Is this ok?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hell no. If you ask me, they should all be dragged out in the middle of the street and shot if I had my way with them.  However, you can't deny how great they both are at their perspective visionary crafts.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Well Oscar Wilde was given a pretty tough time for having a relationship with a schoolboy when he had a wife and 5 children. People still talk of Wilde as a gay martyr; a victim. Would people feel the same if Wilde had been a green grocer or a head master instead of a brilliant writer I wonder?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Stevennix2001posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I honestly don't know, and more than likely don't care what the majority of America thinks, as this country was bought and paid for a long time ago.  Not only that, but people are always going to believe whatever the hell they want.  Or to be more specifically, they believe whoever they deem to be a reliable source of information; regardless of the facts proving otherwise.

            replyreport
         2. 60

            recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            The 'boy' was a 22 year old man I seem to remember, and the persecution of Wilde arose partly from the pressure of the young man's father in a society where being gay was a prison offence.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               For the trial the boy may have been 22, but the affair started when he was still at school, 16 or 17 yr old.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  ....But you're right, it was the gay part that was the offense.

                  replyreport
   2. 57

      tajiatalposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No. But that never stops politicians either.

      replyreport
2. 60

   Peter Owenposted 12 years ago

   To me, they ae just people, subject to the same laws as anyone else. But then we have hollywood where noone appears to get punished for anyhing. I guess there will always be the Do As I Wanters.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It's nuts really, but I suppose we cannot bring ourselves to suppress genius. Or something like that.

      replyreport
3. 60

   Peter Owenposted 12 years ago

   But doesn't that apply to more than just genius - say popular or icon of any type?
   Movie stars
   Kennedy's

   replyreport
   1. 61

      lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well yes. Think what Henry VIII got away with and the Anglican church is founded on him! A religion founded on Bluebeard!

      replyreport
4. 65

   Cheeky Girlposted 12 years ago

   Those examples given remind me of lots of people I know in real life. LOL! WHat is to say lots of people don't get similar fancy notions? Idi Amin managed to terrorise a whole nation and he was nuts, apparently. It's when they become powerful that people become afraid of them. "Ambition bites the nails of success" perhaps?
   
   Put someone of equal "screw-looseness" in charge of running a Bank, and watch what happens? "Lehman's part 2" Maybe?
   
   Generally, societies back nutters if society does well from their leadership. Okay, I am done...

   replyreport
5. 81

   earnestshubposted 12 years ago

   It's funny how people assume sanity on those with wealth and power.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      dutchman1951posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      what Earnest said!
      
      true, true, true

      replyreport
6. 71

   Cagsilposted 12 years ago

   Okay. I guess we can chalk it up to human nature and it's quirks.

   replyreport
7. 60

   recommend1posted 12 years ago

   Aside from the abuse of wealth and power - artists are to some extent exempt as they are working on the fringes of knowledge and society - also looking at historical figures is fraught with misunderstanding as we forget that the views of today's society were not the views of theirs.  Shelley, one of the most admired poets ever, married a 16 year old girl , quite normal at the time and not so long after girls were considered eligible for marriage at 14.  In a time when it was normal to die young (Keats died at 25) it would be a reasonable practice in many ways - that is not so reasonable now.
   
   The balance between artistic licence and pure licence is not so easy to see and different people see it differently at different times.  Polanski might be considered to have stepped over to pure licence, but then what about the American Professor who advocated free love and drugs and slept with many of his students, occasionally many at the same time ?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      JGoulposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Personally, I don't think it's ok.  The law binds society together by forcing everyone to abide certain standards of conduct.  The freedom of action of the rich should be circumscribed by the law to the same extent the law limits the freedom of action of the poor. 
      
      That said, I think this would be the counter-argument:  If Polanski had been on the verge of curing cancer, we might be willing to overlook his conduct.  It just doesn't make sense to let millions die in order to punish their would-be savior.  Polanski, as a genius-artist, makes contributions of substantial, if perhaps not quite so significant or tangible, and so it is wise for us to make some concessions to enable him to continue his work.  Humanity is richer because he is free to pursue his art rather than rot in a cell. 
      
      Like I said, that's the argument, I don't agree with it.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         As I said - this is exactly on the dividing line between poetic licence and licencious behaviour.  I would agree that Polanski was on the wrong side of that.

         replyreport