Ask JKM a Question #36: Separate the Art from the Artist?

A reader named John writes:

“I enjoy reading your Blog and also own your Terror Television and 3 "Horror Films Of..." books and wanted to get your thoughts regarding separating the art from the artist.”

“Specifically I'm referring to when an actor or filmmaker is guilty of crimes in real life, and if you have any reservations when it comes to evaluating their films, or if such a thing has any impact at all.”

“Watching the Jeepers Creepers Blu-Ray and the special features I could not completely get writer-director Victor Salva's past out of my head.  

Likewise I know when I view the forthcoming BR of Rosemary's Baby I will not be able to completely ignore Polanski's troubles.  Watching The Naked Gun movies proves uncomfortable anytime OJ shows up.  One of my favorite Twilight Zone episodes, "Walking Distance" has been forever tainted since I learned of Gig Young killing his bride and them himself.  Certainly there are more examples.  And I know some friends of mine refuse to watch movies of artists guilty of certain crimes.  

But I cannot fathom never watching Rosemary's Baby or Chinatown again.  As someone who has seen as many films as you have I was curious as to how you deal with this from a critical perspective.”

That is an important question, John.

For me, personally and professionally, my gut-check position on this issue begins with the words of St. Augustine: “Love the sinner, hate the sin.”   Maybe I should translate that to appreciate the art, but forgive the artist and remember that he or she is a human being.

Of course, we can gaze at the acts of a certain artist and choose not to support his or her work based on immoral or illegal actions.  But I tend not to think on those terms.  We can condemn the behavior, but also forgive, and also continue to enjoy and analyze the work of that artist.

My opinion is that every single person on Earth has a skeleton or two in the closet.  Everyone has strayed from the path of moral rectitude at one point or another.  Scratch the surface and we can probably find something in everyone’s past that we don’t agree with or like.

We can watch the movies or read the books of  these artists and indeed assess their morality from afar, but we can’t know the exact details or the exact sequence of events, or how the person feels about what happened.  

So we’re judging them on incomplete information.

Therefore,  I think it behooves us to reserve judgment and move on.

If a man has committed a crime -- even a loathsome one – but has also paid his debt to society, I do think forgiveness is something we must deeply consider.  We may not want to hang out with the artist, but considering or weighing the artistry of a film isn’t about hanging out with the artist.

If we condemn others without knowing the facts, or we fail to consider how a person has paid for his grievous misstep then we are ignoring, to a certain extent, the possibility of redemption.

And I believe very much in redemption. 

I think it is the very thing that makes day-to-day life possible…and bearable.  It’s the idea that “I screwed up royally today, but tomorrow I get a chance to do better, to seek forgiveness and, through good deeds, re-balance the scales.”

But to your point about movies: I fear we would lose a lot of great art indeed if we had to weigh each production by the personal histories of every talent involved. 

Movies are a collaborative art form, so how far should we carry our judgment?  Should we disqualify a movie because the second unit director got three speeding tickets?  Because Man on Line #4 peddled drugs when he was eighteen?

What if a director smokes pot (currently an illegal act) on a daily basis?  Do we stop watching and enjoying his films?   What if a famous TV star committed suicide because he was grievously unhappy in his life?  What if a beloved actor cheated on his taxes?  Do those facts ruin or mitigate the artistry of the program or films in which these talents participated?

Instead of judging from a distance, we can sympathize with a person’s humanity and and continue to experience the art work as it was meant to be experienced, remembering that everyone is fallible.

The point that so many people fail to consider here is that great art often emerges from both the angels and the demons of our nature. We all possess those angels and demons, but in different proportions and with varying levels of control.  We need both of them, I wager, to speak meaningfully about the human condition.  I don’t condone criminal activity, of course, but it’s a fact of human life, at least at this stage in our history.

So do I consider the artist’s personal behavior when critically evaluating a movie? 

Not usually.  I mean, why impose a memory of what Gig Young did on a viewing of “Walking Distance,” which was written and directed by other talents, and was made before he committed that act? 

Why look at Edward Platt’s wonderfully-exasperated performances as The Chief in Get Smart and hold his eventual suicide against him?

Victor Salva made Jeepers Creepers (2001) after he served his jail sentence and paid his debt to society.

So if the behavior is actually relevant to the movie's theme, sure, it's interesting and perhaps worth considering and mentioning in a review.  But if not, spare judgment, forgive, and remember that we all seek and need redemption.  Take the work of art on its own terms instead.  How is the story told?  How does the imagery support the theme?  What does the film tell you about the human experience?

I leave the judging to someone who's perfect.

Terrific question, John, and I appreciate you asking it.

Don’t forget, ask me a question at Muirbusiness@yahoo.com