Written by Paul Dail
Recently I was perusing a forum on Reddit dedicated to all-things-horror entertainment.
Wait! Don’t leave. This isn’t about horror. Just the beginning.
One of the postings mentioned a new vampire movie by director Spike Lee. Yeah, vampires and the director probably best known for his film, “Do the Right Thing” (although technically I guess Lee is going for more “artsy” with horror with “Da Sweet Blood of Jesus.” Again, yeah).
One of the commenters responded to this announcement by saying that while Lee was a talented director, he was a “pretty s**tty person” (hint: the second word rhymes with the first). Another commenter implied that just as he/she refused to support Roman Polanski for pleading guilty to rape, they would also refuse to support a new Spike Lee film.
Lee has historically been quite vocal in his denouncing of Hollywood and on a larger scale, the United States government, but I’m guessing it was the fact that following the 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin, Lee was one of many who tweeted the supposed home address of George Zimmerman that raised the ire of this particular commenter and caused them to withdraw their support.
This phenomenon is nothing new. When considering this topic, half a dozen names immediately came to mind of celebrities whose indiscretions or unpopular opinions came to the media spotlight, in many cases adversely affecting public support.
Three words for starters: “Tom Cruise” and “Scientology.” (I could’ve been more specific with “post-partum depression,” but I thought three words worked better, and I think “Scientology” covers a lot of bases here.)
Again, he’s not alone. I’m guessing most of you already have a few names in your head.
I’m not talking about the Robert Mapplethorpes or Andres Serranos of the world, who choose to make their statements in their art (or urine, in the case of Serrano). That’s a whole other issue. To an extent, Spike Lee falls into this category with many of his artistic statements.
The question in my mind is, if an artist is not necessarily creating art that is representative of his/her viewpoints or questionable behavior (and interesting that it’s more often “his”), do we refuse to support that artist just because of said viewpoints or questionable behavior?
We all have our own moral compass and various lines in the sand. Even my wife and I have had disagreements along these lines. When President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky were in the spotlight, while my wife claimed his actions were unrelated to his job, therefore irrelevant, I felt differently, largely because I had been a victim of infidelity. That was my line in the sand.
Having said that, I think it’s an odd phenomenon when it comes to artists, and I’m more inclined to disregard actions and opinions if they’re not running the largest country in the free world.
I have two justifications for this. I think the biggest one is that I’m able to separate the “art” from artist. Maybe because I am one.
Getting back to horror, one of the forefathers of the genre, H.P. Lovecraft, has recently come under fire for having racist views. He probably doesn’t care much, because he’s dead, but when he was alive, the early 20thcentury was still pretty racist. Does that make it okay? Not necessarily, but again, as a horror fan, I’m probably not going to stop buying his stuff because he’s not writing racist stories.
A little closer to home, just weeks before the theatrical release of famous sci-fi writer and former Utahn/current LDS Church member Orson Scott Card’s novel “Ender’s Game,” it was publicized that Card had spoken out in favor of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same sex marriage, causing some to protest the release of the movie.
I didn’t see “Ender’s Game,” but not because I disagreed with Card’s views on same sex marriage. I do disagree, but I didn’t see the movie simply because I have two young children. This means I see a movie of my choice about once every six months. However, had “Ender’s Game” fallen on one of those rare opportunities, I probably would’ve gone, because I liked the book and wanted to see what they would do with it. And because it wasn’t promoting an anti-gay message.
The list goes on. Kurt Vonnegut has been accused of being misogynistic. Hugh Grant slept with a prostitute. For all his romantic lyrics, musician John Mayer has been labeled a “lothario” on more than occasion. Russell Crowe assaulted a hotel concierge. Even Beethoven supposedly threw chairs at people who spoke during his performances. And Charlie Sheen… well, maybe we can just list what Charlie Sheen hasn’t done as opposed to what he has done… probably when he was with Robert Downey, Jr.
However, as one commenter responded to the Lee protester, “They’re all hugely influential artists that are inexorably bonded into the fabric of our shared culture. Again, I can see where you’re coming from, but if I had that perspective I’d have to do background research on every novelist whose books I pick up or every band whose songs I like.”
Or as another commenter put it less delicately, “if I refused to partake in any artist work who’s a prick, I’d probably be left with nothing.”
Even though these two comments specifically address the issue of art, they also reflect my second point. Do we choose not to support these artists just because they got caught? Just because they are so much in the public eye and ear, that nary a move or spoken word can escape it?
A quick question. Is your favorite grocer opposed to gay marriage? Or is your dry cleaner that you’ve been using for years a racist? Has the owner of your favorite Italian restaurant ever cheated on his wife?
Chances are, unless you live in a really small town, you don’t know the answers to these questions. If you did, would you refuse to support them? Maybe if you had to deal with them every time you went in there, but what if that grocer had the best produce in town? Or what if you could get that mouth-watering rigatoni delivered? Not that rigatoni is necessarily any “Moonlight Sonata,” but I think you know what I mean.
And what about the businesses we support even though their questionable behavior is very well known? Nike was accused of using sweatshops. Walmart reputedly treats their employees poorly. Yet neither of these two monoliths—among many others—show any sign of imminent collapse.
I think the difference is that we idealize these artists. We say because they create such amazing things, they must also be amazing people. The fact of the matter is, as the commenter mentioned, artists can be jerks too. Just as sports figures can be brutes, as opposed to the noble warrior status we sometimes imbue them with. Because they are in the public eye, these views and actions are just more likely to be exposed.
Having just celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I think the message here is that great men (and women) are to be admired, both for their views and their actions. However, art is to be appreciated.
What do you think? Am I despicable? Do you have a line in the sand when it comes to artists? As always, I appreciate your thoughts, and for the first two weeks following the publication of each of my columns, I personally respond to all comments within 48 hours.
Paul D. Dail received his BFA in English with a Creative Writing emphasis from the University of Montana, Missoula. In addition to freelance journalism and web content creation, he also enjoys writing creative nonfiction and fiction (with a penchant for the darker side of the page). His collection of flash fiction, “Free Five,” has spent over a year and a half in the top 50 Kindle Horror Shorts Stories since its publication in 2012. Currently he lives on the outskirts of Kanarraville, surrounded by the sagebrush and pinyon junipers, with his wife and two children. Read more about Paul at www.pauldail.com. While he prefers that any comments directed at a specific article be posted in a public forum, he welcomes all other correspondence at [email protected]
