That article is tip of the iceberg stuff. After reading that, I can't see how anyone would want to watch a Charlton Heston movie ever again?
How about by concluding that watching a movie with Charlton Heston in it does not constitute any sort of endorsement of his politics or his involvement with the NRA?
It's an interesting question, when do an artist's views or actions offend one sufficiently to stay away from the art that that person produced? Roman Polanski drugged and had sex with a fourteen year old. Woody Allen cheated on his longtime girlfriend with her adopted daughter, whom he later married. Miles Davis was violent toward women, and was a jerk to just about everybody. Jackson Browne was alleged to have beaten his girlfriend.
To me all these actions (or alleged actions) are far more serious than someone taking political positions I disagree with. Yet it doesn't make me avoid their movies or music. (Although it's not like I'm listening to Jackson Browne these days in any event.) That's not to say that I always separate an artist from his views/actions -- I doubt I'll ever want to watch a Bill Cosby comedy routine again, and I found him very funny.
So where does one draw the line? Charlton Heston's views don't change the movies he made, and even when he's the star there are a lot of other people involved in them.
Touch of Evil is much more attributable to Orson Welles than it is to Charlton Heston. And
ToE seems to be an unusual choice to take a stance on, since it's an anti-racism movie, and one that condemns police misusing their power. Come to think of it, Orson Welles wasn't always the greatest guy -- is it time to stop watching his movies?
(By the way, the paper you linked to was not authored by Professor Sorett, but a student of his.)
reply
share
Dont_lose_your_Fred
9 years ago
Oh, I think you misunderstood, or I wasn't clear enough, sorry of that's the case.
You raise some interesting questions and points. I did however cover Polanski in my original post. Its not a question of Heston's support for the NRA though, you misunderstand. As I said originally, that's a personal failing, and as none of us are perfect, I can overlook that. Maybe you should re-read the thread?
It's the racist; "oh my god I am a victim being a poor down-trodden white man" he is spinning that has alienated me so much from him. He is one of the most privileged white men in all the world, yet he rants about his need (as a white protestant working man) to have a gun to protect him from the "ethnic mix" of the US. Racist? It doesn't sound good now does it?
As for when to take a stand, I agree at first sight it seems arbitrary. Why this Heston film, not another? Well, this thread extols the virtue of people buying a new shiny copy of it on Blu-ray. That's why this film! I don't give money to far-right white supremacist causes, but isn't that what I would be doing if I bought this on Blu-ray?
reply
share
TopFrog
9 years ago
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't re-read the whole thread before posting.
I don't give money to far-right white supremacist causes, but isn't that what I would be doing if I bought this on Blu-ray?
I don't think so, but you're free to spend (or not spend) your money as you see fit.
reply
share
Dont_lose_your_Fred
9 years ago
I didn't re-read the whole thread before posting
Maybe you need to?
I don't think so
Why? I find this strange and fascinating in equal measure. As you say, some have taken a stance on Polanski movies. Why though, do you think (as you appear to if I have read your post correctly), it's okay to take a stance on Polanski movies, and give them a miss (as watching them would/might/possibly, support/condone child abuse/rape), but giving money to a racist to watch him on screen is okay?
I am not having a pop, I am however curious?
PS - Professors who read other people's work need to be clear about that, no such clarification appears next to the authors/editors names on the front page?
reply
share
TopFrog
9 years ago
Why though, do you think (as you appear to if I have read your post correctly), it's okay to take a stance on Polanski movies, and give them a miss (as watching them would/might/possibly, support/condone child abuse/rape), but watching a racist on screen is okay?
We all have a large range of discretion to choose what movies and music to consume or not consume, while still acting ethically. If someone wants to refuse to watch Polanski movies, there's nothing unethical about that. Heck, if someone decided that Ashley Judd being a Democrat was reason enough to never watch another one of her movies, I wouldn't think that that person was being unethical. (Someone who refuses categorically to watch movies that have blacks in starring roles, or to listen to music by Jewish composers, that's another matter.)
But what we are ethically permitted to do is far different from what we are ethically required to do. You seem to think that any knowledgeable person is ethically required to avoid Heston's films. That I don't agree with. The films themselves are not racist, nor is there anything else about them that seems to be so beyond the pale as to make it unethical to watch them for entertainment. (And I'm not sure what would qualify in that regard.
Birth of a Nation contains racism that I find reprehensible, but I don't think that that makes it unethical to watch and appreciate that movie.) Nor do I think that people are in general ethically obligated to boycott businesses or individuals because patronizing them may provide some financial support for views with which one does not agree.
Does that clarify things?
reply
share