does it matter if they're insane assholes?

[tattuchu]

Mel Gibson is in the news again for racist and misogynistic rants, this time against his (former? soon to be former?) wife, which she had secretly taped as evidence of his violent insanity. But does it matter? Should our enjoyment of him as an actor and director be influenced by our opinion of his personal life? Is an artist's (I use the term broadly) personal life relevant? If I hate Gibson the man, should I shun Gibson the artist? It's being said that Gibson's career is likely over. Even his agent has dropped him as a client. Is this a good or a bad thing?
Insanity, mental illness, emotional and psychological issues...these can inspire and fuel an artist's creative impulse. In this sense, they're a good thing. Okay, Gibson is an asshole, and batshit insane. Do we then have a moral obligation to eschew his films? I'm not so sure. I just watched Magnolia last night, for instance, and Tom Cruise gave a wonderful performance. I like Tom Cruise. Tom Cruise the actor, that is. Sure a lot of his movies are crap. But some are actually pretty decent. Magnolia was decent. His role in the film, however, mirrored his role as a Scientologist. It was creepy. It was scary. He's creepy. He's scary. Do I want to help support him, and by extension Scientology, through continued patronage?
Do we separate the work of an artist, or our enjoyment of such, from the person himself?

[Animavore]

No. I don't think we should. We should judge a person's artistic merit serparate from their personal life.

[Ronja]

I find that the knowledge of both Mel Gibson's and Tom Cruise's insane religious views pops into my mind the moment I see either's face or name. This disturbs my watching of their work so much that I have not even tried after Minority Report, i.e. 2002.

I apparently cannot suspend disbelief / forget reality completely. How surprising...

[Rum]

To me there is some kind of trade off between the brilliance of the artist and the level of unacceptable or outlandish behaviour. This is totally without logic I know but that is my personal calculation.

For example Salvador Dali was simply a great artist, whether you like his work or not. If his work had been mediocre his bizarre and outlandish behaviour would simply have been embarrassing. Arguable the same applies to Andy Warhole, Vincent Van Gough and a few others. There are some musicians in this category too I would say - people like David Bowey in his younger days, Frank Zappa and maybe John Lennon.

Mel Gibson is not in my view a very good actor and has made some terribly movies, so his behaviour is simply offensive and embarrassing in my book!

[Ronja]

To me there is some kind of trade off between the brilliance of the artist and the level of unacceptable or outlandish behaviour. This is totally without logic I know but that is my personal calculation.

For example Salvador Dali was simply a great artist, whether you like his work or not. If his work had been mediocre his bizarre and outlandish behaviour would simply have been embarrassing. Arguable the same applies to Andy Warhole, Vincent Van Gough and a few others. There are some musicians in this category too I would say - people like David Bowey in his younger days, Frank Zappa and maybe John Lennon.

I sort of understand this, and at times feel similarly, about creative geniuses in several walks of life. I heartily agree about Dali (whose art I generally like - our kitchen clock is in the likeness of his "Persistence of Memory"). I would add to the list at least:
-W.A. Mozart
-Ada Lovelace
-Greta Garbo
-Janice Joplin
-Richard Feynman
-Liza Minelli
-Eddie Mercury
-Carrie Fisher
-Daniel Day-Lewis
-Charlie Chaplin

[Robert_S]

I think it depends on the kind of insanity and the level of asininity versus the quality and value of the work.

Thomas Jefferson was an asshole slave owner, but he had some great ideas that are worth preserving.

[Pappa]

I don't think it matters at all. Their art/genius stands apart from the downsides. However, I wouldn't go as far as advocating forgiving them their downsides because of the good. I forget which philosopher I read who felt that we should forgive our geniuses and allow them to continue transgressing. That would be daft.

[Coito ergo sum]

Every time Mel Gibson unburdens himself of a tirade against Jews or "n______s" or uncooperative females, there are commentators on hand to create a mystery where none exists. When he produced The Passion of the Christ, which lovingly and in detail recycled the bloody myth that all Jews are historically and collectively responsible for the murder of Jesus, it was argued by many mainstream Christians that his zeal for the faith might be a touch lurid but that the film itself was mainly devotional. When he was arrested on the Malibu freeway and screamed abuse at a police officer to the effect that Jews were responsible for all the wars in the world, pundits convened on page and screen to speculate whether our Mel had too much to drink that evening. Not long ago, I watched him go completely bug-eyed on television at a Jewish interviewer who asked him about the latter incident. "You've got a dog in this fight, haven't you?" he hissed. And now, in the wake of a Niagara of cloacal abuse directed at the mother of his youngest child, in which we were spared nothing by way of obscenity and menace and nothing by way of paranoid and sexualized racism, there have been those who diagnose Gibson's problem as a lack of anger management skills, combined perhaps with a touch of narcissistic personality disorder.

http://www.slate.com/id/2260937/

This is an example of what I've been on about for years now. Why is it that people don't want to call things what they are? And, why is it that they don't want to take people at their word?

Gibson, when he's not rehearsed, tells us what he really believes, and what he really thinks. The guy said that the Jews cause all wars because he believes the Jews cause all the wars. Why do people argue with him? Because he was drunk? I mean, if it was one single incident, and there were no other indicators, one might shrug one's shoulders, but Gibson's truth has come out. He says what he means.

He is a devout Catholic, at least he says he is. And, he belongs to a pre-Vatican II kind of Catholicism that is overtly traditional, and definitely racist and anti-Jew. That's how he was raised. So, he's acting according to his beliefs.

This should translate to other areas. When someone says something, take them at their word. When a Muslim leader or Imam says something outrageous - they fucking mean it. We find it hard to believe that they mean some of the things they say, but they do. They really do mean it. When dickhead Jerry Falwell said that 9/11 was divine retribution that we brought on ourselves. He meant that shit. He tried to "take it back" and "apologize", but he fucking damn well meant it. Same with Pat Robertson and blaming Haitians for the earthqake because their forefathers made a deal with the devil. These guys MEAN IT! Take them at their word!

[tattuchu]

I think Gibson absolutely means the things he says. Of course he does. In his private life, he's undoubtedly a douche. But should I stop seeing his films because of that? That's what I'm unsure about

[cowiz]

If you pay for their products, you are directly supporting their capabilities to pedal their bollocks. If you like their art, steal it!

[Svartalf]

I'll think of that reciommendation if I ever feel like DLing road warrior

[maiforpeace]

If you pay for their products, you are directly supporting their capabilities to pedal their bollocks. If you like their art, steal it!

These days Abby Hoffman steals movies instead of books.

[Coito ergo sum]

If you pay for their products, you are directly supporting their capabilities to pedal their bollocks. If you like their art, steal it!

These days Abby Hoffman steals movies instead of books.

He's not stealing much of anything these days. Not for the last 20+ years, anyway.