When Bad People Do Good Things
A few days ago, I posted the following in Twitter:
It was meant as a pithy commentary on what’s happening in our society at the moment. Last year, it seemed as if every time you pulled up the news, some major celebrity had died. This year, it’s major celebrities being outed as sexual predators, or guilty of sexual misconduct.
Don’t misunderstand. I don’t lament the fact that women are finding the courage to stand up and tell their stories. Some have waited years for this moment, not out of opportunism, wanting to cash in on a trend, but because others have gone before and demonstrated that, at long last, they will be taken seriously, and not be punished for speaking up.
But this raises an important question: What of the work these shamed, and in many cases now jobless, celebrities leave behind? Should it be shunned along with them? Should we never watch another episode of the Cosby Show? Or House of Cards? Or watch another Dustin Hoffman movie? Can we separate the bad men from their good work? To what extent are they “dead to me”?
Before offering thoughts on this, let me make clear that I come to this from a Christian worldview. According to that worldview, no-one measures up to the only objective standard of goodness there is: God’s. We are all sinners, standing guilty before Him, and it’s only by God’s grace that we all don’t sink to the worst depths of depravity. This demands of me the utmost humility, recognizing that I have no grounds within myself to judge someone else’s moral failing. However, God has spoken to these issues, so it is to His judgment I appeal when I make any moral pronouncement with regard to anyone’s misconduct. And while there is forgiveness of sin available in Christ, which puts us in a right standing with God, this does not absolve us from the moral and legal consequences of our actions. And anyone who claims the name of Christian should be willing to own those consequences, knowing that God is glorified when we repent of, and take responsibility for, our sin.
There’s a lot of theology summed up in that last paragraph. If you have questions, or want chapter-and-verse, let me know in the comments.
With all that said, is it an endorsement of these people’s sin to enjoy the fruit of their talent? I think the answer is no, and I don’t think it inappropriate to enjoy a Charlie Rose interview, or a tale from Lake Woebegon. While Charlie Rose and Garrison Keillor have been accused of sexual misconduct, this was not a part of their work. Claude Debussy was a moral reprobate, and if the #MeToo movement had been around in his lifetime, he would no doubt have a long line of accusers. And yet his is some of the most beautiful piano music on the planet. I would not commend Debussy as a person, but I cannot deny his musical genius.
It pains me to see Dustin Hoffman added to the list of those accused of sexual misconduct. I’m a fan, and still enjoy his movies. I might try to absolve him by saying the allegations are over things he did thirty years ago. But that means his victim has been suffering in silence for thirty years, and only now, in light of the changed atmosphere in Hollywood, does she feel comfortable coming forward. What he did was wrong, and he should be held to account. His protestations over the allegations only make things worse. His response should be unqualified repentance, and a desire to submit the consequences of his actions. But I’ll still watch “All the President’s Men” because it’s a great movie.
I do think that, while these abusers are still alive, out of respect to their victims, it’s good to have a public moratorium on their work, at least for a season. Let those who have been wronged seek justice. Let the accused be held to account for what they’ve done. Where there’s true repentance, let there be forgiveness, bearing in mind that true repentance accepts the temporal penalty for the crime (loss of job, jail time, etc.), and forgiveness does not nullify the need for that temporal penalty.
After that, though, I don’t think it in bad taste to return to those people’s work, and enjoy it for what it is, even while we grieve over those who created it. Just as we might enjoy Debussy’s music, or Anne Perry’s novels. After all, if we only ever enjoyed the art of the morally pure, there would be little left to enjoy.
What do you think? Feel free to disagree with me, but please disagree agreeably. 🙂
You’ve put into words something I myself have been feeling for a while. I always feel uncomfortable when I’m reading about some old actor, composer, whatever, whose personal life shows that he or she wasn’t a very nice human being.
It reminds me of roughly forty years ago, when a couple of homophobic acquaintances of mine reacted to Elton John’s admission that he was bisexual by sadly saying something to the effect of “And I really used to like his music.” My response was along the lines of “There’s nothing wrong with being bisexual, but even if there were, it doesn’t change the music, does it?”
I’m a big fan of Kevin Spacey’s work. Now, it seems that he’s been someone whose actions have often been wrong, and that he’s used his “power” unwisely. But I’m not about to disavow my enjoyment of any of his past projects. On the other hand, I’ve learned too much about Mel Gibson to want to put another dime in his pocket for any recent, present, or upcoming works of his. It’s an uncomfortable fence to straddle, isn’t it?
This post has just won a very special award. And it’s a real award, not one of those internet chain-letter memes.
It has??! Where? How? Who? Wow… I’m honored… I think..?! 🙂
It can be an uncomfortable fence, Silver Fox, but it’s worth wrestling with this if only to maintain balance and perspective. Likewise, there are those whose work I personally wouldn’t support because of ideological or other such differences. But a genius doesn’t stop being a genius just because he or she is embroiled in scandal.
Thanks for your thoughts!
I was in such a rush yesterday, I foolishly forgot to leave a link to my post about your post! Sorry about that!
https://silverfoxlair.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-latest-thrust-home-award.html
The Silver Fox sent me. Congratulations on your award. This post is worthy.
Love,
Janie Junebug
I just visited Silver Fox’s site and saw the award. WOW! I am honored. Thanks, Silver Fox! 🙂
Yeah, it sometimes can be a thin line. Everything to do with so-called celebrities. Even before the sexual harassment claims some either came off to me the wrong way, like dbags, or just made a bunch of crap that I couldn’t even think of watching another one of their movies. But that didn’t make the old movies any less watchable. And some things some of them did are far less worse than things ordinary people have done, yet because they are in the spotlight, oh so bad. In no way condoning the sexual predator nuts, throw them in a dark hole, but the ones who come out and say he/she said a bad thing to me once, I roll my eyes at. Harassment means to harass. Twice constitutes harassment. Just because someone said something vulgar, which still they deserve a slap upside the head, doesn’t make them as bad as Weinstein and Spacey. Words can be awful, but the only one that can truly let them impact you is you.
Gibson’s a friggin nut ball, but he still makes good movies. Cruise make a few too and he’s a whackdoo. There is something about every celebrity you can find out that you won’t like, just like just about every person.
I think not supporting their new work and giving them another dime for the likes of Spacey and Weinstein is a good way to go, but doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy the former work.
End rant lol
Thanks for the rant, Pat! 🙂 Not paying for future work by the accused but still enjoying their past work is one approach, and in light of their now-tainted reputations, I can understand it. Where the person has been a predator for decades, even while making some of your favorite movies/books/etc., that might be a struggle, since you now know what they were like at the time. Some might find it hard not to see that past work as soiled, and I can respect that, too. For me, I’m more concerned that justice is pursued, and let the work–past and present–stand as it is. Of course, if the accused are found guilty of offenses such as child molestation and rape, I would hope they will be behind bars, and unable to do any future work. But our justice system is not perfect, and, sadly, bad people too often go unpunished. I hope this discussion does, at least, help us think through our response.
Interesting, well written post. Congrats on your award!
I’ve mulled over this general topic before on my blog (“Separating An Author From His Words”) and I still don’t know what to think. I think Pat Hatt may have a good plan: no more money to support the work of known abusers/offenders/bad guys, but enjoying their former work.
Thank you, Barb! It would be great if the entertainment industry would no longer be a safe haven for powerful predators. If these people don’t have enough moral decency to refrain from doing these things because they’re wrong, maybe the threat of becoming an unemployable pariah within their field of work would help. Then we wouldn’t have to worry about funding their future projects because, if found guilty, they wouldn’t be doing any future projects.
Colin,
I’m not generally a fan of Hollywood. The conversation came up on a forum a while ago about how a person would feel about having their books made into a movie. Who would play their characters etc. Of course, everyone has strong thoughts about this, favorite movie stars. Oh yes, so and so would be my lead.
Personally, I don’t want Hollywood involved with my work. I guess I shouldn’t say that in public. I’m not a fan of most celebrities. I’m not a fan of what Hollywood does to most books.
We’re for women’s rights! We donate millions of dollars to political candidates who support women’s rights. Oh, look! We’re going to give a lifetime award to Roman Polanski and Woody Allen. Let’s all stand up and clap like trained seals. Forget the fact they are child rapists. We love them!!!!
Hypocrites.
Hollywood knew for years about Weinstein and honored him. Women posed with him, thanked him, fawned over him. Now all of a sudden everyone is shocked.
The bad part is going to be the pendulum swinging so far that men will be accused for stupid crap. It’s already out of hand in the military. If a woman accuses someone of sexual abuse, even if it’s proven to be a false accusation, the government gives her a settlement for her trauma. Oh, yes, Sexual assault reports in the military are way up. How many valid reports though?
I’m not saying women shouldn’t come forward, but it’s like the actress who complained she had been sexually assaulted at some affair where a man in a crowd brushed against her when he walked by. Someone bumping into you in a crowd isn’t sexual assault.
Do we burn every movie that’s been made by these people because they are now monsters? What about the movies Joan Crawford made? Isn’t her treatment of her children as bad as some of these other things?
Hey, Julie! My attitude toward movie adaptations of books has become more and more one of indifference. Except for the fact that the money is very good, and can help the author support their writing career. From that perspective, I’m all for Hollywood adapting books! A movie adaptation is simply the book as seen by the director, so, within reason, I would be fairly hands-off, and let him or her get on with it. Cast whoever s/he thinks fits their minds-eye picture of the characters. I wouldn’t try to influence, since I believe a novel works best when it doesn’t simply inform your imagination of what I want you to think, but fuels your imagination to make the story your own. And if the movie turns out a heaping pile of doo-doo, my response would be, “That’s how the director saw the book. I saw it differently, and you probably saw it differently to both of us. That’s how novels work.”
I think it’s a valid criticism to level against Hollywood: that they’re denouncing a culture they themselves created. But I think it goes further than that, as can be seen by the fact that it’s not just Hollywood. Politicians, publishers–I wouldn’t be surprised if eventually every sector of society is affected by this. And I allude to the reason for that in the article, in the bit about my worldview. To be blunt: a culture that rejects the only hope of salvation from sin is a culture destined to live with the consequences of sin. And I say that as a sinner, though one who has embraced that hope.
There will be men who are falsely accused, and women who will not be believed. Bad men will go free, and good men will be scandalized. That’s the nature of our broken justice system. We can only pray that it works to correct these wrongs, while we wait for the day when perfect Justice comes.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. 🙂
Colin,
Norman Maclean refused all offers to make a movie of A River Runs Through It for years. He didn’t have faith that Hollywood saw his vision, but finally someone got it. Diana Gabaldon sold the film rights to Outlander years ago, but she had some say about what they would do with it. No one ever got the big picture until Ron Moore came along. She said some of the other proposals were so bad she wondered if they had even read the book.
Most authors would jump at a movie deal as you say. I’m sure I’m the odd man out.
I don’t know that I would jump at a movie deal, but I wouldn’t dismiss the idea. I understand your reservations, though, Julie.
Excellent post. I’ve often said that if we truly took a stand to not support the work or products of those we don’t approve of (for whatever reason), we’d never shop again. These men have had their sins exposed, and are reaping what they’ve sown. How many others are out there whose violations will never be discovered? Will we continue to support them unknowingly? We can’t police everyone and need to face the fact that there are some bad people out there who will get away with putting forth a good face until the day they die. The judgment is up to God alone, and we can only pray that those who have had their accusers come forth might actually learn and change from the experience. Finding out their secrets doesn’t suddenly negate good work they’ve done; it only ruins what used to be a good name—which is infintely harder to restore.
Thank you, datmama! And well said. I couldn’t agree with you more. 🙂
Extremely late to this party, but as I had a gut reaction against “me too” (my question has been “who NOT?”) and the emphasis on powerful men (I’ve been harassed by those whose only power was their gender), my reaction to this question has – indeed, for decades before this year’s hemorrhaging of revelations – been, “so do I quit listening to Led Zeppelin, given that Page kept a teenage girl prisoner, though she swore she liked it? Do I stop reading every author back to Chaucer and well beyond, into the past?”
The problem with any attempt to consume entertainment and the arts ethically is that my ethics are never, EVER going to fall in line with whatever is going on at the moment, with whomever produces something that catches my attention – and, unfortunately, there are some Led tracks which mean a lot to me personally, and I can’t make them not do that.
So I try to keep genuine creeps from enjoying my money. This too is almost impossible – and then there is the question of punishing all the PAs and production designers and catering companies involved, when one person (that I know about) is the target of my economic withholding.
This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t even try. But we need to accept that any voting-with-our-money we do is a lot more complex than “Mel Gibson is a racist, sexist violent, and in-my-eyes-irredeemable shitsnack.”
Though he is, and I’d also disagree that his movies are so good they’re worth his continuing success.
I, too, could probably avoid Mel Gibson movies without feeling much personal loss, but you’re right about the complexities of the issue, Diane. Fact is, the history of human endeavor, whether the arts, science, politics, philosophy, or any other arena involving human beings, is full of unpleasant people. And drawing the line where we no longer support their work, no matter how much we may enjoy it, is something I think one has to determine for oneself. Good work often (indeed, from my worldview, always) comes from soiled hands. Separating the work from the originator perhaps helps, but maybe we need the perspective of time before we can do this?
Thank you for sharing your thoughts! 🙂
Ten days, a holiday, family visit, and a partridge in a pear tree on, I’ve been thinking about this all along. Not only because of your post; I posted about some changes in my own entertainment habits well over a year ago now. But I thought I’d return and blather again. (One hopes you won’t mind!)
It comes down to content, for me, now. If I know I’m consuming work by creators who cannot be perfect, at least I can try not to sin against my ethics too deeply in the *nature* of what they have produced. I wont watch television that mindlessly has fun with gay jokes or sexism, I don’t listen to music glorifying stupidity of any stripe, I don’t put down money for movies that are empty or hypocritical. Unfortunately, this still means I’m taking in Wonder Woman, which came to life thanks to, among others, Steve Mnuchin. But that movie was pretty hard to argue with, and I’ll argue other portions of the DC-verse on moral grounds as well as quality. But it’s also freed me from a lot of tension and noise. Having full-stop dealbreakers makes it so much easier to flip channels on Saturday afternoon, and the music in my car only ever makes me cry because it means something to me, not because it actually makes me feel bad.
Everyones MMV, as the kids were saying like 15 years ago. This is my routing plan to save emotional fuel. Seems to be working.
Cheers!