[RD] Morals of enjoying works made by people who have done bad things

Odd that 'The Weinstein Company' has a lot of credits that 'Harvey Weinstein' doesn't. I do certainly have a different view on 'significant' though.
Yeah I dunno how much Harvey's hand was in these films.

What would you consider to be the markers of a "significant" film?
 
Whether or not the movie got played on the TV in the prison canteen, probably. :mischief:

:p
 
Odd that 'The Weinstein Company' has a lot of credits that 'Harvey Weinstein' doesn't. I do certainly have a different view on 'significant' though.

There are a few he wasn't credited with, notably The Artist, but he is credited as executive producer on most of them, including The King's Speech, Django Unchained, Silver Linings Playbook, Inglourious Basterds (2009), The Butler, The Intimidation Game, The Hateful Eight, Lion, and The Fighter.
 
Michel Foucault was an appalling human being but wrote some fascinating books.

You got me curious with that one. What was appalling about his life?

On the op's question, I think we all do appreciate works by people who had some big moral failings. Just today I was reading on how Dickens mistreated his wife:

Bad enough at any time, the charge of “mental disorder” was a particularly frightening one in the 1850s. In the same month that Dickens and Catherine had separated, his close friend and fellow novelist Edward Bulwer- Lytton successfully plotted to have his wife Rosina seized, certified insane and incarcerated in a private asylum. Only after a widespread public outcry was she judged sane and freed. The law provided few safeguards for awkward family members whose relatives wanted to put them away, and Dickens, like Bulwer, was exceptionally well connected. John Forster was secretary to the Commissioners of Lunacy, and both he and Dickens had close friendships with key figures in the mad-doctoring trade, such as Dr John Conolly. As John Sutherland put it in Victorian Fiction: Writers, publishers, readers,
To be accused of . . . “mental disorder” with Dr John Conolly and John Forster . . . hovering in the background was highly ominous . . . . For a physician like Conolly, Mrs Dickens’ alleged “languor” and her excitability about her husband’s infidelity would have been quite sufficient for a certificate of “moral insanity” to be drawn up. He did it for Lord Lytton, would he not do the same for his friend Mr Dickens?

And despite this Charles Dickens is regarded as a great writer and a "good man" for his apparent social concerns. The depths of private opportunism and malice that famous "good" people sank to are often completely lost to history.
 
Odd that 'The Weinstein Company' has a lot of credits that 'Harvey Weinstein' doesn't. I do certainly have a different view on 'significant' though.
Whether or not the movie got played on the TV in the prison canteen, probably. :mischief:

:p
There are a few he wasn't credited with, notably The Artist, but he is credited as executive producer on most of them, including The King's Speech, Django Unchained, Silver Linings Playbook, Inglourious Basterds (2009), The Butler, The Intimidation Game, The Hateful Eight, Lion, and The Fighter.
i heard Harvey Weinstein was heavily involved in this.

Well, given such a huge amount of cinematographic techniques and styles taken for granted in Western (and Bollywood, Kollywood, Hong Kong, and Japanese) movie making since the early '50's had their foundations in, and are still ingrained elements to this day, innovations created by Leni Riefenstahl, I guess that stains any movie after the old black-and-white classic era, potentially, if you want to push things... :S
 
Yeah I dunno how much Harvey's hand was in these films.

What would you consider to be the markers of a "significant" film?

Well, Syns is probably on the right track. I'm distinctly not a 'movie guy.' So truthfully my measure of the significance of a film is most likely going to come down to whether the marketing campaign is extensive enough to reach me or not. Most aren't.

That said, @Synsensa, I have no knowledge regarding what has or has not 'played at the prison canteen' in the current decade.
 
The best are people who make their own depravity the focus of their art: Catullus, the Earl of Rochester, Byron, Herrick (though his is a kind of mock depravity).
 
Last edited:
Ultimately i think it only matters for speech-heavy arts, and if said artist really does arguable harm. Eg spacey was a moviestar, so imo it can be argued he did harm due to being an idol to many, and then revealed to be victimizing people.
But if you take (eg) knut hamsun, he was an author, and you dont really have to keep in mind he publickly argued for norway to ally with hitler ala finland. His work isnt apparently tied to such stuff (at least not the works i read; hunger and the blessing of the soil).
In painting, afaik gauguin was a creep, but that means nothing re his paintings imo.
Otah you can clearly see that egon schiele (spelling?) was disgustingly insane :)
 
Last edited:
There's a lot to what @Kyriakos said there. The factor of how the personal misdeeds interact into the art is important. There's an obviously difficult to sit with hypocrisy in wholesome Cliff Huxtable being played by Bill Cosby, which is different from a writer like Ayn Rand using every main character in every novel she wrote as a spokesperson for her own brand of depravity. The hypocrisy is, really, to be expected. I mean, no one is upset when a gay actor plays a straight role, or vice versa, and no one calls Patrick Stewart a hypocrite because he can walk. It's acting not advocacy.
 
Oh, you meant criminals who have IP that isn't related to their crime?

I don't think we should extend privileges to criminals when those privileges infringe on the public good. Public domain is the eventual permanent state of any IP, and intentionally keeping IP out of the public domain is a temporary measure whereby the public bears a cost in the short-term to realize a long-term gain. I don't see it as moral to force the public to continue to pay this cost to criminals.

Criminal conviction clauses in contracts aren't an especially novel idea. This is essentially a criminal conviction clause in the IP contract between a creator and the public.

I mean, I don't feel like your entire life + 70 years is all that "temporary" really. As long as you're alive it's your work and you have the right to it. I don't see how being guilty of other criminal activities should strip you of your rights to your own creation or property that has nothing to do with that. Really don't like that notion at all.
 
I can't agree on your premise. It's a public work that the public has chosen to grant you exclusive access to for a set period of time.

You obviously haven't a creative or innovative bone in your body, judging by the cavalier way you've spoken of IP's from several different angles. I'm afraid your Philistine Marxist Collective-Exploitative viewpoint is not going to lead to lower prices and more available entertainment and ways to punish criminals with a Stalin-esque tenor - it would lead to any creative entertainment drying up entirely or only being shared and distributed in select, artist-created, pay-locked collectives.
 
You obviously haven't a creative or innovative bone in your body, judging by the cavalier way you've spoken of IP's from several different angles. I'm afraid your Philistine Marxist Collective-Exploitative viewpoint is not going to lead to lower prices and more available entertainment and ways to punish criminals with a Stalin-esque tenor - it would lead to any creative entertainment drying up entirely or only being shared and distributed in select, artist-created, pay-locked collectives.

I'm pretty sure you're ranting about some stuff that I never wrote.
 
I'm pretty sure you're ranting about some stuff that I never wrote.

At least two other posters are getting similar ideas from your posts, so you must be wording them poorly and clumsily and misrepresenting your message.
 
I'll jump in and agree with Zelig then. If people get found guilty of something bad enough, then take away their IP rights. If the works are owned by multiple people, those other people are free to press civil suits against the criminal one.

You obviously haven't a creative or innovative bone in your body, judging by the cavalier way you've spoken of IP's from several different angles. I'm afraid your Philistine Marxist Collective-Exploitative viewpoint is not going to lead to lower prices and more available entertainment and ways to punish criminals with a Stalin-esque tenor - it would lead to any creative entertainment drying up entirely or only being shared and distributed in select, artist-created, pay-locked collectives.
You've really never heard of any intellectual works being created with free or permissive licenses? Nothing about Zelig's suggestion will lead to the drying up of creative entertainment.
 
I can't agree on your premise. It's a public work that the public has chosen to grant you exclusive access to for a set period of time.

I can't see why you would think that. Why does "the public" have any right to something you personally created yourself?
 
I can't see why you would think that. Why does "the public" have any right to something you personally created yourself?
Well someone has to decide what constitutes exclusive access, royalty fees, the period that copyright lasts, transmission rights of copyrights, etc. It's done by the public's elected officials.
 
Back
Top Bottom