Would you watch a film by a filmmaker who has committed horrible acts?

Just curious as to the mentality of some of you MoFo's in regards to whether or not some of you have codes and such.

Was thinking the other day, Victor Salva's Jeepers Creepers is a pretty effective horror film, and wanted to watch it. But then I remembered that Victor Salva is a convicted child abuser who even filmed himself sexually abusing a 12 year old. Because of this, I can not bring myself to watch Jeepers Creepers, despite how solid a horror it was.

I've never been a fan of Roman Polanski either so learning about his nasty little past has just made me boycott every single one of his films. In fact, i'm incredibly disappointed in the likes of Winslet and Waltz for even thinking about appearing in Carnage.

So what of m fellow MoFo's? Do you have a code when it comes to these things or does one's art deserve to be seen/supported regardless of their personal life?

Well as most of you know Polanski doesn't bother me, at all. I watch Gibson despite being from a Jewish background, same with vons Trier. So I can't say I really avoid certain proples films.I do avoid cannibal holocaust due to the animal abuse though. So it matters in what cases. In the case of Salva I need to do some reading on that but it sounds pretty disgusting

__________________

Lars von Trier was joking, his silly sense of 'humour', with the nazi thing.

I'm thinking, give credit where credit is due. Spike Lee annoys the sh&^% out of me personally, but I"ve enjoyed several of his films.

__________________
Under-the-radar Movie Awesomeness.
http://earlsmoviepicks.blogspot.com/

It depends on the offense. I'll still watch if I merely disagree with them, to be sure, and I might even if I find their actions or words offensive, provided they're more of the "sticks and stones" variety, acknowledging that even hateful words can matter as much as some (but not many, IMO) more tangible offenses. But potentially, yes, particularly if it's an economic transaction that will benefit them. If it's a borrowed DVD or something indirect, the standard changes a little.

What about the argument that it's one person out of hundreds and hundreds who work on a film? Victor Salva is a paedophile who directed the film but what about the others who worked on it.

Salva has always bothered me, why is he not in prison for a very long time? but instead out and allowed to continue making films. I haven't read much about it.

Most of the regular folks who work on films don't figure to have their careers rise or fall based on the success of the film, like the director does. If a director produces a few financial flops, they stop getting lucrative offers. But I don't think anyone cares whether or not The Pianist did well on DVD when deciding whether or not to hire, say, a grip who worked on it.

I probably wouldn't buy their DVDs but then simply boycotting their films is not going to do much to lead to a prosecution.

Just so i'm clear guys, i'm talking about proper inhuman acts. Acts that genuinely harm people, like murder, paedophilia, rape, etc. A director who simply annoys you doesn't count.

I asked this question before. I answered it as well.

__________________

I will still watch a Roman Planski film. But I would never go out of my way to watch one. I am glad he got deported.

With someone like Mel Gibson I can forgive and forget. People say and do stupid things and deserve forgiveness. I still will watch anything he is in.

Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen are not filmmakers. But despite their past I like them in a weird sorta way and will watch anything they are in.

__________________
Going 18600 miles per second.

I'd watch it no matter what.

Buying or renting is different. But if it shows up on TV I am not going to change the channel just because of the director's background..

Robert Blake is slime, but I will still watch the few good movies he made.

But I don't expect to see him in any new ones.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

It's down to the Society and circumstances really. I mean Iceland (I think Iceland) has a consentual age of 14, but... Gary Glitter is deserved of a slow painful death, but it gets me when the media have double standards.

Polanski for instance, in my eyes, is no better than Glitter... he poked an underage girl knowingly.
Nuff said.
Pervert. Deserves a slow painful death at the hands of a rapist.

Other things in life deserve more input before coming to a decision, but certain things are inexcusable.

Circumstances and society are a big thing.

__________________

Of course, the number of actual filmmakers this pertains to probably have already been mentioned.

I feel pretty sick about this. But I also ask myself, how am I supposed to know if Nolan or Spielberg or any artist whose work I've enjoyed is a scumbag? Maybe not a pedophile, but they could've done something terrible at some point. Run over a homeless person or something like that.

I feel morally compromised. I feel... violated.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

Dont think about it really
seperate things
movies are made by more than just one person anyway

You go by what you already know of them. There is absolutely nothing on the internet or in newspaper articles to indicate that somebody like Nolan or Spielberg are reprehensible human beings. The director's I mentioned in my original post have actually been found guilty/confessed to their crimes. If you're a high profile person, it would be fairly difficult to get away and cover up any crime.

Oliver Stone makes some controversial films. And yeah seeing films greenlit, by individuals who aren't goody-goody would be AWESOME

People should watch movies,not thinking about anything from anyone from entire crew outside of those movies,whatever those people done in reality...

Oliver Stone? Horrible acts commited? explain please.