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

I agree; it's the same thing in sports and music. You could have an actor with a bit part in a film who has done something horrible. You never know what somebody may have done behind closed doors and gotten away with. I don't even think about it.

I will see any movie by any director if it interests me. I do not allow the lives of cast/crew to deter me from seeing a film.


If anything, I'd attempt to examine how mistakes made by those involved influenced the film or the performances and aesthetics within.

It doesn't bother me one bit, actually. I enjoyed both Jeepers Creepers 1 & 2 as a child when they came out and i'd watch them again whenever I can. They're both respectable movies in my eyes.

I understand he did those things, but I look past it, I look into what kind of art he was able to create through his directing.

People can't separate the man from the art?

Salva makes crap movies anyway.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

u mean like mel gibson?

The whole thread is about whether or not we mean like Mel Gibson. Did you, like, read it at all?

That old character actor is in prison for killing someone, but I will still watch that Twilight Zone episode he is in. Not a lot though because it kind of sucks.

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

The argument that any crew/cast member could have secretly committed a horrible act is irrelevant. We're talking about people who are known to have committed horrible acts, which is very different to the obvious possibility that any of the cast or crew on the film could have committed a horrible act.

Wow I didn't know that about Salva and Jeepers Creepers is one of the few horror flicks I actually like. I've never watched a Polanski film apart from Oliver Twist and that was because it was on TV and I didn't realise it was the Polanski version. The man is/was a pedophile, he fled to France and we shouldn't be doing anything that helps him line his pockets and allow him to live a nice comfortable life.

i never knew that wow

Yes, but I look at it as a probability more than a possibility that somebody attached to any type of large product has done something terrible. So I don't even consider it.

A directors past won't stop me from watching a film.

The one thing I draw the line at is watching movies where real people or animals are tortured or killed intentionally. I don't want to support that sort of behavior in any way, and I refuse to watch the 1925 ben hur for that reason. All those horses they killed disgusts me.

Edit: Added the word "intentionally"
Accidents do happen. I really liked platoon and sadly someone died during the making of the film.

I watch Salva's and Polanski's movies and will continue to do so. I haven't watched any of Mel Gibson's new movies since he went crazy but that's just because none of them have interested me.

But all 3 had careers in film either before they commited these acts or I found out about them. I think it would be different if for example Charles Manson made a movie today (couldn't happen though).
Don't think I'd be able to bring myself to watch it but I can't say for sure because if it got great reviews, the trailer looked awesome and there were actor's I like in it I might watch it anyway.

But I fully respect and understand those that won't watch Polanski's, Salva's or Gibson's movies.

I don't really care what the director's done and will watch a film regardless, I watch a film to be entertained by the film and couldn't care less about the lives of those who made it if it does.

Polanski is one of my favourite directors as well, I don't want to turn this into a capital punishment debate but I'm thoroughly against it and think that the most important part of dealing with crime has to be justice, not revenge, so I don't agree with people calling for these people to be tortured/killed, of course what Polanski did was wrong and he should have been punished, but there are various reasons why he wasn't, the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired is really well done and informative when it comes to this.

Also nobody's mentioned Woody Allen yet, one of the most acclaimed directors around. Didn't he split up with his wife after she found naked pictures of their adopted daughter in his possession, Allen an old man was having a sexual relationship with this 19 year old step-daughter of his and then I think they are together now, pretty sick and wrong although legal, nobody ever goes on about that...

__________________

I'd like to see that. Does it talk about what happened to his wife? Because that could be a fascinating to think about in relation to what he did. Not saying they're linked, but it had to have had an impact on the man.

Yeh it does talk about his wife, basically covers everything in his life up to the underage incident and then about what happened with the judge and all that. Talks about how his parents died in the holocaust, he got involved in film, his outgoing, friendly, partying life style and how his relationship with Sharon Tate was such a delightful one and how he was torn apart after that. He never shies away from what he's done and is open in the way he speaks, he admits that he enjoyed going out all that and naturally men like younger girls, a quote which can be perceived as quite sick but it's honest and kind of understandable in the right context, also seems the girl was pretty aware of the situation, she was aware of drugs and was allowe by her mother to go off with him on her own. I won't go on as it will make watching the film pointless. But the girl who the incident occured with she's she would have also fled the country in his circumstances and it is 100% understandable why he did, most people would of. In like 1997 (iirc) she came out, publicly forgave him and called for charges to be dropped, the almost were as well before they tried to televise something, I think they all agree that the media and judge involved caused more damage than Polanski ever did. If he had been treated fairly, served the recommended sentence/punishment, justice would have been done.

Perhaps if I was a believer in capital punishment I would be unhappy, but like I said the role of the justice system is not to exact revenge such as torture/death (which is not justice), in this case the justice system was not used how it should of been and was not used appropriately by the judge.

I'm rambling now, just watch it

You don't understand the facts of the case.

This topic reminds me of a bit of controversy dealing with The Hangover series. During the making of The Hangover Part II, it was said that very troubled actor Mel Gibson was going to have a cameo. The idea was to stir up controversy (and press). And given the recent scandals Mel was dealing with I think the intended role was instead given to Paul Giamatti. What makes this curious to me at least was the powers that be had no issue with a cameo my Mike Tyson (a convicted rapist) in both Hangover and Hangover part II, but a guy who is is an idiot for being homophobic and a racist is too much. Both have done horrible things, but the **** that Mel did does not even come close to rape. I just thought it was a very interesting piece of Hollywood hypocrisy.

People are always judging others without really knowing the actual facts or circumstances. They should stop doing that.

It would make more interested to watch actually. A film is a extention of the directors mind, and I personally find it interesting to explore the minds on such people who do atrocious acts whether it's children or any thing else.

Someone who can be considered an aberration of society like that definitely has a lot to show as well. It might even make a better film than the average joe.

__________________
-J. Hussain