Michael Jackson. R.Kelly. Roman Polanski. All male artists who have histories of child abuse, or accused child abuse. All artists who have been successful. How much do their crimes influence their art? And how much should their success influence how we view their crimes, or accused crimes?
When Michael Jackson died, there was practically a national stand still. He was revered for his talent and his art, and the years of accusations seemed to fly out the window. An argument can be made that because he was acquitted that he committed no indiscretions, but a gut instinct (ok, my gut instinct) says that at least of those children were telling the truth as I have a tendency to trust survivors. So we, as a nation, forgot his strange past and celebrated him because he could make us dance and sing. It makes me wonder if it would have been possible to remember the songs and the dancing without celebrating the man. Can they be separated?
Roman Polanski is, in my opinion, a much more serious situation. He admitted to sexually assaulting a 13 year old girl in the 1970s and then fled to Europe before being sentenced. He has remained in Europe so as to avoid going to jail in the United States, and is now fighting extradition from Switzerland and asking high powered friends to petition the United States to drop the charges. He has a team of creative powerhouses standing behind him, dubbing his rape of a child a "little mistake" and touting the fact that he has been a successful director and his "genius" as a reason for both forgiveness and dropping the criminal charges for a crime he admitted to committing.
Polanski isn't my kind of director, but I understand that some people really enjoy his films. Is his art a redeeming power? I say it isn't. I don't think art should ever be enough to redeem someone from sexually assaulting a child. This is not only an issue of idiocy, but also one of class. What if the man who gave a 13 year old girl drugs and champagne had been a man in a trailer park or in a van - the picture we think of when we think of child abusers? I doubt folks would be rallying around him, saying that because he makes movies, his crime that he never served time for should be absolved. Then again, someone who wasn't already wealthy and privileged wouldn't have had the means to escape to Europe, purchase several homes and life a comfortable life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Very well written post. I think also, if Polanski was, let's say, a Catholic priest, you would never have people defending what he did. I hope that this comes back to haunt those who are.
Post a Comment