It's easy to boycott stores that conduct business in ways that do not agree with my philanthropic beliefs (cough.....Walmart). There are days when my boyfriend tells me that he doesn't feel right going to McDonald's. It's not because of their participation in globalization (he loves that aspect). He feels he should not support the mass production and consumption of crappy burgers. I'm compelled to agree. However, I know that my actions only have an impact on my psyche, and not so much on the world. I have a similar quandary in the entertainment industry.
I recently read a review on Scorsese's Shutter Island and Polanski's The Ghost Writer. I wish I could find that damn article in this sea of writers and bloggers, but I'll have to paraphrase. The reviewer said that these two movies show that one of these directors "still has it" and "the other one is Scorsese". When I read that I immediately though "is 'it' a warrant out for his arrest"? I know that's terrible, but it's what I thought.
I know I have the ability to not see The Ghost Writer and not support a man who broke the law. In turn I'm also not supporting people who feel the craft is more important that those who create it. (I'm assuming. I have no idea what Ewan McGregor, Pierce Brosnan, or the rest of the cast and crew think. I only know what those in Hollywood that signed the petition to get the charges dropped think. Really? Your egos are so big you think signing a petition will negate criminal law? This isn't an insurance claim, it's a freaking statutory rape charge. Go back to criticizing George Bush.) But here's my point: Consumers have the right to act based on their beliefs on a famous person's actions. I doubt it'll make a difference, but at the same time I'm compelled to do so.
I mentioned this to my boyfriend and he said something that really makes sense. The art does not equal the artist. That is true. If we look back into history most artists were jacked up in so many ways I won't even make a list. The difference is those people are dead. I can easily justify that I'm not helping put more money into the wallets of morally corrupt people. Polasnki is still alive and has the opportunity to live off of his talents as a film maker. Why does he get a pass? I don't see others trying to get welders convicted of crimes out of prison because they have so much to contribute to the world.
Fortunately there aren't many examples that I have to struggle with. But here's one. I'm not going to lie, but I love Chris Brown's song Forever. (I haven't over-saturated my brain by watching the YouTube JK Wedding Entrance Dance video yet.) When he was charged with assaulting Rhianna, the two in the video were compelled to start raising money for domestic violence victims. These are two people who didn't do it, but created something that utilized the work of someone who did. Just the association was enough.
It's okay, Pachabel sold poisoned milk to school children.
I understand why they did it. I like the song, but every time I listen to it, I feel a twinge of guilt. So I listen to two Rhianna songs. Yes, its doesn't do anything really but it makes me feel a little better. So where does that leave us lower beings who are not famous but can cast out judgments upon those who need our collective money to be worth anything? I guess it boils down to whether or not you can sleep at night. And considering that I'm a rich American worried over the ramifications of spending ten bucks on a movie or listening to music videos on Vevo, I guess I'm in good shape. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go volunteer my time to STAND!.
