In the last three posts people have mentioned Bill Cosby, Michael Jackson, Jimmy Saville and Rich People. This is in continuation to someone deciding to believe whatever they liked about Woody Allen because society has enabled them to do that.
None of these are really #metoo cases. Further, both Woody Allen and Michael Jackson are not guilty of any crimes whatsoever beyond having extremely isolated individuals making unproven allegations. Cosby is more a matter of actual legal proceedings and Jimmy Saville was dead before any of the allegations against him arose. As for not caring about 'rich people', well, I had no idea wealth accumulation automatically meant a removal of civil rights, I'll make a note. And, most importantly, all of these cases predate #metoo.
So Amazon knew full well what they were dealing with when they signed a deal with Allen in the first place, his entire back catalogue of potential 'drama' was already fully known to the exact detail. As someone who's been shafted by lies and false allegations in the past and lived to tell the tale it doesn't take a genius to know what his stand on #metoo would be and anyone making a deal with him would be fully aware of that.
From my point of view, as someone who enjoys quality art alongside schlock entertainment, The issue is the ease to which artists and their art can be 'removed' at the drop of a hat. Now, I'm no expert on US politics, but I am fairly well read on historical anti-art movements, from iconoclasts to McCarthyism and in no instances have they ever been either popular or sustainable in the long term.
There is something inherently signifying when artists are silenced, something that generates nationwide negativity and an impulse to counter such movements is almost second nature, on the very humanist of levels.
While its nice to have our 'men in the stocks' for us all to laugh at and throw tomatoes at, people we can always mention over and over again for the rest of our lives, these people are not actually representative of what is happening. Neither Jimmy Saville nor Bill Cosby are what one would call artists, one was a television show presenter and radio DJ and the other is a jobbing actor and one time stand up comedian, two aspects of media that are really stretching the definition of artist.
As a society we do not and should not force the same level of moral authority upon our artists as we do practically any other sphere of society. When a person goes to a rock concert, for example, it is not the equivalent of going to the doctor. One does not go to the doctor with the adventurous mindset of sex, drugs and rock and roll, one goes to the doctor with quite the opposite mindset and set of expectations.
Ergo: If someone is going to a rock and roll type environment then their threshold of meorality should be adjusted accordingly in comparison to going to the doctor. Of course we expect different standards from Mick Jagger as we do from Dr. Kildare. It's, like, facepalmingly obvious. The whole point of rock and roll is to literally get away from day-to-day suffocating morality.
How many times have you read a movie review and seen the complaint that the movie was "too preachy, I hate preachy movies". Well, duh, who do you think makes the best art? You local preacher or that person that can walk into Walmart and break 14 taboos before lunch? and that those were 14 taboos you never even realised existed!
The issue surely is not what your own personal opinion of someone is, but what your opinion of art is. Are you someone who instinctively balks at the idea of a second wave of McCarthyism, in our supposedly more enlightened times no less, only this wave is based on a combination of bullshit, money-grabbing and outright extortion rather than any quaint sense of nationhood.
I mean, you are aware that Charles Bronson, the infamous serial killer, is one of the most published writers in the US today... and no-one gives two shits...