Anghus Houvouras on art or the artist…
“It’s the art, not the artist”
I remember hearing that phrase first used in defense of Roman Polanski, who is probably the most famous child rapist ever to receive an Oscar. Sorry… alleged child rapist. I haven’t watched a Polanski film since I first learned the heinous details of the crime which sent him fleeing from America never to return. Every time I’ve heard about another Polanski film I begin to wonder how people are able to work with someone who committed such a horrific act of violence: drugging a young girl and forcing himself upon her. I wouldn’t want to be in the same room with someone who vile much less work on a project 18 hours a day for several months.
It’s difficult to not be judgmental in cases like this. The truth is that I wasn’t there when this crime was committed, nor am I familiar with the mitigating circumstances. However, it was easy for me to assign blame once you learned that Polanski fled. He showed no interest in paying for his crime and has continued his creative pursuits without impact. Actors spent decades lining up to work with him. Studios were comfortable with distributing his films.
When I brought my feelings up to other film writers, I was met with the cold, emotionless logic of ‘it’s the art, not the artist’. A philosophy of detachment that demands art only be graded on the merit of the work itself. I can’t fault anyone for employing this tactic when watching a movie. I mean, are we expected to go through the cast and crew of every single film and perform background checks? ‘Sorry mate, we can’t watch that movie because the Gaffer is a convicted sex offender’.
However, once you know about someone’s horrific criminal past, it’s the only lens I can see the movie through. Which is why I can’t contribute the price of a ticket or download to watch anything directed by someone who knowingly drugged and raped a child. Call me judgmental, call me a prude, tell me to get the fuck off my soapbox, but that’s just how I feel.
This topic has once again come to the forefront with the recent revelation of a rape case involving Birth of a Nation co-writer, director, and star Nate Parker and co-writer Jean Celestin. Parker was acquitted of the charge and Celestin was convicted, even though Parker admitted to having sexual relations with the victim the same night. It’s one of those weird cases like you see on Netflix’s Making of a Murderer when two people are convicted of the same crime using different theories. Parker’s story takes on an additional level of tragedy due to the fact that the victim committed suicide.
By all accounts it seems like Parker was accused of having non consensual sex with a blackout drunk woman and loaned her out to friends to do the same. Even removing the criminality of the act, it’s pretty disgusting. Normally, this kind of topic is something that wouldn’t be so carefully scrutinized, but the revelations come as Parker’s film The Birth of a Nation is preparing for a PR tour for the film’s October 7th premiere and award season push. The film has been considered by many to be the front runner for this year’s Best Picture Oscar and has been since the film first premiered at the Sundance Film Festival.
The previous narrative of an actor independently financing his own masterful epic of a slave uprising has been derailed. The media is now slowly circling Parker’s freshly revealed wound like vultures sniffing blood. The question in my corner of the media world that is frequently coming up is “How does Nate Parker’s status as accused rapist hurt Birth of a Nation?”
That’s a tough question to answer and a difficult question to take seriously.
First off, in the grand scheme of things the amount of awards Birth of a Nation receives pales in comparison to the tragedy of the victim and the impact on her family. There’s part of me that is morbidly amused by the idea of a team of Fox Searchlight publicists sitting in a room with Nate Parker to develop a strategy to mitigate rape allegations to better sell the award prospects of a movie. In my head they’re all sitting on the patio of a posh eatery in Beverley Hills.
“So how do we get around this whole rape thing?” says Publicist #1 while reading a menu.
“Let’s wait a couple of days and see how much play it gets in social media.” replies Publicist #2 in between sips of a three olive martini.
“Maybe I should tell people how hard it was on me” adds Nate Parker.
“That’s great” replies Publicist #1. “Let everyone know that YOU were the real victim of this tragedy.”
“Just make sure you keep it focused on you, because rape is a very serious… Waiter, can I get another Stoli on the rocks, and what’s your soup du jour?”
I was excited to see The Birth of a Nation. I know people who worked on the film and have raved about it. With racial tensions at a fevered pitch in America, a movie about a slave uprising feels perfectly timed. This is an ugly part of our history which need not be forgotten.
Then again, there’s an ugly part of Nate Parker’s history which will make it impossible for me to do so. I don’t expect all of you to feel the same way. This isn’t a rallying cry or a call to action. People will go see Birth of a Nation because they’re able to separate the art from the artist. They can go to the movies and not be deterred by outside influence (something I just recently wrote about in great detail). But not me. I’ve been rendered incapable of seeing Birth of a Nation by the stories I’ve read and lack of remorse from Nate Parker. I’m actually more sympathetic to Celestin who actually served time for the crime and paid some kind of debt. People deserve a second chance, but it becomes impossible for me to offer them one in the case of someone like Polanski or Parker who take no responsibility and expect the world to simply move on.
I was recently discussing the issue with another film writer who said “Why get worked up about it? It happened so long ago.” and I replied “Would you apply that same logic to slavery?” Then someone else brought up “It’s the art, not the artist.” to which I replied “Okay. Tell me about Hitler, the painter.”
Yup. I’m that guy. The one who uses the most extreme examples to try to make points. However, they’re still valid points. Does time make things more palpable? Are we less inclined to feel judgmental towards Polanski because the event happened before many of you were born? Are we forgiving of Nate Parker’s past transgressions because he was acquitted while his co-writer was convicted? Why are some celebrities exiled for terrible choices while others continue without any impact? Mel Gibson was blacklisted for some terrible antisemitic comments while Polanski can still win an Oscar after raping a child. There is no logic here, only a very gross grey area that gets murkier the deeper you dig.
It’s a troubling, baffling, morally difficult cacophony without a definitive answer. Sometimes I envy those who can separate the art from the artist. Other times I believe it’s our silent complicity that allows people who commit heinous acts to succeed without impunity.
Anghus Houvouras
. url=”.” . width=”100%” height=”150″ iframe=”true” /]
https://youtu.be/b7Ozs5mj5ao?list=PL18yMRIfoszEaHYNDTy5C-cH9Oa2gN5ng
