A question that must be asked:

[HorseradishTree]

Do you guys think that if a director or writer or actor has a dislikable personalities or racist/bigotous (good god, that's no word!) tendencies, is that cause to dismiss a film they were involved in?

I don't really think I can answer this yet; I want to see what you guys have to say first.

[oscar jubis]

I'm glad you ask. The issue came up briefly before in posts about Polanski's The Pianist. The consensus was not to dismiss a film by a racist or immoral director. I choose to focus primarily on the film rather than the director as the critical object. At the same time, it's often relevant to deal with problematic statements and/or behaviors of the artist when appraising his/her films. I'll introduce three cases.

D.W. Griffith, the first great American director, was an avowed racist. Moreover, some of his films advance a racist, xenophobic point of view. THE BIRTH OF A NATION is a seminal work in cinema history, technically brilliant but morally vacant. Its support of the KKK makes me sick. But I'd show it if I was teaching a History of Cinema class. No doubt.

Leni Riefenstahl was Hitler's director. Her mastery of film technique was used by the dictator to advance and promote his causes. Main issue is whether or not she knew of the holocaust taking place, or more specifically the extent of it. She was declared persona-non-grata by the world's film community and denied financing for her films (except for some documentary footage of African tribal rituals and marine fauna and flora few have seen). There is a great doc about her called "The Wonderful, Horrible Life of L.R." available for rental.

Roman Polanski was charged with the rape of a 13 y.o. in the late 60s and chose to become a fugitive, rather than face the charges. The alleged victim made statements last year reinstating that she was indeed violently forced into sex by Mr. Polanski and that this fact should NOT be a reason to deny him awards and recognition for "The Pianist".

My main moral issue with films nowadays is the promotion/exploitation/glamorization of violence in its many forms, particularly in commercial films. Few critics seem to take the time to discuss what these films convey either explicitly or implicitly about the uses of violence. The issue for me is not whether a movie's violent images are too "strong" or visceral, but what the film has to say about violence, for what purpose are the images presented.

[Ilker81x]

I have to say that I agree that there is a problem with violence in films, especially with the ongoing problem of high-octane action movies with little or no intelligence behind the stories. "XXX" is a good example. You could not get a more cliched exploitation of pointless gunplay and violence. These films glamourize violence by pitting attractive people in impossible stunts that make the action more appealing, whereas a movie like "Apocalypse Now" or "The Deer Hunter" shows violence in its true, emotional, devestating form. Violence in film is necessary I think, but I don't think it should be used to such a gratuitous extent.

As for whether or not a director with questionable views or acts should be dismissed, I think the answer is no. Providing of course that the director does not promote those views or acts or glorify them in any way in the films they make. Roman Polanski is a brilliant filmmaker...sure he's a pedophile, but he does not showcase this in his films. He does not make movies that try to justify or glorify what he did. I think an artist creates from his or her soul, and the soul and the mind are two different things. In his mind, a director can be a racist, but in the film he creates it may not always be so. I think the director's films should only be dismissed if his amoral views start to show through in his films.