On separating art from artist (don't do it)

[@Solikyre]

I just finished watching your Inside review and by god my friend you’ve got yourself a new subscriber. I know one subscriber doesn’t make that large of a difference as you talked on in the video but it means something to me. I truly appreciate the content you put out here and I wish you all the growth and ability you want

[@TheWeekIReview]

Numbers don't mean much, but comments do! Glad you checked out more than the one video and hope you continue to find value in whatever else there is on this here channel. Thank you.

[@lalakitty_xo]

I struggle with this subject myself because it seems that the most disturbed people make the best art, but it also feels disrespectful to revere someone who victimizes others. And then one has to draw the line somewhere and decide for themselves what actions are unforgivable, when the public usually isn't in a position to know their motivations or who they are at the core.

[@TheWeekIReview]

And it gets really messy with the latter part because, like, can you ever really know someone's true motivations/who they are, *especially* someone in the public eye? Probably not.

[@runawayfoxes]

I hope that you keep making videos and that the youtube algorithm keeps you in the limelight long enough for your videos to gain the traction it deserves.

[@TheWeekIReview]

Well thank you very much!

[@r.coburn3344]

We can all only fight on so many hills, and can only die on one. We each get to choose for ourselves.

[@TheWeekIReview]

Of course, but that doesn't mean people have to think you're a good person for the choices you make.

[@QuaseVingativa]

Love to see you stretch to formats other than reviews... great video as always!

[@TheWeekIReview]

Thank you!

[@iamthesword1180]

This behavior I review

[@raehobbs7291]

I appreciate the level of honesty and bluntness you used in this video and the fact that it was both addressing your personal feelings and responses to the matter as well as how we as a society deal with all conflicts and conflicting opinions of how we should or shouldn’t deal with artists that do horrible things. (Wow that’s a run on paragraph of a sentence and could probably take the time to organize it into multiple sentences but fuck it that’s not my focus right now) (Ha did it again!) It’s gonna take multiple viewings to unpack and analyze it all and I’ll enjoy every minute of it!

[@TheWeekIReview]

Thank you very much! Also, as someone who starts most sentences with a conjunction, very relatable.

[@PaulinaBennington]

I don’t personally understand de case of the Mexican singer Gloria Trevi, she was envolved in a child abusive (rapist) group with her manager that was proven real and horrible for thousands of girls in the 80s and 90s, then the manager Sergio Andrade and Gloria Trevi went to jail for a couple of years and these days both of them are doing ok. She even appears on Mexican tv singing contests, continues performing and lives a wealthy life somewhere in Texas. That boils every drop of blood in my fucking body.

[@TheWeekIReview]

That's horrendous. Wow... (I do kinda love them imagery of *every* drop of blood in one's body boiling, though. Nice one.)

[@theinfantmetroid]

The moment you mentioned Kenshin I audibly groaned "Oh _no"_ because I Knew what was coming

[@TheWeekIReview]

Yep...

[@jaylaw2777]

Nice, I know that was a touchy one to tackle!

[@TheWeekIReview]

Thank you very much!

[@nilesta]

I'm wrestling with Joss Whedon, these days. He ... seems to be a bully in the mold of Kubrick. As far as I can tell, his shenanigans have never involved sex or attempted murder, just... Being an abusive boss. I mean... I don't think anyone can watch the Shining and think Shelly is acting in the stairway scene. She's having a breakdown, and Kubrick pushed her there, then filmed it, and we call that art. Still. We still call that art, and we've known about it for a long time. I don't know what to do with these ambiguous feels I have about Kubrick and Whedon being abusive directors.

[@TheWeekIReview]

I didn't actually think about Kubrick and Hitchcock (who was, as far as I understand it, way worse than Kubrick)... William Friedkin did a lot of fucked up stuff in the 70s, too. Texas Chainsaw is as good as it is because all of the actors went through hell in making it. But because the abuse in their cases (Hitchcock excepted) was generally because they were kinda cruel people who cared only about making the movie good, I think there's probably value in looking at that stuff with a specific eye towards "Hey, maybe don't do that?" But maybe I'm just rationalizing! Whedon is pretty easy for me because I have no real allegiance to anything he's made and his abuse isn't to, like, get a good performance or something: he's just a jerk. So I'm just kinda over his whole deal.

[@SeasideDetective2]

Well, I think that if you're going to repudiate something worthwhile because it was accomplished in part by bullying, then you also have to repudiate any war won by an army whose members were hazed by drill sergeants, or any football games won by teams whose members were berated by coaches. Guys like drill sergeants and coaches get a pass, probably because we EXPECT them to be bullies. But why should filmmakers be held to a higher standard?

[@EphemeralTao]

The one problem I have with all of this is... there are other people involved. If I say that I'm never watching another Kubrick film, that doesn't mean I'm only not watching a Kubrick film, I'm also not watching a film made by Shelly Duvall, Keir Dullea, Matthew Modine, Miriam Karlin, George C. Scott, John Alcott, and hundreds of other people. Because they were all part of making this film what it is. Let's say I"m watching a film, a great film that I really enjoy. Director is a decent person on and off screen, but one of the actors is a real pig, nasty bastard who constantly sexually harasses other members of the crew. Do I stop watching that film now? What if they're merely a supporting actor instead of a lead? Or, let's take that film, and say all the director and all the actors are all fine human beings; but the cinematographer turns out to be a fascist sympathizer who sexually abused one of the child actors. Now what do I do with it? Do I still watch the film? How far removed from the public face of the film does a bad person have to be to justify excluding it? There are many people who deserve credit for a particular work, and to have one single person destroy it for all of them... The problem here is that a film, an album, a stage play, and many other works of art are not the product of a single person. "Auteur theory" is mostly crap, the majority of the arts are collaborative; and to say that I can no longer watch a particular film because one of the people involved making it was a pretty shitty person is... I don't know. Odd. That said, I used to be a big Woody Allen fan, but I haven't been able to watch one of his films in quite some time. Which I find weird, because a lot of great actors gave a lot of great performances I will never see. _Hannah and Her Sisters_ and _Annie Hall_ have brilliant performances by Mia Farrow and Diane Keaton, respectively; and now I shouldn't be able to watch either one ever again? I'm supposed to throw Mia out with Woody? That seems decidedly unfair. And yet... And what do you do with everyone who knew about the problem, but said and did nothing about it? All those actors, and even worse, actresses, who may not have been abusive at all, and may be ordinarily decent people, but came out in support of Polanski? What about all the SAG, who did and said nothing about Spacey or Cosby, despite knowing full well their reputation? We eventually get to the point where we have to "cancel" all of Hollywood. Even literature doesn't necessarily escape this, although the literary and plastic arts are more single-creator focused than the performing and cinematic arts. A great book by a writer who is a perfectly ordinary person, but whose editor/promoter ended up in a highly publicized trial for baby trafficking? Or published by a house that also publishes pro-fascist literature through a separate imprint? If you study art history, you quickly come to the conclusion that artists are generally shitty people. I don't mean that they have the same range of goodness and badness as the general population; I mean that, yes, there is a range from goodness to badness, but in the case of artists, it tends to be weighted pretty heavily toward the dark side. Artists tend to be damaged people, and mental illness of various sorts are also disproportionately common (particularly bipolar disorder). One of my favorite poets, who wrote some intensely thought-provoking and beautiful work, was an actual religious fascist. One of the greatest literary geniuses of all time was an alcoholic who physically and emotionally abused his children. All that said, I don't claim to have an answer to this conundrum that will satisfy anyone; least of all myself.

[@lilia3944]

@@TheWeekIReview I think Hitchcock is important from a critical perspective: he influenced a lot of movies into the present day. In general, no matter what someone did, in my opinion there is always value in looking at their stuff as soon as it becomes a big enough influence - because there'll be some ideas that stick, which isn't always a good thing, but it makes sense to know where they're coming from. My parents always told me that it doesn't really matter if you like art or the artist behind it, at least in big parts of the research they did (they're both art historians). Trying to ignore the fact that bad people influenced art, and maybe even lead to "good" developments, is kind of a difficult thing? Because I'm no critic, I'm no historian, I'll keep away from works made by bad people as soons as I find out they're bad people. But while art cannot and should not be seperated from the artist, ignoring its existence when analyzing art that was influenced by it is just bad science.

[@kianaamarnani5232]

I absolutely loved this video! I hope to see similar content in the future, especially about morality and more!

[@TheWeekIReview]

Well thank you! Most of my videos are like this, just usually packaged in the form of a review of some thing or another.

[@brendankoepke3661]

I think that, Inocent until Proven Guilty is a GREAT rule. Allegations could ruin someones life if they didn't do things like this, but if they did they deserve the Horror of what is coming to them e.i Kevin Spacey, Roman Polansky, Woody Allen, ect. I don't like that Famous People get off easy, that is awful! *This is basically what you said, but I like saying my opinion lol

[@TheWeekIReview]

It is a great rule in general! But using your own example, Polanski is the only one who's been convicted of anything and yet there's really no doubt that Spacey and Allen did what they've been accused of.

[@phil6904]

It’s a very good rule for whether the Government can impose punishment on you. But does anyone think you can’t lose jobs or friends, until you’ve been convicted of a crime? Losing (some of) your audience isn’t the same as being punished by law.

[@tombrophy6288]

@@TheWeekIReview That is also the reason why I refuse to watch a Polanski film until he dies and why I'm okay with watching a film with Kevin Spacey.

[@mattyc8983]

I was just thinking about James' Harry Potter video when you brought it up! Thanks for talking about this, it's a difficult topic to navigate both with others and internally but I think we have to keep having conversations about it. We might become complacent otherwise,,

[@benm5970]

I’m not someone who bases their opinion of an artist’s work off of their personal life, because I think it’s something that is not only unfair judgement of those movies/shows but also something that you didn’t need to do in first place, it kinda reminds me of what Mufasa said to Simba in The Lion King when he says “Being brave doesn’t mean you go looking for trouble” because I think when it comes to any celebrity you can always find something they do/have done in their personal life that you think is bad if you choose to look hard enough for it, you know that saying “Ignorance is bliss”? That actually is something that heavily applies to entertainment, because it’s not like something like say politics where it’s basically all about learning background information about someone because that person dictates laws and other things that go on in the real world, art is entertainment so there’s no need for you to get involved with the politics of someone’s personal life, and it shouldn’t be the thing that determines how you judge what they do in their professional life

[@TheWeekIReview]

Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night, dude.

[@Galvatronover]

@@TheWeekIReview what? that's a reasonable response

[@ozz8320]

Really appreciate this video! This was the best discussion on this topic I've seen. You acknowledged all the hypocrisy, even your own, takes some real guts and thorough self awareness to do that, respect!

[@SeasideDetective2]

I appreciate the fact that you brought up the auteur theory in relation to Roman Polanski. Whether they intended to or not, the French proponents of that theory back in the 1950s helped to set the stage for our current era of over-analysis and politicization of our works of art, along with the "thought police" and "cancel culture" phenomena that came about because of that. To say that a filmmaker's badness taints everything he ever created is insane. After all, it's not as if the director did everything himself. Rejecting the director's works is, in a way, a slap in the face to the actors, the script writer, the cinematographer, and everyone else who helped bring the filmmaker's vision to life and who are innocent of serious wrongdoing.

[@TheWeekIReview]

Whatever you have to tell yourself, dude.

[@SeasideDetective2]

@@TheWeekIReview How much of a bleeding heart are you going to be? Are you going to reject ALL mainstream culture because of the corruption in it?

[@josephvaughan2007]

This is such an excellent video. Great job!

[@TheWeekIReview]

Thank you very much!

[@robbyrhodes4572]

I respect this video it I argue that you CAN separate art from artist. It all depends on if The Artist is an A hole and doesn’t inject their views into their work.

[@christopherrex8203]

Obligatory Thank God for Them at the mention of James Stephanie Sterling, all Hail

[@TheWeekIReview]

Thank god for them!

[@Okami-Chann]

Agree with your points, but bombarding your mind with all this at all times can get pretty exhausting.

[@floatingblaze8405]

8:52 I love listening to stuff that reminds me to the bleak reality of existence while actively trying to escape it, it's such a lovely paradox

[@MrHuff-wc8mw]

I was actually thinking of asking you this question your next live stream.

[@TheWeekIReview]

Saved you the trouble and everyone the fifteen minutes of "uhhhhhhhhh"s that it would have been inevitably been comprised of

[@jacktchance]

Don't have too much to add to the video, except thank you.

[@eat-lc5rx]

You hit then nail on the head with the fact everyone has done some shit. Truth of the matter is we're all imperfect at different levels and everyone has their own red lines that if crossed put them off of whatever it is that crossed it. Which in the end is the key point to it all. Morality itself is both societaly and individually subjective at the same time. And there's simply no way around that fact. I suppose it's best for everyone to just internally figure out what that red line is and hold yourself to a standard you believe in. The problem societaly is when we bubble ourselves away en masse in an attempt to shelter from the wrongs of the world which then skews our perception slowly but wildly over time.

[@NBNightingale]

Personally, I think that when they're dead it doesn't matter how much power you give their name because they cant abuse that power anymore. Like, Leo Tolstoy was an abusive husband even by the standards of his own day but his work is some of the best feminist literature of all time. Talking about it now doesn't give him power that he could feasibly use to do more bad stuff because he's super dead. But it does give this work with fully realized and beautifully written women power. Maybe I'm just rationalizing though because being a classics nerd means that all your favorite writers probably did horrible things.

[@TheWeekIReview]

It's totally rationalizing, but(!) whatever! Rationalize away! And I think you're right that it gets more complicated when you're talking about people that far in the past. That said, I think the idea of classics (as a concept rather than an area of study) is actually the best argument to keep the work die with them, because when we teach the film canon, I fully believe that Ronan Polanski should not be a part of it. I know he has characters and ideas that were unique and important but so did a lot of filmmakers who don't have nearly the recognition. Even if he can't do anything with his power, being idolized and held up perpetuates all sorts of bullshit in the long run. When discussing classics as an area of study... I genuinely don't know if you can just cut people out of the canon in quite the same way because I feel like at the time there was just a lot less writing happening that has survived all this time? Cinema history is too new, and if we can drop D.W. Griffith from curricula (and we should), then we can certainly drop a more recent monster.

[@phil6904]

@@TheWeekIReview Interesting. In the main discussion, I pushed back on people worrying that artists might be unfairly ‘punished’, because I think it’s my choice about whose work I feel comfortable with. I’m not punishing anyone if I read a different book. But in the teaching context, a professor might use a text to talk about how terrible husbands can write great female characters, or racist films can use powerful techniques (and how dangerous that is). It shouldn’t be taught uncritically though. And I don’t think it should just be in the discretion of the professor. Students should be given choices too. (And that’s obviously complicated, given imbalance of power, knowledge, age with professors). I guess it’s like some of the problematic statues for me. Some of them belong in the harbour or melted down, but the ‘important’ ones can be put in a museum and contextualised. Just not in a position of honour in the public square. But I’m not sure about any of this, so appreciate the thoughtful discussion.

[@iamthesword1180]

@@TheWeekIReview Consuming/remembering and idolizing is not the same thing. Perhaps this is a very German perspective, because after 12 years of Nazi reign there was literally no part of society that wasn't fucked up and people had - and still have - to deal with that. The mode of consuming with a critical distance to the author(s) has become part of our DNA (discussions about renaming streets and removing statues etc. happen here constantly for at least the past 50 years). So it might be more about how Griffith et al are taught/consumed than whether they should at all. I personally am absolutely against cutting out people out of any field of study. There are two reasons for that. The first one is a scientific one: Trying to understand doesn't mean to agree to anything a person has done - for me as a historian this is particularly true, because believe me, people were even shittier in the past (and I am not even a researcher on the Holocaust or something horrible like that). Therefore, if someone('s work) is important for a specific discipline, he needs to be taught (which doesn't mean that I don't think that more time should be dedicated to lesser known people). Studying unfortunately means being confronted with a lot of unpleasant subjects to gain knowledge that you would avoid otherwise (again, history is a prime example). But a critical distance to your subject is the one thing any degree should teach anyway. So there should be no danger of idolizing. The second one is a more political one (and now the German and the historian merge into a very specific view): cutting out means forgetting. And forgetting means that the bad stuff might come back one day because we don't recognize it any more. On the other hand can a more critical teaching that shows how these people could do what they did help to gain a view that is more sensible for enableing factors and might help avoid the repetition in the present and future. What you do for leisure is of course a totally different question. I agree with Phil that it is a personal choice where I personally don't feel any urge to judge anyone on his*her decisions. That is something everyone has to figure out his*her own way to deal with.

[@briela5441]

@@iamthesword1180 agree! (sorry for inserting myself in this, I was scrolling through the comments😅)

[@lixianan]

Eh, I personally disagree. As long as you're not financially supporting the artist, and arent going around promoting them, then i struggle to see any reason you cant enjoy a film/book/other piece of art. Ive never really been the type of person to care who created / starred in whatever (im awful at actors names), and am firmly of the opinion that when something has been created, it becomes its own entity that only has the value you ascribe it in your own mind. I feel like anything else is just giving people power over your own headspace There are artworks i personally find offensive, but those are the pieces themselved rather than the people who created them. Can respect you drawing a line in a different place, but saying theres only one "right answer" to something that is clearly nuanced like this is needlessly inflammatory. Equation changes completely for me if theres money or promotion involved though, at that point the people receiving said support matter to me.

[@TheWeekIReview]

What's your arbitrary line for "promotion"? Like, sure, if I watch a Roman Polanski movie I torrented alone in my room and never tell anyone, then no harm no foul or whatever, but if I put it on letterboxed that I watched it or talk about having seen it with friends, that's ultimately promotion. If you're the type who likes to secretly watch things in a dark room and never talk about them, that's weird but like you do you. But if you're then using those things as a point of discussion, you're a hypocrite, right?

[@sarachristopher403]

You seem to be an interesting thinker and I appreciate that in a person. Keep making videos please :)

[@bailujen8052]

I still support seperate the art but i will NOT seperate things from those who say you cant such as you

[@aceknowledgable9403]

Unfortunately, art is something that's subjective in value, and one must evaluate what they truly want, not just what they need. Thanks for the video by the way and I wish you the best.

[@Klonoa7H]

The Kenshin example really hurts because I enjoyed the OVA series and was tempted to read the manga.... then the allegations came out, and wrote off the series. From what I've read, the "videos" the authorities found in his office were of girls he knew at some point. There have also been rumours circulating that he produced those "videos" or at least had some involvement. It's one thing to have weird fantasies, it's another to use one's fame to enable child exploitation and harm towards others. It is pretty weird how in Japan, various actors and composers have been barred from the entertainment industry for taking drugs, and yet people like Shimabukuro and Watsuki still manage to stay afloat, one way or another.

[@TheWeekIReview]

I hadn't heard that! That makes it so much worse! Japan's whole child exploitation... thing is really unnerving. Like, the fact that if he had been caught with all that four years earlier there wouldn't have even been that tiny punishment is hard to wrap my brain around.

[@robbyrhodes4572]

What did Shimabakuro make?

[@rosyaugust7095]

The intro is so dope. Great sharing

[@briela5441]

ughhhhhhh dude, stop adding fire to the frustration that I don't have a coherent strategy on approaching this moral question! 🌾 I tend to be quite idealistic and usually that's something that I like about myself (yeah, I said it).But I shiver every time when I remember that I used to (more or less) shame my struggling friends about not being vegan and being depressed; both things that I eventually had "failed" to address in my own life in a satisfying manner, making me a f-ing hypocrite. *Yes, sending self-help bullshit to a depressed person is shaming them. 🌻 I'm currently more on the side of trying to dismantle patriarchal and capitalist views as much as I can in my insignificant life and inner circle. So I'm basically more on the blame the system not the individuals. And sure if you're privileged enough you can try to have the superior ground on both ends (systemic and individualistic)...but (*whispering*: there is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism). 🌷 What the hell am I even trying to say?!maybe : F capitalism! and f neoliberalists' "solutions"!Everybody should learn about antihumanism! and no, that's not about hating humans and children, but speaking of that.. (to be clear that was a joke *cough cough*) In conclusion thanks Alec, I hate it. But, seriously now, thanks, I'm very much appreciating your work 💌 and you raising awareness! (had no ideea about Rurouni Kenshin's creator -my friend loves the series, I never got into it, and now I'm too iffy about it...)

[@TheWeekIReview]

That was wild! Yeah, telling people to just not be depressed is a pretty bad thing to do. But inevitably any discussion of morality ends up running us in circles because it is impossible to actually live up to the standards we all believe that we have for ourselves and as soon as you really try to interrogate things you just get miserable. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, and there are still lines that you should never cross, but anyone who pretends to have an easy solution or really any genuine solution is a huckster.

[@beccivoyante]

Hey just want to say I’m totally with you and your comment is so on point

[@briela5441]

@@beccivoyante I'm inclined to believe that you are talking to me, and if so, thanks😊 also, hope you don't mind that I'm saying (in the most non creepy way I can express this in a yt comments section haha😅) that you look stunning🙊🌼

[@beccivoyante]

@@briela5441 I am talking to you and thank you so much! ❤️❤️❤️❤️

[@halfpintrr]

Great video! Also, I love Cyberpunk 2077 (it’s one of my favorite games), but it had a tonne of issues. And I will not be buying anything else from CDPR. I loved Assassin’s Creed, I still do. But I can’t even play their games in the ‘grey means’ anymore. Also, I’m for Abolishing Prisons, but I understand how reform is a good first step.

[@Galvatronover]

why abolish prisons

[@AfutureV]

I find it interesting that you talk about rehabilitation as an option, when most of what you say in the video indicates that you prefer to throw away any product if a bad person was involved in making it rather than finding a way to highlight and celebrate all of the good people involved. I personally prefer to focus on the good aspects and the hard work of other people involved without negating the bad actions of the few.

[@TheWeekIReview]

Of course you do, because then you don't have to feel bad about supporting child rapists. I get it.

[@AfutureV]

@@TheWeekIReview What a bad faith response. It is completely possible to denounce the bad actions someone makes, as well as not completely disregard a work that they were a part of. If consuming work were a bad person is involved equals support in your eyes, then you probably support a lot of horrible things by proxy. That is a very dangerous standard to set.

[@Bixnood69]

@@TheWeekIReview dude, I feel like you know that's not the case. Why would you immediately go there?

[@dgp5934]

wow i wish i found your channel sooner

[@Kirito_2016]

First of all, you 100% can separate an artist from their art. Simply don't find out who the artist is before engaging in said art. I don't know 99.99% of the artist of the art I see. Second of all, you never explained why you shouldn't separate an artist from their art. All you said is that before you engage with someone's work, you have to look in the mirror and proclaim to yourself you are ok with every wrong they committed. And you did not explain why someone has to be ok with the wrong doings of the artist in order to enjoy their work. Which is strange, because it not self evident to me at all. I hear about about bad things artist do and I just think, "Wow that's fucked" then I move on with my life. It does not usually affect my enjoyment of their work. Sometimes it does. Like when a person makes their art about their personality and really specific to them. The only thing you did in this video was talk about how you can't engage with art that bad people made. Which is ok, but why have the title you picked? You can't just tell me I'm a worse person for still watching and enjoying Rurouni Kenshin and not explain why.

[@TheWeekIReview]

That was a needlessly longwinded way of telling me that you're a bad person who's incapable of empathy.

[@littlered6340]

Just got to the Rurouni Kenshin line and I'm not ready

[@littlered6340]

Aaah, fuck me

[@TheWeekIReview]

Oh no did you die

[@littlered6340]

@@TheWeekIReview no but 😭 my childhood did. ... I did have to hop of my treadmill for a second to recuperate from the gut punch. I learned several things from this video, thank you for making it!

[@TheWeekIReview]

Glad you got something out of it!

[@thecat-alyst8122]

Here is why I do disagree with you partly. Note that I say partly, and you'll figure out why as you read further. When I was about 9, our local radio station began playing a 1996 audio drama of A Christmas Carol by Charlies Dickins every Christmas Eve at about 8 PM. When I was about 12 in 2004, I received a CD box set of the Chronicles of narnia books in the form of audio dramas, which featured actors like David Suchet, Ron Moody, Elizabeth Counsell, Bernard Cribbins and Victor Spinetti. In 2010, the same relative who gave me the Narnia box set gave me a CD copy of an audio drama of the Screwtape Letters, starring Andy Serkis as Screwtape, as well as a CD copy of an audio drama of Anne of Green Gables featuring Mae Whitman as Anne and Christina Pickles as Marilla. In 2013, the same relative gave me a 5 disc audio drama of Oliver Twist, featuring actors like Roy Hudd, Geoffrey Palmer, Hugo Docking and Elizabeth Counsell. Recently, as in early 2021, I purchased a copy of that Christmas Carol audio drama I mentioned before, since our local station no longer plays a Christmas Carol every Christmas Eve. This way, I can keep my anual tradition of gatherine with my family and listening to this radi odrama starring Tenniel Evans every Christmas Eve before bed, as I've done for almost 20 years. What do all of these above mentioned radio dramas have in common, other than the fact they have brought enjoyment and thrills? All of them were made by an evangeilcal christian organization called Focus on the Family. Apparently, Focus as I'll call them has made homophobic and transphobic statements that I strongly agree with. I however did not find out about these statements until 2018 or early 2019, several years after I got that Oliver Twist audio drama and after that relative passed away. Now, I'm 100% blind, I have 0 eyesight, so I can't enjoy the print versions of these stories, and reading long braille books is not enjoyable for me. So my only exposure to the stories like the Narnia stories, Anne of Green Gables and Oliver Twist is the Focus on the Family audio dramas. I've been told on places like Reddit and othe ronline places that I am transphobic because I dare to not boycott FotF radio Theatre and because I don't throw away all those CDs I got over the years. I also want you to make note of the cast and crew members of each and every one of the audio dramas I mentioned form Focus on the Family, A Christmas Carol, the Chronicles of narnia series, Anne of Green Gables, the Screwtape Letters and Olive rTwist. We're talking about actors like Tenniel Evans, Ron Moody, Elizabeth Counsell, Gary martin, Andrwe Sachs, Geoffrey Palmer, Finty Williams, Katherine kellgren and Andrew Sachs. Actors I've never heard of before these audio dramas as I am not British, I'm from Edmonton. You'll notice I left out two actors in particular, Victor Spinetti and Hugo Docking. I left them out because they are gay. So I feel by boycotting those audio dramas, you'd be boycotting two gay actors who likely did not know about Focus's bad views. So me enjoying those audio dramas is not me giving Focus a pas son their bad statements, because I don't. However I also refuse to be told that I must stop enjoying those audio dramas just because I refuse to give FotF a pass. So in a way, I am indeed choosing to separate the art from the artist, if by "artist" you mean Focus on the Family. I believe this is a good thing, because if you let yourself lose enjoyment of something you loved because somebody who may or may not have had a hand in making the product has problematic views, then to me that is a coward's way of dealing with the issues. Boycotts in general are stupid, because for every person that chooses to boycott, there will always be 2 or more that choose not to. Hope that helps you understand where i do disagree with you.

[@TheWeekIReview]

I think calling it cowardly to cut things you love from your life is straight-up ridiculous because actually that's strong as heck... but beyond that, nothing you said fundamentally disagrees. You've just made a choice that you are willing to support FotF and that is your prerogative. Ultimately, you say whatever lets you sleep at night because life is hard and that's what you need to do.

[@subpar7404]

@@TheWeekIReview holy shit you’re like the most punchable dude on the planet

[@yoavco99]

Pls play "The Begginer's Guide". I know this is a weird request especially if you don't know this game but when I read the title of the video my brain automatically went like "oh this title is the exact opposite of the message of The Begginer's Guide". Overall this game is more of a story/experience than an actual game. I wouldn't want to spoil too much so please play this.

[@yoavco99]

Idc to even buy it for anyone here if someone wants

[@jaycegraham8263]

So I find the use of these grandiose statements of ultimate determination, very off putting. The way in witch you deliver your message, comes across as arrogant, self righteous and superior. There is no room for conversation when the statement is, "The moraly right answer is..." Now I don't necessarily disagree with your assessments. But I do find the way in witch they are delivered to be a holier than thou attitude. Now I don't want to open this comment to those who want to use my critique as a place to spead hate or intolerance. I would like this comment to be taken as just a different point of view. I know your heart is in the right place. So my criticism is from a place of love.

[@lc3920]

I definitely respect your views, but I do have one thing that I want to bring up. If we take Repulsion (which is an incredibly ironic film when comparing the subject matter and director) as an example, it was definitely quite revolutionary in portraying mental illness. What I want to bring up, though, is that Polanski wasn’t the only person involved in its impact. Catherine Deneuve’s performance and Chico Hamilton’s score arguably give it just as much value as Roman Polanski gives it as the director. If Polanski was involved in making a movie not as the director but as a composer or just actor, still adding a lot to it, then I feel that this hypothetical film wouldn’t have to go through the same process of needing to be separated from the artist. But I still of course think it’s extremely important to remember what horrible people some artists were, and again I mean no disrespect and love your channel, I just wanted to say this.

[@TheWeekIReview]

If admitted child rapist Roman Polanski was the lead actor in Repulsion and not the director, I don't think anything would change about the way I look at it. Composer, hard to say.

[@LuciferoftheBiscuitHammer]

Big ups on knowing who Hong is. Lot of filmtubers on this site restrict Korean cinema to the big two, if that. Sorry he's not your thing. You know Hur Jin-ho by any chance?

[@TheWeekIReview]

Not by name, but Christmas in August is an absolutely lovely film. A couple of his others sound familiar but I don't know if I've actually seen them.

[@LuciferoftheBiscuitHammer]

@@TheWeekIReview Yeah, from what I've seen he's mostly known for that film. Check out One Fine Spring Day though, lot of people like that one

[@TheWeekIReview]

It's on my big big list of things. (If you'd like to check my Korean film bona fides, my "Eight Films You Should Watch Now" is the closest I got.

[@MeloMVP100]

Bro u just said it doesn’t matter if someone gets falsely accused of rape because “most rapists get away with it” how could you even think something like that....

[@TheWeekIReview]

Pretty easy, actually! You just realize that in our society, rapists are rarely punished in the short term and even less in the long term, so if someone were to be falsely accused (which they almost certainly won't be, because it virtually never happens), it basically doesn't matter because people like *you* don't care anyway. And then you get really mad about it and say that in a KZbin video.

[@MeloMVP100]

@@TheWeekIReview I’m not mad about it , u are entitled to ur own opinion. I just think u need to do some reflecting anyone can say anything. At any time and to believe everything everyone says without proof is stupid but like I said ur opinion is ur opinion and at the end of the day nor mine or yours really matters. But cheers man I like ur videos and reviews, plus you had many good points I just think that statement in particular was ignorance but as I said cheers continued ur good work.

[@TheWeekIReview]

As someone who has been falsely accused of a different crime that actually would have resulted in jail time, I know what the experience of being wrongly accused is like. It's awful. I don't wish it on anyone. But the reality is, it basically never happens with this sort of thing. It's really just not true that "anyone can say anything." The act of accusation is both humiliating and, as I discussed in the video, branding. It's why something like half of rapes are never reported in the first place. We can't use the bogeyman of a false accusation as an excuse to not believe women because we would rather pretend men aren't monsters. I'm glad you like the channel, though. :)

[@MeloMVP100]

@@TheWeekIReview aye dude I meant no offense I respect ur opinion and I can tell ur a good dude who try’s to spread positive messages and I appreciate that keep up the good work! I think we had a respectful conversation and even though we don’t agree I appreciate your POV

[@percyvile]

Hmm

[@snakekingblues3017]

Hmmm .part2

[@phil6904]

@@snakekingblues3017 Hmmmm

[@snakekingblues3017]

@@phil6904 HMMMM.part 4

[@briela5441]

I know, right?! hmmm

[@CheerioTraveler]

It is intresting to listen to you

[@TheWeekIReview]

I'll take it!

[@ghostplayz9971]

Yeah i can't enjoy music anymore, i had 200 songs in my spotify playlist but i deleted the playlist after i found out most of the rappers and producers i liked are assholes. Can't play games anymore because of the things the company did. Yet i eat meat, and i tell myself that it doesn't matter since i'm eating it because i need it to survive. I remember asking this same question of should you seperate music from the artist on reddit and somebody made a point that the guy who made the polio vaccine was into beastiality yet he made a vaccine. Yet the difference between that and music is because you choose to like music and with the vaccine you need that to survive. It sucks people can't just do the right thing, everybody tells me the world isn't just black and white and that theres "greys" but most of the time it is black and white. Theres right and then theres wrong.

[@beccivoyante]

I have to respond to your outrageous claim that vegans and vegetarians are inherently morally superior. Let me begin by saying I was a vegetarian for 10 years. For the animals. I’m highly researched on the topic, as I began eating meat again for health reasons. I was vegan for a month for my yoga teacher training and dropped below 90 pounds and had terrible skin reactions. Why? Because I’m allergic to histamines (it’s not that simple but I’ll just leave it at that). Nutrition is very fucking complicated. For the love of god, stop taking blanket statements by uninformed, biased individuals as legitimate health advice. Consult a nutritionist. “You don’t eat meat because you don’t care about animals enough,” is just a bogus statement to generalize all walks of life. I do think most people don’t care enough about most things. That doesn’t apply to everyone. Factory farming is terrible. Terrible for the animals, terrible for your body, terrible for the environment-it hurts everybody. It is straight up misinformation and propaganda to equate small family-owned farmers with factory farmers. Not only that, but it actually harms the vegan agenda. You will never get everyone or even the majority to agree with this logic or do give up something they need or want. How about emphasis on moderation? How about emphasis on sourcing, and what that means? How about emphasis on information instead of trying to use guilt and shame as tools to make you feel like a better person? That makes a person morally superior??? Your logic (and the logic of radical animal rights activists) is paper thin at best, and it neglects to acknowledge that everyone is different. My body chemistry and your body chemistry is not the same, and no body’s superior. See what I did there? Never mind how myopic it is to say that eating a certain way makes you some sort of superior being. I know plenty of vegans who could give a shit less about human rights. What about not buying things you don’t need? Things that are garbage quality (and will end up in the garbage after a few uses), and made essentially by slave labor. I could go on and on and list everything that’s fucked up in the world, but I’ve said enough. To say that not eating meat makes you ~better~ is just delicious delicious food and fodder for radical vegans so, bravo.

[@TheWeekIReview]

This was extraordinarily boring to read. (I did read it, though. Sort of. So you got what you wanted. (I'm sorry I lied. I didn't actually read it all. Just kinda skimmed it... It was clearly not relevant to the topic at hand and as someone who isn't vegan I just don't care about the vegan agenda.))

[@beccivoyante]

@@TheWeekIReview poignant response. It’s boring, but you didn’t read it? Are you the king of doubling down? If it’s not relevant to the topic at hand, then why did you bring it up? Your ableism is showing, you absolute legend.

[@TheWeekIReview]

I'm deleting the other thing I said. There really wasn't any reason for me to be nasty or respond in the first place. I shouldn't have done it. I'm sorry, and I will be ducking out of this now. You're welcome to take that as you winning the argument or whatever. "Becci crushed me with their mind powers and I am slain for eternity." - Alec, host of The Week I Review

[@ozz8320]

Hi Becci, the term you're looking for is white veganism. Which is basically veganism, that doesn't care about human rights, or people with certain medical/health conditions, or even the environment at times. White veganism is for those that take a moral high ground usually just by preaching animal rights whilst making blank statements about the "inferior" morals of everyone else. I'm not saying this video does that, but just giving you a term that might help simplify your thoughts. However, we should acknowledge that for educated people with a certain amount of privilege who have none or hardly any barriers to become vegan and yet refuse to consider veganism for their own pleasure. It would be more fitting to call these groups immoral. Although of course, they might just be unaware of what harm they're supporting, the same way someone might no about how awful an artist is they're supporting, it's all a similar argument in the end... Hope we can all keep this conversation going while looking after each other at the same time

[@rianneroo]

I'm not sure how much or how little this is being talked about but a lot of people, environmental scientists, can't get behind veganism because it's one of many forms of post-modern white colonialism and an anti-indigenous ideology. The world was fine with meat-eating omnivores, it's the abuse, excess and other things that came with capitalism and industrialism that made food dirty and harmful to the planet, not eating meat itself. I highly recommend watching, listening and reading up on resources and content by indigenous creators and environmentalists who explain how veganism hurts the environment (basically that it disrupts how the food chain naturally works, among many other things). - From an environmental science postgrad themself (me) who believes that indigenous people have been and still are the best stewards of our planet.

[@TheWeekIReview]

There was a version of this script where I explicitly acknowledged some version of this argument, actually, but the link to the subject was already tenuous enough as it was and I ultimately decided it didn't need more tangents. Like, obviously you are correct but it's also pretty beside the point in the reality of 2021, right? If factory farms didn't exist, the vast majority of my ethical concerns re: meat would go away... but I don't see how that happens without completely removing meat from people's diets because there's too many people who would want it and not enough places to ethically raise them for it (this is part of the problem with organic farming, right?). Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that virtually everything modern societies do hurts the environment and a lot of those natural chains are long since destroyed, so even if society could make a clean break from capitalist excess right now, how well would 7 billion people be served by a return to systems that assumed the world wasn't fucked?

[@rianneroo]

@@TheWeekIReview I was presented with the same argument by someone who lives in the US (I live in Southeast Asia). I was saddened when they told me this, and that almost all accessible food is not from people's actual farms, which is not a problem where I live, farming here has pretty much been "traditional." It's quite interesting how we have access (and the lack of it) to different things. I do understand that some people's intentions are good and as someone in the field, I acknowledge any effort people take to be greener (yes, I'm against gatekeeping and shaming people for not being green enough so I was hats off to you on the bit you said about vegans who bash those who aren't). Thank you for responding to me. And if it isn't obvious, I absolutely love your channel and think you should have more subs.

[@mylifeinletterbox]

I love your content and really think you are one of the best creators on the platform right now. I appreciate the bluntness of the video, and it is making me reevaluate the choices i have made while consuming art. Particularly I'm currently thinking about how I purchased and watched the criterion blu ray of Rosemary's baby, under the thought process of separating art from artist and educating myself about classic horror. But I refuse to watch Jeepers Creepers because of Victor Salva? I don't at all understand how my brain differentiated those two. I've always wanted to try and separate the art from artist, especially in film, because there are more people that go into making a film than one person. But even ignoring the fact that Polanski DIRECTED the film, even if i think I'm supporting the cast or the composer or the cinematographer etc, I'm still supporting Polanski in the end. Fuck me. This video really made me sick.

[@TheWeekIReview]

Well... I'm sorry I made you feel that way, but it's good that you're thinking about it that way now. What's done is done, and what matters is where we go in the future, right? thumbsup.jpg