Would you be willing to see Mel Gibson's new movie?

[yovargas]

Commissioned art can be as great or greater than a free expression. The thing about artists is they must express themselves. Whether by writing symphonies or by writing Tolkien fanfic is irrelevant. A commission may give a particular direction to that expression, and often imposing limitation on an artist seems to stimulate creativity.

But then what do you do with something like Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead? It is a novel, written because she wanted to make it (not supported by the as-yet-nonexistent Ayn Rand Society )... but also, it is pretty much just an excuse to play with her philosophy in novel form. Her characters each are designed to showcase a different aspect of what she thinks....a very intentional portrayal. I call it propaganda, but I realize that others might see it as art (it is an interesting and well-written book, after all).

I think this gets at the difference between allegory and applicability that Tolkien harped on in his intro to LotR - the former rests in the control of the author. If the artist is pulling puppet strings, you have a controling form of art, which veers into propoganda. If it is welling up from the heart and soul of the artist and just happens to shine through the work - that is something different.

I find this pretty odd. (And totally tangential so maybe a new thread is in order...wonder when V-man will stop by. )

I have recently begun to take seriously the idea of creating art. I have begun drawing/painting for the first time with the explicit intention of creating "art", instead of simply telling myself I was doodling or whatever. Everything I've done so far (which isn't much) has been "a very intentional portrayal" "designed to showcase a different aspect of what" I think. You seem to be criticizing this but what else could an artist do?

Btw, I was a very loyal Rand follower for a while. Her philosophy was (paraphrasing) that art should not represent the world as it is, it should represent the world as it should be. Thus her highly unrealistic house.

[Alatar]

Nel, I suppose this is a cultural thing also. In Ireland you can't be fired at will. Only gross misconduct could result in instant dismissal. Thats basically theft or violence. Sexual Harassment, or racial harassment has to be proven beyond doubt, and even then most companies would give at least one written warning (possibly after a verbal warning) before considering dismissal. And if they didn't, the labour court would likely overturn the dismissal. Here, employees have more rights than employers. Its the system I'm used to, and when I hear about summary dismissal in the U.S. it always horrifies me that people can be treated as disposable, as if they have no rights or responsibilities. Of course, this is all a discussion for another thread.

On the issue at hand, I would say you have every right to watch whatever you like. I just think its morally suspect to judge people based on the scant evidence that is presented in the press. I also find the idea of boycotting films or art senseless. If the film was one you would never have seen anyway, you're depriving the filmmaker of nothing, and if its one you would like to have seen you're depriving only yourself. It strikes me as an exercise in futility.

[Primula Baggins]

I just think its morally suspect to judge people based on the scant evidence that is presented in the press.

Alatar, will you take Gibson's own word for what happened? In his own press release, which I copy in its entirety below?

Mel Gibson's apology: full text
Statement released by Mel Gibson on August 1 over his tirade during drink-driving arrest

"There is no excuse, nor should there be any tolerance, for anyone who thinks or expresses any kind of anti-Semitic remark. I want to apologise specifically to everyone in the Jewish community for the vitriolic and harmful words that I said to a law enforcement officer the night I was arrested on a DUI charge.

"I am a public person, and when I say something, either articulated and thought out, or blurted out in a moment of insanity, my words carry weight in the public arena. As a result, I must assume personal responsibility for my words and apologise directly to those who have been hurt and offended by those words.

"The tenets of what I profess to believe necessitate that I exercise charity and tolerance as a way of life. Every human being is God’s child, and if I wish to honour my God I have to honour his children. But please know from my heart that I am not an anti-Semite. I am not a bigot. Hatred of any kind goes against my faith.

"I’m not just asking for forgiveness. I would like to take it one step further, and meet with leaders in the Jewish community, with whom I can have a one-on-one discussion to discern the appropriate path for healing.

"I have begun an ongoing program of recovery and what I am now realising is that I cannot do it alone. I am in the process of understanding where those vicious words came from during that drunken display, and I am asking the Jewish community, whom I have personally offended, to help me on my journey through recovery.

"Again, I am reaching out to the Jewish community for its help. I know there will be many in that community who will want nothing to do with me, and that would be understandable. But I pray that that door is not forever closed.

"This is not about a film. Nor is it about artistic license. This is about real life and recognising the consequences hurtful words can have. It’s about existing in harmony in a world that seems to have gone mad."

Link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 20,00.html

[yovargas]

Good apology.

[Alatar]

I don't want to derail this further on a "was he guilty or not", but all I can say is that there have been many times when I have apologised for things I was told I had done. If he was that drunk I seriously doubt he remembers any of it. All he can do is take it at face value and apologise as he has done. Like I say, I'm not here to defend the guy, I just know how twisted the press can be.

[anthriel]

Which is why I think perhaps he should be given something of another chance.

Being an idiot is pretty common. Facing it, admitting it, and asking for forgiveness from those you've hurt is actually fairly impressive, and quite a bit more rare.

Not everyone is taught tolerance... some people have to learn it. As I said before, his being "caught" saying such things may well be the best thing that ever happened to him.

[Alatar]

More importantly, have you noticed we have nearly the same postcount Anthy! Well, 13 out of 1650 is pretty damn close...

[vison]

The motive of the Artist is of no interest to me. The Work must stand on its own. I don't care why Ayn Rand wrote The Fountainhead, and furthermore, I don't need to know. I once loved the book, but I was only 14 or 15, and now I no longer love it so much, yet the ideas expressed in it have stayed with me, some of which I still adhere to.

I am no particularly fan of Wagner, but if I was, his personal beliefs and motives for creating his music should not concern me, all that need concern me is whether I like the music or not.

I don't grant this same grace to Mel Gibson, not because he's a creep, necessarily, but because I find his movies to be boring and overblown. The fact that he's a creep is really neither here nor there, and if he was a perfectly nice man the movies would still stink.

After LOTR was written and had become very popular, JRRT began to make noises about it being a "religious" book, and many people, including the tiresome C. S. Lewis, glommed hard onto that notion. Well, I think JRRT was being more than a little disingenuous, I think he was reacting to the book's fame and feeling that a "mere" wonderful story "ought" to have more solidity and philosophy behind it, and so he began to say it did. He became a bit of a revisionist about his own work and IMHO that was a mistake: LOTR stands alone and needs no support from anyone, not even the author.

Of course, the book was informed/grew out of his beliefs and ideas and desires and wishes, and since he had a profoundly "moral" view of life, that view necessarily appears - implicit - in his work. The mistake, and I think it is a mistake, is to say it is explicit.

[yovargas]

So your asnwer, vison, is if you wanted to see Mel's new movie, you would be willing to?

[MithLuin]

yov - I'm not saying how you should make art. I was trying to pinpoint what people would consider the 'line' between art and propaganda or hack work. All stories have a philosophy underlying them. The fact that Rand's was unique isn't what made me consider it propaganda. The reason I thought it had crossed over from "I'm writing a novel" to "I'm writing propaganda" is that her philosophy depends upon (and this is my high school understanding of it, bear with me) geniuses being given free reign. So, she wrote a persuasive book about why they should be, and it was written in such a way that the reader would identify with the geniuses. But in reality, most readers are not - they're just the commoners. So, I felt the premise of the book was a bit...deceptive. It was trying to get an idea out without (really) telling people what the idea was. Somehow.

It is true that if I were to write a novel, my characters would behave (more or less) according to my own philosophy. Well, in a way... I mean, I haven't written a novel, but in parts of my fanfiction my protagonist tortures and kills people, and there is a scene where he (in effect) beats a student. None of that lines up with my philosophy, but then, he's not me, so..... I don't know. I guess I am saying, characters have to be allowed to be characters; you can't keep them reigned in so tightly.

If you sat down and tried to draw "beauty" or "pain", whatever you did would be very intentional, trying to portray that as best you could capture it. I understand that. I guess my complaint is if you weren't 'honest' about it....if you went about it backwards, or something. But I'm not good at describing that process.


I guess what I am looking for is truth and honesty, but I don't know how you can judge that just by looking at the finished product. If the artist is guileless, what shows through will be honest. But if the artist is clever, it could appear honest without being so. I didn't reach my conclusion about Ayn Rand based on reading more about her - it was one girl in my class who read the book and said she felt talked down to the whole time (because she didn't identify with the geniuses). So....that sorta opened my eyes to what the book appeared, and what it actually was. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that there wasn't any real substance to the characters; they were 'merely' facets of an idea. It just seemed...lacking, somehow. It puzzled me.

I still think the book is well-written, but something about it just feels like "cheating" to me. I don't know what it is. It's just....not a story in its own right, maybe? It is all very fine for Roark to be in character and rape a woman he wants, and for Dominique to only submit to a man who rapes her. But...what is that saying? Where is the human part of that?

Art is probably best when it speaks of how the world ought to be. We already have the world as it is; no need to duplicate it .

[vison]

So your asnwer, vison, is if you wanted to see Mel's new movie, you would be willing to?

Yeah, I guess so, after all that palaver.

The thing is, Wagner is dead and gone and so is Ayn Rand and so is JRRT. It's a little easier in those cases.

But. I don't know. The thing is, I can't separate what I know about Gibson from his movies NOW, and I would have to hear from somone whose judgement I really really trusted as to whether this movie is worth seeing. If, for instance, YOU said it was, I might give it a shot: except that in Gibson's case, he makes such terrible movies and yet some perfectly normal people like them. It's like people who like U2 and Bono. They creep me out so bad I can hardly stand it, and yet people rave about the band and the music.

Tsk. Tsk.

I'm dithering.

[vison]

MithLuin, that was, as you mentioned earlier, Rand's belief: that Art ought to express what life OUGHT to be!

In Life, Rand said, one ignores the unimportant; in Art, one omits it.

She was a mishmash, actually. And my own personal admiration for her work went down about a zillion notches when I found out how she treated Nathaniel Branden's wife.

Jeez. I can't even be foolishly consistent.

[Faramond]

I'm all curious about Mel's movie now.

It's like people who like U2 and Bono. They creep me out so bad I can hardly stand it, and yet people rave about the band and the music.

Oooh, I'm glad my attempt to make a Halofirian song from "Where the Streets Have no Name" didn't work out, and I had to go with plan B!

[yovargas]

I would have to hear from somone whose judgement I really really trusted as to whether this movie is worth seeing. If, for instance, YOU said it was, I might give it a shot.

I love ya, vison, but I'm not one you should be trusting on this one. Not only did I love Braveheart, you must remember that I love PJ's LOTR. And "Where the Streets Have no Name" was in my list of Top 10 best songs of all time.


I'm still undecided on this issue, btw. Though emotionally, I still feel icky about the idea of seeing it.

[MithLuin]

I have no problem with U2, though I do get them mixed up with Creed, so I'm not sure what that says about me.... And Faramond, the alternative turned out awesome, so I'm glad it didn't work out .

Yeah, I don't disagree with what Ayn Rand said about Art, vison - I guess I was just restating that from your post . I just disagree with how she went about writing her story. It came across....like... ugh, I can't describe it.

Like this book: Arms of Love. <link>

That is propoganda. The characters are not real in any sense - they dance to the strings of the author's 'message'. I haven't read it, of course, but my sister's roommate forced her to. I was more than a little annoyed - my sister does not read novels (of any sort, at all), and this was what was being foisted on her? Please! (I have not even asked her to read LotR; I'm sure she never will) My sister was smart enough to know what type of book it was before she picked it up, but she had to go through with it (because she would be 'quizzed' later) - she vented to me while slogging through it, so I feel as if I know what it's about .

The difference between this and The Fountainhead is that the Fountainhead is wellwritten and thoughtprovoking. Whereas this is just....not

This might be what the author wishes life were like, but the book is still trash . There are "good girls" who reform "bad boys" - but it doesn't happen like this! Things are too perfect and convenient. The author thinks she has made the girl's family "real" because they have a minor disagreement/misunderstanding in one scene. But of course it is resolved by the end of the day and everyone is cheery and just great. The "relationship" she is propounding is all one way; there is not an organic growth of two characters, but rather one leading the other around by his nose until he wakes up and gets with her program. Cause that's how real relationships progress

So, art isn't wishful thinking - it has to have some connection to reality and truth, even if it does show us things we'll never just see on our own. I know I will never meet anyone who is Faramir or Maedhros (thank God! ), but I think there is something true in each of those characters, and so I can accept them for who they are, within the story.

Does that make any sense?


yov, if it makes you feel icky, don't do it. Your gut is probably telling you something. Seriously, after all the hype dies down in a few months, you can reevaluate your decision. Maybe by then some other Hollywood celebrity will have done something even more dispicable. Maybe Mel Gibson will dig himself further into a hole. Maybe the Anti-Defamation League will come out with a statement that they think he's swell (well, not too likely...) Who knows? But you will probably be more likely to make the right decision then, when you aren't torn by the "havta see it now!" tug.

[vison]

Good post, MithLuin.

However. Taste is a very subjective thing. There are those who think, for instance, that Jerry Lewis is funny, and there are those, like me, who think he's not. To put it mildly!

There are those -- and they are legion -- who think LOTR is trash. So go figure.

[Primula Baggins]

Jerry Lewis creeps me out and always has, since I was a mere tot.

No, we are lucky to live in a world where there is something for everyone. Even if that means that not everyone feels the way we do about our something.

There is such an abundance out there of books and films and music and paintings and sculpture and every kind of art or craft, that I am willing to respect anyone's reasons for not liking or even for avoiding anything, even something I myself love.

There's just too much. You have to choose somehow.

[MithLuin]

[ tangent]

Surely protesting against George Bush would be a better use of your time and effort? He interferes in your lives daily.

Erm...no he doesn't. He's pretty much off my radar. I don't think about him or talk about him, nor do I have a clue what he's doing most days. I really don't see any impact at all.

Even something like No Child Left Behind barely impacts me. I think about the government when I pay speeding tickets and taxes. But the state sales tax has nothing to do with the guy in the White House!

[ /tangent]

[Inanna]

That was my point. If the person doesn't exhibit racist behavior AT WORK, then there should be no problem.

But suppose you knew the guy attended some "anti-someone-or-other" meetings, meetings where YOUR "group" was specifically hated? What then? It might very well make you uncomfortable in the workplace, but do you have anything to complain about? I say not.

Nope. I don't - I agree with that. What the guy does outside of work is none of my business.

Regarding Ayn Rand, what is wrong with projecting a philiosophy in a book? How is it different from writing a philosophical book?

It is all very fine for Roark to be in character and rape a woman he wants, and for Dominique to only submit to a man who rapes her. But...what is that saying? Where is the human part of that?

You've touched upon the part which I have always had problems with in the book.

Later on in life, when I could view Any Rand and the Fountainhead more objectively - and was at the mature stage (???) where I could pick and choose things on my own from writings - I often wondered what Ayn Rand felt about herself as a woman to ascribe that behavior to her "heroine".

[MithLuin]

Especially as she once described her as "me on a bad day"

The difference is in intent. We all have philosophies of life, so if we tell a story, the story will reflect that philosophy. All books have philosophy, to some extent.

What makes me pick on The Fountainhead and Arms of Love is the intent - these books were written not to tell a story, but to convince. The 'propoganda' is in the approach. Ayn Rand wasn't telling a story using her philosophy - she was selling her philosophy using her story. That bothered me.

The philosophy bothered me too, but that is a separate issue. That's why I found something that I didn't totally disagree with as my second example. I dated a guy for 5 months before kissing him once; I can see the value in developing a romantic relationship with physical boundaries. But I still don't like attempting to 'justify' that with a self-congratulatory story.....

The rape scene drove home to me that while this made perfect sense within the story, it made no sense in reality. Now, I would say that she had a flawed understanding of, well, human beings, and that something that makes us human, something fundamental, was missing from her story and (presumably) her philosophy. That lack of truth means that I'm not going to call it great art, but I wouldn't label it propoganda just because it lacked the ring of truth.

You can try to sell ideas, there's nothing wrong with that. Proselytizing is (in most cases) perfectly fine. But don't masquerade your sales pitch as art.


As for Dali - I like some of his less surrelistic work, but some of his stuff is downright disturbed. He appeared to be a very complicated man - I can only hope he ended on a good note.