San Francisco Chronicle - (Sunday)
MICK LASALLE
Hi Mick: Do you think it is valid to hold an artist’s past against them when evaluating their art (Roman Polanski, Leni Riefenstahl)?
Dave Sironen, San Francisco
Hi Dave: Any response to art is valid, in that people have a right to their own responses — you can’t tell people how they should feel. As for me, I generally have no problem enjoying the art of people I find morally objectionable. I realize some will say, for example, that to enjoy Polanski’s work is to condone or excuse Polanski’s actions, but I don’t believe that. What Polanski did was revolting — and “The Pianist” is a great movie. Kevin Spacey is not my idea of a good person, but he’s a good actor. These facts seem to me irrefutable, and I don’t see any obligation to ignore or condemn the best things a person does because I don’t like the worst things that they do.
Should there be a limit? Perhaps. And if you concede that, then drawing that line becomes a personal issue. For example, even if you’re willing to enjoy the work of Leni Riefenstahl, would you want to watch a great movie that was written and directed by Adolf Hitler? Or Charles Manson? Or Osama bin Laden? I wouldn’t. But I would also say that these Hitler, Manson and bin Laden masterpieces could only exist in theory, not reality. Some imaginations are so evil and so thoroughly diseased that there is no possibility of their ever producing humane and beautiful work.
For the Richard Wagners of the world, for the Spaceys — for all those great artists who are clearly notgood people, they demonstrate something that anyone who works inside a prison can tell you, which is that most human beings, even those who have done heinous things, aren’t entirely bad. For some reason, conservatives find that hard to believe about recidivist criminals, and politically correct liberals find that hard to believe about morally objectionable artists, but it doesn’t matter what we choose to believe.
The human soul is complex, mysterious and vast. We don’t need to be so delicate as to shelter ourselves from that obvious truth.
Querido Mick: Does it bother you that most movies are about wealthier people who face no financial hardships?
Tom Weverka, San Francisco
Querido Tom: Sometimes, but I understand it. Just as money makes life easier, money makes storytelling easier. Unless your movie is specifically about the phenomenon of being broke — as in “Wendy and Lucy” — having a broke protagonist is a nuisance. For example, your protagonist wants to ask a woman out to dinner — oops, but he has no money. You devise a situation in which a woman must fly to New York tomorrow — oops, but she can’t afford a plane ticket. You want characters to be able to do the things you imagine them doing. It just makes it easier to write the story.
Dear Mick: I took umbrage at the reader who called you “minor and misguided.” I think you are a literary lion.
Rocky Leplin, Richmond
Dear Rocky: Well, thanks. But just between us, because no one else is reading this, the whole point of printing hate mail is, in fact, to engender appreciation and kind feelings in readers. Most people tend to be contrary, and so the more nasty the mail and the more forbearing my response, the more I get to go through the week in a warm bath of approval and commiseration. Conversely, if I’m running out of hate mail, all I have to do is print a nice comment like yours, and the floodgates will open. So, actually, running hate mail is a sneaky and immaculately disguised way of being selfserving. Just don’t tell anybody.
Have a question? Ask Mick LaSalle at mlasalle@sfchronicle.com. Include your name and city for publication, and a phone number for verification. Letters may be edited for clarity and length.