We have $162,320 to go in our Fall Campaign. Every penny is used to strengthen the Church. See details!
Click here to advertise on CatholicCulture.org

art for art's sake

By Diogenes (bio - articles ) | Feb 26, 2004

Should a film be used as the basis to retrieve the latent (as opposed to the overt) motives of a film-maker? Should the personal options, tastes, and flaws of the film-maker enter into our judgment of his film? For obvious reasons, these are hotly disputed questions these days. To film critic Tim Grierson, it's plain sailing:

For me, the answer is easy because I can separate the person from the artist. ... The artist creates art, while the human being mostly screws up his life and hurts those around him. One half of the person doesn't negate or excuse the other, but they should be judged on their own terms.

I'm not sure Grierson knows what he means by separating the person from the artist, but anyone willing to judge these "halves" of the human being on their own terms should also concede the distinction between a work of art and its maker. And by this reasoning, a philo-Semitic person might, for example, have reason to believe that Mel Gibson was in fact an anti-Semite and still find his film artistically valuable.

But Grierson in the quotation above is not referring to Gibson but to another film-maker, Roman Polanski. You may remember that Polanski had a weakness for underage girls, and after pleading guilty in 1978 to charges of statutory rape of a 13-year-old, jumped bail and fled the U.S. Grierson insists we should ignore these facts about Polanski and judge his films on their own merits; he argues that critics "are meant to honor innovation and talent, not to be moralists or cops."

So Mel Gibson gets a pass, right -- even if the charges of anti-Semitism should be on target? Well, that's not the way it works, apparently. In this case, the critics guild is allowed to probe the psyche of the artist and pronounce his work "the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of the Second World War." Not having seen the piece, I can't say whether the critic is right or wrong. My point is that there are two sets of rules in operation. It's a major no-no to judge Polanski's art by reference to Polanski's motives ("we're not moralists or cops"); it's OK to judge Gibson's motives by reference to Gibson's art.

But the cases aren't exactly parallel. Gibson, as far as I know, has never torched a synagogue, or vandalized a gravesite, or spray-painted a swastika on a wall; his sins, according to his accusers, consist of misplaced historical emphases. But Polanski committed -- and pleaded guilty to -- actual felonies. He was facing up to fifty years in prison when he skipped out. So, which artist is a threat to faith and morals?

(No fair peeking.)

An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:

Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!

Our Fall Campaign
Progress toward our year-end goal ($162,320 to go):
$200,000.00 $37,679.72
81% 19%
Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 3 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: Laertides - Feb. 27, 2004 11:24 AM ET USA

    From Maureen Dowd: "But this is a Mel Gibson film, so you come out wanting to kick somebody's teeth in. In "Braveheart" and "The Patriot," his other emotionally manipulative historical epics, you came out wanting to swing an ax into the skull of the nearest Englishman. Here, you want to kick in some Jewish and Roman teeth. And since the Romans have melted into history . . . " Maureen should speak for herself. She's been kicking in Roman teeth throughout her journalistic career.

  • Posted by: - Feb. 26, 2004 3:22 PM ET USA

    OK. So I peeked. Anyone want to guess the bio background of that writer? http://www.bpl.org/general/trustees/carroll.htm

  • Posted by: - Feb. 26, 2004 3:15 PM ET USA

    You're such a tease, Diogenes. But does anyone really need to peek?

Fall Campaign
Subscribe for free
Shop Amazon
Click here to advertise on CatholicCulture.org

Recent Catholic Commentary

A secret plot to control the Synod? No; it's not secret at all. 2 hours ago
What about Catholic affirmation for those in false marriages? 4 hours ago
Free eBook: Pope Francis' Catechesis on the Family October 7
The headlines say Gov. Brown is Catholic. He says he's not sure what that means. October 7
Archbishop predicts Synod won't change Church teaching. Why am I not reassured? October 7

Top Catholic News

Most Important Stories of the Last 30 Days
In Cuba, Pope emphasizes service to the vulnerable, praises thaw in US-Cuban relations CWN - September 21
Pope challenges America in speech to US Congress CWN - September 24
As Synod opens, Pope calls on Church to defend ‘unity and indissolubility’ of marriage bond CWN - October 5