3,938 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Nov 12, 2017 18:36:37 GMT
It also leads to the bigger question as we move forward, what happens to a persons body of work? Will the BBC never show a weinstein or spacey movie again? What about the other people involved in those projects, should their work never be shown because of one member of the cast or crew? Are people not allowed to watch a piece of entertainment again because one person has committed a crime? If so, a lot of tv shows, films and yes theatre shows will vanish. It could result in a very reduced down arts scene. This reminds me of looking up Mabel Normand recently, after seeing the Mack & Mabel concert at the Hackney Empire, and reading that many of her films weren't seen for decades because her co-star Roscoe Arbuckle was accused of rape and, although eventually acquitted, his reputation was destroyed so any films with him in were blacklisted. So it's happened before.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 13, 2017 8:17:54 GMT
You can, but if you have any sort of moral sense at all you wouldn't, because you're essentially saying "I don't care who gets hurt so long as I get what I want". That's not really any different from the purported attitudes of the people who are being attacked. When someone stops caring whether someone is innocent or not — if they ignore the possibility that they might be wrong — then as far as I'm concerned they've lost any right to claim to be civilised. I could turn that around on you exactly, though. That if you permit people who have been accused of horrible crimes to continue in their careers because it couldn't be proved to a jury - and we do know that in many cases it doesn't even get to a jury, because it's just so hard on victims - you are saying you don't care who they might have hurt as long as you get the entertainment you want. And let's not forget we are talking about a climate where the likes of Weinstein and Spacey had many, many victims, and many people knew or had heard about it. Agents sent actresses into hotel-room meetings with Weinstein even when other clients had told them what happened in them. Life is not fair. The universe is not naturally just. So what we are talking about is who we would rather bear the burden of that unfairness. For a very long time now the unfairness has fallen disproportionately on the vulnerable and the victims. Changing that may mean that it falls on the occasional innocent man - although that has yet to be seen, note, we haven't actually had a verified false accusation yet. I like neither of those options - I would far prefer to live in a fair world. But I can't pretend there isn't a choice to make between them. If we apply your logic, and assertion that false claims are really rare, how come Bill Clinton is still lauded on the political scene and his wife, who attacked his accusers (including one of rape) and so partly enabled his avoidance of punishment gets to stand for President ? Should no-one ever vote Democrat again ? Her dismissal of those claims with a curt "It's been litigated" is exactly what you are objecting too. The case of Leslie Grantham is interesting - as he was convicted and served a sentence for murder the BBC thought it OK to employ him. If Spacey or Weinstein is convicted then at that point does it become OK to watch their work ?
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Nov 13, 2017 9:21:59 GMT
There is a difference between an isolated murder by a teenage soldier and a lifetime of persistent abuse.
|
|