The Cost Of A Career: Elia Kazan & The Death Of The Author
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июл 2024
- [CONTENT WARNING: Discussion of sexual assault/rape; images of racism/bigotry]
[SPOILERS: A Streetcar Named Desire (1951), On The Waterfront (1954), Goodfellas (1990)]
Though he may not be the first name that comes to mind when discussing the most influential figures in the cinematic world, Elia Kazan, whether you have heard his name before or not, could arguably be said to have had more of an impact on American cinema of the last half century than any other individual... but did said impact come at a cost? This essay serves as both a profile of Elia Kazan and his career and a case study in discussing the concept of "The Death Of The Author" and its numerous complexities.
Patreon: / macabrestorytelling
Twitter: / macabstory
[00:00] - Intro
[04:08] - I. The Career
[08:05] - II. The Cost
[17:31] - III. The Conundrum
[31:12] - Outro/Patrons
VIDEOS:
1962 Kazan Interview: • Elia Kazan - Interview...
Kazan at the Actor's Studio: • Video
Lee Strasberg teaching Method Acting: • Lee Strasberg on Actin...
Martin Scorsese on "On The Waterfront": • Martin Scorsese and Ke...
Kazan Lifetime Achievement Oscar: • Elia Kazan receiving a...
Orson Welles on Kazan: • Orson Welles on Elia K...
Army Archerd on Kazan: • Army Archerd on Elia K...
Richard Dreyfuss on Kazan: • Richard Dreyfuss Talks...
Protesting Against Kazan Oscar: • USA: HOLLYWOOD: REACTI...
Vivien Leigh Oscar Win: • Vivien Leigh Wins Best...
Kim Hunter Oscar Win: • Kim Hunter Wins Suppor...
Karl Malden Oscar Win: • Karl Malden Wins Suppo...
Herbert Biberman & HUAC: • Herbert Biberman HUAC ...
Ronald Reagan & HUAC: • Ronald_Reagan HUAC Tes...
Walt Disney & HUAC: • 1947 Walt Disney Testi...
Martin Gottfried on Kazan: • Martin Gottfried on El...
1978 Kazan Interview: • Elia Kazan interview a...
Marlon Brando Oscar Win: • Marlon Brando Wins Bes...
"On The Waterfront" Wins Best Picture: • On the Waterfront Wins...
Kazan Wins Best Director for "On The Waterfront": • Elia Kazan Wins Best ...
"Birth of a Nation" Clip: • 1915 Film "The Birth o...
Roman Polanski Wins Best Director 2003: • Roman Polanski winnin...
Adrian Brody Wins Best Actor 2003: • Adrien Brody Wins Best...
"French Oscars" Walkout: • Walkouts at 'French Os...
MUSIC:
"Anytime" by Eddie Fisher: • "Anytime Eddie Fisher
"Immer wieder Rhythmus" by Willy Berking: • Willy Berking - Immer ...
"Stan Meets Blanche" by Alex North · Jerry Goldsmith · National Philharmonic Orchestra: • Stan Meets Blanche
"Glove Scene" by Leonard Bernstein: • Glove Scene
"Danse Macabre" by Kevin Macleod: • "Danse Macabre" Kevin ... 
Кино
It seems like he's justifying it to himself that he made the right choice
Same to me in retrospect.
@@MacabreStorytelling Kazan was right for what he did the organisation was already inciting riots even back then. McCarthyism didn’t go far enough that’s why you see mask off communists pushing cultural Marxism and socialism openly.
@@benjamin1403 : Agreed, but with the caveat that "McCarthyism" was a clever meme of the latter-day "Bolsheviks," as was the counter-accusation that HUAC and McCarthy were engaged in a "witch hunt."
The former suggested that there was some sinister conspiratorial cabal of McCarthyists, and the latter suggests that the existence of card-carrying Communists was as unreal as dangerous covens of witches and warlocks in the Dark Ages!
If he were talking about Nazis or the KKK would you have a problem with his testimony?
What about the Hollywood communists who backed Stalin, who've never apologized?
Understandably. It was likely the biggest and most important decision of his adult career.. In November 2023 we see people openly being blacklisted for A LOT LESS than EK was ever accused of. Food for thought?
Damn, learned about him in film study class, in high school.
And you uploaded when I just got of class
Likewise
When I was younger and engaging in fandom, one of the best things for me, was seeing what other readings people can gather from a particular text or piece of media. Seeing the interpretations, the parallels to other media or real world topics, etc. And I also liked hearing about the inspirations and ideas behind the the creators and their art.
But another thing I noticed and participated in fandom is just the way we will sort of reject the intent or even parts of the story when we collectively see them as bad. Something I believe very much lines up with death of the author. It’s something that I’ve always carried with me when it comes to fiction as I can enjoy something that is bad but sort of substitute what I don’t like with what other fans have to offer
However, living in the times that we do where more and more we become aware of the horrific actions or ideologies an a creator can carry. When they’re living, and you support them in some way from your monetary contribution, the guilt that you can carry sometimes weighs heavily. It feels like you are brushing aside the pain and harm someone has caused, and you feel like you’re contributing to these people getting away with their behavior and actions.
I think back to Lindsey Ellis’s discussion on the subject, in how when media we love engages in horrible practices, it hurts us in a way that the same behavior from say a store or bank can. We have emotions tied to it, it inspired us in many ways, it helped us through times when we needed escapism.
So with this long, poorly thought out and organized comment,
we can admire and draw inspiration from the works of horrible people, both in their accomplishments and working to understand and discuss the way it can perhaps be reflected in their work. as in the case in Kazan.
Their are multiple lenses to which we analyze and critique media, and in some cases that means looking into the background and worldview of the creator , to understand the perspective they came from and how it affects themes, framing, and characterization
Elia Kazan should have just admitted the truth-it was them or me and I chose me. Another great video, keep 'em coming.
'If you think you know what you would have done, does it come with a cost?'
Well that's always the essential question, isn't it?
Impossible to separate the art from the artist. Art is a reflection of artist, because in the process of making it the artist exposes part of their soul. Art can be made cynically, and some art is more personally motivated than others, but the vast majority expose some part of their creator.
There's a reason George R R Martin's works always contain an unrequited love, or falling out of love. There's a reason George Lucas made the main theme of Star Wars about letting go, and centered the conflict between those able and not able to accomplish this. There's a reason for all the choices an artist makes in crafting their work, to praise only the work rather than the artist devalues the accomplishments of the artist.
It is not impossible to separate the art from the artist. After knowing Roman Polanski is disgusting piece of trash, won't stop from re watching The Pianist. Yes art is a reflection of the artist but that won't stop a person from appreciating the art without considering the artist's life.
Saying it's impossible is really intellectually dishonest and lazy. Once you put something into the world it's like having children, you don't own it and you don't dictate it's entire life or it's relationship to other people. Humans are complicated and capable of having difficult emotions about art.
Edit to add George didnt write star wars alone he just wants people to forget his wife had a huge impact on it.
But what if I don't know anything about the artist? What if somehow I have gone through all these years without knowing anything about Polanski or Woody Allen or Elia Kazan? Not only can I still enjoy the films, I can enjoy them without any judgement. It's hypothetical, I know, but not completely. I saw On The Waterfront years before I knew about the details of Elia Kazan. I loved the movie. Thought it was powerful and stunning. I still think that.
Can you separate the artist from their art?
It's a discussion me and my friends have been having for the past 25 years. I've changed my position a couple of times during those years, but here's where I'm at now, at 45:
It's subjective, case-by-case and contextual :)
Let's say you're enjoying a painting. It's your favourite painting. Then, a couple of years later you find out Hitler painted it.
Depending on your age and culture that info means different things to you, as an individual.
The same goes for all art.
That said, I think one of the many good things to come out of the MeToo-movement was the discussion of the "male genius" - the fact that organisations, such as movie studios, but certainly not limited to them, continues to employ, and oftentimes even obfuscate or enable, horrible behaviour, just because someone is a gifted & profitable artist/creator.
And that shit needs to be called out.
See, it's easy to be all like "art is in a vaccuum" when you personally didn't have your family member sexually assaulted by a Weinstein or a Polanski, or when J.K Rowling turns out to be a TERF, but it's not. It never is. Art, as all human endeavours, is intrinsically linked to you, your social group, your culture, and the time you live in.
Also, why not get rid of the assholes? There are plenty nice ppl out there making great art, how about rewarding that behaviour instead?
Problem being that the nice people may hide the biggest atrocities, assuming those are ever exposed at all.
@@commandercaptain4664 that’s innocent until proven guilty. Worth to keep in mind but not a reason to not get rid of proven assholes because everyone could technically be a sociopath
Why get rid of assholes? Who are we to silence the voice of someone? You definately can remove the art from the artist. It no longer is them. It is an emblem that they create that we pin a meaning to. The only thing that changes is if you pay for their art or pirate it as to not support them. All art is morally neutral.
Who are you and what towering piece of art like streetcar, or east of eden, maybe waterfront...your are some nobody shitting on people who have more talent in there pinky that you have in your whole body!
Another banger of a video! Awesome! I learn so much from these!
Brutal video man. Thanks for this.
Man, this channel is awesome. It always makes me think and learn and for that I thank you Macabre
😊
In Russia, where history of political pressure and terror is significant, I often go to the words of Nadezhda Mandelshtam, the widow of a great Russian poet Joseph Mandelshtam, who was destroyed by stalinist totalitarian machine. She said that the accountability should not be on those cracking under political oppression but those doing the cracking.
HUAC hearings were acts of government terror against its people and I do not see how Kazan being weak in face of such circumstances makes him morally reprehensible.
Again, you mentioned sexual assault , which I think is a very different story. In the assault situation the predator is operating in position of power and should be held accountable.
Then again, I think that the right way to go is to be clear and fair about the merits of his work and his personality and let individual people pass judgement.
this is a good point. but I think what really makes him reprehensible is how he continued to double down on his decision, he kinda went above and beyond just ratting out his friends. which I think is more just a show of his character, he shouldn't be held accountable for what the government was doing at the time, the way he acted just showed what kind of person he was
Boris Yusufov: There was nothing comparable about the purges of Stalin's Soviet Russia in the '30s and the HUAC hearings of the '40s and '50s. To indulge in the conceit that both represent examples of state "terror" is to engage in the deception of false equivalence that is the stock-in-trade of "Bolshevik" propaganda pretending to be scientific social analysis.
What is outrageous is the inversion of moral values by the Hollywood tribe such that the gangster ethics of "snitches get stitches" is elevated above truth-telling.
that randall intro just made love your channel even more :) keep up the great work
I got recommended your video on Tyrion today and thought it was excellent and had this recommended a few hours later. Your videos are absolutely excellent. The jokes never take away from your points and the content is insiteful without coming across as remotely pretentious. Already subscribed and looking forward to watching your backlog
❤️❤️❤️
regardless of how i feel about kazan, i think you are right that it was in self preservation, your video was extremely well done and interesting. i had not heard of this saga before
❤
I think "Death of the author" is a tactic to apply to a work as a reader and not when it comes time to give out awards. Directors and writers can learn a lot from the works of terrible people. But how many great works were never made, because Kazan helped HUAC censor his colleagues? Some people will never be able separate the author and the work. Imagine what Boots Riley would say about "On the waterfront" or what Spike Lee would say about "The birth of a nation".
Spike Lee actually referenced Birth of a Nation in Blackkklansmen.
Idk who this is, but ever since Lindsay Ellis put me on death of the author, I’ve been hooked
No clue who Elia is, but I’m gonna watch this anyway. Also, K I N O intro, Mac!
Same here
Same
He directed On The Waterfront, which I consider to be one of the best 1950s films ever made.
@@markparkinson6947 Marlon brando, pigeons and unions?
@@GuinessOriginal Yep. 😊
“I coulda been a contender! I could have had class! I could have been somebody!”
There are levels to this conversation, a saving yourself vs protecting those around you AND for what reason, a seeming lack of any remorse for the friendships lost combined with an almost fetishization of his own actions in film form as if to congratulate himself, him being a rather...bad friend to those around him, the idea of idolization from those he inspired who would later replace him in spite of his actions, how much he pushed the medium forward and gave so many opportunities, it's...complicated.
I can't blame anyone for thinking he doesn't deserved to be honored, I'm not confident I'd exactly be up clapping with half this info in head(maybe a silent nod or a sitting golfclap?) And I can't totally agree with what he did given what insight and context there is, but I can easily see the other side of the line as well.
I think there is a reasonable line between art and artist you can draw if needed without moral conflict, espcially if they aren't solely responsible for the work, but once that line is crossed, I'm not sure even a masterpiece could justify supporting them. Kazan might not cross that line for me even with all he's done, but he's not really that far off.
I've watched some of your content ever since I stumbled across your channel by pure accident, but I can safely say you're easily the best channel on RUclips when it comes to these detailed and carefully researched long format video essays. And to think we get to enjoy these world class scholarly works for free😉 It's a great time to be alive!
Edit: The day I can afford it, I'll become a Patreon. 👍🏿
❤❤❤
This seems to be one of the most self-aware critiques and discussions of a heavy topic I have seen in quite some time. Fantastic video, you should be proud.
❤️
HUAC destroyed so many lives I hope it wont be used again.
I doubt that. HUAC will always be around just in a different shape and form.
@@TalonsofWater ;(
This is the best video explaining the “separate the art from the artist” debate.
Great video, even if I know all the context behind it On the Waterfront is still a fantastic film. I wonder, are we going to get more director-specific videos in the future on your channel, or just one-offs on topics you're interested in until another series of videos?
Oh man. The good ole red scare.
It’s hard to pass judgement on the people in the audience when Kazan won his honorary Oscar, though I think Scorsese overreacted when Nick Nolte remained seated and silent. I saw a few people standing but not smiling, which I feel like is the best middle ground gesture to acknowledge his work’s impact without applauding his character. As much as Kazan’s egotism is cringeworthy, it made sense for him to be all about his own self-preservation in the climate around HUAC and the Red Scare. I think Woody Allen and Roman Polanski would be more difficult to maintain a middle ground response.
Agreed -even within Kazan's own immediate circle of people blaming him, Clifford Odets or Arthur Miller don't have the moral high ground to lecture about how to treat people given their own histories,particularly relative to women (Frances Farmer and Marilyn Monroe respectively come to mind). They're infinitelymore worthy of a "Death of the Author" argument given that their own faults came from a situation of relative power/control/lack of concern for others and Kazan's was a matter sheer self-preservation in which case its honestly difficult to answer how any of us would react in the same situation (obviously we'd like to think we'd handle it better but there's no way to know)
Woody Allen was investigated twice (long, thorough investigations) and had a couple of hostile to him DAs on the case, yet neither they nor the teams and teams of experts (physicians, psychologists, police investigators , social services investigators, child-psychologists, clinicians, child services, et al) could find something, or, failing that, make up something, to charge him with and send him to trial. Funnily enough, those who accuse him of being guilty of this one accusation, do all their accusing through the huge media platforms of their friends and cronies, but could never take their accusations to a court of law (civil action) where they would have to testify under oath. Polanski, on the other hand, was charged and found guilty of the rape of a minor. Years after he was exonerated, he and his wife, Soon-Yi Previn, adopted two baby girls (young women now). No state adoption service would have allowed such adoptions to go ahead had there been even the slightest whiff of child abuse about the applicant. Thankfully , such state agencies do not go by media orchestrated pile-ons but by the findings of their own investigations and tests. Collapsing Allen and Polanski together is most unconscionable (but it is carelessly done all the time).
@@allegory6393 Relax woody Allen isn't fuck you man no matter how much you twerk for him
19:12 Same. Happened to me when re-watched Pulp Fiction last year.
Damn man I thought horror storries finally upload something again, but you what its still great
Incredibly well made and thought provoking short. Well done!
My position is that one can acknowledge that a work is accomplished without making a deity of the artist, and it’s for the best that we don’t build a mythos of particular greatness around an artist. Typically success is a matter of many factors, the time, the people one knows, and the general opportunity.It’s a combination of talent, hard work and luck and sometimes only one or two of the three is enough. I think it’s considered especially heinous when the figure tries to portray themself as more moral than they necessarily are. We don’t tend to go as hard on celebrities who do bad things but don’t have this presumption in their persona. There’s an appeal to knocking one off a pedestal.
1) loved watching this...video-essay-lecture-thing? what do you call it/this?
1b) as an author now yourself?
2) editing/sequencing was really engaging
3) what is your final position here?
3b) “it depends” is every lawyer’s favorite response
3c) “cost" is every economist’s favorite response
4) Would be neat to see you reply to Lindsay Ellis, “Death of the Author,” Dec31, 2018
1c) genuinely enjoyed. keep it up. 10/10 recommend.
~knot
It's interesting when also examining historical and public figures who may have accomplished great things, but also committed horrible acts. Does the value of there contributions outweigh whatever awful things they may have done? Should we still teach about them in schools, grant them public platforms, and praise them? The answer is different for ever person and circumstance, but I do think we romanticize public figures to much. I'm not saying we shouldn't respect or praise people who do great things, but perhaps we should stop placing them on a pedestal as the all around automatic ideal.
I've been actually struggling with this moral dilemma of separating the person from his art for a while now. A good example of an actor who made me question myself with this issue was kevin spacey, I still don't know how I feel about his work. I feel like we should always praise the artist and not the person, but learning about the person behind it clouds my judgement everytime.
Edit: maybe kevin spacey was a bit extreme of an example, if the artist is just an asshole who hasn't committed a crime I can look at his work without thinking of this moral dilemma just fine, but when a person straight up abuses or rape someone is definitely harder to praise his work outside the person.
And if you look at IMDb you'll see that Kevin Spacey is working again and found people to work with. I have no mixed feelings about watching The Usual Suspects or L.A. Confidential or K-Pax or Horrible Bosses again but I don't think I could watch something new with him in it.
But when it comes to someone like Woody Allen I feel there is far too much "he said"/"she said" there, too many contaminated memories, too much toxicity, for anyone to come to any conclusion as to what happened or didn't happen. I remember in the 1980s, hundreds of kids in California being convinced by child psychologists that they'd witnessed something as ridiculous as satanic human sacrifices in the basements of their daycare centers. Memories, especially little kids' memories are incredibly malleable. If it gets good reviews I'll watch the next Woody Allen film is what I'm saying.
I find it apsurd that i watched mostly all of his major and capital films,and still didn't have a clue about The Testament and his invovement in the red scare.Thank you for enlightenment,keep making this high quality content!
❤️
The Grandfather of Method acting
Another banger
You always have interesting and rational takes on issues worth addressing. As an aside, I wonder if any acts of contrition by these figures such as Kazan should be worthy of redemption. If he had come out with a full-throated apology and made active steps of restitution to those he affected, should he be forgiven? What would be sufficient means of apology?
Well said. Honestly, it seemed like, from the video, more people stood and applauded Polanski then they did for Kazan. Idk if I can pass judgement as I am not sure who and who were not in attendance, but the concept of "forgiveness" is quite odd in the industry. If Kazan had come out in say the 70s or 80s saying how much he regretted what he did? Even if he didn't mean it, I honestly don't know if that would have changed anything.
I'm starting to wonder if there is such a thing as "too big to absolve".
@Tom Ffrench I think the concept of redemption is obfuscated by people's desire for what they believe to be the outcomes or results of redemption.
To be redeemed, the person simply has to change into a person who can be properly separated from one's past actions. A person who commits violence choosing pacifism. A liar who commits to a life of truth etc.
But redemption is for the redeemed. Justice and forgiveness is for the victim. The redeemed have no right to a guarantee of forgiveness, and even if they live the rest of their life in penance, it doesn't erase what they've already done. Redemption is an intrinsic pursuit, not an extrinsic one. Its value can't be measured by the anticipation of being forgiven, but the desire to do right even if you aren't. Otherwise can you really even say you redeemed yourself?
Who likes On The Waterfront? I know I do.
You’re analysis on Elia Kazan is so eye-opening, and very much informative. After finished it, it really let me questioned about what length can somebody would have the will to sacrifice those that he/she care about for over recognition. Well-done, good sir.
I will always stand on the side of Death of the Author, people can and do many terrible things in their lives but humans are capable of good as well, if I can appreciate flawed and dark characters in fiction can I not apply to the author of such characters as well? If a story, a game, a song is good then it is and the person who made deserves that credit, it does not absolve them of other wrongs they have done but it shows that these people who otherwise we might scorn and disregard did at something of value. Its also important to note, many authors may be guilty of terrible crimes and you know, you praise their work but if you knew additional information would that change you opinion? If the work is good then it is and the author should be credited for it nothing more, nothing less.
I thought this was common knowledge since it’s required to understand the crucible, but looking back in that literature class, I now remember that half the students were sleeping while our teacher discussed his Oscar
It's the man on stage, not his body of work, recieving the trophy. Give lifetime achievements in questionable cases like this after the person's death, and as a result remove all ambiguity.
I would have stayed seated.
But I would have stood and applauded a celebration of his work after his death.
Great video! I had no idea about Kazan before I saw this and now I know a very important part of cinema history. Great subject for a video like this, hope to see more from you in the future!
❤
This is all I want to talk about now - I agree with the hypothesis that ultimately I believe he did what he did to save his own career - I remember watching those Oscars and my dad saying “they had to sit - he named names” - very black and white to dad and also my introduction to Kazan so I think it’s always influenced my opinion of him and conceivably why I think of them as Brando or Dean movies more so than Kazan movies (not something I’d do with other directors mind you)
Watching this back, it seems to me that there's an inherent difference between celebrating the art and celebrating the artist - and the important question is which goal the Oscars is attempting to achieve. I think that even if the "mission statement" of the Oscars is to celebrate the art, at the end of the day those prizes go to people. Remaining seated in protest of an individual's actions seems more than fair when they're about to be lauded for their feats. But in a completely separate environment, objectively reviewing a film, at that point the author's intentions only provide an alternative lens of analysis for looking at their art, I don't think their moral character implicitly taints their art. That's my take, at least.
It is impossible to separate Eliah Kazan, his personality, his life story as an Immigrant, becoming an amazing Theatre Actor and Director; later producing some of the most innovative films of his time, still modern today ✨ Let’s separate an Artist’s life from his work. All artists are humans, controversial and they all make mistakes. Let’s try and understand the complexities of those times (and of Kazan’s personality).
Excellent video Macabre. It's definitely a difficult topic that has a lot of subjective weight to it. I think an easier way to frame it is through the lens of the sports world (I know you mentioned it briefly near the end of the video). In most officiated sports, the "greats" in each sport are fairly easy to recognize (stats namely). However, many "greats" in sports have had checkered pasts; the most recent one that comes to mind is Cristiano Ronaldo.
Ronaldo recently (within the past 2 years) came under scrutiny due to allegations of sexual assault and settling those allegations financially. Now, the question is: does Ronaldo being a (possible) perpetrator of sexual assault mean his ability and successes on the soccer field should be downplayed? The answer to that is clearly no; since his stats speak for themselves, and praising his ability on the pitch is not equivalent to praising his character.
Another case is Mike Tyson. He's gone to jail for rape, and has been arrested numerous times. Does his criminal past mean he isn't one of the heavyweight boxing greats? Of course not. Should you look up to him as a person? Probably not. Should you look up to him as an athlete? Yeah, that's probably fine.
All in all, it boils down to whether or not the individual thinks that praising any component of someone is akin to praising their character (in my opinion, it's not). It's somewhat similar to idea of not glorifying a "bad" protagonist (i.e. Arthur Fleck from "Joker"). That could be another interesting video idea, about how "glorification" of certain people/groups/ideas in movies is not actually glorifying. Just a though.
Anyways, great video as always :).
If Ronaldo was a black American sports star in the 80s and 90s he'd be in jail for rape. If he was a 4th division footballer today he'd be in jail for rape
You don't have to down play the achievements but you also do have to put them in the spot light. Also it's not appropriate or necessary to give them a platform
I heard of him! It’s a shame how he was treated. I want to find and watch street car named desire. He should come to the limelight again. Great work in the video
If he had to pick between either jail, or folding to the Committee's demands, then I wouldn't blame him for folding.
You can talk all you want about principles and solidarity, but not everyone would want to risk their freedom or career when put in such a conundrum.
Good Take ThePooper3000
I think it's also the attitude afterward that made things worse. If he was remorseful , I think it would be totally different. But no he made a film about how courageous he was. But I agree that it's not a black and white issue
So just ditch principals, morals, values and friends in the face of oppression is what you're saying?
@@GuinessOriginal I'm not saying that it was the right call, I'm saying that he isn't as worthy of blame as people seem to think.
I'm sure that even you can be put into a coercive situation: a conundrum where you break, and choose self-preservation above your usual principles.
Can you really blame a guy for folding under duress?
I get telling on people to save yourself but pretending like it was the right thing to do afterwards is what sucks he should have apologized but he did not feel sorry for what he did.
It seems strange to me, the lack of our cancel culture, and not turning a blind eye to someone's wrongdoing two days after they turn out to have done something wrong.
I'm also wondering what his motives actually were testifying, and if it was indeed the truth - it's just amazing how different our thought processes are.
What most people don’t realize is Elia was treated worse by the communists that he outed than we are led to believe, and that communism in Hollywood is more widespread than we know
I think the concept of blame is something that makes it harder to understand these situations. It's so intuitive that we just assume it has merit. That's why retributive justice is so prominent. However the capacity for change is more instructive, and leads us to the much more effective rehabilitative justice. Protecting the public and fixing the problem is the goal. In that light one could say that the art is tangential but supporting the work of unresolved problems ends up empowering them in ways that could lead to further misdeeds. Erring on the side of caution seems most appropriate.
This was a fantastic video, thank you for the great output. I am interested in your opinion on the Kazan video made by Razörfist some time back. Would you say that his take veers towards the romanticism of the Kazan story you spoke of?
Which vid was that? I know some people pointed a couple of others out to me.
@@MacabreStorytelling I'll link below. His perspective is to the right of the aisle, so please understand where he comes from emotionally regarding unions, communism, etc. He does however do his best to deliver a cogent (hot?) take surrounding Kazan:
ruclips.net/video/6eKtjpebOPE/видео.html
@@duncannslade Yeah I've seen this one. The dude is... quite the character lol
As for his argument, while I agree it is not as if HUAC came out of nowhere and it is not as if the Communist Party was a bastion of angels, the greater context of the situation I would say doesn't really fit into Kazan's case.
For example: after he testified, Kazan was adamant that he did so as he was against the ideology of Communism HOWEVER he also stated that he believed the people he named to the committee had already been named.
So if Kazan named names because he was staunchly against Communism, why only give the names of people he already thought were named? This makes it difficult for me to really take Kazan's word on his motivations for doing what he did.
There IS a greater and more complex context to the HUAC/Hollywood arc, but I would argue Kazan's case isn't really influenced all THAT much by said context.
@@MacabreStorytelling I actually appreciate that you examined Kazan's own words and actions regarding his testimony, because they bore some contradiction. It makes me think again on the impression of Kazan that Razör's video left me with a long time ago.
Again, thank you for the great work. I will think more on my own opinions regarding -Defence of the Ancients- Death of the Author 👍
Kinda unrelated to the main topic of this video but related in how we access celebrities and figures in the public eye in general: I think it's kind of stupid how we kinda just let things slide when it's people we know but when it's people we don't know we condemn them and demand they lose everything, and judge the people who let it slide when we do the same thing ourselves in our daily lives anyways.
Usually I can quickly come to a moral judgment after a moment of contemplation, but this is one of those questions that has stumped me since I first considered it. I think that art should mostly be separated from the artist, of course context matters, but I don’t think the quality of the artist’s character should affect the quality of their art.
I think I would’ve remained seated however because I view whose specific ceremonies as celebrating the director as well as their work.
The work might be fantastic, and could itself deserve the awards, but I feel like the director should be given less focus of that’s the case. It also depends on the problem, if it’s Roman Polanski then I think it’s completely unforgivable, but if it’s something like Orson Wells who is just a little bit belligerent or something then I think that can be overlooked.
I don’t know, it’s a tough question and I haven’t figured out where I stand properly in it yet.
There’s nothing better than pointing out the shortcomings of others, is there?
I started taking the stance of separating the artist from their work, some examples that come to my mind: J.K Rowling, Mark Waid, Tara Strong, Jackie Chan, Donnie Yen and Chris Evans
Examples as to why? I dont keep up with this stuff.
Why is Chris Evans on this list?
@@GuinessOriginal beats me, he seems like a pretty stand up guy
@@GuinessOriginal it may due to how he tried to set up a sort of platform for people on opposite political leanings to have a conversation. Not sure if that is why, but I know he got a shit ton of flack for that.
@@rexnas8150 never heard of the platform, what was it? I just know him from being a shit annoying radio dj
I think two issues on the artist and art discussion that most people forget are:
1) does the artist lie? What I mean is, is the artist showing us his true thoughts or what he/she/they/etc. want us to think the artist thinks? One classic example is Forest Carter, writer of beloved modern classics on people of different races living together and harsh childhoods for mixed race children... who was in fact a Klansman, Asa Carter; some have argued that Carter left racism but some memories from acquaintances raise some doubt on that and his pro-Cherokee writing could be read as having a "black people suffered less than Indians and should stuff it" and "Natives and Southerners were both conquered by the US so we should sympathise or see ourselves as symbolic Natives" subtext. His writing is very wholesome, without the "cheat codes" to get any possible subtext, it is nothing but antiracist fiction.
2) (which is more appropriate here) is the art true for other people even if untrue to the artist? So, Kazan was not as troubled by his doubt if he should snitch or not as Brando's character, and those he snitched on were nowhere as villainous as the mob-related union leadership in "On the Water Front", but probably there have been people in real life who have been faced with union leaderships like that, there have been people who had to snitch on corrupt policemen, harmful corporations, etc. with whom "On the Waterfront" resonates. As a person who has been involved in unionism I got to say I can see the truth in the idea of corrupt union leaderships (not mob related ones... that I know of) and daring against them, and I bet a lot of people have found truth in Kazan's fan fiction for that. And that is what has kept it a classic despite the controversy.
Marlon Brando was so very handsome in his prime
Insanely handsome...and I am heterosexual hahaha
Just goes to show that moral/ethical strongarming has been around a lot longer/entrenched in American society a lot longer than people want to admit. Not to mention that is crosses ideological borders.
Also, I have to admit I struggle with Death of the Author a bit. I try to be in the middle ground but sometimes its difficult. I won't apologize for my love of H.P Lovecraft's work for example and it irritates the fuck out of me when people treat his racism as if nobody who reads his work isn't aware of it, but I won't dismiss it either or pretend it doesn't underpin his work in some way.
That being said, with the recent revelations about Chris Avellone and Warren Ellis, those sting and I'll probably return to their work at some point in the future. Just not now.
Don’t really have much to say - just leaving a comment here for that most fickle beast, the algorithm
👍
I appreciate how I heard a child sexual abuse survivor sum up his feelings on Woody Allen's movies once. He said that the history of American comedy films doesn't make sense without Woody Allen's contributions, but he personally doesn't watch them because Allen puts himself into a lot of his own films and he doesn't want to look at Allen's "stupid face."
I think in order to separate people's accomplishments from their actions in life, we have to separate the awards from the creator.
Kazan shouldn't receive the award, the movies should be the receivers of the award. Just recognize the works as good and make sure the artist is not involved in the recognition.
He Is getting an award for his director carreer, not for his personal life...
@@vicentekokaly322 What would be the best way to celebrate the work rather than the person? Award the work.
@@downsjmmyjones101 Yeah, but the work wouldn't be there without the person, or it would be a very different work overall, so why shouldn't the person get the merit for the work?
@@edoperna Lots of things go in to a work being the way it is. It sounds weird to single out one person who contributed a piece of the work.
@@downsjmmyjones101 If one person directed a movie, then the award for best director should go to the person who directed said movie. It’s that simple, like the other comments above said, they’re being awarded for their work, not for their personal lives. The directing isn’t just the work of a bunch of people, it’s the work of one person in charge of running the show, with a few people in his or her ear. Without said person, everything falls apart. It’s like a puzzle, every piece counts, and the director’s the most vital piece.
Another example, Kevin Spacey is a monster who doesn’t deserve a second chance to work in Hollywood ever again, but his performances in The Usual Suspects and American Beauty? That was all him, I mean sure a lot of what helped make his performances great were the screenplay and the direction, but he made the characters in those movies come to life with his character choices and mannerisms.
Interesting, seeing this the same day Eyebrow Cinema released a video on separating the art from the artist, focusing on a figure who isn't widely known.
The first time I heard about Elia Kazan was when I had a film appreciation class my junior year and we watched, to quote Mac, his magnum opus, On The Waterfront. Our teacher told us the background behind it and what Kazan did. Me at the time I didn't automatically hate the man like most people would. And I think watching the film at the time made me think he was in the right. But since watching this video, I still love the movie but I don't like how he frame it as defending his actions. Don't get me wrong, it' not unusual for artists to defend their actions through their work but how Kazan did it and I say this with hindsight, very cringey. I was surprised to find Arthur Miller wrote the early drafts before his and Kazan's fallout. And since watching this video, I kind of can see why a lot of people may like this man other than what he did.
Yeah Miller's early drafts apparently were VERY different and of course Kazan re-wrote it with Schulberg and made it what it is today. Would have loved to see Miller's initial reaction to seeing the film lol
@@MacabreStorytelling Yes, me too. Also, I was wondering if you think maybe if Kazan had shown remorse, do you think it would be enough for people to forgive him but nonetheless a lot of careers ruined thanks to him, Do you think Kazan realized that and figured, "What's the point?"
Maybe to some extent but when Orson Welles roasts you to death like that idk if you can come back from that LOL
@@MacabreStorytelling Yeah, it's one of those "You know messed up when you got this person calling you out." Also, having found out that Nick Nolte had a feeling with Marty because of his refusal to acknowledge Elia, do you think Marty, like his idol, doesn't care about Elia Kazan and is blinded by his prescence higlighted by his fanboys. Because if I was Marty, I would've told understood that Nick and everyone has a right to be angry and I think it's unfair to single out Nolte where half of the people who didn't stand and applaud possibly worked with him.
as far as immoral hollywood icons go, Kazan was by no means the worst but his 'whatever it takes' attitude towards the preservation of his career ruined those of alot his colleagues and contemporaries and should absolutely be considered at the very least selfish and purely self interested. Yet still his actions, while easy to look at with scorn, are ultimately understandable and were we ourselves in that chair on that day, it is likely we would have done the very same thing
great video btw I love how level headed your videos are, it's a nice change of pace from most of everything on this website
❤️
Praise the art. Ignore the despicable person.
Boycott his/her work if their transgressions are heinous enough, even if that may financially hurt other people too.
I wouldn't have clapped, because he chose to lie about why he did it.
I can understand being in a lose-lose situation but at least be up front about it.
It’s obvious to me, but hard to say clearly. The skill in any individual is obvious, but we must stop those doing harm, and cause justice to those that have done harm. In other words a great mathematician whom was a terrible person is no worse or contributory to his field on the maths, but if he did something abhorrent and was shielded due to his status it hangs like a shadow as a monster that the person was (to the degree they were a monster)
In other words you can separate the art from artist, but not reality from consequences, and the fact that often those with power never face them, workers unite.
What an excellent, excellent video. This is a topic that has always fascinated me and you used such an interesting vessel to tell this story. I will say that I personally view the death of the author as somewhat necessary, not only for us to enjoy the art made by these people, but also because people are complex. People do bad things, and judging what we can or cant enjoy, as well as what is worthy of true disdain and what isnt is also gray. We can all agree the acts of Roman Polanski and awful men like him are worthy of pure disdain, but others are much different. Kazan made incredible films and did bad things, but he never raped or killed anyone. He was given a difficult choice and chose the wrong thing, perhaps for the wrong reasons. However, stripping him of everything he earned for that seems wrong to me. I value redemption above all else in this world, that's my issue with much of cancel culture and things like the prison system is that they inherently dont. Now, even if Kazan never actually redeemed himself, he deserves the chance always and I feel that way for everyone who has done wrong in this world, paths to redemption should exist for everyone whether they take it or not. Sorry if that makes very little sense, but I tried to get my thoughts out. So, I suppose, yes, I would have clapped, in appreciation of his art and in hope he had learned something we don't know about
This obviously does not apply to every single person in Hollywood but I feel it does apply to a large majority and or just famous people in general. These people who are so loved by many for the “job” they perform are cast in a unrealistic light of quality of their character. I believe that the reason so many horror stories come out of Hollywood is because the people who are involved with that industry and others are not good people. Their shortcomings and wrongdoings as a person are overshadowed by the work they do or the “power” they hold in most cases. I’m not sure what can be done to remedy the situation but for a start the public needs to quit putting them on a pedestal. In my opinion actors are loved for the characters they play not because they themselves are anything special so let’s stop treating them as if the characters they portray is who they actually are. Just a though and I am totally willing to hear and discuss others opinions on the matter.
OK I'm 4 mins in and I'm hooked I have to know why.
Orson Welles will have that effect on you.
Damn the algo did this video dirty
Any thoughts on Star Wars?
As a Greek, I recognize in Kazan our racial characteristics: an innovator, a pioneer in the art of cinema and equally capable of making fun of himself. It is not the mistake that judged how "small" he was in the difficult times but the fact that he defended to the end the mistake, something that happens to many new Greeks.
I don't excuse him, I just understand him.
I don't think it fair and equivalent to compare Kazan's snitching to Polanski, Welles, and even Kazan's personal moral failings. It is not as if Polanski made a movie about how raping girls is good actually or Welles doing the same for wife-beating. What Kazan did (and showing no remorse whatsoever) was not only betraying his friends but also the film industry itself. He just gave the HUAC more ammunition to attack the film industry that people are still using to this day. He undermined the craft of the film industry with his actions by helping the HUAC attack its freedom of expression. Nobody likes a traitor.
It is all fair and good to apply Death Of The Author on people like Polanski and Welles or any even Kazan. Or even to contemplate if the film industry should celebrate and award people who did morally terrible things. But what Karzan did fundamentally attacked the film industry itself by putting his politics above his craft and friends. Why should the film industry be shamed for doing the same?
This is a pretty good video on a contentious figure, even if I have some disagreements. Kazan was an anti-communist liberal, a friend of James Baldwin, a supporter of Civil Rights, so it wasn't like he became overnight some wingnut or that he was completely selfish who didn't have any convictions. And Kazan was able to be kind and patient with actors who otherwise spoke well off him (and Warren Beatty as an actor challenged many directors including Altman, Arthur Penn and several others). The films he made after On the Waterfront -- "A Face in the Crowd, Baby Doll, Wild River, America America" -- were fairly bold efforts which challenged censorship and helped loosen restrictions of the Hays Code. The names Kazan gave out were known to HUAC already, and would have been blacklisted with or without his testimony. The real problem with Kazan was that Ad he put out justifying his actions and his refusal to apologize (too much pride). As for the Lifetime Achievement Award...I think the Academy should have honored the blacklisted artists first, and then awarded Kazan. The protests was more about the industry never owning up or paying proper tribute to the ones who were blacklisted. So on that level I actually do agree with the protests. I think Kazan had achieved enough that he didn't really need an award. He deserved it but if it was all about the art then he didn't need it at a ceremony broadcast to the world. In the case of "On the Waterfront", the story and concept developed before Kazan's testimony, and corruption in the docks' union and so on was a real thing, as was mafia infiltration. Kazan himself in interviews flip-flopped over whether the movie should be seen as an allegory for his tesimony or not.
There are some errors in the video I need to point out. Minor stuff. One is that Robert DeNiro was never a student of Lee Strasberg...he was a student of Stella Adler. And there's a lot of distinction and difference between Kazan and Strasberg and many schools in what is called "method acting". Strasberg never taught either DenIro or Brando, that was Stella Adler. The other mistake is when you talk about Arthur Miller's testimony before HUAC, you mention that he was blacklisted for that...but the blacklist never existed in broadway and theater not in the same way it did in Hollywood (because the blacklist was enforced by respective industries and never by the government directly). Third thing I have to point out...Miller and Kazan remained friends for years. They collaborated again on the play "After the Fall" in the 1960s.
"The names Kazan gave out were known to HUAC already, and would have been blacklisted with or without his testimony."
As I mention in the video, this had been disputed (with some stating not even half of those who were named were already known to the committee), but in any case, I'd say it only creates more confusion as to what Kazan's motivations/convictions truly were, seeing as if he was staunchly anticommunist, why make a note of the fact that his testimony wouldn't have actually done anything, including naming Bromberg who had passed away months before his testimony. Given his flip flopping over the years and egotism evident I'd say in many instances, it is difficult to assign to him any staunch conviction in regard to the motivations at least specifically behind his testimony.
"One is that Robert DeNiro was never a student of Lee Strasberg"
Student may not have been the best word but following him leaving Stella's he spent quite a lot of time at the Actor's Studio. Though he may not have been a direct pupil of Strasberg individually, it is more than likely he did in fact study with him during his time there.
As for Brando, I don't believe I state anywhere in the video that Brando was a student of Strasberg's, though if I did you would be correct that it would be a mistake as Brando even went so far as to downplay Strasberg's influence on his style, attributing it far more to Adler.
"The other mistake is when you talk about Arthur Miller's testimony before HUAC, you mention that he was blacklisted for that...but the blacklist never existed in broadway and theater not in the same way it did in Hollywood (because the blacklist was enforced by respective industries and never by the government directly)."
This is correct but is not a mistake. Miller was in fact blacklisted from Hollywood. The majority of his work simply was not involved with film industry and thus didn't have as much of an impact on his career overall.
"Third thing I have to point out...Miller and Kazan remained friends for years. They collaborated again on the play "After the Fall" in the 1960s."
They did reconcile, though they were estranged for quite a long time. And funny enough Monroe at one point had tried to get them to reconcile and it was only after he and Monroe's divorce with the play that many would say is quite autobiographical in terms of his relationship with Monroe... though the fact that Kazan had also had a relationship with her makes things... weird I guess lol (⊙_⊙;)
@@MacabreStorytelling Miller was never interested in adapting his stuff for Hollywood so the blacklist there didn't affect him as much. He remained a playwright.
The other thing people don't talk about the HUAC and so on is that the American Communist Party were more or less throwing the artists who were called to the wolves. Their strategy which they advised people to do was more or less to engineer the creation of martyrs to make America look bad in the world stage. So while the currency of "naming names" tends to occupy so much print, the fact is that this needn't have gotten to the point had the American Communist Party been open and transparent that it was largely a minority party whose membership by and large weren't ideological. So from Kazan's perspective, he was being asked to stay committed to a party he walked away from, a strategy that would screw him and others over for the sake of the same party, and for no real end-goal and purpose.
There's also the basic fact that most anyone in Hollywood and American cinema named names to some extent, either providing secret testimony or coming out in public. Charles Laughton director of The Night of the Hunter, named former theater director Joseph Losey, Nicholas Ray likewise provided private testimony, so it's a little strange why Kazan is singled out disproportionately since most anyone did that back then.
It is quite odd about Kazan’s demonization at least compared to others at the time. Perhaps he was just the scapegoat to some extent, using him to channel all their frustrations. It didn’t seem like many were all that hostile towards John Wayne for example despite him openly running people out of the industry and stating he was proud to do so.
Hey Macabre I dare you to make a video on the Resident Evil franchise. To highlight its "excellent" writing 😂
Nice intro woooo
Art can be separated from the artist, however the award goes to the artist. That should be taken in consideration. Decisions taken are what makes a person. Moreso when it comes to a lifetime achievement awards. Foul person should not be awarded, it sets the worst example possible. And examples are important.
Who says the line at the very start of the video?
Randall from “Clerks” 👍
@@MacabreStorytelling Thank you lots.
29:21 That's not how Occam's razor works, it is not "the simplest explanation is the correct one" (which is stupid), it is "the explanation that makes the least assumptions is usually correct" (in other words the explanation based on most available data without speculation).
I'd say these are pretty tit for tat, but in this case, considering we have no evidence to support Kazan felt guilty for what he did and his actions, at face value, seem to imply he had no remorse, we still comes to the same conclusion.
I think everyone has their line. I often think about this in regards to lostprophets, a band I never liked and whose leader did heinous shit that I dont wanna describe. I mean...right there is a line i wouldnt cross. I've applied it to bands i do love. For example: I love the beatles. It's a foundational love since I was a child. Some of the beatles have had their own controversies (lennon being an asshole). But if any of them did some lostprophets type shit? I dont think I would ever listen to a beatles song again. So there is a line for everyone, no matter how awesome you think the art is.
My view is that some actions should be considered more or less morally reprehensible by most people and those same people should not repeatedly support an artist’s work (past, current, or future) based on that. The hard part is determining where that threshold is for everything, where on the spectrum things fall, and what repeatedly means. However, some actions should be obviously good or bad and we can say repeatedly means more than once.
So like… I’ll watch On the Waterfront once because there’s a lot of craft there and you can learn things. But I’m not going to sing Kazan’s praises. He sounds like a POS. Polanski though? I’m good. I’m not watching anymore of his movies ever and I have no regrets about that.
I would’ve sat there without moving too. I think that was appropriate.
Kazan did the right thing and him being of greek origin, with all the stuff that communists brought upon Greece in the 40s, might have played a role in him going forward with it.
Maybe, but keep in mind that his background was Cappadocian Greek (from Turkey), and his family left long before the civil war and issues with the communists broke out in mainland Greece.
'Not only was the video great, but it offers me some eager anticipation for what you will undoubtedly task yourself with. Two words: Whedon. Feminism. I look forward to your future video on the director for its nuanced and considered approximation on how his films which focus on gender have been affected by his behaviour.' - John Clay
EDITED FOR SPELLING/CLARITY
Oh snap interesting topic 👍
@@MacabreStorytelling 'There's a lot to be gained for leaving it for sometime. Depending on what we learn between now and a years' time. In short, let the sauce marinade. Discovered you through your Watchmen essay last night. Would love to interview you on the history of the RUclips essay and its positive and negative impact on casual and non casual viewers alike. I'd also like to chat to you about The Boys as a watermark moment in television. There, that's my wish list. Followed you on Twitter as @mrjohnclay.'
@@ClarkKentsRockandRollRevue Have yet to tackle or even watch the Boys but would be interesting to see how it stands as a counterpoint to the Marvel squad.
@@MacabreStorytelling 'Hyperrealism, nuanced critiques on rainbow capitalism and hilarity to boot, The Boys is a fresh blast in the cold furnace of Superhero related content. Marvel is intent on self referential comedy drama whereas The Boys? Hell, this show attaches a Bualdrillard missed to the back of a giant lizard called capitalist realism and rockets it out of a dormant volcano into space. When you watch it, contact me...after you catch your breath.' - John Clay
Learned about this guy because of on the waterfront with Brando, good film.
In the end, movies are still entertainment. If someone is welling to clap and cheer for example a rapist, because they made high quality entertainment, I think they should at least rethink their priorities regarding the important things in life.
Never cancel a person completely. Mention the good AND the bad and be fair, reward them when they earn a reward, and punish then if they deserve punishment, forgive them if they earn forgiveness. On the other hand, never turn a blind eye and cheer them on while they are still doing the wrong thing.
I suspect the folks who still castigate Kazan would never even think of risking their careers for someone they used to work with, who now has the opposite politics.
The folks who are still crying out about the injustice of the 'witch hunt' never acknowledged that the fall of the Soviet Union provided plenty of proof that, indeed, communists were trying to topple the US.
Folks who bash Kazan (and no other Hollywood figure who did the same, because their names aren't repeated, over and over, like Kazan's) sure aren't asking for justice for those who supposedly tried to 'topple' the US without guns and with furry hats...
Mac: Elia had various affairs
Me: Snitches get bitches
I think it's appropriate to feel disgust towards the people supporting Polanski's winning of an award and him being awarded. He should have been blacklisted a long time ago. Hard to separate the art from the artist when his fame and influence is what allowed the rape to take place. His art had given him resources to escape punishment and remain respected beyond the crime as if it never happened. Practically a get out of jail free card. People supporting him are definitely a part of the problem here.
yes
The idea that an author is separate to their work is most certainly not exclusive to, nor does it originate with, Deconstructionist theory so I do think you are misrepresenting Death of the Author somewhat here.
I am sadly well past the age where I idolise artists (or anyone else for that matter) so I have no moral expectations of them personally. I do not support cancel culture in any way, That said, Awards and ceremonies are by the same token puffery and advertising serving only to promote the industry and for members of the club to pat each other on the back in public..
Rewarding people with questionable pasts completely sabotages the first purpose and I see no reason to salve the egos of such people on the second count. Plenty of people who've created great things or given brilliant performances never get promoted by some vainglorious award and I don't care if those with dubious histories get passed over either.
I think the more interesting question lies with how we engage with the artist and their treatment of issues of morality in their work -a question that Death of the Author would completely exclude. Excluding Kazan's history as an informant and it's role in On the Waterfront as an approach to understanding that film would be a critical failure of epic proportions.
In any event I would be completely oposed to the idea of 'cancelling' Kazan's work -or that of any other creator. There is no question of his brilliance as a director and the work should be allowed to speak for itself.
The people who despised and hated him, most probably couldn't tell you what he did specifically that was so wrong, just following the narrative of their screen guild union masters they are all indebted to for their success.
seems to me that the hollywood types acted really unfairly towards him. He was forced into a situation where he could either be blacklisted/imprisoned, or he could inform on people he had no obligation to cover for, and then a whole bunch of self obsessed act*rs held a grudge against him for years when most of them had done worst things than him in secret anyway, and would have done the same in the same situation. I think im going to watch some of his films now
17:30 - You're really mudding the waters here. I think you should have kept the topic on if Kazan deserved an honorary oscar.
I don’t think you know what muddying the waters means…
@@MacabreStorytelling Don't be a sensitive twat.
I don't think you can know if he felt remorse from the outside looking in. Sometimes guilt and remorse cause behavior that doesn't overtly reflect guilt and remorse. Jus saying.
All this comes with other questions:
Should we humanize those we perceive as evil? As people with no redeming qualities and no possibilities to get better?
Should we judge people guilty of a crime as incapable of changing, as nothing more than a filthy criminal that cannot be part of society and shouldn't be allowed another chance?
Maybe I watch too much "Caso Cerrado", where the judge is very discriminatory against exconvicts
I'd say that we should humanize those we perceive as evil because:
1) It reminds us that we too are as capable as them as committing evil, keeping our own moral compass in check.
2) It acknowledges the frustrations of how grey our world tends to be morality wise.
3) Viewing the world in black and white absolutes is rather childish, while seeing beauty to the disgust and disgust to the beauty is a form of intellectual maturity
>Believe that I would probably just stay firmly seated down
>"Thank you all! I feel like I could just slip away"
Well fuck now I'm not sure
I know. That and him and Marty embracing tugged my heart strings a bit.
@@MacabreStorytelling The bit with Marty just hiding behind and playing around behind him was something that I felt an odd connection with. Almost like watching a shy kid with his dad
I've always loved "On The Waterfront", and I wont stop loving it because this guy was a rat. I'd like to think I'd done the right thing if was in his shoes at that time, but how can I know. We always like to think of ourselves as better than we are, nobody goes around thinking "wow I'm a backstabbing piece of shit, good for me!".
Regarding the affairs, it takes two to tango, and the guy had already established he had zero remorse when it came to betraying, so it was really on those who kept being friends tbh. The whole "scorpion and frog" tale comes to mind.
I struggle with this too. I think The Pianist is incredible and deserved every award it got, including for Polanski as director. At the same time, Polanski did despicable things to young girls, and he deserved to rot in prison for it. If he hadn't fled like a coward, The Pianist would probably never have been made, and I'm not even remotely close to having a problem with that.
However, the fact is that he evaded punishment, The Pianist did get made, and I bought a ticket for it, which formed a single molecular drop in a sea of the film industry's support for Roman Polanski. I did this long before I knew about his crimes, but I probably would have gone to see the movie even if I had known... I guess the works do stand on their own for me in the end. So many creators have major issues of character (though rape of young girls is particularly egregrious!)... I feel like if we boycotted everything from problematic creators, we would miss out on too many outstanding creations. But maybe this kind of thinking is part of the problem of lack of accountability.
Chinatown too.
From what I gathered watching this video, I'd blame the government more than Elia Kazan himself.
Without the blacklisting of people for their beliefs, he could've gone on to personally oppose communism without punishing the careers of his peers. As much as I am wary of communism/socialism myself, and while I understand the fear HUAC was borne from, it is scary to see how ironically authoritarian it seems to have tended in opposition to authoritarian ideologies that existed at the time. This is some thought police looking shit.
As far as I can tell, both choices Elia had were probably the "wrong choice."
The game he was placed in was rigged to hurt everyone it enveloped.
jesus fuck the intro editing had me feeling some type of way