NEWS: Chris Gore's Footage Fetishes: When Actor's Antics Change Movies

CULTURE: Chris Gore's Footage Fetishes: When Actor's Antics Change Movies

There's little argument that movies change with the passage of time.



It might surprise you to note that Continental Divide (1981), Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) and Pearl Harbor (2001) were all number one films their respective opening weekends. And they were quickly marketed as "the number one movie in America." Throngs of moviegoers flock to see over-hyped films like these, yet when the wave of press subsides, you wonder what all the fuss was about.



Special effects in movies continue to improve. And while we laugh at those blue lines surrounding characters in films from the recent past like Flash Gordon (1980), Krull (1983) and Dune (1984), there's little doubt that the effects that wow us today will look completely fake in the next ten years.



Even Oscar-winning movies lose their luster given time. Just watch Kevin Costner's Academy Award Winning movie Dances with Wolves and you'll know what I'm talking about. Costner's three hours epic beat Martin Scorsese's Goodfellas for Best Picture and Best Director that year. If both films were playing on cable at the same time, it would be an easy choice.



Conversely, the perception of a film that was a box-office dud can change dramatically as well. In fact, many films that were considered failures or were critically panned when they initially debuted go on to become hailed as a modern classic given time. Blade Runner is one that comes to mind and there are many others.



But what happens to a movie once the off-screen antics of an actor become a veritable media massacre? While the actor's career may recover, will the movies that particular actor starred in ever be looked upon the same way again? Can a film burdened with an actor who has made racist remarks or even been accused of a crime like murder transcend the baggage of their personal transgressions?





The mug shot of Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle, taken shortly after his arrest.



There are plenty of cases of major film stars whose public buffoonery had an impact on their careers. One of the most famous was that of comic actor Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle. In 1921, the silent film star held a Labor Day weekend party where "starlet" (or call girl, depending on who you talk to) Virginia Rappe was injured, or she may have suffered from a botched abortion. Rappe was allegedly attacked by Arbuckle at the party and died four days later. Some say she was raped by Arbuckle who used a coke bottle in a way it was not intended. Arbuckle suffered through three trials before he was acquitted. His career was ruined, yet, a generation later, his black and white short comedies live on.



My parents weren't even born then, so I was never exposed to this news story, but I remember enjoying his films as a kid, until I learned about Rappe's death and the trials that followed. Coke bottles never seemed quite the same after reading about this scandal.



Now, I care very little about gossip or the personal lives of actors or celebrities. I can forgive mistakes like failed marriages, drug busts or driver misconduct. We all have people in our lives that make similar mistakes and/or bad choices or whatever you want to call it. I mean, actors are only human and the spotlight has a way of magnifying flaws. We all know those who have struggled and, for the most part, we give them a second chance. However, some offenses are not as easily forgiven. When that happens, I just can't watch certain movies who star the actors who have been involved in such activity. Call me a prude, but I find it hard to watch a film in which an actor has crossed a line in a way I find reprehensible.





Michael Richards in the hilarious 1980s comedy UHF -- which may not be so funny anymore.



Michael "Kramer" Richards racist rant at a comedy club means that watching episodes of Seinfeld are not only not funny anymore, but they seem kind of sad. I will never see the 80s classic UHF with Weird Al the same again. I loved the early and funny films of Woody Allen growing up, but upon learning of his illicit affair with his underage adoptive daughter, being entertained by his films post-scandal felt dirty.



Next week, Mel Gibson's Apocalypto will be released on DVD. I did not feel compelled to see it when it came to theaters, but I received an advanced copy of the DVD and have seen the film. Mel Gibson does not appear in the movie, of course. The story centers on a primitive tribe in a bloody turf war, but he is present in every way. The title for one, bears his name, and there is the commentary and the behind-the-scenes found on pretty much every decent DVD release. Gibson's anti-Semitic rants to police officers when he was pulled over for a DUI make many of his films hard to stomach. In spite of all this, Apocalypto is a powerful piece of cinema.





Mel Gibson directing Apocalypto.



However, I'll never look at Mad Max the same way again. I'll never look at The Road Warrior the same again. I'll never look at Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome the same again. I'll never look at The Bounty the same again. I'll never look at Lethal Weapon 1, 2, 3 and 4 the same again. I'll never look at The Man Without a Face the same again. I'll never look at Disney's Pocahontas the same again. I'll never look at Ransom the same again. I'll never look at Braveheart the same again. I'll never look at Payback the same again. I'll never look at Signs the same again. I'll never look at What Women Want the same again. What Women Want? Then again, What Women Want had a whole set of problems unrelated to Gibson's racist remarks. The point is that I can't separate the work from the artist when the offending behavior reaches the point of being unforgivable. I sometimes wonder if others feel the same way. Or am I the only one who avoids troubled artists like Gibson?



The truth is that Mel really disappointed me and I'm not sure I can ever forgive him or watch his movies the same way again.



Gore gone.



Chris_Gore is an author, a filmmaker and the creator of Film Threat.

"However, I'll never look at Mad Max the same way again. I'll never look at The Road Warrior the same again. I'll never look at Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome the same again. I'll never look at The Bounty the same again."

Then, I am sorry, despite your credentials, you are an idiot. Those films (with the exception of Beyond Thunderdome) are great films.

Does Picasso's womanizing effect the viewing of his paintings?

To put this type of attitude into a political perspective, iIt's this type of idea that Republicans love. How could Clinton have been a good president, if he had an affair while in office?

I will always think UHF is funny. It's a great comedy, and since there isn't any racists humor in it, why would I associate Michael's Richard's remarks with the film? It's not Michael's Richards who is in the film, is that crazy janitor guy, who is pretty damn funny.

So according to you, art is only good art, art you can enjoy, if the artist is a good person, or keeps his indiscretions out of the public eye.

I would suggest you never read into any of the lives of actors, filmmakers, or authors (especially those guys) you enjoy. You'll find yourself unable to stomach anything any more.

Oh yeah, and Walt Disney was a huge anti-semite. Why does it take Mel Gibson's views to ruin Pocahontas? I thought the script would have been enough . . .

I agree completely with feyd, I mean, offensive really is in the eye of the beholder. People find all kinds of wierd shit offensive.

Can one not like the work of Michelangelo because he was supposedly gay? I mean some (in my opinion smallminded) people find that offensive.

Or South Park?

I mean, they say and do things on there that have basically offended everyone at least once? Hell, they had a whole episode that revolved around the "N", word and its explicit intent.

Who dictates what is offensive? If you judge artists by outside acts then expect to be able to listen to maybe, 3 or 4 Christian Rock bands.

And no person with a rational mind would listen to that shit... I mean, its offensive

Hehe, fun.

Does this issue of yours cross over into music too? Can you listen to Michael Jacksons rock with you and still shake it?

Dude, get a grip. So if an actor makes a mistake in his/her life that displeases you, then you can't 'stomach' their movies, and you'll 'never look at them the same way again.' Grow up. Everyone's made a mistake or two. We all have skeletons in our closet. Don't get caught up in an actor's personal life while watching him/her on screen. In fact, don't get caught up in it at all. Why exactly does it matter to you if Kramer is racist or if Mel Gibson is anti-semetic? And how do you really know that they are; news articles and video clips on the internet? That's how you form your opinion on people? They make an 'unforgivable' mistake like DUI and offensive comments, and some frustrated racist remarks in front of a camera and suddenly, they're terrible people snd far below your standards for forgiveness? Jeez, give celebrities their privacy and don't treat them like gods that must never do wrong. Just watch their movies and enjoy them. Forget about the actors (who are only human beings, after all), and think about the 'characters.' That's what movies are all about. Does anyone agree with me?

Though I disagree with your allowing an actor's extra-curricular activities to ruin the art they're a part of (or any other member of the cast or crew for that matter... *coughPolanskicough*), I don't mind it. The problem arises when boycotts and other such nonsense starts being bandied about - the imposition of opinion is what infuriates me (and I'm not suggesting you're one of those folks, Chris).

The only real power any one person has against any industry is whether or not to give it their money and people should exercise that, but for only themselves, not for everyone else.

</soapbox>

I have a serious problem with Step-by-step and the Kickboxer movies, after Sasha Mitchel beat his pregnant wife.

"Does Picasso's womanizing effect the viewing of his paintings?"

Womanizing is one thing. Racism is entirely different. Having an affair with an underage woman you adopted with your current lover is also different. And so is murder.

Well some very uptight PC folks might find the Asian guys jumping out of the cupboard yelling SUPPLIES a bit racist

Not me though - I love that movie. And nothing Michael Richards said can stop me loving that movie.

Tom Neal, who starred in the 1945 film "Detour" was convicted of first degree murder (his wife) and served many years in prison for it. "Detour" is considered by many film critics to be one of the finest film noirs ever made and is referenced in countless books and documentaries about classic films.

So, should we just throw that all in the trash?

It is also common knowledge that the Fatty Arbuckle charge was bullshit. (though that didn't stop it from ruining his career) I'm surprised it's even mentioned.

UHF is still fucking funny. And so is Seinfeld.

I think to a certain degree, I agree.
Mel Gibson being anti-Semitic and also a Catholic zealot (he is) affects how I look at his work. You become more sceptical because you know they may have an agenda.

A lot of people became a lot less interested in Tom Cruise's work when his "Scientological" attitudes came into sharp relief. The same also with John Travolta.

Admittedly as actors they are likely to have little creative control but as producers and directors... ...

I can understand where you're coming from. Sometimes, no matter how hard you try, you can't get that naggy feeling out of your head that there is a certain lack of respect for someone.... at least that's how I am.

Personally, after Tom Cruise went batshit insane I found it impossible to take him seriously, thus avoiding any of his work (old and new). I was never really a fan of his to begin with, but I found his attacks on psychology as a huge turn-off.

I understand that someone's personal life shouldn't affect the way that I feel about their work, but I just can't really help it.

But maybe there are some examples of the opposite? I can't think of any off the top of my head (cut me some slack, it's 3:30 am), but surely there has to be someone whose career skyrocketed due to misbehavior.

Fuggedaboudit

ROMAN POLANSKI...he won an oscar.

i disagree abouyt Travolta, he just made alot of shit movies in a row. though lonely hearts was excellent!!

Sorry, man, 1980s Flash Gordon's effects never looked good, even in the theater.

I'd like to think I can remain objective about a film despite the personal failings of the principals involved, but I've never watched a Gerard Depardieu film since the story came out years ago that he'd raped several women as a youth... (I keep seeing now that this was not true, and was due to a mistaken translation on the part of an article writer-- anyone know if this is true?)

Hmm.....no, no, can't say that my knowledge of the actor or actress' real-life misbehaviour has much to do with my enjoyment of any films. Nor am I particularly fazed by what authors or painters or whoever are like in real life. I guess I might stop buying their work if they were personally offensive or rude to me, but honestly, how likely is that to happen? I don't meet celebrities.

But then, with very few exceptions (mostly for directors), I don't give a rat's ass who's involved with a movie. Well, to be more precise, I don't go to or avoid movies because of liking or disliking a particular person involved with them, as a rule. I *will* be influenced by particularly good or bad casting. I.e., when they made a movie based on Hellblazer, my first sign that it was going to be terrible was their decision to cast Keanu Reeves in the lead role. Reeves is not my favorite actor to begin with, but he's done all right in some movies. He's utterly and totally wrong for the part of John Constantine, however. As he proved.

Chris I see where you are coming from.
You aren't denying the validity of the the film and how good it may be. But I do find that a movie can lose some of is luster when one of the actors has done something that sticks in my mind so hard I can't forget about who they really are and see who they are portraying in the film.

I would love to know much LESS about the actors in films. I would rather just watch their work and enjoy it. I think this is why in some ways I prefer foreign or indie films. I don't really know the actors so in my mind I can see the characters they are playing and not all the crap about them on the news and in the tabloids.

Both Gibson and Woody Allen have left the same horrible taste in my mouth.

From what I've managed to gather, this was a case of manipulated translation. He apparently stated that he witnessed a rape as a child, which prompted him to leave his hometown. The interview and translation was later edited at the height of Depardieu's success, resulting in the version that was published in Time Magazine.