Article
Why (Good) Films Should Not Be Boycotted
John Wyatt

A few days ago, Barbara Walters stated on The View that she would not be watching any Mel Gibson films anymore. Her comments were in response to Mel Gibson's drunk driving and tirade, which contained anti-Semitic and sexist remarks. My concern here is neither with Mrs. Walters or Mel Gibson. Rather, I am concerned with the idea of boycotting someone's work because one does not agree with the filmmaker's personal beliefs or actions, of which this particular case is an example. One's dislike of an actor or director might have a shallow basis ("I don't like the way she looks", "he has an annoying voice"), or it could rest on much more substantial grounds ("I don't agree with his views on the role of women in cinema"). At the extreme, as in Gibson's case, the dislike stems from highly inappropriate comments and actions that lead one to be repulsed and disgusted by not only the filmmaker's personality, but even by his or her work. In all instances, one is forced to consider the possible reasons behind one's desire to boycott a filmmaker and his or her work, and the consequences of such actions.

There are several reasons why one would want to distance oneself from the individual. There is, to begin with, an extension of the revulsion felt towards the person to include anything attached to him or her, including his or her work. Watching a film directed by someone who has been charged with child abuse, for example, inevitably forces one to consider whether it is right to be even watching such a film. The quality of the product is entirely irrelevant; a film could be an entertaining masterpiece, and yet, by association with the director, it would look tainted from the viewer's perspective. Succinctly stated, it is almost inevitable that one's response to a film would be different if one has strong feelings about the filmmaker.

There is, however, an even stronger argument to be made for boycotting a filmmaker's films. If you pay to watch the film in theatres, or buy the DVD, you are contributing to the filmmaker's wealth. In a real sense, therefore, you are contributing to his or her financial welfare and success. If the filmmaker has said or done something outrageous, and his subsequent films are critical and commercial successes, he or she would, of course, view this as a nod of approval. The success, in a way, gives him or her a feeling of vindication, even if the success of the films has nothing directly to do with the personal statements or actions of the filmmaker. If one disapproves of the filmmaker's behaviour, it would be understandable if one wishes to contribute as little to the filmmaker's success as possible. It goes without saying that the boycott also amounts to a rejection of the filmmaker, an act which the (would-be) viewer no doubt hopes will serve as a punishment. This is particularly important if one is worried that, if the filmmaker is allowed to get away with his words or actions, others will see it as a signal that such behaviour is acceptable. If one excuses Gibson's tirade or drunk driving, will others interpret that response as being an approval of his behaviour, and will it encourage them to behave like him? It would be extremely difficult to come up with firm evidence to back up such claims, since one may well argue that others would drive drunk or make anti-semitic remarks irrespective of Gibson's behaviour. The point is, however, that the fear that such behaviour might come across as being excused adds to one's desire to distance oneself with the filmmaker or his or her films.

One's dissociation from the filmmaker and his or her work, therefore, does have a negative moral and financial effect, however small, on the filmmaker, although one can never be certain whether the filmmaker will react in quite the way one hopes he or she will (or whether he or she will care). There is, however, another issue that must be considered, namely, the effects of the boycott on the individual. By refusing to watch a certain film, we potentially deny ourselves the experience of watching something which might be of value to us, whether entertainment-wise or artistically. If one is ill-disposed towards Ingrid Bergman, for example, one might deny oneself the experience of watching "Notorious" or "Casablanca", which would be a far greater loss to the person than it would be to Bergman. From that perspective, is a boycott the right way to go about expressing our dissatisfaction with a filmmaker's behaviour?

The question is, at best, difficult to answer. On the one hand, one risks coming across as supporting the filmmaker; one the other hand, one risks missing out on something of great value. Fortunately for us, most bigots have not produced artwork of such value that it would leave us at a disadvantage if we ignored them. German and Italian art and literature, for example, took a huge nosedive under fascism. In some cases, however, great art has and does contain elements of bigotry and prejudice. Edgar Allan Poe, for example, is the only major American writer whose writings confirm him to be an irredeemable racist. With regards to Poe, does that mean that anyone who is opposed to racism ought to refuse him or herself the pleasure of reading his work? In my opinion, the answer is no. I find it highly unfortunate that Poe held such views, but I think that one can enjoy his work while at the same time being mindful of the bigotry. It is one's obligation, in this case, to be an informed and alert reader.

I would like to extend this idea to filmmaking as well. One must be, in situations where the filmmaker's personal beliefs, actions, or work are or contain views reprehensible to us, be willing to be an informed and alert viewer of his or her films. In this way, one exposes oneself to the artwork, but, because of one's awareness, shields oneself from the negative elements. I, for example, disapprove of Woody Allen's behaviour regarding his adopted daughter, but this does not mean that I will deny myself the experience of watching a Woody Allen film, if the film is of great enough value for its viewing to give me more than its non-viewing would deprive me of. Regarding Mel Gibson, I don't know whether any of his future releases will be good artworks, but if they are, I would watch them. Ultimately, the desire to remove ourselves from someone whom we find to be reprehensible is understandable, but to correspondingly distance ourselves from his or her work, in cases where the work is of great value, is to inflict more damage on ourselves than we ever could on the artist.