Elia Kazan...Genius or Lowlife?
 

Normally, I would have written a little glowing something about the passing of a prodigious talent like late director Elia Kazan. However, I'm one of those people who sometimes has difficulty separating a person's gifts from their ethical failings, and so I decided not to go on and on about the marvelous films the man directed, and the great performances he coaxed from already talented people.

Instead, I thought I'd use his passing to perhaps kick off some discussion. Kazan, even fifty plus years down the road, is still reviled by many for having 'named names' under pressure from Senator Joe McCarthy's House Committee on UnAmerican Activities during the 1950's. Many feel that those named by Kazan would not have been blacklisted from the entertainment industry had it not been for Kazan. Still others have argued that the names he gave up were already known to the commie-hunters, and so Kazan didn't tell them anything useful to begin with.

Kazan was awarded a lifetime achievement Oscar a few years back, and even then, the controversy was rife. Although he was undoubtedly deserving of such an honor on the basis of his work, the majority of the glitterati in attendance chose to remain silent and withhold applause. It was an uncharacteristically tense moment for the Academy Awards, and a sad coda to an otherwise brilliant career.

So...what say you, Cellarites? Was Kazan slime? Brilliant? Should we separate a person's talents from his ethics, or are we forever the prisoners of our misdeeds and poor judgements?

Not slime - that would be McCarthy and his henchmen. Kazan was a coward.

He was also brilliant. No contradiction there.

Re: Elia Kazan...Genius or Lowlife?
 

Until I thought about this I tended to ‘separate the art from the artist’, aware that the public persona may have no resemblance to the genuine nature of the individual. But even though on some level I can respect an individual’s talent and his integrity separately, I ultimately form an impression of the whole being.

Are we prisoner's?
I think it comes down to a balancing act between the magnitude of one’s misdeeds and what one does to make restitution versus the level of appreciation we derive from that person’s skill.

Sort of related, then, is Leni Riefenstahl. She passed recently and is known mainly for Triumph des Willens, or "Triumph of the Will" - the infamous Nazi propaganda film from 1934. As a film, it's widely regarded as a work of art. But then there's that small bit about it being a Nazi propaganda film. Should she be remembered for her art, or for the fact that she (directly or indirectly) supported the Third Reich?

Excellent parallel, Dave, because Frau Reifenstahl is widely regarded as a genius filmmaker as well.

This is the sort of thing I was hoping to examine in this thread. After all, Kazan made some very important films about ethical and moral issues ("Gentlemen's Agreement", about prejudice against Jews, for one), and was known to have certain high ethical standards. That's what makes him such a paradoxical example...does the good he did by enlightening the masses about various societal issues outweight the harm that was done by his implication of his former fellow Communist Party members in the House proeceedings of 1952? Do we tend to overlook people's shortcomings and screwups because we find them to be appealing, talented, attractive? Is that right if we do so?

Oh goodness. Started thinking about this. I love art and films and music - but then thinking what if my favorite artist/director/musician hated asians? (I'm 1/2 chinese) I don't know that I could be militant and either just take art for art or just not like it because of someone's personal politics. I'm in between. God thats a hard question. Dangit - now I'm gonna be thinking of this all day. Thanks.

I *really* try to assume an "innocent until proven guilty" mindset, and because of that, I have a bit of empathy for Riefenstahl. If you value your life, and Hitler asks you to do something, do you do it?

Was she such an artist that she demanded nothing less than perfection from herself? And as such, is that why the film is so technically brilliant yet so despicable?

We have to admit that hindsight is 20/20 and ask ourselves, in 1934, was it likely that she was aware of the so-called "evils" of the Nazi party?

Again, I have a bit of empathy for Riefenstahl, because she <b>was</b> an artist, and she was operating under extraordinary circumstances. I can't say for certain how I would have done when faced with the same.

Actually, no, you don't do what Hitler told you to do. If she had a gun to her head and *absolutely* had to co-operate, she should have at least done a piss-poor movie.

To make "High Art" in the service of such a criminal is deplorable.

Elia Kazan, however... He may have caved in to pressure in Senate chambers and had a brief period of weakness. That in itself might not be enough to totally override his good points.

Did he ever discuss his involvement? Did he regret his actions? A lot of my opinion would ride on his own interpretation of his failings.

- Pie, not a movie buff

The only thing I've read (or heard) about Kazan's feelings about the whole thing was attributed to him, and went something like (this is not an exact quote, but near enough) "Better a few people should suffer a little than for me to have my career ended."

Take from that what you will.

Kazan's body of work is great; ditto for Riefenstahl.

I try to separate the work from the person's private life. For example, I think Axl Rose is a retard, but I think Guns n' Roses was great.

I see Kazan's situation like this: he's not from the US, he was a member of the Communist Party, and government folks wanted to talk to him. I'd probably be shitting my pants at this point, and would probably be looking out for myself and myself only. Is what he did right? *shrugs* It depends, really...

Don't forget in 1952 the majority of Americans thought McCarthy was doing a good thing. Same for Hitler in Germany, circa 1934.

Polanski has to leave the country to flee statutory rape charges and no one in Hollywood gives a rats ass.

Guess it depends who you screw over.

Yeah, them Hollyweird folks clapped like all get out for Polanski's nom this past year at the Oscars, didn't they?

So, let's put this in a Hollywood perspective...sex with minors, good. Ratting out peers to Congress, bad.

Someone ought to publish a complete Guide to Hollywood Ethics. Can't tell the transgressions without a program, you know.

There's a good chance the two are related. I expect McCarthy had a great deal to do with the general distrust of government in Hollywood. So, irrational as it may be, Polanski's defying of the government gains some glory, even though the reason for it is despicable.

That and movies like Wag the Dog. Hollywood scripts are their reality.