Recently I've found myself in quite the moral dilemma: how morally wrong is it to consume media of those accused of sex crimes? Just the other day, I sat down to watch Kill Bill Vol. 1, one of my favorite movies, and groaned when I saw Harvey Weinstein's name in the opening credits.
I still watched the movie and loved it as much as ever, but the Weinstein name was a dark cloud hanging over my enjoyment.
How wrong is it to indulge in media, knowing that there is a sex offender behind the scenes?
I feel that Kill Bill is an easy answer, seeing as Weinstein is not actually in the movie, his company produced it. Uma Thurman and the array of other wonderful actors in the movie deserve to have the fruits of their labor enjoyed by audiences, and they deserve to make a profit off of it.
Weinstein, however, does not. Although it's impossible to remove his name from the credits, and just as impossible to retract any profit he made off of the movie, it's easy to pretend he wasn't involved at all.
With movies like Annie Hall or Manchester by the Sea, however, it becomes more difficult to separate art from the artist. Woody Allen has an infamous reputation, and yet is still making movies to this day. His upcoming film is alleged to feature a romantic relationship between a grown man and an underage girl, life imitating art you might say.
In that case, it's an easy enough decision to make: don't see his movie. In the case of Casey Affleck, he was accused of sexual harassment by at least 2 women, and still won several awards and received critical acclaim. Again, easy to not see his movies.
So, how morally wrong is it to consume such media? The short answer: there's not one way to answer. Each situation has to be taken in context, and we have to remember the dozens of innocent people who worked on these movies and deserve recognition. Ultimately, though, we have to avoid supporting a sex offender's art.