I think this raises a good point. I am not entirely shocked by the article, just by the response I've seen from it. I mean,
Gunter Grass was in the S.S., Lennon was a terrible father, Mozart was a whore mongering drunk, Freud was a delusional drug addict... I heard that Socrates ate kittens in front of little children. :) You can find (sometimes immense) fault in almost everyone.
I guess my point is, aren't heroes still human beings and therefore fallible?
I know most of my heroes, especially in theatre, have done at least one thing or another to qualify them as terrible people.
This doesn't make their contribution to the world any less valuable, does it?
Didn't Greek theatre teach, that we are all of us, made up of good and bad, simultaneously? That no one is simply one way or the other?
I understand that if someone speaks from the standpoint of moral authority, and this morality is called into question, it might seem to change the perception of his work, but does his work then, cease to be valid or in some way loose it's importance?
I'm asking, I don't know.
I realize I am probably particularly biased on this subject, but I think it's an interesting topic.
I'm just surprised by how so many (especially theatre practitioners, who act as if they are the most open minded people in the world) jump to conclusive judgment and condemnation so quickly.
Just to clarify, upon reading a story, I place myself in the position of all those involved (Maybe it's an actor thing?). I read this article empathizing with each of them distinctly: Inge Morath, Christopher, Arthur Miller, Rebecca.
It isn't that it is impossible to imagine that he would do anything bad. I'm not that shortsighted. Nor do I think it is merely judgment cast upon him. On the contrary. I am heartbroken for him. I'm sure he had to carry the weight of his decision for the rest of his life. For all of them... the struggle, the pain, guilt. Also, as terrible as it sounds, I can't help but think, "My god... that could make for some really good theatre."
Gunter Grass was in the S.S.,
Lennon was a terrible father,
Mozart was a whore mongering drunk,
Freud was a delusional drug addict...
I heard that Socrates ate kittens in front of little children. :)
You can find (sometimes immense) fault in almost everyone.
I guess my point is, aren't heroes still human beings and therefore fallible?
I know most of my heroes, especially in theatre, have done at least one thing or another to qualify them as terrible people.
This doesn't make their contribution to the world any less valuable, does it?
Didn't Greek theatre teach, that we are all of us, made up of good and bad, simultaneously? That no one is simply one way or the other?
I understand that if someone speaks from the standpoint of moral authority, and this morality is called into question, it might seem to change the perception of his work, but does his work then, cease to be valid or in some way loose it's importance?
I'm asking, I don't know.
I realize I am probably particularly biased on this subject, but I think it's an interesting topic.
I'm just surprised by how so many (especially theatre practitioners, who act as if they are the most open minded people in the world) jump to conclusive judgment and condemnation so quickly.
Reply
It isn't that it is impossible to imagine that he would do anything bad. I'm not that shortsighted. Nor do I think it is merely judgment cast upon him. On the contrary. I am heartbroken for him. I'm sure he had to carry the weight of his decision for the rest of his life. For all of them... the struggle, the pain, guilt. Also, as terrible as it sounds, I can't help but think, "My god... that could make for some really good theatre."
Reply
Leave a comment