I know I’m not the only person who shudders at the Miramax logo as it rolls before a movie or TV show — I think one of you even noted that a Project Runway rewatch was marred by the specter of Harvey Weinstein floating above it all. In other cases, though, it’s a harder thing to get past (think Robert Blake being a creep in Lost Highway just a few years before he allegedly shot and killed his wife, for example). And I suspect that few people are catching up on Billy Jensen’s podcast work these days, for obvious reasons.
It’s stuff that distracts us from the program at hand, through no fault of most of the folks (we assume/hope!) who made the TV show, film or podcast. But what about projects that have yet to be released, but are already under a cloud? At what point does their relationship to a crime or ongoing investigation mean executives should put it on the shelf?
Most of the claims against Miller are fairly benign when taken on their own — compare the booze theft allegation, for example, to the wild bar fight during the making ofDomestic Disturbancethat ended with stab wounds for actor Steve Buscemi, while Vince Vaughn got a faceful of mace. Filming and release of that movie went forward, no problem.
One can hope that by June 23, 2023, The Flash’s oft-bumped release date, Miller will have received the help they need and their alleged string of criminal behavior will be in the past. That’s likely what its studio is hoping. But calls for The Flash to be shelved are growing ever-louder.
Then there’s Rust. As recently as May, its producers said that they expected to resume production once the investigation into the fatal on-set shooting of Halyna Hutchins is complete. My first reaction to that news was “nope, no thanks” but I also love the movie The Crow,so…
I can tell when we have a good discussion thread idea when I find myself switching sides as I write it, so I feel great about this one! So here’s the question: at what point should a project be shelved — or even removed from circulation! — due to its relationship with a criminal case. Is there a line? If so, where is it? — EB
It's a really good question. My quick answer is, well, probably never. But I think it's less a moral question than a financial question. In other words, is the project so tainted that it makes long-term sense just to shelve it? The bar should, I think, be really high if the work of hundreds--in the case of a movie--is tossed aside.
I once dated someone who said he would never watch anything by Roman Polanski because, “That man is a baby rapist.” While Polanski himself never denied his crime, he fled the US because the DA was trying to make an example of him, not pursue the law as it stood. My boyfriend refused to consider any other angles, so I told him that, given his criteria, he should just stop watching any and all media formats as, “I can guarantee you that some asshole, somewhere along the line in the creation of that product, did something you find egregious and unforgivable.” Especially a big movie/tv show. I am not a Polanski defender/apologist, nor a defender of the ones we catch, but sometimes there has to be a separation of ‘church and state,’ so to speak, and let the marketplace decide if someone’s work is worth looking the other way.
This is an important discussion. I've been called out on this issue by someone close to me whose opinion I value, and I've wrestled with the idea somewhat ... but not enough to give up consuming true crime properties. I was introduced to the genre when I was a teenager in the context of psychology. What are the motives behind people who commit crimes, especially the most heinous ones? The HBO doc "Crazy, Not Insane" is the best material I've seen on this topic. I really enjoyed Mindhunter as well and I'm still upset that there may not be another season. Or maybe that's just the voyeur in me ... I grew up in Wichita in the '80s and '90s and my family shopped at the grocery store where BTK abandoned the Otero family's station wagon after murdering them. My personal proximity to those crimes has definitely caused me to have a deeper interest in them.
These topics have fascinated me for as long as I can remember. And the issue of what causes someone to commit the most atrocious acts against other humans is a worthy topic to study. But when does it become simple rubbernecking? Maybe that is the issue to focus on. Maybe I'm just rationalizing my consumption. I don't really have an answer for this. I think it merits further discussion and I want to know what other folks think.
I highly doubt Rust will ever be completed. Unless insurance companies pay every penny of every judgment, there’s not going to be any money left to finish the film. I don’t have a video link or interview link but I’m pretty sure Jensen Ackles said that the cast doesn’t expect it to ever resume filming. And considering how many lawsuits were filed by crew members, I’m not sure anyone would sign up to work on the film at this point either. I’ve also heard that the longer the criminal investigation goes on, the more likely there will be criminal charges, because that usually means the DA and the cops are dotting the Is and crossing the Ts to make sure the charges stick.
Edited to add: When I say "every judgment," I'm referring to the five lawsuits currently in courts: Mamie Mitchell (script supervisor), Serge Svetnoy (gaffer), Cherlyn Schaefer (set medic), Hannah Gutierrez-Reed (armorer, but that one is primarily against the propmaster rather than the producers and Baldwin), and the Hutchins' family's wrongful death suit. There's no way there will be money left to finish the film, as almost all of these suits seem to have strong evidence of negligence on the part of the producers--if not outright sabotage, which is what the armorer's suit alleges.
It's a really good question. My quick answer is, well, probably never. But I think it's less a moral question than a financial question. In other words, is the project so tainted that it makes long-term sense just to shelve it? The bar should, I think, be really high if the work of hundreds--in the case of a movie--is tossed aside.
I once dated someone who said he would never watch anything by Roman Polanski because, “That man is a baby rapist.” While Polanski himself never denied his crime, he fled the US because the DA was trying to make an example of him, not pursue the law as it stood. My boyfriend refused to consider any other angles, so I told him that, given his criteria, he should just stop watching any and all media formats as, “I can guarantee you that some asshole, somewhere along the line in the creation of that product, did something you find egregious and unforgivable.” Especially a big movie/tv show. I am not a Polanski defender/apologist, nor a defender of the ones we catch, but sometimes there has to be a separation of ‘church and state,’ so to speak, and let the marketplace decide if someone’s work is worth looking the other way.
This is an important discussion. I've been called out on this issue by someone close to me whose opinion I value, and I've wrestled with the idea somewhat ... but not enough to give up consuming true crime properties. I was introduced to the genre when I was a teenager in the context of psychology. What are the motives behind people who commit crimes, especially the most heinous ones? The HBO doc "Crazy, Not Insane" is the best material I've seen on this topic. I really enjoyed Mindhunter as well and I'm still upset that there may not be another season. Or maybe that's just the voyeur in me ... I grew up in Wichita in the '80s and '90s and my family shopped at the grocery store where BTK abandoned the Otero family's station wagon after murdering them. My personal proximity to those crimes has definitely caused me to have a deeper interest in them.
These topics have fascinated me for as long as I can remember. And the issue of what causes someone to commit the most atrocious acts against other humans is a worthy topic to study. But when does it become simple rubbernecking? Maybe that is the issue to focus on. Maybe I'm just rationalizing my consumption. I don't really have an answer for this. I think it merits further discussion and I want to know what other folks think.
I highly doubt Rust will ever be completed. Unless insurance companies pay every penny of every judgment, there’s not going to be any money left to finish the film. I don’t have a video link or interview link but I’m pretty sure Jensen Ackles said that the cast doesn’t expect it to ever resume filming. And considering how many lawsuits were filed by crew members, I’m not sure anyone would sign up to work on the film at this point either. I’ve also heard that the longer the criminal investigation goes on, the more likely there will be criminal charges, because that usually means the DA and the cops are dotting the Is and crossing the Ts to make sure the charges stick.
Edited to add: When I say "every judgment," I'm referring to the five lawsuits currently in courts: Mamie Mitchell (script supervisor), Serge Svetnoy (gaffer), Cherlyn Schaefer (set medic), Hannah Gutierrez-Reed (armorer, but that one is primarily against the propmaster rather than the producers and Baldwin), and the Hutchins' family's wrongful death suit. There's no way there will be money left to finish the film, as almost all of these suits seem to have strong evidence of negligence on the part of the producers--if not outright sabotage, which is what the armorer's suit alleges.