With the release of Roman Polanski's new film The Ghost Writer and the cloud of scandal that has surrounded his career, a puzzling question emerges: What is the effect of the indiscretions in the personal lives of filmmakers and/or directors on the reception to their ensuing projects? Common sense would tell us that the public opinion of the artist would be inversely proportional to the box office gross, but is that always the case? Do we have a moral imperative to abstain from paying to see films made by people who demonstrate a lack of respect for the law?
In a perfect world, those who abuse their clout and fly in the face of legal or moral standards would at least be relegated to direct-to-video projects for the rest of their careers, right? But the inescapable truth here is that admission into the cinematic community carries with it not only riches and fame but also an assurance of your audience's shortened memories. And as much as we are a culture consumed by gossip, the fact of the matter is that personal issues of movie stars bear little to no influence on the majority of us and our decisions to see the their newest films. Honestly, this moral relativism we adopt is entirely appropriate as the character on screen is very rarely the actor himself/herself, and thus bringing that human being's shortcomings into analysis or even enjoyment of the performance is trivial.
That being said, there are ways to leapfrog the faux pas to ensure that your box office grosses do not suffer. Let's examine the Mel Gibson situation as an example of this carefully executed tactic. Basically, depending on the severity of your crime, you take a hiatus from the public eye and either actually enroll in a rehabilitation facility or stay away long enough to make people think you have enrolled. Then -- and this is the step in the procedure that will separate legitimate actors from flash-in-the-pan, trendy movie stars -- you let your work speak for itself once you return. Incendiary though his situation was, Mel spoke not a word of the event and opted to quietly leave the limelight for nearly 8 years. His return, in the film Edge of Darkness, was impressive and showcased his immeasurable talent but it also seemed all the more triumphant because of the sabbatical he had taken. In this way, his tribulations were arguably of benefit to the film. But the fans of Mel would have seen the movie either way because they are able to divorce the problems of the man with their fandom of the actor.
The most important piece of evidence in the court of public appeal, as far as those in Hollywood are concerned, is quality of work. And once we absolve the artist, the film is unfazed by the controversy. If the Mel Gibson situation still seems unconvincing of that fact, one need look no further than the career of Robert Downey, Jr. as incontrovertible proof. Downey managed to ruin his public image more times than we are able to count, but each time he would return to the screen and knock us on our asses with comeback performances in Chaplin, Wonderboys and Iron Man. So again, the quality of the work and the quality of the overall film determine the judgment of the masses.
In Polanski' s case, his crime was far more heinous and resulted in his fleeing to France, where he was recently arrested. Surely the public opinion of him at that point would incur passionate boycotting of Ghost Writer screenings and picketing outside the offices of Summit Entertainment -- which distributed the film in America --right?
Wrong.
The fact is that public opinion of Polanski is going to be so neutralized that it won’t affect the film one iota. The people who are going to see it because dreamy Ewan McGregor is in the new film from the studio that brought them Twilight probably have no idea who Polanski is. And the people that know all about Polanski also know that he has been embroiled in this scandal for over three decades and have long since moved past it to once again judge him for his work. He has managed to make an effective thriller that evokes Hitchcock at times; that is the public opinion at the moment. I mean, if public opinion really hurt a film that much, would the man have won an Oscar for The Pianist?