Can You Divorce the Creator From the Creation? Why I Won’t See Ender’s Game

Maybe it’s my inherent Jewish guilt, but like many people, when I watch a Woody Allen movie I feel conflicted.

Woody Allen’s sordid history is no secret from anyone. He is and has been in an sexual relationship with his adopted daughter. Anytime I watch one of his movies I wonder: am I just enabling his creepy, horrible life by enjoying his –mostly — captivating art? This argument takes center stage in his film Bullets over Broadway; basically, if your production has an unsavory benefactor (or creator), can the work NOT be compromised?

How much does the life influence/inform the creation? Can both of these aspects be mutually exclusive?

Another controversial creator favorite of mine (who I feel crazy guilty for liking as well) is Roman Polanski. Rosemary’s Baby is one of my favorites of all time; however, as we know, he is still being sought after for arrest for a case involving the child rape of a 13 year old. I feel chills down my spine writing that last sentence. Both of these creators have done universally acknowledged horrible things.

The difference between my conflict with these artists and my conflict with Orson Scott Card is that there is I have no conflict that coincides with indulging in his media, because I am abhorrently against supporting him in any way, shape, or form. Unlike the aforementioned creators, none of them have directly contributed their time and money to attempt to put an end to a life of freedom and the pursuit of happiness.

Enders GameSure, the director himself, Gavin Hood has said, “I do not agree with Orson Scott Card’s position on gay marriage. But, I love ‘Ender’s Game‘ the book. And that’s something that one has to reconcile in one’s own head.” But in a world with such an outspoken fan base and social presence (thanks great equalizer), can these issues be pushed aside?

I’m glad to hear that OSC has “nothing” to do with the movie (even though he IS listed as a producer). But why not go one step further than that and do the responsible thing of giving a portion of the proceeds to an LGBTQ charity that promotes equality?

Paying lip service to the fact that they don’t agree with OSC’s views is a lot different than actually doing something about it. By creating this film and acknowledging it as a major force in the stratum of pop culture; we, the consumers of pop culture, are tacitly agreeing that these views are acceptable. As the old axiom by Martin Niemoller goes, “Then they came for me, and there is no one left to speak for me.

If injustice is out there, it needs to be acknowledged. In this specific case, considering OSC has been so vehemently against the LGBTQ community as a spokesperson and a financial contributor to the now defunct N.O.M. (National Organization for Marriage); the only way I would even bother to see the film, is if Lionsgate donated a large contribution to an LGBTQ charity of their choosing… after all, they acknowledge the issue by saying that they are, “proud longtime supporters of the LGBT{Q} community.” (Editor’s Note: The “{Q}” is added by Jordan. -T)

Lionsgate, I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is.

In an article on the exact same issue in The Dissolve (in the comments section), David C, adds to the commentary on this well thought out piece that succinctly communicates the problems of continuing to contribute to OSC’s wallet: “Money IS speech.” By giving anti-LGBTQ advocates like OSC more money, they essentially have more volume to shout their corrupted views to anyone willing to listen. So the best thing to do would be to NOT buy the book.

In spite of this controversy and the 11,000+ signatures on the petition by Geeks Out, Dustin Lance Black, LGBT Activist and writer of Milk, stated:

Boycotting a movie made by 99% lgbt{q} equality folks in an lgbt{q} equality industry is a waste of our collective energy. Making one phone call to a relative in the south who isn’t quite there yet would be 1000 times more effective.

I agree, by bringing down this massive-scaled attack of the LGBTQ community that Orson Scott Card has been rallying: from the macro scale, to the micro (personal) scale; that this is a move in the right direction. As previously mentioned in our group discussion, everyone is entitled to their own opinions; considering that is one of the founding sentiments that helped establish this democratic society in which we live; but these kinds of vitriolic sentiments, cannot and should not be broadcast on such a large scale any more.

Jordan Young

Jordan Y. is a beer-drinking, game-playing, fantasy-loving, unabashed nerd, who has his mantra tattooed on his arm in Latin. "Live with Passion." . Using that guiding principal, he has the ambition to do anything and everything. That includes recently proposing to his now fiancee on the Iron Throne. One distant fall ago he started a journey to pair beer with every Zelda dungeon out there. This is documented on drink-to-the-past.tumblr.com

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. skeeter451 says:

    The NOM is alive and well and continuing its fight against equality. They were out in force in Hawaii, but alas their efforts were to no avail.

    http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/claiming-marriage-equality-damages-our-people-nom-goes-to-hawaii-pretends-to-be-hawaiian/politics/2013/10/28/77522#.Un4wlvlwquk

Leave a Reply