Um. That was a quote from the movie. The movie Heathers. The movie that is being remade into a show that this article is about.

I’ve yet to encounter a woman who doesn’t get why this matters.

You’re viewing Frankenstein from a viewpoint that is obviously educated, with a thorough understanding of the era in which it was written, and that era’s societal views of women. But someone who doesn’t have the benefit of your research can enjoy it in a completely different way. You don’t have to know everything…

Did you catch that I put “allowed” in quotes?

Amendment: One thing you said is, in fact, wrong. An artist’s art is not, “by necessity,” a reflection of who they are. Stephen King is not (to the best of anyone’s knowledge) a murderer. And yet, he sure does write them well.

Nothing you’re saying is wrong, but everything you’ve said completely proves my point about how what the viewer of art brings of him/herself to the piece affects what the art “means.”

That was a great contribution. Thanks for your snark, kiddo!

I think it’s also worth considering that what a viewer brings of his/herself to the viewing of a piece of art is just as important as what the artist gave of him/herself in the making of it.

I don’t disagree one bit with your examples, but I do think that a person can be more than one thing, and that not everything in their work is representative of their worst inclinations. Again, using Lennon as just one example, I’m sure you’ll find ugliness in his lyrics if you look hard enough, but there’s plenty of…

It also begs the question - are we “allowed” to separate the artist from the art? We hear these days of Cosby, Hitchcock, etc. But the list of artists who’ve done this kind of thing is endless, going back centuries. Lord Byron was a complete scoundrel; John Lennon beat up both his wives, etc. etc, ad nauseum.

#ClownLivesMatter

There are, in fact, different conditions for child actors than if they were working in a shop, like having tutors on set so that they can make up for not being at school, they can only work a certain amount of hours per day, there has to be a legal guardian on set, etc. The Screen Actors Guild website can provide…

So, maybe I’m an “Old,” but it sounds like “cucking” is a these-days contraction of being “cuckolded,” which means a man allowing another man to sleep with his wife - which, it doesn’t seem like Cruz is going to do.

Your principles are only worth anything when they’re inconvenient.

Her name is Spaghetto, she’s wearing 8-bit watermelon earrings, every other word out of most of these people’s mouths is “like,” and it’s a full documentary about one dance move.

Preface - not attacking, just confused and encouraging a civil reposte:

And, does the artist’s work become null, void, and lousy when the artist is revealed to have a personal failing? H.P. Lovecraft was a racist - is The Lurking Fear no longer a masterpiece? Johnny Depp is an avusive drunk - are we no longer allowed to enjoy his performance in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas?

This brings up a question that is deserving of ponderance and discussion: is a person’s personal life indivisible from their art/work/contribution to the world? There’s been a lot of coverage of Nate Parker and Woody Allen and (obvs) Bill Cosby, and people keep bringing up Roman Polanski (some in this thread), but…

“I can name that tune in 4 notes...”

...there is a highly recognizable song playing over almost every inch of it, in case you felt like you really needed to hear a note-perfect cover of “Bohemian Rhapsody” by fucking Panic! At the Disco.