It depends on the art (hence my cheating with "necessarily"). If I paint a portrait with George W. Bush depicted as the god Mars, would you argue that all he was is a model and nothing about his personal history matters to the art?

Interesting. I maybe went in with the wrong frame of mind then. Part of my problem is that it was SO close stylistically to Hill House but did not seem to be doing anything with it. But maybe the similarity was distracting me from what the movie was trying to say.

It might just be me then because on paper it was exactly what I wanted but it never landed for me. I could see how it was trying to be another Haunting of Hill House but the voiceover didn't frighten me or linger in my mind the way it did in Hill House and the empty scenes never filled me with dread the way similar…

Well if you're deliberately casting a "celebrity guest star" you're consciously incorporating their celebrity into your art. Especially when you cast one not known for their acting. Do you think they chose Chris Brown because they just couldn't find a single actor who could play the part better?

I don't see anyone arguing that the moral failings of an artist necessarily devalues their art as art. But why should their art protect them from being criticized for their moral failings?

It's influence is, ironically, overblown by the propaganda about it. It's more a triumph of "throwing infinite money at a film" than of cinema. The only new thing in it was how much it cost and it's exceedingly tedious to watch.

I don't understand what you mean by that then. What does his right to earn a living have to do with someone criticizing the people who would hire him to appear on their show?

Sure. And Chris Brown gets more passes than he would if he were some poor nobody. Life is unjust. And racist and classist and sexist. But that doesn't mean Chris Brown deserves some sort of pass. He is an awful violent misogynist.

More like 58 years old. People in their 90s voted democrat.

I suspect if Bill Cosby appeared on this show, we'd definitely be having a lot of conversations.

I thought that it was a bit empty. Like it had all the pieces to be a spooky Shirley Jackson story but none of her genius. I mean that rambling voiceover should have been spooky but it went nowhere and meant nothing.

That doesn't make any sense. Blackish is a show that is ordinarily not about Chris Brown. This episode happens to be about him.

This isn't a blog about someone I don't like though. It's an article about a show. Where someone I don't like randomly appeared in an episode.

Better for who? If someone dumps garbage on my porch should I not complain because I don't like anything about it?

It's a morally responsible one though. There's nothing inconsistent in saying, "You have the legal right to work," and saying, "I will judge and deplore anyone who hires you."

Why would you have to like someone to comment on them?

This seems a bit of a stretch to me. The "girlfriends" are discussed. They don't appear because they would be expensive for an already expensive and overstuffed movie. Hulk and his issues are the reason the BW relationship doesn't work.

I suspect many of them believe that meat would magically be safe without government regulation.

I mean it's more that he's not looking out for the any guy. I doubt anyone or anything is real to him unless it's directly in front of him.

What do you mean? I can't think of how Maria Hill was written in a sex-negative way. Which female characters? Wanda?