I've been thinking about this myself. I usually manage to separate their work from their person. For instance, I've always liked Tom Cruise. I grew up with his movies and his posters everywhere in magazines etc. So I was at first quite disappointed when he turned ut to be a fanatical Scientologist. 

However, as I see it, however he is as a person doesn't affect the quality of the work he has done. His acting is just as awesome (and he looks just as gorgeous) even if he is an idiot. 

I used to be disappointed in my idols pretty quickly when I was younger, it took very little. However, the last few years I've come to believe that being famous doesn't mean you owe the public anything. An actor doesn't have to be a better person than a clerk at the gas station. I think it's an illusion if we think they do (not saying that you do, tonnaree, just my thoughts in general).

The Cosby show will always be a part of my childhood and something of the more cosiest thing I watched on tv as a child. Tom Cruise will always be one of my teenage hearthrobs and a great actor for several of his movies, and Mel Gibson will always be a legend in Mad Max and Deadly Weapon. Whomever they are in their private life is none of my business. 

I agree with both of you!    In theory, I'm happy to appreciate somebody's art no matter what they've done outside of it - I think the art still stands as it is.  On the other hand, personally, I sometimes find it difficult to see it without that in my mind.   And I think that's particularly the case with actors, where you're actually seeing them on the screen (as opposed to say, painters, composers, etc.).   In some cases, I'm not even sure if the people have been proven to be guilty of abuse, but I seem to feel differently about them when I know they might be.

 

Interesting to read others perspectives on this.
Mine is a bit of a mixed contribution.
First hand: went to see Elvis Costello in concert when I was 18 and he was in a foul mood, constantly insulted the audience and shouted at his band. He played a really short set and then stormed off. I returned to college heartbroken at seeing an idol of mine behave like a brat.
I've had other heroes of mine accused of racism and stuff: Eric Clapton comes to mind.
But the biggie for me was Pete Townshend being indited for trying to access child pornography.
Happily in case people don't know, he has been completely exonerated and the police have told him that if he ever needs one- they will willingly write a testimonial for him.
There are legal complications but anyway, point is: I never doubted him for a moment.
There have been recent cases in the UK of celebs taking out super injunctions to stop revelations of sexual antics.
Because of my thinking I know who the actor is, I am always a bit funny about watching his work.

Actually, on the Sherlock theme and I really don't want to turn this in to  slagging match about the team! But...
I heard about a worse one with Benedict, when a girl actually left the fandom because of an unfortunate encounter with him, although it wasn't entirely his fault.
I personally really didn't like that time on Graham Norton(I think), when he recalled making a bit of a silly comment to an asexual guy.
I was mostly p-d off about Amanda not paying her taxes, but apparently Martin had been furious with her, too and it was all just a misunderstanding.

Interesting topic. Now I am thinking about people I really idolised. I have been a lifelong fan of Peter O'Toole. And of course I knew about his heavy drinking, his brawls and all that stuff. But it did not drive me away because in the end he mostly damaged his own health. And what is more, he came back from all that and went on working for many years without this stuff. 

Two things that would really put me off an idol: extremist political views which are unacceptable to me and/or abusive behaviour of any kind. It may be fine to say I appreciate his/her work and that is all I am interested in but I think it does deeper. I think I could not really appreciate an idol who behaves in a way I would not accept in anyone else just because they are famous. 

As for Benedict: I was not really impressed with reading about his sexual Sherlock fantasies and I am not a big fan of advertising campaigns for cars in China either. But there are so many good and lovely and thoughtful things he has said and done that I can accept the things I do not like so much.

In the end it is very much like real life - if you like or love someone, you put up with weaknesses and faults as long as the good things outweigh them. 

Quite so, Susi.
Oh and typical me, forgot the most pertinent one in my case(I think it was protective amnesia!).
Years ago I used to be a member of a very radical Scottish political party.
The party leader was even known as 'Saint', by Scotland's then highest episcopal leader.
Needless to say said leader was brought crashing own by appalling revelations about his adulterous sex life.
I can't see me ever joining a political party again.

Last edited by besleybean (June 23, 2016 5:08 pm)

Vhanja wrote:

Yes, I think to me it depends a lot on what it is. I think cruelty to animals would put me of anyone pretty fast. That would be one of the few things I couldn't tolerate at all.

When you mention adulterous sex life, besley, that reminds of the huge Bill Clinton scandal. I never understood what the big fuss was about. What on earth did it matter if he was having an affair as long as he did his job well? I didn't see the connection at all, and I really don't care about such things. 

Of course it's bad to have an affair, but it's none of my business. And neither is it relevant for the job the person is doing, whether he's an actor or a president. 

I was the same way during the Clinton scandal.  Don't get me wrong, I was disappointed to find out that Bill was a seriel philanderer, but in my opinion being a bad husband did not mean he was a bad president.  My god, he certainly wasn't the first president to check on his wife.

Last edited by tonnaree (June 23, 2016 5:52 pm)

This topic is one that has been on my mind for the past year or so, what with all the cases that have been coming up.  I enjoyed reading your responses.

One example that fits into this topic is that of a recent sexual assault case on a former radio host here in Canada called Jian Ghomeshi.  While he was not someone who was an "idol" of mine, I had certainly respected him and thought he did good interviews with the guests on the show.  But a number have women have come forward with their stories of being sexually harassed by him, and that is upsetting.  Whenever there is something like this, it feels like betrayal, and Ghomeshi was no exception.  I can't stand the thought of him now.  Luckily the show goes on and doesn't need him as host.  It's still a good programme.  Unfortunately, he was not found guilty even though I think everyone believes he did it (or at least most people).  It showed us the flaws in the legal system regarding these kind of cases - that victims' relationships with their abusers do not fit the narrative that we may expect, that they come back.  But even if I understand that, I was still angry that he was not convicted.

I have talked about this with my mum and we came to this conclusion about why we react this way when someone whose work we enjoyed turns out to be an abuser or something else like that.  We think that because these people do good work or create good things, that they must be good. 

But sometimes they're not good.

I agree that there are some things that can be forgiven, being in a bad mood and therefore perhaps not the politest to a fan or an audience or an interviewer.  I think that is forgivable.  People make mistakes and they learn.
In a book I read, one of the characters notes that we are always in a state of changing, of becoming something different.
I think this can be applied to mistakes famous people make.  Perhaps we can't forgive abuse, at least not without a lot of proof that the person understands what they did was wrong, but other things - we can't forget that just like us, these people don't come into the world knowing everything, and might do stupid things or say things that they may not agree with later on.  
I think it is up to each person who's work they are still going to allow themselves to enjoy, how much they will let disgusting actions keep them from enjoying something.  And it's not bad to not be able to - I'm not sure I'll ever be able to watch The Cosby Show again, at least not for a long time, without a bad taste in my mouth below the laughs that it would give me.  
But I enjoyed Annie Hall even though I knew Woody Allen was a dubious character.

Here's a question I have: Do you think whether or not the person is still alive makes a difference? If that person is alive, they could still be making money off our enjoyment, but if they are not, then what do they get out of it? We only have the work left.
Just something to think about, since I haven't reached a conclusion for myself on that question, 

That plays into the Michael Jackson thing.  There are many comments on the news article I posted saying "the man is dead, leave him in peace."  My thought is, him being dead does not erase any wrong he may have done.  It does not heal the pain of his victims.  It's still relevant.

I'd also like to make the distinction that there is a big difference between someone making a mistake, and someone being proved to have a history of immoral/bad behavior.  

Always worse for those left having to deal with the fall out.