WHEN WE CONDEMN THE ARTIST, MUST WE CONDEMN THEIR ART?
[Editor’s Note: This is a question raised by the recent removal of Allison Mack’s voice from Lost in Oz. It has been speculated that Smallville reruns may get pulled off the air. This affects others. Hollywood director Stan Isaacs wrote this piece for my publication Artvoice about Bill Cosby but I think it might hit home with revelations of what Allison Mack now faces.]
By Stanley Isaacs
William Henry “Bill” Cosby, Jr. is a Convicted Sex Offender. Just to be crystal clear this is not intended to be a defense in any way for the despicable behavior Bill Cosby was found guilty of — He was convicted of three counts of aggravated indecent assault and has been accused of sexual assault by as many as 60 other women. But beyond the 60-plus victims, the consequences of Cosby’s behavior have severely impacted countless others.
Cosby was an actor, stand-up comedian, musician and author whose body of work not only entertained but educated tens of millions of children and adults for over five decades – He is also a multiple Emmy, Golden Globe and Grammy winner in addition to the numerous other awards he received and he was presented with at least a dozen honorary degrees — most of them have been rescinded as of this writing.
His honorary doctorate from Yale is the first one rescinded by that institution in its 300 year history. He was also the recipient of the Kennedy Center Honors and their Mark Twain prize for American humor, both of which have been revoked by the Board of Trustees.
A spokesperson stated, “The Honors and Mark Twain Prize are given to artists who, through their lifetime of work, have left an indelible impact on American culture. As a result of Mr. Cosby’s recent criminal conviction, the Board concluded that his actions have overshadowed the very career accomplishments these distinctions from the Kennedy Center intend to recognize.”
Also, all references to Cosby were removed from Television Academy’s website, including from the list of honorees in the organization’s Television Hall of Fame. In addition, the Academy confirmed that a bust of Cosby that had been removed during construction at the organization’s North Hollywood facility will not be returned to display. Although, at the moment, the organization has no plans to rescind Cosby’s four Primetime Emmy awards.
Additionally, seven days after his conviction The Board of Governors of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences also voted to expel Cosby (along with convicted sex offender, director, Roman Polanski), from its membership ranks.
All of this is even more disheartening in this era of inclusion and diversity when you consider that for his portrayal of Alexander Scott in the hit 1960’s TV series I Spy, Cosby broke new ground as the first black actor to have a leading role in a television drama series. Another series he starred in The Cosby Show, transcended race and ran for nine years from the mid 80’s to the early 90’s and was the number one rated TV show in America for five years in a row. Additionally, Cosby starred in several other successful series and numerous motion pictures and was the spokesperson for several national brands.
But the consequences of Cosby’s actions go way beyond his punishment alone. When the allegations first came to light, The Cosby Show and most every other show or movie bearing his name or likeness were pulled from distribution and syndication. As a result, hundreds if not thousands of individuals involved in the creative process of these show and movies: writers, actors, directors, producers, suffered collateral damage.
Considering that since 1965 (when Cosby starred in I Spy), over 700 “above the line” people entitled to residuals, are estimated to have been involved in Cosby’s various productions, their efforts which resulted in about $20 million in annual residuals have been lost as well as the domestic and international content distributors who’s commissions are estimated to have been about $6 million a year.
For many the financial hardship could not come at a worse time in their life.
Cosby may be the most hi-profile celebrity to be punished thus far, but there is a growing list of actors, directors, producers, musicians and executives that have also been accused of sexual misconduct. If they suffer the same fate as Cosby there is no telling how many other lives will be impacted.
Can we… should we separate the artist from their art so that innocent people do not get punished for someone else’s bad behavior?
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
Keith is seeking bail
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/NXIVM-founder-Keith-Raniere-seeks-bail-calls-12971610.php
Wait. Doesn’t he live under the poverty level? How is he going to afford a $10 million bail?
Darth, that’s what I was thinking…lol. Probably it will just show up like the suit and shirt he wore for the interview.
Obviously he’s going to get Clare and her millions to do it for him. He can also find a bail bond agent but that will require him to pay up to 10-20% of the bail upfront as a non-refundable fee and if the he flees then he will be responsible for the rest of the money. Since he lives under the poverty line (snark) that would require him to pay anywhere from $1-2 million dollars. But of course he doesn’t have the money in any account in his name since he doesn’t keep anything in his name (at least legally) so he’s going to have to get that from Clare too.
He’s such a scam artist who thinks he can buy his way out of everything because he controls an idiot with a lot of money.
How is he going to afford a $10 million bail?
Sugar Mama Clare as always.
Good point Darth. Could the Judge make the condition that VanGrifter has to come up with the money himself? Probably not.
There are ways to defeat the ankle bracelet and armed guard. The ankle bracelet can be taken off, and there will be a delay in response time before company is alerted and calls the suspect. Also, guards can be tricked, sedated, hypnotized, put to sleep, drugged, etc.
Sounds like a recipe for Keith to flee to Fiji or Moscow.
Even if the judge demanded he come up with the funds, doesn’t he still have access to the estate of Pam Cafritz? I think he’s sitting on 8 million there which I don’t know how he pulled off stealing that money!
I would argue against Bail because of the witness tampering and ongoing activities of NXIVM. There are four Bail factors in the Federal system: 1) nature and circumstances of offense, 2) weight of the evidence, 3) history and characteristics of the person, and 4) danger to the community.
The allegations against Raniere are very serious – sex trafficking and extortion (he’s looking at a sentence of life in prison) There is soooo much evidence against Raniere. Keith also fled to Mexico to delay apprehension and engaged in activities to mask his location (threw away cellphone, use of encrypted email). And NXIVM is still operating in foreign countries.
I think the kicker for the judge will be the witness tampering (obstruction of justice in the Federal system), whereas Keith and Clare (AKA Scarecrow, AKA The Enforcer) sent letters from a Mexican attorney to witnesses in the criminal case. That is very serious and calls into question how far the Defendant(s) will go to derail the trial.
So, I think it will be extremely unlikely for Keith to obtain bail.
Tough breaks for those folks, but then nothing’s ever certain in showbiz. So The Cosby Show is taken off reruns. They have to fill those slots with something. So that’s good news for whoever owns what they do use to replace it. One man’s misfortune is another man’s windfall. Such is life.
They can all clean up when they make documentary series about these abortions. Case closed.
A lot of those “above the line” people knew they were working with an ethically challenged rainmaker. They did so anyway because they are enamored of celebrity and yeah they had mortgages to pay for. Are those “above the line” people being penalized unfairly? Ask Martin Niemöller. When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
Frank, you should create a mafia style graphical “hierarchy” of NXVIM (with photos of each person)…..to help outsiders see and understand who did what.
It would be like a pyramid, with photos and titles/descriptions of people’s roles. At the top would be Vanguard. Underneath would be his closest peers, ranked in order of importance (like mafia capos, soldiers, associates, etc). …and so on.
You should include the Mexican associates as well, like Salinas, his wife, Keith’s women in Mexico, ESP coaches in Mexico, etc.
An easy to read hierarchy, including lower level coaches too if they did bad things.
In addition, you could link each person’s photo to a separate page which describes all you know about that person…….such as which NXIVM programs they were involved with, their coaching and sash levels, their history of fucking Keith or others, their nefarious financial transactions (e.g. fishy things that you think the IRS is looking into, etc).
Your articles are great……but it’s hard for outsiders to understand the full hierarchy of players in NXIVM besides Keith and Mack.
NXIVM playing cards.
Except thy would all be Jokers.
Frank, since you’re a PR professional yourself (and not a naive one)……I find it bizarre that you’d bother asking this question.
This question has nothing to do with “fairness”.
It’s a question of businesses protecting their “brand” and “image” from what they feel would be irreparable harm.
It doesn’t matter if Cosby’s co-stars suffer lost residuals from something that happened long after their show stopped filming. It doesn’t matter if they’re totally innocent themselves. It only matters that the owners of the show feel as if their “brand” and “image” would suffer massively if they didn’t pull the show’s re-runs.
*That doesn’t mean every show should be pulled in cases like this.
It simply means that IF a business determines that their brand will suffer irreparable harm by keeping a show on the air, then they have both the moral and legal right to pull the show from the air to protect their brand and business.
Frank, if you were advising a business client on this decision…..I find it hard to believe you’d advise them any other way. Am I wrong?
For the rest of you bleeding hearts…
The world is unfair. Get over it.
Millions of kids are starving right now……and yet NONE of you bleeding hearts are doing one iota of a fucken thing to donate money to help them eat. So spare me the weeping for Cosby’s co-stars. LOL.
Get off your lazy asses and help feed starving kids first. 🙂
Have a nice day. 🙂
– The world is unfair. Get over it.
This isn’t an argument. It is just an assertion. Besides, even if the world isn’t fair, that doesn’t mean you don’t try to be fair or don’t try to make it fair for others. After all, that’s what judges and other legal authorities do when they implement justice. And if justice was implemented in this case a long time ago, if the law couldn’t be bought with Bronfman money and used to harass others, then perhaps many people who were scammed and hurt by the cult may not have been. Better late than never I guess.
I don’t think it is fair to other artists that they bear the ramifications of one bad apple’s actions after the fact. Especially, if they are just a fractional part of the overall production. That would be equivalent to shelving “Lost in Oz” and hurting dozens of other people who put in money, time, and effort into it and who not only don’t believe in what Allison does, could never even have known what she was doing to women behind the scenes. By all means, punish the guilty party, but don’t punish those who are guilty by tenuous association.
– Millions of kids are starving right now……and yet NONE of you bleeding hearts are doing one iota of a fucken thing to donate money to help them eat. So spare me the weeping for Cosby’s co-stars. LOL.
I have donated money exactly for this purpose in the past as I’m sure many other people who posted here have done as well. Except for maybe NXIVM people ironically, since they don’t believe in such types of charitable donations.
And this may be the one time I ever agree with sultanofsix.
hear hear sultan! And Mr. S. I’m hoping theres a valid reason for your high horse exhortations to ‘feed the starving children’ Do you work in public service or for a charitable org. dedicated to the care of such children?
Correct Shadow!
USA May 29 2018
Affirming a district court decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a litigant may be deemed a prevailing party if it receives a dismissal with prejudice against the plaintiff, even if it did not receive favorable judgment on the merits regarding the underlying patent litigation. Raniere v. Microsoft Corp., Case Nos. 17-1400; -1401 (Fed. Cir., Apr. 18, 2018) (O’Malley, J)….
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bfdf2bac-2bb1-487b-a8a1-bd16e0b907a5
Raniere and Cruella Bronfman were hoping to profit off of Microsoft and AT and T in a nuisance law suit.
“Pay us off and we’ll go away.”
with the laptop deal.
They were trying to claim that it was the airlines fault “priceless” proprietary info was gone, and who knows who had access to it.
All of NXIVM was at risk, oooo là là.
Movie producers and TV networks are in business to make a profit for their shareholders.
They can not afford to have the talent screwing around with drugs or alcohol or strange sex cults.
If the personal lives of the talent get mired in scandals, then that imperils the bottom line and that talent must be replaced.
Many media companies take out bonds or insurance to compensate producers if the movies and TV shows don’t get made.
The more screwed up the actors and actresses, the higher the bonds are.
The Entertainment Industry is a very serious business.
What is a Completion Bond?
This is basically referred to as completion “insurance”. There are companies in the film industry who specialize in insuring that a film gets made. It’s a safe guard to guarantee the financier that the film will be completed. A partially made film has zero value.
Many financiers, including banks, will not loan money to a project without a completion bond.
A completion guarantee (sometimes referred to as a completion bond) is a form of insurance offered by a completion guarantor company (in return for a percentage fee based on the budget) that is often used in independently financed films to guarantee that the producer will complete and deliver the film (based on an agreed script, cast and budget) to the distributor(s) thereby triggering the payment of minimum distribution guarantees to the producer (but received by the bank/investor who has cash flowed the guarantee (at a discount) to the producer to trigger production).[1]
The producer will agree to deliver a film (based on an agreed script/cast/budget) to a distributor in respect of certain territories in consideration (inter alia) for payment of a “minimum distribution guarantee” payable at the point in time when the producer has delivered the completed film. The producer obviously requires such funds upfront to finance the film so the producer takes the signed distribution contract to a bank/financier and will effectively use it as collateral against a production loan. It is at this stage that the bank will require a completion bond to be executed to provide them with the required level of security against the risk of non-delivery by the producer. The parties to the completion bond agreement are typically the producer, the financier(s), the completion guarantor company and the distributor(s).
These methods of funding can be complicated and expensive due to legal, bank fees and interest. The bond fee itself is negotiable—typically 3–5% depending on the risks as assessed by the completion guarantor. For these reasons, completion bonds are typically used on mid- to high-budget independent films.
Key to the completion guarantor company’s risk assessment process will be a careful scrutiny of key persons on the production team to determine whether the film is “bondable”. Of particular interest will be the director, first assistant director, line producer, production manager, producer, cast and cinematographer, since these personnel will ultimately be responsible for keeping the production on budget and on schedule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completion_guarantee
If Allison Mack is a total screw up, any project she is an integral part of is UNBONDABLE.
Her acting career is basically over.
It’s not fair to the co-stars, producers, and directors – when one star causes networks to drop syndication and EVERYONE loses residuals.
But maybe this way, once hit in the pocketbooks, the co-stars and directors will start to speak up. Hopefully, Directors and Producers will become more involved and stop cult recruitment efforts on set.
And now that they are losing $$$, these same directors, co-stars, and producers will start to speak out and stand up against NXIVM also.
Hollywood is filled with attractive blonde actresses who could replace Allison Mack in a minute.
Can you say Kristen Bell?
Or Beth Behrs?
Or Kaley Cuoco?
Kristen Bell yes–Veronica Mars and Chloe Sullivan were cut from the same cloth–but both Beth Behrs and Kaley Cuoco are one note performers who get by on being cute blondes. Say when you will but both Allison Mack and Kristen Bell are strong, emotive actors who have range–they can play both comedy and drama,
With Allison Mack in the cast of a movie or TV show it is doubtful that the project could even receive a completion bond.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completion_guarantee
Yes this is tough, but there are other ways of jeopardising residuals that have nothing to do with the behaviour of artists and everything to do with the machinations of a free market. If for example you are an executive or producer receiving royalties from a label contract tied to a particular distribution company and the label gets sold to a corporation that changes the distribution deal, everyones royalties can be scuppered. Also as commenter below says, its not like every worker involved in the creative process receives royalties or residuals.
Also, usually it’s only the actors, directors, and producers that receive residuals (and not the people who work on set, make up, wardrobe, post-production special effects, etc.)
I think it’s up to the individual who watches the entertainment to choose to separate or not separate the artist’s real life behavior from the art and it is up to other artists, e.g., producers, directors, casting directors, actors, etc., to hire or agree to work with them.
Also, I believe it’s unfair that other people who were part of an entertainment production to be punished for something after the fact they could have never known or were never a part of. That is making them bear the responsibility for another person’s behavior which is unjust in itself. They were part of its success in various degrees as the offending actor, director, producer, etc. It’s perfectly acceptable to remove the offending artist’s residuals, awards, degrees, etc., but not to do that to others who were involved in the particular production.