Entry tags:
Dave Holland has died, and he leaves us some hard questions.
Well, this is the very definition of mixed feelings. Dave Holland has died. He was Judas Priest's drummer from 1979-89, the glory years. He played on the band's most iconic works, like British Steel (1980), Point of Entry (1981), Screaming for Vengeance (1982), Defenders of the Faith (1984), and Turbo (1986). Those are the albums that made Priest into the Metal Gods, and a big part of their sound was Holland's amazing drumming.
However, he was pushed out of the band for "personal reasons" in 1989, and in 2004 he was sent to prison for trying to rape the mentally retarded teenager who was coming to him for drum lessons. He moved to a remote village in Spain after being released from prison. He became a recluse and rarely spoke to the media but maintained that he was falsely convicted.Actually died last week, we're just hearing about it now.
Which brings up an awkward question: when does a public person's private life outweigh your enjoyment of what they produce as artists? The past year has seen a sea change in how we deal with sexual harassment and the harassers. Careers have ended, criminal convictions for sexual assault are rising, and more women and men are coming forward and exposing the pervasive norms that tolerate or even encourage predatory acts.
This is a good thing. I support it. But what happens when an idol falls and leaves behind a mountain of incredible work? Woody Allen is one of the greatest talents film has ever seen. But he's a world-class creep. Do I never watch "Take The Money and Run" again? Is it okay to laugh at his funny movies?
How about Kevin Spacey, my favorite actor. After a single accusation, the backlash was so severe that he was removed from a finished film and all his scenes reshot with
Christopher Plummer (who was the director's first choice for the role, and who is now an Oscar nominee.) A bit extreme, in my opinion. But there's that question again. Can I watch "The Usual Suspects", one of greatest films ever made, and the one that got Spacey his Oscar, without supporting him?
Let's bring up a real monster. Marion Zimmer Bradley was a legend in science-fiction and fantasy. Over a career that spanned forty years she produced dozens of novels and short stories. Her Darkover series is as deep and complex as Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and has a fan base just as fanatical. "Mists of Avalon", a retelling of the Arthurian mythos through the eyes of Morgana le Fey and Guinevere was a masterpiece of feminist writing while still being true to the source material and creating a gripping narrative.
Her books fill many bookcases around the world. She is taught in modern literature classes. MZB, as we liked to call her, was a staple at conventions right up to her death in 1999. We bought her books, role-played in Avalon and Darkover, and it wasn't until 2014 that we knew the truth.
Marion Zimmer Bradley was a child molester. She sexually abused at least two of her children, and possibly others. Her ex-husband was jailed for child molestation. These horrible acts were going on while we were praising her to the skies for bringing a strong woman's voice into a male-dominated field.
What do we do now? The books are still awesome, but are the works tainted by the author? H.P. Lovecraft redefined horror in the 1920s. He was also extremely racist. Which wasn't that odd in those days, do we judge a man who died 80 years ago by today's standards, or do read and watch works in the context of the time they were created.
I usually go with the later. I try to judge works on their content and value, not on who created them. Some of my favorite movies were made by Sergei Eisenstein, a man who had to please Stalin to stay alive. You tell me, "Alexander Nevsky" is a masterpiece. But it's also Soviet propaganda designed to raise anger against Germany while praising communism. Joseph Stalin, one of the most brutal dictators in history, personally approved the film. Does knowing the context of the film improve it, or do you believe that because of the association with Stalin, this film and Eisenstein's other works should be avoided?
It's a very difficult question. Maybe time will blur the crimes of the makers. Nobody talks about Erroyl Flynn's politics while watching "The Adventures of Robin Hood" or "Captain Blood." Well, I do, but I love old movies and read a lot about them. In the end, each of us has to judge how we approach artists who have been touched by controversy.
However, he was pushed out of the band for "personal reasons" in 1989, and in 2004 he was sent to prison for trying to rape the mentally retarded teenager who was coming to him for drum lessons. He moved to a remote village in Spain after being released from prison. He became a recluse and rarely spoke to the media but maintained that he was falsely convicted.Actually died last week, we're just hearing about it now.
Which brings up an awkward question: when does a public person's private life outweigh your enjoyment of what they produce as artists? The past year has seen a sea change in how we deal with sexual harassment and the harassers. Careers have ended, criminal convictions for sexual assault are rising, and more women and men are coming forward and exposing the pervasive norms that tolerate or even encourage predatory acts.
This is a good thing. I support it. But what happens when an idol falls and leaves behind a mountain of incredible work? Woody Allen is one of the greatest talents film has ever seen. But he's a world-class creep. Do I never watch "Take The Money and Run" again? Is it okay to laugh at his funny movies?
How about Kevin Spacey, my favorite actor. After a single accusation, the backlash was so severe that he was removed from a finished film and all his scenes reshot with
Christopher Plummer (who was the director's first choice for the role, and who is now an Oscar nominee.) A bit extreme, in my opinion. But there's that question again. Can I watch "The Usual Suspects", one of greatest films ever made, and the one that got Spacey his Oscar, without supporting him?
Let's bring up a real monster. Marion Zimmer Bradley was a legend in science-fiction and fantasy. Over a career that spanned forty years she produced dozens of novels and short stories. Her Darkover series is as deep and complex as Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and has a fan base just as fanatical. "Mists of Avalon", a retelling of the Arthurian mythos through the eyes of Morgana le Fey and Guinevere was a masterpiece of feminist writing while still being true to the source material and creating a gripping narrative.
Her books fill many bookcases around the world. She is taught in modern literature classes. MZB, as we liked to call her, was a staple at conventions right up to her death in 1999. We bought her books, role-played in Avalon and Darkover, and it wasn't until 2014 that we knew the truth.
Marion Zimmer Bradley was a child molester. She sexually abused at least two of her children, and possibly others. Her ex-husband was jailed for child molestation. These horrible acts were going on while we were praising her to the skies for bringing a strong woman's voice into a male-dominated field.
What do we do now? The books are still awesome, but are the works tainted by the author? H.P. Lovecraft redefined horror in the 1920s. He was also extremely racist. Which wasn't that odd in those days, do we judge a man who died 80 years ago by today's standards, or do read and watch works in the context of the time they were created.
I usually go with the later. I try to judge works on their content and value, not on who created them. Some of my favorite movies were made by Sergei Eisenstein, a man who had to please Stalin to stay alive. You tell me, "Alexander Nevsky" is a masterpiece. But it's also Soviet propaganda designed to raise anger against Germany while praising communism. Joseph Stalin, one of the most brutal dictators in history, personally approved the film. Does knowing the context of the film improve it, or do you believe that because of the association with Stalin, this film and Eisenstein's other works should be avoided?
It's a very difficult question. Maybe time will blur the crimes of the makers. Nobody talks about Erroyl Flynn's politics while watching "The Adventures of Robin Hood" or "Captain Blood." Well, I do, but I love old movies and read a lot about them. In the end, each of us has to judge how we approach artists who have been touched by controversy.