opinion

“If you support Johnny Depp’s work, you support all of his actions.”

Usually I live in a world that is anything but black and white. When I argue have a discussion with my 16-year-old daughter or one of my 24-year-old colleagues I’m always the one saying things like:

It’s not that simple

It’s much more complex than that

I wish I could just disregard the other side of this issue like you are doing

Have you done any real research into this? What are the facts?

I think it was thoughtless not malicious

OK then I’m just an idiot who doesn’t know anything about the world and, anyway, where is the change from that $20 I gave you yesterday to get some bread? (OK, that mightn’t be something I say at work)

But there are a small – yet important – number of life areas where I can immediately commit to a particular side. Domestic and sexual abuse of women is one. And no matter who you are and how high you fly, how handsome and talented you are or the zeros on the end of your bank statement, if you commit these crimes I will look at you differently from now on.

That’s why I can understand the complaints the Christian Dior campaign starring Johnny Depp is receiving.

Depp is being trotted out by Dior to front their advertising campaign for the men’s cologne “Sauvage” (which means “wild” in French). Just in time for Father’s Day, Depp is plastered all over Australian billboards and on TV screens in ads.

Probably not surprisingly, The Sydney Morning Herald reports the Advertising Standards Bureau in Australia has received complaints about the use of Depp in the ads.

The ads come just weeks after Johnny Depp and Amber Heard settled their acrimonious divorce amid claims of domestic abuse. Heard claimed that during their 18 months of marriage Depp was violent towards her on numerous occasions. She later withdrew the claims. In the midst of the allegations, photographs of a bruised and battered Heard were made public and a disturbing video was released of a drunk Depp screaming at Heard and smashing up his kitchen in the early hours of the morning.

The couple reached an out of court settlement with Depp paying Heard $9 million. Heard swiftly donated the $9 million to a domestic violence charities. The drama didn’t stop there, with Heard accusing Depp of donating the money straight to the domestic violence charities and not to her, in order to get a tax break, effectively drastically reducing the dollar value of his settlement.

Depp is not the only “artist” where, after an incident in their private lives, we have a choice about whether or not we consume their “product”. (Post continues after audio.)

There’s singer Chris Brown who viciously beat Rhianna just before the 2009 Grammys. Actor Charlie Sheen was convicted in 1997 of beating his then girlfriend Britt Ashland and then in 2010 he pleaded guilty to strangling and holding a knife to then wife Brooke Mueller. Director Roman Polanski pleaded guilty in 1977 for having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl then fled the U.S. to avoid possible jail time. He has never expressed regret for his actions.

The list, unfortunately, goes on.

In my office today a 20-year-old colleague asked if it’s possible to separate the artist from the art.

“What if you really like their art? she asked.

Well, that’s why life is complicated. That’s where you have a choice to make. That’s where personal values become more than something that only lives inside you to talk about over a glass of wine with friends: they become your actions too.

For me it’s very clear. When I saw Rhianna’s black eye, split lip and bruised face I knew I could never listen to Chris Brown again. Britt Ashland’s face made me know Charlie Sheen was much more sinister than a hopeless celebrity bad boy. When I read the details about Roman Polanski and his reaction to having sex with a 13-year-old girl I understood why there has been controversy about Hollywood brushing away his past: “If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f**king, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f**k young girls. Juries want to f**k young girls. Everyone wants to f**k young girls!” – Polanski said in an interview with Martin Amis in 1979.

Knowing that an artist who you really like or admire has done something, even in their private lives, that fundamentally goes against your belief system and then continuing to support the work of that artist, through downloading their music, or paying for movie tickets or going to their concerts, doesn’t make sense to me.

It’s like being fundamentally opposed to animal testing on beauty products (or all products) but all your makeup is from companies that test on animals because the “colours are really nice, they make my cheeks pop!”

It doesn’t matter whether your boycott of the artist changes anything. It doesn’t matter if it makes the world tilt on its axis. It matters that you know what kind of person you are. That you know what you will put up with in a person. What you expect from a person.

That artist, who is supremely talented and clever and can make you laugh or sing along to their songs, who often has blinding charisma, is a person first.

The question is: Do you condone and support that person’s actions?

Sometimes the answer is not complicated at all.

Featured image: Getty

Related Stories

Recommended

Top Comments

Zepgirl 8 years ago

Honestly, I can't get on board with this. If I did, I'd never be able to listen to a single rock band from the 60s or 70s.

Alexis 8 years ago

And not just musicians - Jackson Pollock/Brett Whiteley/Picasso et al. I diss most of Depp's 'art' on the basis that it's crap (The Lone Ranger, dear god) but it remains a case-by-case assessment.

Zepgirl 8 years ago

Yep, agree with your first sentence, but disagree with the second, although I do agree that he has been in some absolute shockers, but I can forgive those if I can still have Captain Jack Sparrow and JD's spot on impression of Keith Richards when he plays that part.

random dude 8 years ago

I guess The Seekers is not your cup of tea then?

Zepgirl 8 years ago

I quote Stephen Fry. 'Short answer: no. Long answer: f*ck no.'


Anon 8 years ago

A lot of what you say I agree with, however I echo what others here have said, I can't boycott someone without proof, I've heard so many different stories re Depp/Heard that I don't know who to believe and until and if he is ever convicted then I will not boycott him, however I guess I could say the same about Bill Cosby who also has not been convicted of anything but I'm inclined to believe the women involved but then again he has not been convicted either so I don't know if I'm being unfair to take their side, by the way I was a huge Bill Cosby fan but right now I'm really persuaded by the evidence against him, but as I say he hasn't been convicted either. The problem is of course it is difficult to convict these people as so few rapists/abusers are convicted but then it still feels unfair to condemn someone without a conviction.

But the one person who I feel is by far the worse but no one ever mentions is Mike Tyson, convicted rapist and has said and done a number of repugnant things yet never do I hear any outcry about him, is it because the conviction is so long ago? I boycotted Hangover because of him, yet I don't know anyone else who did that. Haven't seen any articles on Mamamia on why this guy is still tolerated.

Having said all of this there is another issue, once someone has done their time, or a long time has passed should we take them into the fold again? For Tyson 40years could pass and I will always boycott him bevause every few years I read something about him which makes me feel he hasn't reformed (such as repugnant rape speech about Sarah Palin - I'm not her fan but she didn't deserve the extremely violent rape fantasies he voiced about her)

But on the other hand let's say a guy punched a woman 10 years ago but has appeared to reform (and I realise there is controversy about whether men like that can reform) should we boycott him forever? I really don't know the answer to that.

Polanski is an interesting case, a lot of people, myself including, were misled as to the gravity of what he did, it was portrayed as statutory rape eg girl was willing and he didn't realise she was underage, however a few years back I saw a documentary where it was made clear that not only did he know her age but also she was undoubtly forced to have sex but he also sodomised her. I think a lot of people were lenient on him not realising the severity of what he did. I know regret that I have supported him by seeing some of his movies, but then again I have conflicted feelings about him because he has also been a victim of great suffering, having survived the Holocaust, as well as enduring the horrific murder of his wife Sharon Tate by the Mansin Family. Additionally his movie, The a Pianist, is a compelling insight into the Holocaust. But of course none of this condones his violation of a young girl, but it is hard for me not to have some sympathy for the hardships he has endured. Still others have survived terrible things and not become rapists.

So I guess for me I think sometimes it is clear cut, such as Tyson, but with others more complicated.