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.
Top Comments
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.
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.
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.
I guess The Seekers is not your cup of tea then?
I quote Stephen Fry. 'Short answer: no. Long answer: f*ck no.'
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.