Over its 20 years of existence, the wizarding world of Harry Potter has sold more than half a billion books worldwide in more than 80 languages. That means that on average, 1 in 15 people in the world has read a Harry Potter book. As of October 2016, nearly 50% of kids aged 15 to 17 have read a Harry Potter book. I’m one of those kids. Harry Potter shaped my life. I remember my parents reading a chapter a night as my bedtime story, then reading them under my sheets with a flashlight once I got old enough to read on my own. Harry Potter was my first fandom. I made friends at elementary and middle school over a shared love of it and went to the Harry Potter midnight releases at my local library. Thus, I was excited about the announcement that the wizarding world was going to be expanded with the Fantastic Beasts series.
However, since the original series came out it has come to light that Rowling has a history of problematic statements ranging from transphobic to anti-Semitic. I began to wonder why Rowling worked so systematically and methodically to destroy my love of her creation, to which I owe my entire childhood? The idea of ethical consumption of media has been on my mind a lot because many people in Hollywood are accused of sexual harassment or any type of abuse and misconduct. Can I ethically watch Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald knowing J.K. Rowling is problematic? Ultimately, at this point in my life and with my current knowledge, I believe that when it comes to ethical media consumption it comes down to the individual situation, a personal choice, and society’s opinion on the matter. The three cases I will use throughout this article to explore six questions are Harvey Weinstein, John Lasseter, and Louis CK.
Whether it be veganism, thrifting, or recycling, society has recently made a conscious effort to be informed about the products we consume. The increase in the public’s awareness to avoid mindless over-consumption is a step in the right direction. However, ethical media consumption is one part of our lives that has been ignored until about two years ago. With the awareness of sexual misconduct plaguing Hollywood, thanks to the Time’s Up and #MeToo movement, people are becoming more critical about the media they consume for leisure. At the same time, there is a push back to the idea of boycotting movies or TV shows simply because there is one bad person amongst the dedicated cast and crew who worked hard to produce the piece of media. Simply put: why should countless hardworking people suffer for the sins of one person? The only difference I could come up with is that entertainment is not as necessary to the well-being of a person as food or clothing.
Although I disagree that entertainment is not a human need, I agree with the fact that movies, TV shows, books, and other forms of media are meant to be enjoyable to the consumer. We watch because we like it, and sometimes we get emotionally involved in the characters or plot lines. That makes it much harder to give up something you want because someone else ruined it for you. For me, it’s easy to recognize my addiction to shopping and switch to buying less but buying better. However, it was more difficult for me to grapple with the fact that people involved in my favorite TV show and movies, such as Parks and Recreation and Guardians of the Galaxy could be seen in a different light because of misconduct. When you find out someone involved in your favorite TV show or movie was accused of sexual assault or other bad things, you feel betrayed by that TV show or movie. Having your favorite TV show or movie ruined is like having a villain rip off their mask and be a loved one. Changing the type of media you consume is more personal and therefore oftentimes harder.
The next question I will attempt to answer deals with the matter of circumstances: does it matter how close the accused person is to the project? Upon talking to my friends about this essay, many of them stated that they didn’t believe that it should make a difference between whether a producer or an actor is accused because they both exert about the same amount of power. I believe the statement is correct, but the reasoning is wrong. There is a huge difference in the amount and kind of power actors and producers have when making a movie or TV show. The two main producer credits are the executive producer and producer, the difference being varying degrees of designation and work. The producer is the manager of the operations, whereas an executive producer is the top executive of operations. The producer is hands-on in the day-to-day set activity, but the executive producer might only visit the set once and has more of an advisory role when it comes to decision-making. While actors have the least amount of power in a production compared to the writer, producer, or executive producer, actors are the face of the movie or TV show. They are in charge of promoting the film on their social media feeds, and required to do a long, hectic, exhausting press tour.
Oftentimes, audiences will choose to go to a film based on the cast. Thus it makes sense that movies with actors accused of sexual misconduct or abuse do much worse than movies that are tied to producers. Since executive producers and other crew members are behind the screen, the audience might not be as aware while watching the movie or TV show. Thus people do not associate the behind-the-scenes people as much with the work as the actors who star in the movie or TV show. Such is the case with Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald and Incredibles 2. John Lasseter was only the executive producer whereas Rowling was widely known as a creator of the film. Incredibles 2 made a record-breaking $180 million dollars opening weekend going on to rake in $1.3 billion; Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald only made $62 million opening weekend in the U.S.
Additionally, the severity certainly plays a role in whether society as a whole chose to support a TV show or movie. This is the case between John Lasseter and Harvey Weinstein. In November 2017, news sites reported that John Lasseter, Pixar co-founder and chief creative officer of Walt Disney Animation Studios, was accused of sexual misconduct, specifically, giving unwanted hugs to employees. Disney suspended Lasseter immediately and later held an all-employee meeting to discuss the next steps. In June 2018 it was announced that Lasseter was fired from the company and was to be replaced by Peter Doctor and Jennifer Lee as co-chief creative officers. However, Pixar’s Coco which was released to theaters a week after the news, still made over $800 million at the global box office and in June Incredibles 2 made a record-breaking 1.25 billion dollars. John Lasseter still was the executive producer of the two films. On the other hand, Weinstein was kicked out of the Academy with many of the films going to be released by The Weinstein Company transferring the distribution rights to other studios. The latest movie Harvey Weinstein produced only made $8.1 million at the box office worldwide compared to the average $166 million made before the public knew of Weinstein’s sexual misconduct. Before Lasseter was suspended, Pixar movies with Lasseter credited as the executive producer made the same amount of money as they do now. The public’s view of severity influences their consumption.
Since the #MeToo and Time’s Up movement are fairly new movements in Hollywood, past movies or TV shows have been seen in a new light due to contributors being accused of sexual misconduct or abuse. This leaves us asking if there’s an ethical difference between consuming media produced in the past versus the present. For example, I questioned whether I could still enjoy some of my favorite TV and movies with the same passion as before. My favorite TV show of all time Parks and Recreation showed me an accurate representation of what a strong woman could be without falling to the extremes of previous TV tropes for strong female characters. Parks and Recreation had gotten me through last winter quarter, the toughest ten weeks of my life and other rough times in my life. Yet, I could not ignore the fact that Parks and Recreation allowed Louis C.K to return as a guest star after the show’s creator heard rumors about Louis C.K.’s sexual assault allegation.
Guardians of the Galaxy was the first Marvel movie I watched. Guardians of the Galaxy led me to become a fangirl of Marvel and helped me create long life friends due to our shared love of Marvel. I owe so much to Guardians of the Galaxy for helping me own my identity as a nerd, something I never was proud of beforehand. Yet, the movie’s director James Gunn tweeted pedophilic and rape jokes and was subsequently fired by Marvel. Similarly, I am a huge fan of all things Disney and want to work at the company when I graduate. But how can I rewatch my favorite Disney Pixar movies with the same amount of happiness knowing John Lasseter was involved in the creation of them? To further complicate the situation Gunn’s jokes were brought to light by a twitter user who had engaged in a heated debate with Gunn. The user had opposing political views than Gunn and perhaps went on a deep search as a result of the debate. Additionally Gunn’s tweets were made over ten years ago. Before making Guardians of the Galaxy he publicly apologized and seemed to have matured and owned up to his deplorable jokes.
The underlying question I struggled with in the past two years was how I could enjoy my favorite movies and TV shows with this new knowledge? I consider myself a feminist and supporter of movements such as #MeToo and Time’s Up, but am I a hypocrite if I want to continue watching the same movies and shows? In all two of the three cases, it is clear that the people who did wrong paid for their mistakes. In the end, Disney did not stand by Gunn and Lasseter and fired them. As for Louis C.K., the show creator Michael Schur acknowledged his mistake and apologized. Consequences and apologies certainly do not minimize what the abusers did. However, in the public’s eye if the person is punished for acting immorally, the viewer will perhaps feel better about rewatching the actors or producer’s old movies or TV shows.
While there have been many people such as Harvey Weinstein and John Lasseter who have paid for their actions, other people in Hollywood still are supported despite claims of sexual misconduct or abuse. For example, Casey Affleck has been accused of sexual misconduct, but his movies do well at the box office and get nominated for awards. This left me wondering, does it really make a difference in the grand scheme of things if one person boycotts supporting the piece of media? For me, it’s the same as voting. One person may not make a difference but each individual choice adds up. At the end of the day, Hollywood is a business run by money. If enough people stop watching an actor or producer’s film, that person is no longer valuable to Hollywood and thus will not get hired to make another movie.
There is no doubt that the entertainment industry is messed up not only in regard to sexual assault. It’s going to take a long time to change. Our small decisions may add up and make a change, or they may not. Make sure the media you choose to consume aligns with your own ethical and moral values. Only then can Hollywood change for the better. Additionally, we can still make decisions to support art and creators who are morally sound. If we do support art that’s problematic, we should talk about it and point the problematic part out and not ignore it. When you separate the art from the artist in order to ignore the bad parts, that’s a problem. We can see how using our money to enact change is already happening.
In today’s Hollywood ethical consumption plays a key role in whether or not a person will watch the TV show or movie. When it comes to supporting media when people involved have a history of sexual misconduct or domestic abuse, I believe that it all comes down to the individual situation, your personal choice, and society’s opinion of the person and severity of the allegation. For me, choosing to continue to watch and love Disney and Pixar movies that were executively produced by John Lasseter comes from weighing the fact that they bring me such joy in life. I believe that cutting them out of my life solely based on John Lasseter’s mistakes is just letting him hold control over what I personally can like or dislike. I will still rewatch Parks and Recreation with the same love and zeal as before. Louis C.K. was only a small part of Parks and Recreation and Michael Shur owned up for his mistake. There is never a black or white answer to any of these questions. The complicated situations always change. This article and its examples may be irrelevant in light of future revelations. More members of Hollywood could be accused of abuse or misconduct and even accused members could be vindicated. Both situations are good because it means there is a sense of justice in the industry. The only thing that I hope will stay constant is our continued discussion of how to ethically consume media.
To start your own exploration into how you consume media. ask yourself these questions: does the proximity of the accused person to the project affect whether or not you choose to support the piece of art? Does the degree of severity have anything to do whether you chose to support a TV show or movie? Is there a difference between ethically consuming media produced in the past or present? Does it matter in the grand scheme of things if you boycott watching a piece of media? Does choosing to not watch a movie or tv give the accused person the last say? Make your choice, just make sure it’s an educated one.