“The show must go on!”, they say. The final season of Netflix Original, "House of Cards," will “focus on Robin Wright’s character”. As for Ridley Scott’s latest thriller “All the Money in the World”, it stars Mark Wahlberg, Michelle Williams….and Christopher Plummer apparently!

~Kevin Spacey was never here~

What to do right here in the boring old real world when someone has behaved sexually inappropriately, or really pernicious in any fashion–it doesn’t have to be sexual–is pretty simple. Removal of the issue, proper repercussion, justice to victims, etc. But it’s a little more awkward when it affects art. I already saw the “All the Money in the World” trailer with Spacey. How can I watch that movie now without having all the Spacey headlines beamed into my brain Batman Forever style as soon as Plummer’s character walks on screen? 2017 Oscar hopeful Armie Hammer recently discussed and tied together two similar cases. Both Nate Parker (“Birth of a Nation” director and star) and Casey Affleck (“Manchester by the Sea” star) had their brilliant performances besmirched by allegations of sexual misconduct last year. While Affleck won Best Actor, Parker was nowhere to be seen on the big night. Hammer used this as an example of a racial double standard. (He later apologized, acknowledging that accusations against Affleck were of a less serious nature.) Whatever the Affleck result, it’s clear that Parker and his film were drastically affected. “Birth of a Nation” was a Sundance darling, but Vegas could tell you exactly what was happening to its Oscar dreams as a 2012 rape trial involving Parker resurfaced under that public eye microscope. Imagine though, if it was somehow found today that Parker was absolutely 100% innocent (for what it’s worth, he was acquitted of all charges). Would we look back at 2016 and awkwardly go, “Oh wait hey, we like ‘Birth of a Nation’. Shoot, we nominated it for zero Oscars.”?

I’d like to use the above movie examples to explore the question–What if Hitler painted the Mona Lisa? Now we’ve gotten “rape” and “Hitler” in this thing already, so if you’re still with me, I applaud your staunch curiosity; let’s have some fun with it!

“House of Cards” Season 6 is an easy one. Kevin Spacey: not a good guy. As Netflix, you stop supporting him. It makes sense both morally and for business (how nice when that happens). It’s also right artistically. Though he was a great character, no viewer wants to see Spacey giving them that deadpan gaze through the fourth wall at this point. It would be distracting and detracting. If I’m being picky, it would be even better artistically to simply cut losses and shut down. The main character is gone for reasons completely unplanned and unrelated to the story. “Cards” without Frank Underwood will remind me that there is no Frank Underwood, only Kevin Spacey. So his absence will in itself be distracting, though much less than would be his presence. Overall though, Netflix is making the right decisions here morally and from an organizational standpoint; and though it certainly won’t be an ending by pure design, I suppose the diehard fans will appreciate some closure, so no-harm, no-foul artistically.

"All the Money in the World” is another Marketing 101 case, business-wise. Nobody was going to pay box office prices to see Spacey this holiday season. Switch him out with Captain Von Trapp himself? Cha-chingle bells. Morally, well, the film was already completed by the time the Spacey accusations began. It’s nice the filmmakers were able to go back and shoot around this character, but if they hadn’t been, then it would sort of be a morally-neutral situation out of their control. As for the art, it’s a similar predicament to “House of Cards”, but with important distinctions. The Spacey absence will be again distracting, but this thing is already finished, so it’s not worth scrapping. Even more key, this is not a show with established characters. Christopher Plummer as J. Paul Getty will be readily accepted as ATMITW canon while Frank Underwood’s fate might be asterisked by some. So, a little more complicated here–the actor-reshoot-switcheroo is definitely unprecedented–but all the right calls are still pretty clear.

Where it gets difficult is in talking about awards. Let me start by offering this premise: for the following situational discussions involving the Oscars, we can treat business and artistic righteousness as one and the same. An award-giving organization’s only “business” objective should be to properly distribute awards and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences specifically distributes awards for artistic achievements.

Now, whether the Academy should give an award to that proper, artistically-achieving person if that person happens to be despicable is the moral question, and one that brings us very close to the Hitler Mona Lisa.

Nate Parker. Casey Affleck. Let’s say they both did do horrific things to women. Everything accused of them and worse. Should that be considered when handing out the Oscars? My first reaction is that it’s a slippery slope! If “Birth of a Nation” is effectively barred from the ballots due to the actions of Nate Parker completely independent from his work as an artist, what is to stop the Academy from saying, “You know, Dwayne Johnson sure has raised a lot of awareness for cancer research over the past few years. Can we fit ‘Jumanji’ into the race this year?” Instead, I like to picture a sort of coldly-objective artistic utopia where it’s like “Nate Parker is the winner this year, but due to his unacceptable record and reputation, he will not be granted a trophy and will not be made a part of the Academy.”

The reason that utopia doesn’t feel quite right–this article still has some scroll left, and we haven’t answered the Hitler Mona Lisa question–is that you can’t separate art from artist. Nirvana is loud because Kurt Cobain was angry and in pain. Frank Bullitt is cool under pressure because Steve McQueen was as cool as can be. If I know Nate Parker to be a rapist, I won’t be tearing up as he triumphantly leads his oppressed brothers in a violent uprising. I’ll be thinking to myself, “Fuck this guy! He is not a friend to the oppressed, nor is he one who uses violence in the name of justice!” Casey Affleck’s Lee Chandler might similarly lose all elements of stoic aloofness and earnest heartbreak based on allegations against Affleck.

Even still, an actor is right there in front of our face–the same person we can picture carrying out whatever terrible thing they might have done. But Hitler the painter? Imagine you are looking at a magnificent painting without knowing who the artist is, being astonished by its beauty in fact, and only then finding out that it’s an original Adolf Hitler. There are a few possible ways you could react. You might say, “Terrible man, great painter”. You are a fan of the Hitler Mona Lisa. I suspect, though, that many would see the painting differently after the revelation. You would no longer be able to see that beauty from before. Perhaps you would even be turned off entirely, hardly able to look. If this is you, I am afraid you are a person who is unable to separate artistic criticism and moral judgment. You might be susceptible to the “Jumanji” nomination. But if I may be allowed to make one final point here–I think that is completely and 100% alright. It’s irrational, yes–you marveled at the painting one moment and the next you couldn’t bear it. Is art supposed to be rational? Is it not about emotion, how something makes you feel? My friends, if some bizarre twist in historical research unveiled the sickening truth that Hitler painted the Mona Lisa, I think that switching it out with a painting of Christopher Plummer would be just fine.

*Comparing People to Hitler Disclaimer*

Do not accuse me, Joseph Antonini, of comparing anyone to Hitler, as so many people ridiculously do and an equal number of people are ridiculously accused of. I have merely used an extreme and widely-accepted example of immorality to discuss the role of morality in artistic criticism, applicable to situations over the entire spectrum of morality.