Men, Talent and the Myth of 'Artistic Temperament' (In Critique of Vincent Gallo)
Content Notice: Discussion of sexual abuse, rape, racism, misogyny, homophobia and one brief mention of restricted eating.
There’s no best way to describe Vincent Gallo. Throughout the course of his forty year career, Mr. Gallo has spanned an inordinate selection of labels — actor, director, model, musician, (self-appointed) “legend,” and a man predominantly best recognised for his directorial work and leading role in the 1998 film ‘Buffalo ‘66,’ starring alongside then-teenaged Christina Ricci. Throughout the 1990s, Gallo was renowned for his small and deliberately curated selection of work within American arthouse cinema, a selection of titles that gave rise to a devout high-brow cult following, despite much of his work receiving a critical pot-pourri of poor reviews; one of the most infamous reviews belonging to Roger Ebert, a renowned film critic, who described Gallo’s 2003 directorial and starring role in, ‘The Brown Bunny,’ to be “the worst film in the history of the [Cannes] festival.” In a form true to his artistic temperament, Gallo responded by describing Ebert as a “fat pig with the physique of a slave trader,” before wishing him colon cancer. As such, Mr Gallo’s behaviour, both in relation to his personal and professional reputation, reflect a larger issue in Hollywood and across television screens everywhere: why are we still accepting awful behaviour from men with talent?
I: Sperm Auctioneering, Homophobia and Racism
When dipping a toe into the depths of Vincent Gallo’s world via his Personal Website, things seem relatively normal, albeit brashfully motivated by ego, as is the case with much of Gallo’s work; a selection of long, sighing career biographies, a handful of mostly inactive social media accounts, and a gaudy blue, mustard and red colour scheme that could have (and probably did) step right out of 2003. Upon inspecting a little closer however, one thing is left standing amongst the noise: Vincent’s self-supplied additional commentary. Within his Contact page, a note reads: “If you’d like to send a nude photo of yourself and you were BORN a female, please do so. WARNING: To all bitter or jealous or unemployed or frustrated or mean or nasty or under-loved or under-paid or under-hung men and butchy girls. Think before you write to me. THINK HOW SMALL AND SILLY YOU APPEAR WHEN ANGRY JEALOUS AND BITTER — WRITING TO ME LIKE A SCORNED FAN.”
Without a trace of self awareness, Gallo’s ego had eclipsed the sun. From his homepage stemmed a link to an online merchandise store, (appended with a presumably tantalising depiction of a sailor-clad Vincent Gallo grabbing his crotch in front of a camera) which was well equipped with the Vincent Gallo ‘Must Haves,’ including a $10,400 pendant adorned with Gallo’s face, and an inflatable Charles Manson balloon signed by Gallo himself. However, the truly seedy pursuits were tucked away into a little section entitled ‘Personal Services,’ a page containing a miscellenea of stomach turning semen-related pursuits, including an evening of sex with Gallo himself (valued at $50,000) and interspersed with Gallo-mandated regulations, like: “Heavy set, older, red heads and even black chicks can have me if they can pay the bill. No real female will be refused. However, I highly frown upon any male having even the slightest momentary thought or wish that they could ever become my client. No way Jose. However, female couples of the lesbian persuasion can enjoy a Vincent Gallo evening together for $100,000. $200,000 buys the l*sbos a weekend. A weekend that will have them second-guessing.”
But be prepared to be disappointed, ladies and gentleman, because despite Gallo’s giving mentality, ejaculation costs extra. For the meagre sum of $1,000,000, with a potential surcharge of $500,000 for those who would prefer natural insemination by Gallo himself (with the possibility of a fee waiver if Gallo finds you attractive) you could have your perfect hybrid ‘Gallo’ baby by Christmas. The only roadblock? Being black, it seems. As Gallo writes, in his thinly veiled and convoluted second-hand account of his own opinions, “Mr. Gallo maintains the right to refuse sale of his sperm to those of extremely dark complexions. Though a fan of Franco Harris, Derek Jeter, Lenny Kravitz and Lena Horne, Mr. Gallo does not want to be part of that type of integration. In fact, for the next 30 days, he is offering a $50,000 discount to any potential female purchaser who can prove she has naturally blonde hair and blue eyes. Anyone who can prove a direct family link to any of the German soldiers of the mid-century will also receive this discount.”
II: Sexual Assault Allegations, Victim Blaming and Well-Evidenced Misogyny
While the expositions of Gallo’s character provided on his website seem inanely laughable, a Google search far-flung from the clutches of a Courier New font and heart-shaped buttons revealed an even darker side of his disposition. In 2007, according to journalist Kris Benton, Vincent Gallo groomed, sexually assaulted and abused her while she was merely eighteen, going so far as to state: “He’s offering up to you who is really is — a monster, not an artist. It’s not an act. And maybe you should finally believe he’s as awful as he wants you to believe. I believe he is. I know he is. Because he groomed me, sexually assaulted me, and subjected me to narcissistic abuse for years. And I am not the only one.” Following the twisted tail of Gallo’s alleged abuses, his reputation changes light from ‘hateful egotistical nut with a God complex’ to an actively dangerous person, worsened only by the wide-spread lack of discussion or consequences surrounding the nature of these accusations. In fact, any buzzwords on Google associated with ‘Vincent Gallo sexual assault,’ return the responses of his self-centred discussion surrounding Rose McGowan’s accusation of sexual assault against Harvey Weinstein, and not the accusations held against his name.
When McGowan opened up about her 1997 sexual assault, Gallo publicly criticised her for not coming forward sooner, stating: “What if, instead of taking a $100,000 payoff to remain silent, Rose McGowan filed charges against Harvey Weinstein at the time of her incident? How many future incidents would she have prevented? Harvey Weinstein is a brutal pig, yes, but I really wish it wasn’t those two particular girls getting glorified for now saying so.” Not only this, but Gallo described himself as “a victim” of Harvey Weinstein, due to the career ramifications of threatening Harvey Weinstein for the alleged rape he committed against Gallo’s former significant other, Asia Argento, while Gallo simultaneously invalidated the actions taken by the survivors of the sexual abuse.
However, this allegation shouldn’t come out of the blue; Vincent Gallo has been demonstrating his misogynistic tendencies since the beginning of his career. In another well-publicised rift, Gallo’s relationship with Christina Ricci on the set of ‘Buffalo ‘66’ was rumoured to be extremely toxic, apropos of him “limiting her diet” and latterly describing her as an “ungrateful cunt” (despite her being seventeen at the age of filming). In reference to his behaviour, Ricci stated in a 2015 Huffington Post article that, “It was my first movie away from home, or without my mother. [Gallo] didn't want my mom to come. He wanted me to be up there by myself. I was 17 and I had never worked with anyone like this and I had never worked on a movie that was that low-budget before. I'd always worked on things where the more money, the more structure, the more protections in place, all this stuff. But I spent most of that movie trapped in a car with a raving lunatic.”
III: A Case for Something Better
There are many more things to be said about Vincent Gallo, and a selection of offensive commentary to quote and analyse (a large percentage of which can be read straight from his website, including “Fuck Black Lives Matter”). However, the societal problem with Vincent Gallo is that, irrespective of the women and ethnic minorities who he mistreats and laws he allegedly breaks, he will always be worshiped and revered as a creator of something ‘good’. Men like Gallo are the ones who benefit from the fallacy of ‘separating art from the artist.’ Their pockets are lined by the decisions of the average consumer
to push bad truths to the side and absorb content guilt-free, which is why the cycle of abusive and hateful men stream-lining their way through Hollywood is so relentless. That doesn’t mean the culpability of crimes or terrible behaviour rests on the shoulders of consumers, but it should open the door to a degree of consideration for the consequences.
If you asked Mr. Gallo about these controversies, I know what he’d tell you - in relation to the xenophobia available on his website, he would say, “These public offerings are motivated by extreme sensitivity, concept and thoughtfulness, however their presentation appears crude and offensive. Misinterpretation of this work is common and Gallo is often incorrectly categorized as a racist, sexist, homophobe.” If you asked him about his manipulation and intolerability, he’d probably say something along the lines of, “most people are not listening but instead projecting.” He, and his followers, cling to the idea of ‘tortured genius,’ as though being clever, or creative, or trailblazing would be justification for xenophobia and abuse, ignoring the fact that the road to hell is paved with ‘good’ (or in this case, ‘visionary’) intentions. Mr. Gallo’s behaviour is not unique, despite its shocking reception, he is merely showing the true colours of an industry predicated on profitable content over the safety of oppressed communities.
In closing, the validity of ‘artistic temperament’ only seeks to benefit the men who cultivate talents to enable their immoral behaviour. While there is no certainty that it’s even possible to completely refrain from consuming content created by wrong-doers, especially due to the fact that allegations are frequently coming to light, it is possible to carefully consider the message delivered by which creatives you bestow with your money and adoration. The premise of accepting hate as an ideological work of art is a theory that can only be sustained by the privileged, given they are not the ones who have to live with its consequences, and despite Gallo’s ramblings of being ‘misunderstood,’ that is what he is — privileged. Men like Gallo will always exist, but you get to decide how much of your money funds his bigotry.
Cover Photo by IMDb. Edited by Katrina Kwok.
