By now we know that, when an event happens that attracts media attention, if there is a choice between talking about its relevant aspects and arguing about stupid things, we will always choose the latter. Consequently, upon the death of the titanic actor Alain Delon, several online magazines and individual users, many of whom belong to the LGBT community, instead of remembering the actor’s career – or, at worst, simply remaining silent – have chosen to use the excuse of his death to exhume his past statements on homosexuality, reminding everyone that he was actually a homophobe; or to comment on this loss by bringing up the toxic masculinity that the actor was supposedly a symbol of. Gay.it salutes him by calling him “a beautiful toxic male who said that gays are against nature”; Radiopride reports the words of activist Luca Paladini, founder of the “Sentinelli di Milano”, who called him “just ignorant”.

It goes without saying that if an actor was homophobic (an indisputable sentence that we issue based on 10 words he once said on television), his artistic contribution automatically loses all value: he is no longer an artist, but someone who said the wrong thing. And it was definitely wrong, that’s obvious; what this has to do with the role he had in the art world – which is why we remember him – is less clear.

A familiar story of historical and cultural ignorance

It’s a bit like the old story of tearing down statues of Christopher Columbus: it should be obvious that what is being celebrated is not the man, but the feat he accomplished, and that remains great and memorable despite all the atrocities that followed. Except that at least Columbus had the excuse of the historical period, while Delon lived in our days, so it’s unforgivable: he thought wrongly, period. But why should the way he thought have any relevance? He was an actor, not a politician or a philosopher.

I’m not just asking this rhetorically: we need to ask ourselves why we need to know the political positions of famous people, and give importance to what they say. If they say the right thing, they are great people who use their visibility to talk about people’s problems, and so we adore them; if they say the wrong thing, we rail against them, reminding everyone that they are no one to tell us what to think. In reality, we shouldn’t care at all about what an actor thinks about homosexuality, for better or for worse.

But this responds to a sectarian logic.

But when, unfortunately, we learn about his opinions, we are forced to take a position. The identity obsession that dominates many of us leads us to have to adapt every little aspect of our lives to the group to which we belong; in short, what we are and what we identify with also determines the things we can like and enjoy. So if I am homosexual I have to hate Alain Delon: I cannot simply consider him for the actor he was and appreciate his qualities, because I would be disavowing myself and the group to which I belong.

It is true that a serious problem underlying this way of reasoning is the inability to understand the historical or artistic value of something without necessarily having to share it in every other aspect or without having to attribute didactic value to it; but even more than this, I find this sectarianism terrifying, according to which if you are with us you have to think like us, you have to to be a certain thing, and you become obsessed with it to the point of bringing it out even where it has no relevance, like in the case of a great actor who had shitty ideas.

Let us not forget another depressing aspect, that is, having to exploit the controversial statement, the offensive word, in short the element that causes scandal, to keep theengagement with a catchy title. The important thing is that, even in the face of an event that should find everyone in agreement – a great dead actor, a loss for the art world, a reminder of the great performances he left us – we find a way to argue.