i just don't get how people can still work with/defend this guy? you can give me the line that he was never prosecuted, but thats *beep* never had his day in court because he fled. genious or not....what he did was WRONG. i will never see a polanski film.
"Nope, no sex scandals yet. But I am open to offers!" ~John Cusack - Well I'm offering! ~sarah
[deleted]
I have seen almost every new Polanski film, in theatres, since I have been old enough to go to movies. Death and the Maiden, the Ninth Gate, the Pianist, and the Ghost Writer, and they were all very amazing.
I don't judge art or the value of an artists work based on their legal/personal/social problems, I judge on the work itself. Polanski is still doing interesting, good things for cinema, he had consensual sex with a minor once, so what?
I still see and sometimes really enjoy Mel Gibson's films, and he is a full on bigot, a Holocaust denier, a beater of women, and a completely radical right wing had to go build his own church cause none of the others were hardcore enough "Christian".
You should really watch the HBO documentary on the Polanski trial, "Wanted and Desired." It is very good.
"Nobody knows anybody, not that well..." - Miller's Crossing
^Agreed.
I'm interested in Polanski's work, not Polanski.
OP, shame on you if you won't watch this simply because Polanski was involved. I call that ignorance. Or maybe just stupid would be a better word.
[deleted]
Actually it isn't. Since the reason given has absolutely nothing to do with the art he produces. A boycott is always about politics.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
And who are you to shame someone for their legitimate misgivings? It isn't ignorance, it's a preference. Funny how Pulanski defenders never SAY what he did (he was involved?)...
Either way, I'll still see Carnage because I am a fan of Waltz and Winslet. Still, it's the OP's opinion and in my view, one that is valid.
My word is my *beep* bond!
-I Love You Phillip Morris
Well who's the OP to start with "I don't get how people...", this in itself is normative/judgmental. Simply stating something like "I won't watch his films because of what he did..." will suffice. Folks are just responding with equalizing tone. But yes, the OP certainly has right to boycott Polanski films just as I have a right to boycott Israeli products or BP and so on.
I'm not defending his actions: he raped a 13-year-old girl and that is deplorable. I love most of his films nevertheless.
I don't know, you should ask him. I didn't see it mostly because it slipped my mind.
My word is my *beep* bond!
-I Love You Phillip Morris
Polanski is a *beep* but I still go to his movies. Anybody want to enter Richard Wagner in a virtue contest? I don't think so. How about Celine? Woody Allen? Mel Gibson has already been mentioned. Joan Crawford? Best not think about what kind of people artists are. Same goes for athletes, just in case any of you are sports fans. The less you know about the muscle-bound lads and lassies you watch on the court or the gridiron or wherever, the happier you will be. Now with politicians, that is different. We have to worry about what kind of people they are.
sharePolanski should have his d**k cut off.
I won't watch a Jennifer Lopez movie for a different reason
I am a casino dealer in Las Vegas. I work with a couple of dealers who both confirmed a story about Jennifer Lopez at different casinos. When Ben Affleck was going out with Jennifer Lopez and playing at different casinos, he threw the dealer a $5,000 chip as a tip and Jennifer Lopez got it back and threw in a $500 chip. Casino dealers make minimum wage or less, different casinos take out a dollar an hour to help pay for the employees insurance, we live on tips.
From Ben Affleck IMDB trivia:
Confirms engagement to Jennifer Lopez, after giving her a reported $3.5 million ring. (Nov. 2002)
From Ben Affleck IMDB Personal Quotes:
I was no longer in control of my life. I thought I wanted certain things, but I didn't. I got lost. I felt suffocated, miserable and gross. I should never have gone down that route or got sucked in to all the publicity. I was typecast as myself. Too many people weren't getting past what they read about me. That was damaging. I can tell from experience it's bad for you, and bad for your career. So I took a break, went away for a while and let things calm down. (Claiming that his high-profile engagement with Jennifer Lopez damaged his career.)
I am glad Ben wised up and dumped her.
She probably kept the ring.
Jennifer Lopez ยท Net worth $250 million USD (2012)
As far as I am concerned it is not J-Lo but J-Ho
You can see why I won't watch anything that MIGHT make her money.
I have twin boys, Pete and Repete
Jennifer did what ANY wife would do.
That tip is too much, this is more of a realistic tip.
Same as if a husband threw down $100. For a meal that cost $50.00
The wife would change it to something more reasonable.
And for you to say the dealer needs tips to survive? Lol so the $500. tip was a bad one?! You get a lot of those do you? No you don't. So be grateful.
And just because someone makes millions doesn't mean they should give you tips that are outrageous. $500. is incredibly generous.
I've heard Howard Stern talk about this. He's said that he is very generous and he leaves triple what most people would leave for tips. But because he makes millions people expect more from him. Why?
You can't have consensual sex with a minor because a minor can't consent to sex with an adult. As long as one party has complete power over the other, as with an adult and a child, they're not on a level playing field. That's the whole reasoning behind statutory rape laws--so an adult can't coerce or pressure (or drug) a child and have sex with her. So I think it's a big deal.
I feel cranky and pubescent today, and I don't know why. I'm going to take it out on people I like.
I was agreeing with you until you said "he had consensual sex with a minor once, so what?" Now I think you are an a*hole and a potential rapist.
Having said that, I agree in that I separate films from the personal life of the filmmakers.
"consensual sex with a minor" ?
clearly not - I have read a lenghty article with quotes from the victim about what happened. I won't go into details here - anyone can do the research. He drugged and raped a 13 year old. this guy is pathetic. how foster & winslet can choose to work with him is beyond me.
Do what I do. Pay for another movie then sneak into Carnage. I plan to buy a ticket for "Midnight in Paris" then sneak into Carnage. As a cinephile I don't like to miss many movies so this way I avoid promoting child molesters.
shareI was going to suggest this too. If I do see it, I WILL NOT pay for. 'Separating' the art and the artist don't work in cases like these, where you will literally be putting money into the pocket of the scumbag.
I just saw the trailer and wanted to watch this, saw POLANKSI and thought *beep* no. I do believe in seperating the work from the individual, in cases where the person is just a douche. When they RAPED a 13 year old girl, and yes apologists, Plying a 13 year old with alcohol and (possibly) other drugs, then sodomising them, that is rape. Don't tell me "she consented", because read the police report, she didn't consent, and even if she did, a 13 year old cannot legally or morally consent to sex with a middle aged man.
I know posts like this have been done to death with Polanski, but it is infuriating when people defend his actions or deny any wrong doing at all. Let's see how you like it if your daughter, sister, or cousin was drugged and sodomised at 13 by a middle aged man.
I plan to buy a ticket for "Midnight in Paris" then sneak into Carnage. As a cinephile I don't like to miss many movies so this way I avoid promoting child molesters.
That's the dumbest thing i've heard.
You prefer his movies yet you don't want to promote them. In the long run that means you won't get his movies. You are some einstein aren't you?
I agree 100% with the-tourist. And to the other poster listing all the people who are rapists, pedophiles and bigots, I don't watch those people's sh!tty movies either. There are enough great movies made by people who aren't disgusting pieces of crap.
Don't steal. The government hates the competition.
what the *beep* harkness??? I am just dumbfounded by that statement "he had consensual sex with a minor once, so what?" since when is being drugged unconscious giving consent? You are an ass. I guess you would say given the current Penn State scandal, "so what he anally raped a 10 year old boy in the shower, so what" why because he's a famous coach? I don't care how famous or rich a person is, when you do the vilest most inhumane thing to another human being, especially a child, it is NOT ok
share[deleted]
He never had consensual sex with a minor. Nobody ever had consensual sex with a minor.
Consensual sex with a minor is like consensual murder with a side of agreed upon cannibalism after a contractually justified robbery. All of those are legally impossible. There is no legal basis to have consensual sex with a minor because a minor can't consent.
But even if there would be such a thing as consensual sex with a minor it is not what happened. The only person who ever claimed that it was consensual was Polanski and last time I checked "She wanted it" is not a particularly atypical claim among rapists. The victim never said that it was consensual.
You can separate the art from the artist and enjoy his movies. I don't blame you for it. But here's what you can't do: You can't claim that Polanski is not a rapist. You can't because it is factually untrue in any legal definition of rape you might have.
She was underage,
she was drugged,
she said she wanted to leave before the sex,
she never agreed to the sex.
Pick any one of those and you have rape in the legal and moral definition.
I think humanity should be wiped out and then we can give evolution a second chance.
[deleted]
And you know this how? Through the media?
He went out on a tangent a few times when he was drunk. How many people are PC when they are drunk?
Well said, harkness78, very important points.
Caravaggio was a murderer ... his paintings are among the greatest of the Renaissance, Gesualdo was a murderer ... his music is some of the most beautiful of the renaissance. Lewis Carrol had an unhealthy interest in photographing little nude girls ... life would be greatly impoverished without Alice In Wonderland. The tales of King Arthur come to us through Mallory, a rapist ... and Chinatown is possibly the greatest detective movie ever. The work is not the man ... the work is sometimes more important than the man.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
[deleted]
Your post is thought-provoking. I try to remove one's moral character from their profession and it does not always work. Somethings hurt. I like Mr. Polanski and Mr. Gibson movies for how they make me react.
The consensual sex question is loaded because what is a minor consenting too? What experiences have they had to prepare them? And yes, teens have sex all the time. So, is it the adult's role of protector that demands that we have better judgement?
The act of having sex is without blame, but the responsibility of the parties involved is mandatory.
Buffy...what's your damage?
I won't try to defend this guy, but I'm not going to miss a good piece of art for any reason like that. Good for you for not ever going to see it, however, your choice is yours and mine is mine. I'm not sure why so many people want to convert others to agree with their beliefs.
Please don't compare me with the hormonal teenagers. Youth is not one of my strong traits.
he shouldn't even be able to make new art..he should have been convicted of a crime and not free to do what he wants. this isn't him being a jerk, what he did was violate a child. i'm not attacking anyone who wants to see his films thats their choice, but i just cannot get behind it.
for the record i wanted to see beaver and didn't because i find gibson off putting as well.
if it was him being a jerk a la russell crowe and throwing a phone at someone i might go okay he's a jerk but he makes good films...he violated a child i just cannot separate that.
"Nope, no sex scandals yet. But I am open to offers!" ~John Cusack - Well I'm offering! ~sarah
35 years ago. He's served a lot of time (I never understood why people want him to serve a life sentence). He's admitted that what he did was wrong. Few artists make better films dealing with guilt, victims, and victimizers. Unlike Gibson, he is much more cognizant of his wrong-doing. He hasn't misbehaved since. A lot of the details of the case (e.g. sodomy) are blown up, when the police lab reports indicate sodomy didn't happen. The victim wants it to move on. I know a lot of people won't be satisfied until a conviction is "official," but to me that's a form of mechanical thinking to which I simply can't adapt and find posthuman. The way we wish to simply condemn and sweep away, in our Judge Judy Punish-Happy universe - celebrities or the poor - bespeaks our inability to honestly dig into the terrain of the human mind, which is very far removed from legal protocol. Few artists can illuminate our dark side as Polanski has - "Repulsion," "Cul de Sac," "Chinatown," "The Pianist" (which dwarfs "Schindler's List" I think), "The Ghost Writer."
Or...we can just castrate him, kill him, and silence him, and comfortably go about our daily lives. Whatever works.
Oh boy...
35 years ago. He's served a lot of time (I never understood why people want him to serve a life sentence).He served 42 days. Go and check it if you don't believe me. He was supposed to submit to a psychiatric evaluation and stay in an institution for 90 days but whined and cried a lot that he wanted to go home and was released on bail after 42 days. That is all he served.
He's admitted that what he did was wrong.When was that? In his biography (this is according to a review. I have not read the book and don't intend to) he basically brags about his victim. He puts her in line with all his other "conquests".
I know a lot of people won't be satisfied until a conviction is "official," but to me that's a form of mechanical thinking to which I simply can't adapt and find posthuman.How about "Wont stop mentioning the issue until he has actually done at least 3 years in prison", is that posthuman, too?
Hey, oakstreetamy, get your fact straight, Polanski was never behind bar. And your defending him is beyond me.
shareA guilty plea results in an official conviction.
He'll be dead soon enough and the world will be shut of him.
"Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"
It is so refreshing to read logical reasoning. This is very simple logic of which, unfortunately, most people these days are incapable. Possibly because many have a flawed or nonexistent sense of common humanity and decency to begin with.
shareYour choice is yours, and I'm not trying to "convert" anyone, but if I learned anyone I know or just met support this rapist in ANY way, they'd be erased from my internal contacts list as well as any other ones that they might appear on.
Don't steal. The government hates the competition.
Sure. I would never have been on your contact list nor would you be in mine in the first place for our views are so completely different.
Please don't compare me with the hormonal teenagers. Youth is not one of my strong traits.
Missed the point of that one, eh?
Don't steal. The government hates the competition.
You would really rather let your life be dictated by a misplaced sense of moral superiority rather than the desire to appreciate great art?
share[deleted]
[deleted]
1. So, in the event that you committed some type of direr offense (such as, say, murder), you would immediately confess to a member of your local constabulary that you committed said offense?
2. Great art is not measured by dissonance, Janowitz.
[deleted]
- Under the right circumstances you would. Humans are all repulsive urchins whom function under the delusion that they are the pinnacle of sentient life when really they are just lascivious anthropoids with a disturbing preoccupation with sexuality. You're no better than Polanski; you just haven't been given an opportunity to be profoundly unpleasant yet.
- 'Rosemary's Baby' has no lesser sense of formalist plot structure and sophisticated literary technique than 'Hamlet' or John Donne's 'Holy Sonnets' had. In fact, 'Rosemary's Baby' has an elegantly simplistic narrative that I, for one, would positively compare to anything by Kafka or Chekhov. Perhaps you desire complexity? No artwork is complex. Every artwork of every medium was conceived with exploitative intent. The complexity lies in the interpretation; and anyone can interpret anything into any old crap.
[deleted]
- He is not avoiding the consequences of his actions because he is egocentric, he is avoiding them because it would not be practical for him to be incarcerated. Why should he inconvenience himself by turning himself over to the American authorities? What practical benefit would it serve for him, or for anybody? What could possibly be wrong with being practical?
- You seem to be functioning under the delusion that I want to excuse Polanski for his behaviour. I'm not trying to excuse him. What he did was highly objectionable, and Polanski knows it (and most likely knew it was objectionable when he was committing the offense). However, I simply do not care. Why should I not permit myself to enjoy a film just because the director of it was 'a bad man'? I don't care if Pol Pot directed it! If it is a good film, it's a good film.
[deleted]
"you would be heavily criticised"
And I would also not care in the slightest, just as I do not care about humanity. Ultimately, I care only for art.
^ Idiot. As an artist, I hope you never end up at one of my shows. I don't want people like you near it, let alone speaking to others about it. Your stance on this issue speaks volumes about the kind of taste in art that you would have. If you liked my work, I'd have to rethink the art that I'm producing.
Don't steal. The government hates the competition.
Why exactly? Is it because of a lack of appreciation for some humanitarian component to your presumably crappy art, or are you just another Polanski hater?
shareAll you care about is art, yet you "presume" mine is "crappy"? You're no one that any artist would want as a fan/viewer.
My art is far from humanitarian, but it doesn't spring from the mind of a rapist either.
Don't steal. The government hates the competition.
So, because I like Polanski's films I am instantly an utterly despicable person, am I? I suppose if I listened to Wagner I would be an anti-Semite as well? No matter that both Polanski and Wagner are great artists! If they are morally dubious, then they MUST suck.
Note: Didn't you want me to think that your art is crappy?
I didn't say their art sucked, necessarily. I'm merely pointing out that it's unnecessary to support them as there is PLENTY of art in the world without theirs. Wagner... well, you can listen without putting money in his pocket since he's been dead for... ever. If it were 1943 and you were listening, despite his demise, I'd probably see a problem with it. This RAPIST Polanski should not be supported while he's alive at least. I saw Rosemary's Baby before I knew anything about the director and I thought it was great, but I still know that I don't need to give money to a piece-of-sh!t rapist now that I'm aware.
Do you also think that OJ Simpson was innocent because he was acquitted in criminal court? He didn't even plea out, but there's not much doubt in anyone's mind that he's a murderer. Are you also under the delusion that everyone CONVICTED of a crime is guilty? That's been proven false time and time again. The court system in the US is far, far, FAR from perfect. Find another source. I'm going with the admissions of both the perpetrator and the victim in this case.
Note: I didn't want anyone to PRESUME my art was crappy. I just didn't want pedophile supporters to like it after they've seen it. Don't put words in my mouth.
Don't steal. The government hates the competition.
"Support them"? What exactly do you define as support? Paying money to see his movies, or just liking them full stop? If it was the former, you wouldn't have implied in an earlier comment that my apathy towards Polanski's actions was indicative of me having a taste in art that you could only classify as vulgar. If it was the latter, then you would be an idiot. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is the former.
Yet, even though I do not do it proactively, I don't understand exactly what is so bad about supporting Polanski, anyway. 'Support' is not tantamount to 'Defense'; it is merely a reluctance to be excessively rude about his character when A) He apologised and paid a handsome amount of money to the girl, B) The girl has said herself that she forgives him and that the people whom are doing the really damage are the blood-thirsty media, C) He essentially served his sentence, and D) The act itself was not particularly violent. I mean, I'm not desiring that he be let off the hook for penetrating the girl; I merely think that the man doesn't deserve to be called a "piece-of-sh!t rapist" because he decided that retreating to a country where he held citizenship and would welcome him with open arms was preferable to being thrown into a prison cell with far more violent people.
Now, if there was evidence that he was still somewhat of a danger to society, then perhaps I would be a bit more reluctant to give him my money. As there is not, though, I don't really think that giving money to a man whom has committed a crime in the past is a particularly morally dubious act. At any rate, it's a more rational act than finding an artist whose works you really like and dismissing them entirely because of some fallacious moral diarrhea spouted by an individual whom doesn't even understand what the definition of pedophilia is. Honesty, you're making it out as though funding Polanski is akin to giving generous donations to Neo-Nazi organisations.
Do you think that I want Polanski to be pardoned? No, I don't. He broke the law, and shouldn't be excused because of his status and wealth. I do think, though, that he should be forgiven by the public. Not by the judiciary, but by all those people whom seem to think that any 'sex offender' is a soulless pedophile. Furthermore, if your court system is far from perfect, why would you take so much stock in any of the charges it makes against its people? Do you think that every person whom is brought before a court is guilty, and that an acquittal is just an instance of the justice system failing? Doubtless you will tell me that I am 'putting words into your mouth', but if a verdict of innocence was to be treated as inconsequential, by what right would we be able to convict people of a crime in the first place? We would essentially be advocating the insipid tenet of 'Those accused are ALWAYS guilty'.
Note: As I recall, you said that you didn't want anybody like me near your work. So, if I am not permitted to both presume that your work is bad and see it first hand, that means I can't say anything about your art. If even one person is not permitted by the artist to see the work that that artist has produced, that automatically indicates that there is something in it that you are ashamed of.
Don't let it get to you Film Freak. If Polanski served his time, as did Salva who helmed "Jeepers Creepers," then people will still hate Polanski because he had sex with an underage girl, regardless of whether she forgives him or not. We live in a country where a director makes a film that criticizes Tony Blair for being a war criminal and that mere fact hardly stands above a director having sex with a child. Both are mutually wrong acts but moral equivalency hardly exists in any fashion. That being said, the first thing that crosses my mind when there is a new Polanski film is not, oops the pedophile, more like, oops, the guy whose wife was killed by the Manson Family. Again, I am not condoning his actions or excusing them but they are not first and foremost in my mind when a new film of his is released.
http://jerrysaravia.blogspot.com/2012/11/eat-drink-men-women.html
Films are not reality. Reality is not film. Film is only an approximation of reality.
What he did is none of your business.
A movie though, is out for the public. THAT you might concern yourself with, especially if its a good film and might help to cultivate yourself.
Or don't, and keep whining about what some people did and getting nowhere with that.
Paul Avery: Someone should write a *beep* book, that's for sure.
[deleted]
What someone who creates work for public consumption does is absolutely my business so that I can make an informed decision NOT to financially support child rapists or other heinous criminals. Especially those that were never punished for their crimes.
Don't steal. The government hates the competition.
Polanski is a legendary director whose given the world some classic films like Repulsion, Chinatown and Rosemary's Baby (to name a few). A crime he committed, no matter how awful, horrific or morally detestable, just cannot erase his contribution to cinema.
That being said, this movie does have the participation of two of the greatest living actresses (Winslet and Foster) plus Waltz and Reilly. Why deny yourself the pleasure of seeing this electric ensemble just because a crime committed over 3 decades ago?
"It's hard for me to watch American Idol because I have perfect pitch."
-Jenna, 30 Rock
[deleted]
To me a person's body of work is far more important than their personal lives. I couldn't care less. As long as he churns out good movies, he's all good in my book.
shareI hope to god I never meet you in person. You're as morally detestable as him. Hopefully you haven't acted on it.
Don't steal. The government hates the competition.
So what he raped some girl 30+ years ago, she forgave him, and he hasn't done anything else reprehensible. It's not like I'm his wife and needs to know who he's slept with before. I am a simple fan of his work. I could care less about his personal life, since that is none of my business. Even if I were to work with him someday, I wouldn't be discouraged just because he has a little "black mark" on his record. I have no doubt he would be professional and his moral character would not affect his projects.
shareDrugging and sodomizing a 13 year old girl is far from "a little black mark". Nor is this about who he "slept with before". This about the CHILD he RAPED.
Don't steal. The government hates the competition.
Samantha Geimer got over it years ago. Why can't you?
-- Powerslide --
[deleted]
She stated this repeatedly in interviews. She even supportet his Oscar-Nomination for "The Pianist".
If there is ONE Person who COULD hate Polanski for the rest of his live, then it would be her... but obviously, she does not. No need for bystanders to take on that task for her.
-- Powerslide --
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Just give up. This mhearn person must be kidding with her (or his) posts.
My word is my *beep* bond!
-I Love You Phillip Morris
Either mhearn=troll or they should be institutionalized to protect the world from his/her insanity. I can't believe anyone who uses the word "darling" in every post is sincere or serious about what they're posting.
Don't steal. The government hates the competition.
Are you a child raping artist? Sounds like it from that post. You're disgusting. Jump off a cliff. I'm an artist, and if anything the exact opposite of what you say is true. A true artist should exemplify morality as they have the power to influence many people. A true artist owes as much to the people that support them.
Don't steal. The government hates the competition.