394 replies to this topic

[SecretAgentFan]

Whoa. Having read your recent statements it´s become clear to me that you just want to provoke and get a reaction.

For the record: read my points closely and you will understand that I do not defend Polanski and that I do not think the victim had it coming.

But your lynchmob mentality does not allow for close reading, I get that now.

And Loomis, I am merely talking about public thinking. Do you really think it would be the same if the headline were "sexually active teenager raped by 45-year old man" instead of "innocent child"?

[SecretAgentFan]

I should not answer and give more fuel to you but... the fact that you present Woody Allen is another testament to your unwillingness to enter an informed discussion (see my Woody Allen reference but I´m afraid you haven´t read that either).

And, please, Gravity, you might try to smear my reputation around here. And you might even succeed. I just hope that there are some members left who understood my points correctly.

[Loomis]

And Loomis, I am merely talking about public thinking. Do you really think it would be the same if the headline were "sexually active teenager raped by 45-year old man" instead of "innocent child"?

I don't know about the States, but no newspaper in Britain would ever carry such a headline. The reason why should be obvious. "Sexually active" does not in any way mitigate "raped by".

Let's say a 39-year-old woman gets raped. Let's say she has a husband or a boyfriend. Can you imagine the headline "Sexually active woman in her 30s raped" instead of "Woman in her 30s raped"?

[Trident]

I'm actually undecided yet as to how much of the above is meant as a Borat-style satire. I would suspect it's a considerable part. Either that, or the next electoral campaign has started a little early.

It's a sad statement of the world we live in when a person can't speak out AGAINST child molestation without people having to wonder if he/she is being satirical. I'm neither satirical, running for an elected office, or have foam in my mouth. I don't watch Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Ed Schultz, or Chris Matthews.

What made me wonder about satire here wasn't a stance against child molestation, but the weirdly OTT condemnation of almost everybody else taking a substantiated position opposing the idea of a lynchmob and addressing a number of relevant issues both with the original case and the miraculously revived interest of the US authorities after 30 years of outright incompetence. I note here that up to now these points still haven't been explained and apparently nobody advocating the arrest and subsequent extradition of Polanski has tried to find an answer to these questions.

Apart from that it would seem that there is a considerable gap between the world and how it is perceived by us. I don't feel an urge to bridge this gap, especially not if some feel compelled to extend the charges against Polanski to persons clearly neither advocating child molestation nor leaving any doubts about this fact. Smear campaigning is the lowest form of campaigning and even though it's become a staple diet of some countries' and some parties' politics, it's still just cheapest populism, no matter how supposedly 'good' the cause it's adopted to fight for.

[Jim]

An unpleasant subject appears to have achieved the thread it deserves. This really isn't demonstrating anyone at their most beautiful. Deriding or defending the actions of the prosecutors is one thing, but savaging one another for doing so is quite another.

[DAN LIGHTER]

The latest is this film may never get shown, so, if that be the case, all this might have been a waste of time.

[Dekard77]

Don't count on it, Weinstein's could still buy and release it with Martin Scorsese cut.

[Tybre]

The latest is this film may never get shown, so, if that be the case, all this might have been a waste of time.

The latest as I hear it is they're going ahead with completing and releasing the film regardless of Polanski's current and quite probably future detention.

[SecretAgentFan]

Their actions in regard to Polanski have been indefensible, and I will now be forced to illegally download SHUTTER ISLAND rather than give Martin Scorcese my 10 dollars.

[Zorin Industries]

It may be getting a bit clearer...

The case has reared itself up again because of ... money.

[Dekard77]

It may be getting a clearer...

The case has reared itself up again because of ... money.

Does this mean he will come to a settlement outside courts??

[Loomis]

It may be getting a bit clearer...

The case has reared itself up again because of ... money.

What do you mean?

[Zorin Industries]

It may be getting a bit clearer...

The case has reared itself up again because of ... money.

What do you mean?

There is a notion today that Polanski could be getting hauled in because of financial settlements and not some justice for whatever he is accused of. So the dollar speaks loud and proud once again.

[Loomis]

Are you saying Samantha Geimer's a gold-digger?

You say that "there is a notion today", but what's your source? I'd like to read the article in question (assuming, of course, that this is something you've read and not heard on TV or been told).

[Jim]

I will now be forced to illegally download SHUTTER ISLAND rather than give Martin Scorcese my 10 dollars.

Moral highground captured once more.

[Trident]

Are you saying Samantha Geimer's a gold-digger?

You say that "there is a notion today", but what's your source? I'd like to read the article in question (assuming, of course, that this is something you've read and not heard on TV or been told).

Take a look here or here. Several other articles in various languages to be found. Gist of it suggests Polanski's arrest may be at least partially more of a repossession/ransom stunt than aimed at a late 'justice'.

[Zorin Industries]

Are you saying Samantha Geimer's a gold-digger?

You say that "there is a notion today", but what's your source? I'd like to read the article in question (assuming, of course, that this is something you've read and not heard on TV or been told).

http://news.bbc.co.u...ent/8288340.stm

I will now be forced to illegally download SHUTTER ISLAND rather than give Martin Scorcese my 10 dollars.

Moral highground captured once more.

Exactly! What a pathetic statement from our man there, Jim.

[Harmsway]

I will now be forced to illegally download SHUTTER ISLAND rather than give Martin Scorcese my 10 dollars.

Moral highground captured once more.

[Loomis]

Are you saying Samantha Geimer's a gold-digger?

You say that "there is a notion today", but what's your source? I'd like to read the article in question (assuming, of course, that this is something you've read and not heard on TV or been told).

Take a look here

Not that anyone here's stating this outright, but how does this make Geimer a gold-digger? Criminal injuries compensation, anyone?

And I note, from the article you link to, that "a $500,000 deal was hammered out 15 years after he fled the U.S. in 1978. But it appears the director did not pay up on the initial deal."

I will now be forced to illegally download SHUTTER ISLAND rather than give Martin Scorcese my 10 dollars.

Moral highground captured once more.

Yes, because watching illegal copies of films is just as bad as what Polanski did.

[Zorin Industries]

Well no, it is the complete contradiction that says something like Scorsese is such a monster for supporting someone I don't like so I will only download his new film instead of go to the theatre to see it...? That is nothing to do with where you stand on rape. That is a pathetic, selfish sentiment of someone who is clearly without any principles when it comes to cinema.

And Polanski is alleged to have committed his crime in 1977. That wasn't last week. Yet, still people who are very against him on this thread have watched his cinematic output since 1977. That is where the contradictions are. That is akin (in my book anyway) of saying I hate that vile rapist but I will watch his home movie clips on YouTube.

Yes, because watching illegal copies of films is just as bad as what Polanski did.
It might be worth remembering where the money from global film piracy can end up (sex trafficking involving children for starters).

As ever - a different, wider and less kneejerk perspective is needed in life.

Are you saying Samantha Geimer's a gold-digger?

Rape victims DO NOT attend the paparazzi-flanked red carpet premieres of documentary films about their alleged attackers. They do also not flank the poster of the film grinning like they are at their prom night. That is not - as Geimer keeps reminding the press (inbetween changing her stance on a few things) about "moving on".

Not every rape victim in the world gets that privilege. And they certainly don't get over half a million dollars as a settlement (AFTER the alleged attacker has served time and abided by the law as set out to him by the judges at the time).

http://www.nydailyne...t_long_ago.html

[Trident]

Are you saying Samantha Geimer's a gold-digger?

You say that "there is a notion today", but what's your source? I'd like to read the article in question (assuming, of course, that this is something you've read and not heard on TV or been told).

Take a look here

Not that anyone here's stating this outright, but how does this make Geimer a gold-digger? Criminal injuries compensation, anyone?

And I note, from the article you link to, that "a $500,000 deal was hammered out 15 years after he fled the U.S. in 1978. But it appears the director did not pay up on the initial deal."

Oh, that doesn't make her necessarily a gold-digger. It just goes to show that the original case has long since left the boundaries of a screaming unpenalised injustice and has reached an 'agreement'. What kind of behind-the-scenes terms this agreement, apart from the mentioned sum, also entails, will most likely not be made public anytime soon. Why the money apparently hasn't changed hands will in all likelihood also remain a secret. But there would seem to be a considerable probability that the (up to now unheard of) 'agreement' and Polanski's failing to comply did have some influence on the latest developments in this case.

I will now be forced to illegally download SHUTTER ISLAND rather than give Martin Scorcese my 10 dollars.

Moral highground captured once more.

Yes, because watching illegal copies of films is just as bad as what Polanski did.

No, certainly not. It's just testament to the good old rider's wisdom that it's advisable to bow one's head when returning to the stable.

[dee-bee-five]

Well no, it is the complete contradiction that says something like Scorsese is such a monster for supporting someone I don't like so I will only download his new film instead of go to the theatre to see it...? That is nothing to do with where you stand on rape. That is a pathetic, selfish sentiment of someone who is clearly without any principles when it comes to cinema.

And Polanski is alleged to have committed his crime in 1977. That wasn't last week. Yet, still people who are very against him on this thread have watched his cinematic output since 1977. That is where the contradictions are. That is akin (in my book anyway) of saying I hate that vile rapist but I will watch his home movie clips on YouTube.

Probably the most sense written on this entire thread.

I should not answer and give more fuel to you but... the fact that you present Woody Allen is another testament to your unwillingness to enter an informed discussion (see my Woody Allen reference but I´m afraid you haven´t read that either).

And, please, Gravity, you might try to smear my reputation around here. And you might even succeed. I just hope that there are some members left who understood my points correctly.

Don't worry, mate, I, for one, understand perfectly what you were saying. Alas, it seems others are determined to deliberately misinterpret you...

[Loomis]

And Polanski is alleged to have committed his crime in 1977. That wasn't last week.
Yet, still people who are very against him on this thread have watched his cinematic output since 1977. That is where the contradictions are.

There is no contradiction in separating the artist from the art. Indeed, it is always the only sane thing for a consumer of art to do. As someone who is - it goes without saying - anti-Nazi, would you refuse to watch a film by Leni Riefenstahl? Do you boycott GOLDFINGER because of Gert Frobe's activities as a youth?

I will now be forced to illegally download SHUTTER ISLAND rather than give Martin Scorcese my 10 dollars.

Moral highground captured once more.

Yes, because watching illegal copies of films is just as bad as what Polanski did.

No, certainly not. It's just testament to the good old rider's wisdom that it's advisable to bow one's head when returning to the stable.

Well, true, but there are gradations of wrongdoing. A shoplifter, say, is entitled to take the moral high ground over a child rapist. Someone who deals small quantities of cannabis to friends has the moral upper hand over a terrorist. In my opinion, anyway.

[DAN LIGHTER]

Oh ah, what did old Gert Frobe get up to as a youth?

edit: Just googled it.

Edited by DAN LIGHTER, 05 October 2009 - 06:14 PM.

[dee-bee-five]

And Polanski is alleged to have committed his crime in 1977. That wasn't last week.
Yet, still people who are very against him on this thread have watched his cinematic output since 1977. That is where the contradictions are.

There is no contradiction in separating the artist from the art. Indeed, it is always the only sane thing for a consumer of art to do.

That is, of course, true, but I don't see a contradiction in the point Zorin was making.

The private lives of many of the actors, director, artists, etc we individually admire would not bear too close a scrutiny. I mentioned Joe Orton in an earlier post. He is, with the exception of Noel Coward, absolutely my favourite playwright. But you may be aware that he regularly travelled to Morocco to pay to have sex with underage teenage boys (he wasn't the only one). Do I approve of that? No, of course not.

But does it affect my appreciation of his work? Not a jot.

[Loomis]

The private lives of many of the actors, director, artists, etc we individually admire would not bear too close a scrutiny. I mentioned Joe Orton in an earlier post. He is, with the exception of Noel Coward, absolutely my favourite playwright. But you may be aware that he regularly travelled to Morocco to pay to have sex with underage teenage boys (he wasn't the only one). Do I approve of that? No, of course not.

But does it affect my appreciation of his work? Not a jot.

I totally agree. I've never called for boycotts of Polanski or anyone else. I heartily disapprove of some of the alleged behaviour of many of my favourite actors, writers, directors and musicians, but if I were to demand that all the artists whose works I enjoy pass some kind of morality test I'd devised then I'd have practically nothing to watch/read/listen to. Indeed (and like many of us, I suspect), I've added some Polanskis to my rental list over the last few days and look forward to seeing them.

(Also a huge Coward fan, BTW. Mainly his poems and songs, though. )

[dee-bee-five]

The private lives of many of the actors, director, artists, etc we individually admire would not bear too close a scrutiny. I mentioned Joe Orton in an earlier post. He is, with the exception of Noel Coward, absolutely my favourite playwright. But you may be aware that he regularly travelled to Morocco to pay to have sex with underage teenage boys (he wasn't the only one). Do I approve of that? No, of course not.

But does it affect my appreciation of his work? Not a jot.

I totally agree. I've never called for boycotts of Polanski or anyone else. I heartily disapprove of some of the alleged behaviour of many of my favourite actors, writers, directors and musicians, but if I were to demand that all the artists whose works I enjoy pass some kind of morality test I'd devised then I'd have practically nothing to watch/read/listen to. Indeed (and like many of us, I suspect), I've added some Polanskis to my rental list over the last few days and look forward to seeing them.

So true.

The problem with this thread is that there are some - not you I hasten to add - who immediately accuse one of supporting rape if one dares to suggest there's something iffy about this case suddenly flaring up after more than 30 years.

As I wrote earlier, if Polanski has a case to answer, then he should. But I still question what lies behind his sudden arrest. And I find it offensive for anyone to accuse me, or anyone else,(either directly or by snide implication) of supporting rape simply for asking legitimate questions.

By the way, some of Coward's plays are deliciously subversive beneath the sophisticated patina. Particularly now, when the subtle codes he had use to get past the Lord Chamberlain's office can be stripped away...

[Trident]

I will now be forced to illegally download SHUTTER ISLAND rather than give Martin Scorcese my 10 dollars.

Moral highground captured once more.

Yes, because watching illegal copies of films is just as bad as what Polanski did.

No, certainly not. It's just testament to the good old rider's wisdom that it's advisable to bow one's head when returning to the stable.

Well, true, but there are gradations of wrongdoing. A shoplifter, say, is entitled to take the moral high ground over a child rapist. Someone who deals small quantities of cannabis to friends has the moral upper hand over a terrorist. In my opinion, anyway.

I think this misses the point somewhat. The watching of illegal filmcopies isn't mentioned as confession to a tiny bit of petty crime as opposed to a much more severe crime. It's quite obviously regarded here as a weird form of private punishment for the perceived monstrous behaviour of the persons in question. And this begs the question whether the perception of 'justice' isn't a wee little bit skewed.

[Zorin Industries]

The problem with this thread is that there are some - not you I hasten to add - who immediately accuse one of supporting rape if one dares to suggest there's something iffy about this case suddenly flaring up after more than 30 years.

As I wrote earlier, if Polanski has a case to answer, then he should. But I still question what lies behind his sudden arrest. And I find it offensive for anyone to accuse me, or anyone else,(either directly or by snide implication) of supporting rape simply for asking legitimate questions.

By the way, some of Coward's plays are deliciously subversive beneath the sophisticated patina. Particularly now, when the subtle codes he had use to get past the Lord Chamberlain's office can be stripped away...

Thank you Dee-Bee-Five for supporting those of us who are not advocators of child rape when we mention how the word "perspective" is valuable and necessary here.

A very interesting documentary film (and one that - very strangely - Samantha Geimer supported and promoted...see it to know what I mean) is on BBC FOUR on Monday 12th October in the evening.

I strongly urge people to watch that one to see some of the grey-er areas of this case - and a fascinating testament to the Hollywood of the 1970's.

POLANSKI - WANTED AND DESIRED
BBC FOUR
Monday 12th October 2009

[Gabriel]

So . . . um . . . did anyone hear that Pierce Brosnan had been cast in Roman Polanski's 'The Ghost'?