I know we've talked about a bunch of directors, but I don't think anyone's mentioned Roman Polanski yet (or if they did I don't remember). But he's one of the most gifted and controversial directors out there. I love his work, and I really feel sorry for him for all the hard things he's gone through.

I know a lot of people consider him a criminal for his statuatory rape of a teenage girl, but I really don't think we should judge him on that alone. He's gone through so much, it wouldn't surprise me if his mind wasn't all there anymore.

I think his best film is Rosemary's Baby, but Chinatown is a very close second. :)

He's a rapist and should be punished for his crimes. This criminal shouldn't be allowed to make movies anymore. At least until he pays for his crimes. He's nothing but a coward....I guess that's typical for a rapist.

I admit the man has talent, but when a 39 year old man has sex with a 13 year old child, he's nothing but a sack of ****. Nothing else to say as far as I'm concerned.

:yeahthat

I haven't seen any of his films, but Rosemary's Baby is on BBC4 tonight and I'm definitely watching it!

I'm not defending him for what he did, it was inexcusable. But I do have sympathy for him because of all the things he's gone through. He survived the Holocaust and moved to the States only to have his pregnant wife slaughtered by lunatics - I can't imagine what that must have done to his mind. Still, he's made some fantastic films and deserves to have them recognized.

Roman & Sharon Tate

http://www.bernardomahoney.com/forthcb/ootdie/photos/ph03/images/06.jpg

Rape is rape and when Hollywood gave him a standing ovation for winning best director for The Pianist, it made me sick to my stomach. He should be tried for his crimes. The End.

Originally posted by Brian Damage
Rape is rape and when Hollywood gave him a standing ovation for winning best director for The Pianist, it made me sick to my stomach. He should be tried for his crimes. The End.

Well, I do agree with you. But don't forget, earlier that year the girl that he was accused of raping had come forward in his defense, and said that his films should be judged on their own merit, not on his past. Not quite sure how I feel about that, but I guess it's good that she could forgive him.

Originally posted by Liza
Well, I do agree with you. But don't forget, earlier that year the girl that he was accused of raping had come forward in his defense, and said that his films should be judged on their own merit, not on his past. Not quite sure how I feel about that, but I guess it's good that she could forgive him.
I don't have any sympathy for him no matter what the girl says now but I agree that Rosemary's Baby is a great film. I liked Frantic with Harrison Ford but I haven't seen any of the others.

Just saw 'Rosemary's Baby' and it was a fantastic film.
also, even though what Polanski did to the 13 year old girl was wrong, his films shouldn't suffer because of it. Sharon Tate was beautiful- what happened to her was tragic.

If we are incapable of separating the artist from the art, condemning or at best dismissing every work created by those deemed by the majority to be possessed of questionable morals or having committed infractions of the law, the world would be a place of such puerile art that I doubt I'd want to live in it. I'm suddenly seized by the image of a Utopia overrun by Anne Geddes babies, Disney cartoons and libraries filled with Mother Goose and the Bobbsey twins. (And some would even remove Disney for being gay-tolerant.)

Polanski committed an unconscionable act, as did the Manson family when they murdered his wife. I don't feel either have a place among the criteria for judging his films.

Originally posted by Pentimento
If we are incapable of separating the artist from the art, condemning or at best dismissing every work created by those deemed by the majority to be possessed of questionable morals or having committed infractions of the law, the world would be a place of such puerile art that I doubt I'd want to live in it. I'm suddenly seized by the image of a Utopia overrun by Anne Geddes babies, Disney cartoons and libraries filled with Mother Goose and the Bobbsey twins. (And some would even remove Disney for being gay-tolerant.)

Polanski committed an unconscionable act, as did the Manson family when they murdered his wife. I don't feel either have a place among the criteria for judging his films.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Pentimento
If we are incapable of separating the artist from the art, condemning or at best dismissing every work created by those deemed by the majority to be possessed of questionable morals or having committed infractions of the law, the world would be a place of such puerile art that I doubt I'd want to live in it. I'm suddenly seized by the image of a Utopia overrun by Anne Geddes babies, Disney cartoons and libraries filled with Mother Goose and the Bobbsey twins. (And some would even remove Disney for being gay-tolerant.)

Polanski committed an unconscionable act, as did the Manson family when they murdered his wife. I don't feel either have a place among the criteria for judging his films.

The problem here is that some people live by different morals. Rape is one of the worst crimes a person can commit. Some people just cannot forgive or forget. If someone raped your 13 year old daughter and became a famous director could you go and see one of his movies??? Could you stand up and cheer for him after winning an award??? Could you separate the director from the criminal??? I couldn't.

Originally posted by OU812
The problem here is that some people live by different morals. Rape is one of the worst crimes a person can commit. Some people just cannot forgive or forget. If someone raped your 13 year old daughter and became a famous director could you go and see one of his movies??? Could you stand up and cheer for him after winning an award??? Could you separate the director from the criminal??? I couldn't. My message was about art. I merely asserted that a person who does a reprehensible thing should not be summarily banned from doing his work, and that art should be judged solely on its own merit. But am I to understand that, in your judgment, I am somehow morally deficient because I don't feel that an artist should be forbidden to create if he does something immoral, by a majority's standards of course, in his private life? Does that also mean that anyone who enjoys and respects the work of an immoral artist also falls short of meeting the minimum standards of a virtuous society?

As for your argument, which was off my point but, at the risk of this degenerating into a "political" thread, I'll address it anyway. You're absolutely right. Some people can never forgive, even if they were not the ones directly wronged. They wear their outrage and wounded sensibilities like a badge of honor. Still, Polanski's victim forgave him. Who am I (or anyone), then, to be less forgiving than the one who was actually violated?

You ask, what if it were my daughter? I can only speculate as I have no children, but I was a child once and this is an area of human depravity with which I am acutely familiar. I agree that it's possibly the worst horror one person can inflict upon another, particularly upon a defenseless and trusting child, and the effects are unimaginably pervasive and can persist throughout a lifetime. But, if it were my daughter? (First, I doubt that I would have allowed a 13-year old girl to spend any time alone with a man who has promised to take her picture for Vogue, but that's beside the point.) Would I later be able to applaud his professional success? No. Would I even watch any of his films? I seriously doubt it. I'd ignore them. And that is, and hopefully always will be, the public's prerogative.

"I merely asserted that a person who does a reprehensible thing should not be summarily banned from doing his work, and that art should be judged solely on its own merit."

I am not saying that a person should be banned from his work. I am saying that people looking at that work should take into consideration what that person has done and if it is such a reprenhensible thing then he should not praised or celebrated for his work. Kinda like being blacklisted.

"But am I to understand that, in your judgment, I am somehow morally deficient because I don't feel that an artist should be forbidden to create if he does something immoral, by a majority's standards of course, in his private life? Does that also mean that anyone who enjoys and respects the work of an immoral artist also falls short of meeting the minimum standards of a virtuous society?"

Let's use the award ceremony as an example. If you were there giving this man a standing ovation and praising him and you knew what he had done, you would be a person who I would not want to be around.


"As for your argument, which was off my point but, at the risk of this degenerating into a "political" thread, I'll address it anyway. You're absolutely right. Some people can never forgive, even if they were not the ones directly wronged. They wear their outrage and wounded sensibilities like a badge of honor. Still, Polanski's victim forgave him. Who am I (or anyone), then, to be less forgiving than the one who was actually violated?"

How this is off your point is questional and how this would turn political is even more questional.

"You ask, what if it were my daughter? I can only speculate as I have no children, but I was a child once and this is an area of human depravity with which I am acutely familiar. I agree that it's possibly the worst horror one person can inflict upon another, particularly upon a defenseless and trusting child, and the effects are unimaginably pervasive and can persist throughout a lifetime. But, if it were my daughter? (First, I doubt that I would have allowed a 13-year old girl to spend any time alone with a man who has promised to take her picture for Vogue, but that's beside the point.) Would I later be able to applaud his professional success? No. Would I even watch any of his films? I seriously doubt it. I'd ignore them. And that is, and hopefully always will be, the public's prerogative. [/B][/QUOTE] "

Speculation was the point. Hoping to see how you would react to the situation was the point. Having a daughter you would react one way. Being just a fan I wonder why you wouldn't act the same. It may not have been your daughter but it was someone elses daughter.

I've made my points as clearly and dispassionately as I know how. I will attempt exactly one more time to clarify since you've asked, but I harbor no delusions that you will grasp my ideas any more solidly -- if that is even your wish -- than you did the first two times. My first post was written in response to one which said that, as a criminal, Polanski should not be allowed to make films, period. My response encompassed the big picture, stressing the two primary concepts of art being viewed and judged on its own merit, and the freedom of expression in a free society. You took that big picture and without stopping to look at it, let alone ponder it, shrunk it to a postage stamp emblazoned with the universally inflammatory image of maternal outrage. The fact that you support blacklisting explains how this plummeting leap in logic might have occurred.
How this is off your point is questional and how this would turn political is even more questional.I think I've just covered the first part and, as for the second, having to reassert my position that a supposedly free society should not dictate who should or should not be allowed freedom of expression, however carefully I might choose to phrase it, opens the door for those of a certain political ideology to argue the point and, in all likelihood, not so calmly and rationally. I'm familiar with your tendencies on these boards. I knew I was inviting trouble by even attempting a rational response. But, then, it would have been hypocritical of me to judge your message here based on your past infractions of board guidelines.

I have no doubt that nothing I have said will disabuse you of the notion that my ideas and observations are "questional." I hate the phrase "agree to disagree" but that might be the closest thing to a conclusion this interruption in a discussion about film will ever see. I have made my points, I've clarified them twice now, but I do not care to repeat myself and I will not be baited into an inane and protracted exercise in nit-picking and fallacious debate.

Good day and good luck.

He might be a great director, but the rapist shouldn't be allowed to make another film until he stands trial for his crime. Not be a coward and flee the country.

If all people who did disgusting, immoral acts were not allowed to make art or even their living, Michael Jackson wouldn't have a career ;)

Originally posted by Pentimento
If we are incapable of separating the artist from the art, condemning or at best dismissing every work created by those deemed by the majority to be possessed of questionable morals or having committed infractions of the law, the world would be a place of such puerile art that I doubt I'd want to live in it. I'm suddenly seized by the image of a Utopia overrun by Anne Geddes babies, Disney cartoons and libraries filled with Mother Goose and the Bobbsey twins. (And some would even remove Disney for being gay-tolerant.)

Polanski committed an unconscionable act, as did the Manson family when they murdered his wife. I don't feel either have a place among the criteria for judging his films.

I agree 100%. People spend too much time criticizing someones work because they don't like THE PERSON. I disagree with Arnold Schwarzenegger's politics and I would never vote for him if I lived in California... but I am not going to lie and say that I didn't enjoy True Lies and Terminator 2.

People spend too much time holding personal grudges against a person to pay attention to their work. Look at all the liberal celebrities who suffered backlashes over their opinions on the president... the ONLY one where the backlash could be justifyable is Michael Moore, because he makes a professional art of speaking out against Bush... however, celebrities like Barbra Streisand, Dixie Chicks, Susan Sarandon, Madonna, Sean Penn, got the short-end of the backlash because people didn't like their politics... even tho not one of them is overtly political when it comes to their art. It goes both ways, I dislike Arnold's opinions and politics just as much as others hate Barbra's or Susan's, but I will still enjoy the films of his that I thought were enjoyable, and will put aside personal feelings about how he feels about gays

Originally posted by BuffySlayer79
I agree 100%. People spend too much time criticizing someones work because they don't like THE PERSON. I disagree with Arnold Schwarzenegger's politics and I would never vote for him if I lived in California... but I am not going to lie and say that I didn't enjoy True Lies and Terminator 2.

People spend too much time holding personal grudges against a person to pay attention to their work. Look at all the liberal celebrities who suffered backlashes over their opinions on the president... the ONLY one where the backlash could be justifyable is Michael Moore, because he makes a professional art of speaking out against Bush... however, celebrities like Barbra Streisand, Dixie Chicks, Susan Sarandon, Madonna, Sean Penn, got the short-end of the backlash because people didn't like their politics... even tho not one of them is overtly political when it comes to their art. It goes both ways, I dislike Arnold's opinions and politics just as much as others hate Barbra's or Susan's, but I will still enjoy the films of his that I thought were enjoyable, and will put aside personal feelings about how he feels about gays

HOLY CRAP! Are the trees more huggable where you live?!? We aren't talking about a guy's personal beliefs, we are talking about RAPE. Which by the way was proven Roman did. Of course people are going to look at him and his work differently because of what he did.

He broke the law. He raped somebody and then fled the country to avoid going to jail. This has nothing to do with somebody's political beliefs. I agree he's a great director but if it was a regular citizen who did this I don't think people would be willing to look the other way.

Besides, if it were your daughter, I doubt you'd be saying...."Gee, he raped my daughter, but damn Frantic was such a great film."