Roman Polanski Arrested

[il Padrino Ute]

Il Pad, GL's response is what I was referring to. I think he should be given whatever he's got coming to him. However, I'd like to get to the point where I can watch one of his shows and not hear a comment about his crimes.

Understood and my apologies if I implied that you didn't think he should be punished.

[falafel]

Good idea...rent the movie, proceeds go to the dude who raped a 13 year old.

You think he's still receiving royalties for that movie? If so, I'll just download it from bittorent. Its the least I can do to prevent that sick sonofabitch from getting any more money.

[dabrockster]

You think he's still receiving royalties for that movie? If so, I'll just download it from bittorent. Its the least I can do to prevent that sick sonofabitch from getting any more money.

Get it from the Library for free at no cost to you.. So then you won't feel bad for spending money on the sick bastard...

[KillerDog]

You think he's still receiving royalties for that movie? If so, I'll just download it from bittorent. Its the least I can do to prevent that sick sonofabitch from getting any more money.

I assume he is still getting royalties. I don't know how such things work. I'm still shocked that the Academy gave an award to a dude who drugged, stripped, forcibly detained, and then raped a 13 year old girl.

[Green Lantern]

On the other hand, taking the grand jury testimony as true, Mr. Polansky raped this youngster in fact as well as according to the law. He had forcible sexual contact that was actually forcible. He used a drug to ply his victim and, over her protests, raped her. Further, he forcibly sodomized her using the same technique of abuse.

Oh, no question about it, it was a sick crime. Again, see the WANTED AND DESIRED documentary for more facts about the case.

I will never purchase or view a movie produced/directed/written etc. by this man. It is appalling that he won an Academy Award while hiding from justice. It speaks volumes re: the Academy. I know that the victim wants to get on with her life but she is blaming the wrong party (lawyers, judges, etc.) all of this is derived by the violent act and subsequent flight from justice by Mr. Polansky (or as I will now call him the "ass rapist").

See this is what I'd like to discuss. Should we avoid art when the creator of said art has committed crimes against individuals and society? What purpose does that serve? Or, on the other hand, can the art stand alone and still be appreciated for its artistic merit, regardless of deeds of one of its progenitors?

[falafel]

See this is what I'd like to discuss. Should we avoid art when the creator of said art has committed crimes against individuals and society? What purpose does that serve? Or, on the other hand, can the art stand alone and still be appreciated for its artistic merit, regardless of deeds of one of its progenitors?

I agree that the art can exist separate from its creator's other actions, or at least it does not need to be viewed as an extension of the creator's horrible actions.

Killer, are you really as shocked as you claim that the Academy gave him an Oscar? Are they meant to judge a person's life or just his film? Even an ugly person can create something beautiful.

[RobinFinderson]

See this is what I'd like to discuss. Should we avoid art when the creator of said art has committed crimes against individuals and society? What purpose does that serve? Or, on the other hand, can the art stand alone and still be appreciated for its artistic merit, regardless of deeds of one of its progenitors?

I tend to think we needn't avoid creative work made by immoral people. Besides, any student of culture in general and cinema in particular should probably see Chinatown.

[il Padrino Ute]

Oh, no question about it, it was a sick crime. Again, see the WANTED AND DESIRED documentary for more facts about the case.



See this is what I'd like to discuss. Should we avoid art when the creator of said art has committed crimes against individuals and society? What purpose does that serve? Or, on the other hand, can the art stand alone and still be appreciated for its artistic merit, regardless of deeds of one of its progenitors?

Isn't this similar to why there are trade embargos of certain countries by other countries? If Castro had not taken over Cuba and imposed communism on the citizens, would cigars had ever been illegal?

I can understand what Killer is saying. I refuse to see movies that have particular actors in them because I don't want them to make any kind of money. It's not so much that Killer is avoiding the art, as much as it is Killer refusing to allow Polansky to be rewarded because of behavior that has nothing to do with what he did for a living.

[RobinFinderson]

Isn't this similar to why there are trade embargos of certain countries by other countries? If Castro had not taken over Cuba and imposed communism on the citizens, would cigars had ever been illegal?

I can understand what Killer is saying. I refuse to see movies that have particular actors in them because I don't want them to make any kind of money. It's not so much that Killer is avoiding the art, as much as it is Killer refusing to allow Polansky to be rewarded because of behavior that has nothing to do with what he did for a living.

My feeling, the penny that goes into Polanski's pocket is not so significant that I should deprive myself of seeing a great movie like Chinatown.

[Green Lantern]

Isn't this similar to why there are trade embargos of certain countries by other countries? If Castro had not taken over Cuba and imposed communism on the citizens, would cigars had ever been illegal?

Interesting, but speaking as an individual, I certainly wouldn't be personally against partaking of the artistic output of Cuba just because I disagree with their politics.

I can understand what Killer is saying. I refuse to see movies that have particular actors in them because I don't want them to make any kind of money. It's not so much that Killer is avoiding the art, as much as it is Killer refusing to allow Polansky to be rewarded because of behavior that has nothing to do with what he did for a living.

See, this line of reasoning never works for me. I would always feel like I'm doing myself a greater disservice by depriving myself of something beautiful and praiseworthy (if it's a good flick. I'm not talking about ONE NIGHT IN PARIS here,) than I am doing a disservice to some actor that was in the movie. Also, where does it end? I mean, couldn't we probably find something offensive in the behavior of about 95% of the actors/directors/filmmakers in Hollywood? Should we only see movies involving actors with sterling moral character?

[KillerDog]

Oh, no question about it, it was a sick crime. Again, see the WANTED AND DESIRED documentary for more facts about the case.

I will not watch a film to determine "facts" on this case. The film idustry seems full of apologists. To me, that is like asking the Catholics for "facts" regarding sexual abuse by priests. They are too close to be truthful. I read her Grand Jury testimony. That is enough for me. Granted, it might not all be true but even the parts he admits to are sufficiently criminal.

See this is what I'd like to discuss. Should we avoid art when the creator of said art has committed crimes against individuals and society? What purpose does that serve? Or, on the other hand, can the art stand alone and still be appreciated for its artistic merit, regardless of deeds of one of its progenitors?

If the artist has paid their debt to society, I have no problem with admiring their work. If they are outlaws at the time, I can't in good conscience do anything to support them. We're trying to live in a society here people.

[falafel]

If the artist has paid their debt to society, I have no problem with admiring their work. If they are outlaws at the time, I can't in good conscience do anything to support them. We're trying to live in a society here people.

To be fair, Polanski's not trying to live in our society.

[creekster]

What facts do we need abotu the case? He pleaded guilty, didn't he?

[il Padrino Ute]

Interesting, but speaking as an individual, I certainly wouldn't be personally against partaking of the artistic output of Cuba just because I disagree with their politics.


See, this line of reasoning never works for me. I would always feel like I'm doing myself a greater disservice by depriving myself of something beautiful and praiseworthy (if it's a good flick. I'm not talking about ONE NIGHT IN PARIS here,) than I am doing a disservice to some actor that was in the movie. Also, where does it end? I mean, couldn't we probably find something offensive in the behavior of about 95% of the actors/directors/filmmakers in Hollywood? Should we only see movies involving actors with sterling moral character?

I suppose we could find something offensive in which most of Hollywood has participated. That is a fair point.

At the same time, I've never felt like I've deprived myself of anything by skipping a movie. They just aren't that big of deal to me. The actor or director still makes a ton of money, but it satisfies me to know that none of it came from me.

[Green Lantern]

I will not watch a film to determine "facts" on this case. The film idustry seems full of apologists. To me, that is like asking the Catholics for "facts" regarding sexual abuse by priests. They are too close to be truthful. I read her Grand Jury testimony. That is enough for me. Granted, it might not all be true but even the parts he admits to are sufficiently criminal.

Whoa, I think you misunderstood me. The documentary is not some apologist work defending Polanski. It's just a documentary about the case and I figured if people want to know what we're all talking about, they could do worse than checking it out. It doesn't make Polanski out to be any less of a creep than he is. I was just recommending the film, not making any accusations about your knowledge of the case.