Could you watch and like a Roman Polanski film?

loveloveXloveloveX Posts: 4,177
Forum Member
✭✭✭
I hate roman Polanski and cannot fathom how anyone in Hollywood can support him! :mad: but I wonder what your moral positions are on watching and liking his movies. I personally never could watch or like them. Do you believe it's ok for someone to watch and like his movies?
«134

Comments

  • intruder2kintruder2k Posts: 318
    Forum Member
    Of course it's okay! He's just one of many people involved in the production of a film. His private life is something entirely separate. His Macbeth is one of my favourites and The Ninth Gate isn't bad either.
  • loveloveXloveloveX Posts: 4,177
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I feel like I'd be supporting a pedo and feel so dirty and like I was in the side of bad of I did
  • Muttley76Muttley76 Posts: 97,888
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think some of the films he made are great regardless of what he allegedly did back in the 70's. It doesn't by any means mean I support him though. I don't really like seeing people projecting that anyone that doesn't agree with their view on this is "supporting a pedo", which, reading between the lines, seems to be the OP's intention in this thread is.


    Final point: I've no wish to get in to a debate about this, but my understanding of the whole situation around the court case is it is a lot less black and white than people on either side of the argument seem to be willing to acknowledge.
  • intruder2kintruder2k Posts: 318
    Forum Member
    Muttley76 wrote: »
    I think some of the films he made are great regardless of what he allegedly did back in the 70's. It doesn't by any means mean I support him though. I don't really like seeing people projecting that anyone that doesn't agree with their view on this is "supporting a pedo", which, reading between the lines, seems to be the OP's intention in this thread is.

    Spot on. Plenty of film people have unsavoury history: Steve McQueen was a bully, Clint beat his wife, Mark Wahlberg blinded a Vietnamese guy. Doesn't mean they haven't done some great work in their time. The public and the private are two huge and separate spectrums.

    The only one I'll draw the line at is Clownhouse, knowing the director abused and videotaped the young star of the movie during production.
  • AneechikAneechik Posts: 20,208
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    intruder2k wrote: »

    The only one I'll draw the line at is Clownhouse, knowing the director abused and videotaped the young star of the movie during production.

    With Clownhouse, the sleaziness of the movie itself makes it very difficult to forget about what was going on backstage.
  • loveloveXloveloveX Posts: 4,177
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Muttley76 wrote: »
    I think some of the films he made are great regardless of what he allegedly did back in the 70's. It doesn't by any means mean I support him though. I don't really like seeing people projecting that anyone that doesn't agree with their view on this is "supporting a pedo", which, reading between the lines, seems to be the OP's intention in this thread is.


    Final point: I've no wish to get in to a debate about this, but my understanding of the whole situation around the court case is it is a lot less black and white than people on either side of the argument seem to be willing to acknowledge.

    Noooo I was talking about myself, crazy but I haven't seen Chinatown but always wanted to but I just think I feel like by watching it and knowing he directed and then sort of praise him, I couldn't compartmentalise.
  • flashman1flashman1 Posts: 203
    Forum Member
    As far as I can tell , Polanskis films are the same now as they were when they were made just as Gary Glitters music also hasn't changed .

    I don't refuse to watch the first series of Not the Nine O'Clock News just because Chris Langham is in it .

    Denying yourself access to classic movies and tv shows for any reason is just cutting off your nose to spite your face.
    And in the case of cinema films like Polanski , he was paid at the time so whether you watch them now or not makes no difference to him.
  • GortGort Posts: 7,460
    Forum Member
    Considering the hundreds of people involved in films, I'd be surprised if there weren't a few "paedos" working in most of them, known and unknown. In the end of the day, a film is a product of many people of many persuasions and faults. Judge a film by its merits and intent rather than the mess of who's involved. Watching a Polanski film doesn't mean that you forgive him for any crimes he may well have committed.

    OP, do you watch Naked Gun films despite OJ?
  • Trsvis_BickleTrsvis_Bickle Posts: 9,202
    Forum Member
    loveloveX wrote: »
    I hate roman Polanski and cannot fathom how anyone in Hollywood can support him! :mad: but I wonder what your moral positions are on watching and liking his movies. I personally never could watch or like them. Do you believe it's ok for someone to watch and like his movies?

    Daft question. It's the work that matters. Presumably you also refuse to listen to Wagner because he was anti-semitic and don't read Larkin's poems because he was racist by today's standards? Like the rest of us, great artists aren't perfect and you'll miss out on an awful lot with that sanctimonious attitude.
  • General LunacyGeneral Lunacy Posts: 735
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ^^This^^
  • Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,315
    Forum Member
    Daft question. It's the work that matters. Presumably you also refuse to listen to Wagner because he was anti-semitic and don't read Larkin's poems because he was racist by today's standards? Like the rest of us, great artists aren't perfect and you'll miss out on an awful lot with that sanctimonious attitude.
    Absolutely.

    Though the tendency to put the artist before the art is nothing new (and almost always a mistake), it does seem more prevalent than ever before.

    It's more than likely a symptom of this cretinous modern celebrity culture we have, famous for being famous etc.
  • TakaeTakae Posts: 13,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I generally don't watch Polanski's films because I don't like his style.

    That said, I do avoid certain creators' works for moral reasons. There's nothing wrong with this. There's nothing wrong with watching, listening or reading dodgy creators' works, either.

    What matters is your comfort zone. No one but you can define your comfort zone. Likewise for you with other people's comfort zones. As in, you can't define theirs.
  • TakaeTakae Posts: 13,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Absolutely.

    Though the tendency to put the artist before the art is nothing new (and almost always a mistake), it does seem more prevalent than ever before.

    It's more than likely a symptom of this cretinous modern celebrity culture we have, famous for being famous etc.

    I strongly disagree with your comment in bold. The public stance on actors and directors' private lives is much more relaxed than it was between the 1920s and the 1970s. Back then, their private lives were strictly monitored to avoid having the public disapprove so much that their careers would die instantly. Robert Downey Jr. wouldn't have his comeback in spite of his well-publicised drug-fuelled antics if he was around during that period.
  • Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,315
    Forum Member
    Takae wrote: »
    I strongly disagree with your comment in bold. The public stance on actors and directors' private lives is much more relaxed than it was between the 1920s and the 1970s. Back then, their private lives were strictly monitored to avoid having the public disapprove so much that their careers would die instantly. Robert Downey Jr. wouldn't have his comeback in spite of his well-publicised drug-fuelled antics if he was around during that period.
    You may well be right (though back then they may well have had an easier time controlling what the public knew or didn't know about the famous). But there was still perhaps more public focus on what they did rather than just who they were, depending on who they were.

    My point was that in this modern 'celeb' era the public focus has shifted far too much on who they are rather than what they do, something too often encouraged by the stars themselves it seems.
  • flashman1flashman1 Posts: 203
    Forum Member
    Takae wrote: »
    I strongly disagree with your comment in bold. The public stance on actors and directors' private lives is much more relaxed than it was between the 1920s and the 1970s. Back then, their private lives were strictly monitored to avoid having the public disapprove so much that their careers would die instantly. Robert Downey Jr. wouldn't have his comeback in spite of his well-publicised drug-fuelled antics if he was around during that period.
    Agreed.
    Look at how the stars who were gay had their sexuality hidden away by the studios.
    A whiff of scandal could be the end of a career but back then stars were real stars where their real lives were as secret as possible - not on show daily in gossip mags or the internet.

    Today we accept that even the biggest stars have the same human failings as us and we don't care like they used to
  • TakaeTakae Posts: 13,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You may well be right (though back then they may well have had an easier time controlling what the public knew or didn't know about the famous).

    :D True. I think the real difference between then and now is, I suppose, the role of those who profit from public exposure the most.

    Actors back then had no control over their private lives in the public eye, due to most studios' concerns for profitability. Most high-profiled actors today have no control over their private lives in the public eye, due to the media's concerns for profitability
    But there was still perhaps more public focus on what they did rather than just who they were, depending on who they were.

    I can see what you're saying, but I'm still not sure. Many old Hollywood gossipy stories have recycled through decades, which I think is a testimony to the public's interest in private lives. Fatty Arbuckle, Jack Pickford, Charlie Chaplin, Robert Mitchum, Natalie Wood, etc.

    Until recently, the public could only rely on published books, candid interviews and magazines for gossip and insights into actors' private lives. Nowadays, it's mostly available via gossip blogs, "honest" mag/TV interviews and so on.

    I think what I was trying to say is that the public's interest hasn't changed, but the means of obtaining information/gossip have, which I think is what you're trying to say?
    My point was that in this modern 'celeb' era the public focus has shifted far too much on who they are rather than what they do, something too often encouraged by the stars themselves it seems.

    Surely, it's fair to say that that applies to back then as well? Such as star/film magazines that complied "news" reports and photo spreads on film stars' so-called private lives. Studios controlled those, of course, but it still focused on actors' private lives.

    Edited:
    flashman1 wrote: »
    Agreed.
    Look at how the stars who were gay had their sexuality hidden away by the studios.
    A whiff of scandal could be the end of a career but back then stars were real stars where their real lives were as secret as possible - not on show daily in gossip mags or the internet.

    Today we accept that even the biggest stars have the same human failings as us and we don't care like they used to

    You've put it far better (and more concisely!) than I did. I totally agree with you.
  • Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,315
    Forum Member
    Takae wrote: »
    I think what I was trying to say is that the public's interest hasn't changed, but the means of obtaining information/gossip have, which I think is what you're trying to say?

    I'd agree the public has always been interested in what the 'stars' get up to, though perhaps in the past they were more aware of what they actually did than now* Certainly the means have changed - and that perhaps is the crux of the issue. I think we can agree that the sheer volume of information being made available now is immense, as is the sheer volume of the media itself of course. And it bends towards the creator rather than the creation perhaps too much now.

    It also depends on who we're dealing with. Some obviously think nothing of airing their dirty laundry/misdomeaners in public as a promotional tool for their latest whatever. Did they do this as much in the past? Blurring the line between creator and creation in such a way?

    * I frequently recognise names without having the faintest about them. Miley Cyrus? Is it a disease?
  • juliancarswelljuliancarswell Posts: 8,896
    Forum Member
    I refuse to watch anything with Nic Cage in as he murdered....well...nearly every roll he has ever
    been in, but he should gone to the chair for The Wicker man.

    "Argh, the Bee's.....MY EYES.......ARRRRRGH!" :eek:
  • JohnbeeJohnbee Posts: 4,019
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I find that most of the people posting hate messages about Roman Polanski are actually US Christian nutjobs who think he is a Satanist because of the nature of some of his films.

    Of course he appears to have had some sort of sex with an under age girl, who he has paid a large amount of money, and who says that the hounding she has had from the media has harmed her much more than he ever did.
    He has not technically been found guilty, although he was to enter a guilty plea when promised no jail time, but the judge broke the deal causing him to flee the country. He is most certainly not a paedophile.

    He is a talented and original film maker. I do not like his films much, though I thought Knife In The Water was brilliant.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 136
    Forum Member
    Going against the grain here: No.

    Whether it was underage sex or an act of paedophilia or not, it was still rape. And I refuse to watch anything that is either the product of or stars a criminal, whether found guilty by courts or not. I don't want to line their pockets, I don't want to send the message that doing any crime is ignorable just because they create things. Which is what it would feel like if I knowingly watch a film by a criminal, especially one that doesn't regret their crime.

    To me it's nothing to do with being able to unable to seperate the person from the creation. I understand what creating things mean. It's to do with saying "Oh sure, you go off and commit a crime. We'll all turn our heads away just cos I want to watch your next big film. Nevermind the lives of people you ruin, that's not as important as that blockbuster!".

    Which, yes, does limit the amount of films I'll willingly watch and music I'll listen to. But I'd rather go without than condone their actions.
  • 007Fusion007Fusion Posts: 3,657
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I see a 'work of art' as something entirely seperate from an individuals personal life. For example, if i don't like the personality of a singer, doesn't mean i won't ever listen to their music, because that doens't affect the quality of the song - same goes for film.
  • 007Fusion007Fusion Posts: 3,657
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I refuse to watch anything with Nic Cage in as he murdered....well...nearly every roll he has ever
    been in, but he should gone to the chair for The Wicker man.

    "Argh, the Bee's.....MY EYES.......ARRRRRGH!" :eek:

    You've watched 'Nic Cage losing his Shit' haven't you ?
  • jeff_vaderjeff_vader Posts: 938
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    FirstChibi wrote: »
    ... I refuse to watch anything that is either the product of or stars a criminal, whether found guilty by courts or not. I don't want to line their pockets, I don't want to send the message that doing any crime is ignorable just because they create things. Which is what it would feel like if I knowingly watch a film by a criminal, especially one that doesn't regret their crime.

    That must seriously limit your movie, TV and music choices then. 'Criminal'/illegal activity is rampant in the entertainment industry; very little of it is actually 'proven' in a court of law. That's not meant to be provocative; just a statement of fact. I kind of respect your high-minded ideals.

    I assume this is just about Polanski then, who I (and thankfully others) consider to be an exceptionally gifted filmmaker, who has made some excellent films and some duff ones. Others may disagree.

    To answer the original question: yes. Chinatown, Repulsion, Cul De Sac, Knife In The Water and others.
  • jeffiner1892jeffiner1892 Posts: 14,212
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Funny I was actually wondering the same thing when I saw his Oliver Twist was on last night.

    I liked his Macbeth though so I probably would watch some of his films.

    Just addressing the point about OJ Simpson, given everything that happens to his character in the Naked Gun films I can't help but always think, "They knew he was up to no good!"
  • Mark AMark A Posts: 7,687
    Forum Member
    FirstChibi wrote: »
    I refuse to watch anything that is either the product of or stars a criminal, whether found guilty by courts or not.
    How exactly do you know if they're a criminal if they've not been found guilty in a court?

    And as a further exercise, you might like to Google a list of celebrities with criminal records. It's quite a long list.

    And what of actors / film makers who've committed suicide over the years - technically a criminal act - are they now unwatchable too?

    Regards

    Mark
Sign In or Register to comment.