Repulsion has for many years and always will be one of my true, non-fluctuating top 10 films of all time. What nonsense that I am morally obliged to suddenly hate it because of something totally unconnected that happened years later. And what about people who have seen and enjoyed his films that are unaware of his offence (it's not impossible for there to be some)?
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?
Jesus... Well because he is an extremely talented director. Rosemary's Baby is a work of art.
I have no shame in supporting his movies whatsoever.
The late, great Joe Orton, one of the most brilliant young playwrights of the 1960s regularly had sex with teenage boys. His diaries - which are a hoot to read even as you wince - detail how he would travel to Tangier to pay boys for sex. This was shown, even made funny, in the 1987 biopic of Orton, Prick Up Your Ears, in which he was played (brilliantly) by Gary Oldman.
Am I supposed to feel bad about admiring Orton and loving his work? If so, I'm sorry but I can quite easily divorce his life from his work. And it's the same with Polanski.
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?
Ooh! I've actually said this to a couple of people when this Polanski topic comes up. Usually they don't like me bringing it up. Or they say "that's different" :rolleyes:
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.
I agree with you. I've seen The Ninth Gate and I've got Rosemary's Baby on DVD
Well presumably because it was 40 years ago and they are both likely keen for it not to over shadow them forever.
In any case this thread has been done numerous times before, and there is no resolution so have fun banging your heads off the wall everyone.
However just for old times sake the reasons he gets a pass are-
1. He survived the Holocaust
2. His wife/unborn child were brutally murdered, presumably having huge psychological impact on him at the time of the rape.
3. It was 40 years ago.
4. His films are really really good. The Pianist is a masterpiece.
Not saying it's right, or wrong, but there are reasons.
I don't think this is a fair representation of what most people who have said they do watch his films in this thread have said. Thats suggesting people are saying "it doesn't matter if he did this because..."
In any case this thread has been done numerous times before, and there is no resolution so have fun banging your heads off the wall everyone.
Who's banging their head? The majority of replies have stated they have no qualms watching a Polanski film (and I don't mean that in a collective 'we're right' sense - each is purely subjective and down to the individual.)
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?
i thought "The Pianist" was fantastic, not keen on Roman Polanski as a person but he makes good films
It's really worth giving Chinatown another shot. I didn't get it the first time either but it all came together on a second viewing and it's a brilliant piece of film-making. People always talk about One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Five Easy Pieces etc when referring to classic Jack Nicholson films but Chinatown is right up there with them. The sequel The Two Jakes is also good. Classic dialogue includes the telephone conversation where the following exchange takes place:
Well presumably because it was 40 years ago and they are both likely keen for it not to over shadow them forever.
In any case this thread has been done numerous times before, and there is no resolution so have fun banging your heads off the wall everyone.
However just for old times sake the reasons he gets a pass are-
1. He survived the Holocaust
2. His wife/unborn child were brutally murdered, presumably having huge psychological impact on him at the time of the rape.
3. It was 40 years ago.
4. His films are really really good. The Pianist is a masterpiece.
Not saying it's right, or wrong, but there are reasons.
In my book, 1,2 and 3 are irrelevant. Just because bad stuff's happened to you does not allow to do bad stuff to other people. This sounds like the fakebook 'definition' of karma. 4 of course is the truth. Judge the work, not the artist's private life. Caravaggio did some pretty dubious things in his life and no-one suggests we should downgrade his art because of it.
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.
That's a bit of a contentious thing to say after claiming not to want to get into a debate about it!
Whatever you think of how black and white it is or isn't, there's no question that he drugged a little girl and had sex with her, then fled the country to avoid punishment for it. The man's reprehensible.
Having said that, I probably could bring myself to watch his movies if I enjoyed his work, but nothing I've seen from him has ever felt worth my time (long before I knew about the incident in question).
The you really are cutting off your nose in spite of your face.
Late entry for the Malapropism of the Year award
I couldn't care less if Fred West directed it if it was a classic film. By the time you see it the director's already been paid, so none of your money goes to him/her at all.
It rarely gets a mention alongside excellence like Chinatown but that one on the boat with Hugh Grant in it is pretty awesome in its own way.
Ah, Bitter Moon. Yes, it rarely gets mentioned but I really like it - Peter Coyote is excellent and Emmanuelle Seigner has never loooked sexier. Shame about Hugh Grant - same old stuttering, embarrassed, floppy-haired English fop...
The pianist is a beautiful film. Polanskis actions as regards the underage girl are inexcusable however he spent a large period of his childhood in a concentration camp and bearing witness to unspeakable horrors and his wife and unborn child were brutally murdered. No excuses for his actions but he must be mentally ill. His films are great for thr most part
Late entry for the Malapropism of the Year award
I couldn't care less if Fred West directed it if it was a classic film. By the time you see it the director's already been paid, so none of your money goes to him/her at all.
Most contracts have residuals or escalators, so if the film performs well the director could earn more money...
I couldn't care less if Fred West directed it if it was a classic film. By the time you see it the director's already been paid, so none of your money goes to him/her at all.
What about watching for free though? I thought this was a moral/principles issue, not a monetary one.
Comments
It is, and will always be, regardless of who directed it.
Same goes for Repulsion, as noted above.
Fantastic film, and yes, to answer the question.
Jesus... Well because he is an extremely talented director. Rosemary's Baby is a work of art.
I have no shame in supporting his movies whatsoever.
Am I supposed to feel bad about admiring Orton and loving his work? If so, I'm sorry but I can quite easily divorce his life from his work. And it's the same with Polanski.
Ooh! I've actually said this to a couple of people when this Polanski topic comes up. Usually they don't like me bringing it up. Or they say "that's different" :rolleyes:
He's one of my favourite directors, however.
I agree with you. I've seen The Ninth Gate and I've got Rosemary's Baby on DVD
Oh, and about OJ, I love Capricorn One
In any case this thread has been done numerous times before, and there is no resolution so have fun banging your heads off the wall everyone.
However just for old times sake the reasons he gets a pass are-
1. He survived the Holocaust
2. His wife/unborn child were brutally murdered, presumably having huge psychological impact on him at the time of the rape.
3. It was 40 years ago.
4. His films are really really good. The Pianist is a masterpiece.
Not saying it's right, or wrong, but there are reasons.
I don't think this is a fair representation of what most people who have said they do watch his films in this thread have said. Thats suggesting people are saying "it doesn't matter if he did this because..."
That's their resolution. No head-banging.
i thought "The Pianist" was fantastic, not keen on Roman Polanski as a person but he makes good films
It bored me senseless personally.
Loved The Pianist though.
It's really worth giving Chinatown another shot. I didn't get it the first time either but it all came together on a second viewing and it's a brilliant piece of film-making. People always talk about One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Five Easy Pieces etc when referring to classic Jack Nicholson films but Chinatown is right up there with them. The sequel The Two Jakes is also good. Classic dialogue includes the telephone conversation where the following exchange takes place:
Caller: Are you alone?
Jake Gittes: Aren't we all?
In my book, 1,2 and 3 are irrelevant. Just because bad stuff's happened to you does not allow to do bad stuff to other people. This sounds like the fakebook 'definition' of karma. 4 of course is the truth. Judge the work, not the artist's private life. Caravaggio did some pretty dubious things in his life and no-one suggests we should downgrade his art because of it.
Whatever you think of how black and white it is or isn't, there's no question that he drugged a little girl and had sex with her, then fled the country to avoid punishment for it. The man's reprehensible.
Having said that, I probably could bring myself to watch his movies if I enjoyed his work, but nothing I've seen from him has ever felt worth my time (long before I knew about the incident in question).
I couldn't care less if Fred West directed it if it was a classic film. By the time you see it the director's already been paid, so none of your money goes to him/her at all.
Ah, Bitter Moon. Yes, it rarely gets mentioned but I really like it - Peter Coyote is excellent and Emmanuelle Seigner has never loooked sexier. Shame about Hugh Grant - same old stuttering, embarrassed, floppy-haired English fop...
Most contracts have residuals or escalators, so if the film performs well the director could earn more money...