Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

Could you watch and like a Roman Polanski film?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-09-2013, 20:10
loveloveX
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,058

I hate roman Polanski and cannot fathom how anyone in Hollywood can support him! 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?
loveloveX is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 10-09-2013, 20:24
intruder2k
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 184
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.
intruder2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 20:30
loveloveX
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,058
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
loveloveX is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 20:39
Muttley76
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: I wear a Stetson now...
Posts: 89,375
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.
Muttley76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 20:48
intruder2k
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 184
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.
intruder2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 21:03
Aneechik
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Mount Olympus
Posts: 15,299

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.
Aneechik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 21:13
loveloveX
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,058
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.
loveloveX is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 21:18
flashman1
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 160
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.
flashman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 21:43
Gort
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,138
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?
Gort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 23:06
Trsvis_Bickle
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 8,536
I hate roman Polanski and cannot fathom how anyone in Hollywood can support him! 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.
Trsvis_Bickle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 23:07
General Lunacy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Sticks
Posts: 709
^^This^^
General Lunacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 23:33
Johnny Clay
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,754
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.
Johnny Clay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 00:07
Takae
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,244
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.
Takae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 00:11
Takae
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,244
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.
Takae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 00:42
Johnny Clay
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,754
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.
Johnny Clay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 00:56
flashman1
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 160
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
flashman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 01:09
Takae
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,244
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).
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:

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.
Takae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 01:46
Johnny Clay
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,754
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?
Johnny Clay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 07:07
juliancarswell
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Just here, inside my head.
Posts: 3,373
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!"
juliancarswell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 20:56
Johnbee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,204
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.
Johnbee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2013, 07:27
FirstChibi
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 136
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.
FirstChibi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2013, 08:19
007Fusion
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,163
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.
007Fusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2013, 08:20
007Fusion
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,163
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!"
You've watched 'Nic Cage losing his Shit' haven't you ?
007Fusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2013, 08:25
jeff_vader
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 800
... 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.
jeff_vader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2013, 08:42
jeffiner1892
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,969
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!"
jeffiner1892 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:16.