Cool News
Moriarty
Hi, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab...
It’s a fair question. After all, no less a filmmaker than David Lean has tackled this story before, and the musical version actually won Best Picture when it was released. So why do we need another version of OLIVER TWIST in 2005?
Roman Polanski says he wanted to make something his kids could watch, and he looked around first at available projects. Pretty much every kids film out there in development right now is some sort of special-effect heavy HARRY POTTER-esque adventure, which didn’t appeal to Polanski at all. When he finally realized that OLIVER TWIST was what he wanted to do, he called Ronald Harwood, the screenwriter who won the Oscar for Polanski’s last film THE PIANIST, and Harwood evidently worked very quickly to craft this new version of the story.
But still... what does Polanski bring to this oft-told tale? What insight or understanding does he add that reinvigorates the story? In the end, is the effort worth it?
Absolutely.
The first trick in getting this right is finding a great Oliver, a kid who will make a compelling and sympathetic lead. Barney Clark hasn’t done a lot of work prior to this, and that seems to be a good thing. He’s incredibly natural in the lead role. He manages the trick of coming across as innocent but not sugary sweet. He’s a real kid having real reactions to the crazed world in which he finds himself orphaned, always scrambling for survival yet never discouraged or defeated. Polanski’s been orphaned more than once in his own life, cast adrift by circumstance, so if anyone understands Oliver’s desire to find a place he can call home, it would be him. Yet he never overplays it. He refuses to make the material gooey or to downplay some of the darkest moments that Dickens devised.
In every great Dickens story, there are great memorable characters who drop in and out of the story, and any great adaptation of his stories has got to make those characters come to life in equally vivid fashion. Ben Kingsley goes deliriously over the top as Fagin, and he picks a few key moments to play in a way that suggests that Fagin’s scenery chewing is a cover for a genuine cunning. Harry Eden makes a nice Artful Dodger, but he’s underdeveloped, underused. His introduction promises more than the film ultimately delivers. But if his character suffers a bit, Jamie Foreman positively steals the show as Bill Sykes. Foreman’s one of those guys we’ve seen in a number of films in increasingly bigger and better roles. He was really good as the Duke in LAYER CAKE, for example, but this is the moment where he’s finally been given the showcase he’s been building to. Sykes is a great villain, and Foreman plays it dark. Even Fagin is obviously scared of Sykes, so it makes sense that all the kids would be as well. When he finally snaps, it’s shocking, but not gratuitious. It’s a really powerful moment.
Prague makes an excellent double for London, and the production design by Alan Starski is obviously a heightened reality, but subtle. This isn’t LEMONY SNICKET. Pawel Edelman’s crisp photography is the perfect visual compliment to Polanski’s overall approach, stylish but subdued. If you want to set this in the context of other film versions of TWIST, I don’t think it’s quite as dreamy or beautiful as David Lean’s version, and it’s not a crowd-pleasing theme park ride like OLIVER! There’s an integrity and a grit that sets Polanski’s version apart, and Harwood’s simple, stripped-down adaptation is definitely a big part of that. If you’re not familiar with the story, you won’t notice all the ways that Harwood has trimmed away the dense detail of Dickens’s writing, but even if you do know the story well, it’s tasteful work, elegant. Oliver’s in and out of the workhouse fast, his iconic “Please, sir, I want more” nearly thrown away right up front. He’s on the road to London fairly fast, and he hooks up with Fagin and the other boys by about 20 minutes into the film.
Again... from personal experience, Polanski knows that your whole life can change in an instant, and he seems to be interested in finding the one moment that Oliver’s entire life hinges on, and focusing the film’s narrative on that instant.
Here, it seems that Oliver’s encounter with Mr Brownlow (Edward Hardwicke) is the thing that changes not only Oliver’s life, but the lives of everyone around him. Because Oliver is an orphan, he views all of these men as father figures... Fagin, Sykes, Brownlow... and he learns from all of them in different ways. The women in his life show him kindness for the most part, but Nancy (Leanne Rowe) in particular sticks her neck out for him, and Oliver learns a hard lesson as a result. Some parents might complain about a few intense moments towards the end of the film, but I think that’s exactly what makes the film worthwhile. It’s a hard world, and people get hurt in it, and Oliver Twist somehow survives. By making the stakes so powerfully clear, Polanski makes the film matter. He gives it a real pulse. This isn’t some stiff costume drama churned out for TV sweeps week, and it’s not a sterile kiddyfied big summer movie version. It’s just a sincere, impeccably crafted retelling of a classic, invigorated by one of our best filmmakers working from a place of obvious passion, and it’s well worth your time when it opens on September 30th.
Oddly, though, it wasn’t the best film I saw last week. It wasn’t even the second best. I’ll get to those in the next couple of days, along with my second DVD SHELF of the week. Until then...
"Moriarty" out.
-
+ Expand All
-
trailer was good, the film looks like it could be really nice! can't wait
-
That I predict 2600AD will soon get arrested for having sex with minors. Enjoy life in jail, shorteyes.
-
Really, look it up. Silly talkbackers making fun of a very serious and traumatizing subject. I'm sure it offers serious hilarity for Polanski and his "victim(s)". I respect the man as a film-maker and if he flees, fine, that's his choice. But sitting here and poking at the guy is useless. Woody Allen, to me, is a cretin. But he's a hell of a film-maker and a legend in his own right. Polanski is essentially the same in my eyes. The guy made "Chinatown", I mean, we have to give him props for that. His personal life is just that. Only difference is that his stories have been made public. It's unfortunate, but I don't let it cloud how I judge a film. If you do, that's fine, just don't do it here. Write it in a diary, light it on fire, and see who gives a shit. Thanks.
-
"Roman Polanski says he wanted to make something his kids could watch"
Before he drugged and anally raped them?
Sorry. Someone had to say it. -
Once again the AICN boys cop out and endorse a film they should have been boycotting to begin with. Roman Polanski is an enormously gifted director and Chinatown is a classic. Oliver Twist might even be a fantastic children's movie. None of that has anything to do with the fact that this man should not be allowed to take in a breath of air that doesn't smell like a prison yard. You can delude yourself all you want with that judge the art, not the artist crap, but by endorsing or seeing this movie, you are saying it's ok to drug and rape a child as long as you're rich and can afford to flee the country. For cripes sake Mori, you have a child. What this man did should sicken you. You should be calling on all AICNers to boycot the movie. You should have them all writing letters to the studio telling them why they won't be seeing the movie. You have a platform here that is going to waste.
-
Just another "classic" story that I never gave a shit about, right along with Treasure Island and Tom Sawyer (nothing against all "classics" or those authors but those books suck). Now maybe if those had underage anal rape in them...
-
VICTIM! (NO QUOTATION MARKS NECESSARY) I respect the man as a JANITOR and if he flees, fine, that's his choice. But sitting here and poking at the guy is useless. The PRINCIPAL, to me, is a cretin. But he's a hell of a PRINCIPAL and a legend in his own right. The JANITOR is essentially the same in my eyes. The guy MOPS A GREAT FLOOR, I mean, we have to give him props for that. His personal life is just that (SO WHAT IF HE RAPES AND SODOMIZES TEENAGE GIRLS?!?!? THATS HIS PERSONAL LIFE, BESIDES HE'S A GREAT JANITOR, MOPS A HELL OF A FLOOR! OH RIGHT THAT GIRL HE RAPED MIGHT MIND. HE GETS TO LIVES HIS NICE LIFE MEANWHILE THE VICTIM IS SCARRED FOR LIFE. NO BIG, HE'S A GREAT JANITOR!). Only difference is that his stories have been made public.(THAT POOR CHILD MOLESTER BEING CALLED A CHILD MOLESTER, I MEAN ALL HE DID WAS RAPE A TEENAGE GIRL RIGHT? JEEZ YOU ACT LIKE THE GUY RAPED A TEENAG....OH RIGHT) It's unfortunate (FOR WHO?), but I don't let it cloud how I judge THE WAY HE MOPS A FLOOR (THATS AWFULLY BIG OF YOU). If you do, that's fine, just don't do it here (OR WHAT?). Write it in a diary, light it on fire, and see who gives a shit (HEED YOUR OWN ADVICE!). Thanks. (ONCE AGAIN THATS FANTASTIC LOGIC)
-
Aug 25, 2005 9:46:26 PM CDT
You understand Polanski had a MILDLY disturbed past, right?
by dr_dreadlocks
I mean, going through the Holocaust and discovering the love of your life butchered on the floor would do a number on you too. I don't care what the janitor does but it's called sympathy you heartless prick. You think I'm a molestation enthusiast? Grow a fucking skull. I feel sorry for everyone involved, but movies should stand on their own. I'm not going to sit there and pick apart scandals. My point was about the films. His business is his and should be dealt with as such. It shouldn't interfere with the art created. Of course you missed the point because you're a dickless asshole trying to make a point. But that's fine, I'd expect that from someone as classy as yourself.
-
This whole "judge the art, not the artist" crap is very lame. Its dumbass thinking like that that inspires idiots to pay 100,000 dollars for one of John Wayne Gacey's clown paintings.
-
Can't you see that I am agreeing with you? Your logic is flawless. I do have sympathy. His past totally gives him permission to rape children. I mean how many times have we heard of all the Holocaust surivors and people who have seen there loved ones die getting away with raping children? Totally excusable. I get that you don't care what a child molester does, its none of your business right? I mean how does it affect you? As long as you get to see a great movie right? Those wonderful movies totally absolve him. I'm sure raping a child is in the dictionary under "scandal". His business is his, nevermind the girl he raped, she had nothing to do with it, its his business, she just happened to be there. "It shouldn't interfere with the art created. (Well if he were in jail, like he should be that might interfere with the art right?) Of course you missed the point (Yeah I'm the one who missed the point) because you're a dickless asshole (perhaps if Mr. Polanski were one of these he's still live and work here in the states) trying to make a point (point was made obviously you don't get it). But that's fine, I'd expect that from someone as classy (whats the obsession with that word? perhaps those of us who prefer our children not raped aren't as enlightened or "classy" as you?) as yourself."
-
Jesus: I think we've somewhat missed the point here. Let's go to somebody else. Yes your comments.
Audience member raises his hand
Audience member: Montel, I think we're forgetting something very important in all of this. Ok, sure he touched some children. But the man is a great singer, and has entertained us for so many years.
Jesus: What, what are you talking about?
Audience member: Michael Jackson. All this bad mouthing, putting the man down, maybe he did touch some children now and then. But come on it's Michael Jackson! Michael Jackson!!
Audience claps and cheers -
Aug 25, 2005 10:14:44 PM CDT
I don't have a problem seeing a Polanski film, but I do draw
by tompalpatine
-
Film"
-
Aug 25, 2005 10:36:58 PM CDT
I like you Lando Griffin, you're being an idiot almost on pu
by dr_dreadlocks
His actions as an artist do not in any way negate his actions as a person. I called Woody Allen a cretin for a reason. The art itself should exist as an entity without a past. It should be itself, and contained. Chinatown with no names is a fantastic film. I respect Polanski the artist and I think the person has a serious problem that should be dealt with, but that's none of my fucking business. His movies still come out and I still enjoy them. Sure, the Janitor is a complete pervert and should be imprisoned, but that IS a hell of a clean floor. I'm not going to go out and fucking hang the guy for something I'm not involved with. Unless you were the victim (also, I put it in quotations not in mocking but because I had no other fitting word for it) of the crime. It's about the movies, not his home life. That's still his and he should be persecuted for whatever crimes he's been accused of. But you're being argumentative for the sake of it. I've made my point and you'll continue to argue it. Also, it's really hip to mock Cruise these days, you're only a few weeks behind asshole. Also, you're hilarious, please do a comedy tour. Thanks for all the coffee. His problems are his. His movies are for everyone. Let them exist as they should and keep your stupid fucking opinion to yourself.
-
Going to see a Polanski film doesn't exactly kill anyone. It's not like me paying ten bucks to see Oliver Twist means little Timmy gets another traumatizing event. Of course most silly people would agree. But maybe I'm being glib, or obtuse.
-
Two statements right? "His actions as an artist do not in any way negate his actions as a person. I called Woody Allen a cretin for a reason. The art itself should exist as an entity without a past. It should be itself, and contained. Chinatown with no names is a fantastic film. I respect Polanski the artist and I think the person has a serious problem that should be dealt with, but that's none of my fucking business. His movies still come out and I still enjoy them. Sure, the Janitor is a complete pervert and should be imprisoned, but that IS a hell of a clean floor. I'm not going to go out and fucking hang the guy for something I'm not involved with. Unless you were the victim (also, I put it in quotations not in mocking but because I had no other fitting word for it) of the crime. It's about the movies, not his home life. That's still his and he should be persecuted for whatever crimes he's been accused of. But you're being argumentative for the sake of it. I've made my point and you'll continue to argue it. (making no points here, you're doing it for me) Also, it's really hip to mock Cruise these days, you're only a few weeks behind asshole. Also, you're hilarious, (thank you)please do a comedy tour. (it wouldn't be an all ages show, 18+, sorry lil fella) Thanks for all the coffee. His problems are his. (just his?) His movies are for everyone. Let them exist as they should" "AND KEEP YOUR STUPID FUCKING OPINION TO YOURSELF." (once again heed your own advice)
-
keep the Polanski jokes coming!!!
This guy is a fucker, lol. A fucker who happens to make films people enjoy. -
Lay off Woody, you ignorant assholes. His children with Farrow were examined by THREE child psychologists, and NONE of them found any sign or evidence of abuse. He was acquitted of the charges that Farrow, that bitter rag, falsely threw at him. Second point: at no time was Soon-Yi Woody's adopted daughter. Her last name is PREVIN. She was adopted by Farrow and her previous husband. Woody did not know her growing up. She was of legal age when they became involved. What he did to Farrow was rather shitty, but it wasn't illegal, and certainly not unheard of. To put him in the same sentence as Polanski or Salva, two people who have broken the law, is beyond wrong. You are slandering someone for no good reason, someone who has contributed a great deal to cinema. Learn to know what the fuck you're talking about before you litter the forum with your trash.
-
Woody and Soon-Yi have been together for over 10 years. Anyone else here have a relationship that lasted that long, other than the one with their hand and a jar of Vaseline?
-
Aug 26, 2005 12:08:17 AM CDT
If the privet lives of every artist determined the value of thei
by neosamurai85
Think long and hard about this people. I
-
Aug 26, 2005 12:42:04 AM CDT
No one is saying the private lives of an artist determine the va
by gheorghe zamfir
There's a reason logic classes cite "slippery slope" as a fallacious argument tactic. There's a fairly distinct gap between someone who has raped a minor and a racist. But you're confusing the issue a bit at any rate, no one is saying Polanski is a bad filmmaker because he's a rapist. What they are saying is that being a rapist makes him somone that they are unwilling to support. Does this imply other necessary "boycotts" to avoid hypocrisy on their part? Sure, and everyone draws their own lines on those counts, but the idea that not supporting a rapist of a minor means having to throw out works of others, especially to the extent you're trying to suggest, is in no way logical, or even reasonable.
-
some of my choices of words were indeed poor. I'll try and say it better tomorrow. I can do geeky and crazy at this hour, but I'm too tired to be going at this. Peace.
-
Your post made perfect sense to me. BrockTune criticized you and mentioned how there's a "fairly distinct gap between someone who has raped a minor and a racist." I guess generally speaking that's true Brock. In Polanski's work do we see him condoning the raping of minors (that feels weird to write)? Never. In D.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation, the racist auteur deliberately celebrates the supremacy of the white Southern man over the scary, white-girl-raping black man. The Birth of a Nation is without a doubt a watershed film, but it was also used by the KKK for years as a recruiting tool. It was a box office sensation thoughout the country (even President Wilson loved it). It's unfortunate that Griffith's racist film contributed to the spreading of white supremacy sentiments in the south. I don't see Polanski's films spreading messages of rape to it's viewers. What I'm trying to say is that racism can in many ways be as potent as rape. How many blacks were lynched in the first half of the twentieth century in the South? I'm not saying that Birth of a Nation led these racist fools to committ these acts, but it certainly helped spread their message of hate. And as several talkbackers have pointed out, if we judge an artist's art by the artist, we'll end up liking very few works because none of us are perfect. The other night I was watching Edgar G. Ulmer's Detour with Tom Neal. It's a film noir classic that features a strong performance from lead actor Tom Neal. However, Tom Neal happened to murder his wife years later and was sentenced to jail for manslaughter because he claimed the "gun went off by accident" during a heated arguement. The man killed his wife yet I still admire his performance in Detour. I despise what he did but I admire him as an actor. As someone pointed out, history is full of artist's shady personal lives. Luis Bunuel never murdered or raped anyone, but he hated handicapped, mentally retarded, and disfigured people. Why? I don't know, but he was one helluva good filmmaker even if he was a little sick in the head. Everyone has flaws, some are serious like in Polanski's case, others are minor like in most cases.
-
I forgot to say though that you're dead on about how no one is saying that Polanski is a bad filmmaker because he raped a minor, but rather, that moviegoers should boycott his films because of his shady past. And if people want to do that, that's great. I'm just not one of those.
-
Seymour Hersh, the Pullitzer winning guy who broke the Abu Ghraib story, says, among other sources, that among the unreleased pictures and video from Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, are rape of minors done by US military personnel. So maybe you should stop paying your taxes, as to not support rape of minors, huh?
-
Because of the raping. Let's see, I may go to jail if I don't pay my taxes. Will I go to jail if I don't see a Polanski film? Not likely. Ask yourself this, if you were raped by the baker, how would you feel if your friends kept buying pastries from him because they were seperating the tartist from the tart? Of course your friends would say "Well I understand why you won't eat them, but he didn't rape ME and I'm not going to deprive myself of sugary goodness for something that's not my problem."
-
Aug 26, 2005 2:27:51 AM CDT
Its not a matter of judging the art and not the artist
by gheorghe zamfir
The matter of Polanski is an issue of supporting the artist, REGARDLESS of the art. Judging art and not the artist is an idea related to, and only to, aesthetic discussions of the art. The choice of whether one will or will not support Polanski has nothing to do with aethestics or the quality of his art. Nobody who is choosing not to see Polanski's films due to his actions are saying that his actions have led him to make bad films, so therefor they aren't going to see these bad films. They're saying his actions make him a bad person, and they are not going to support him as a bad person. That he is an artist, or the messages his films convey, compared to messages other films convey, really has no bearing whatsoever on the point. And the purpose of pointing out the distinct gap between a rapist and a racist wasn't to suggest racism has not, or does not have extreme and potent consequences, because of course it can and does, but regardless the slippery slope suggested is in no way intrinsic or logical. Saying Polanski raped a minor, and that makes him "flawed," so he's therefor connected to anyone else, or everyone else, simply because they too are "flawed" is a weak and meaningless connection, and one's actions in the matter of one in no way dictates their actions in the matter of the others.
-
Aug 26, 2005 2:45:06 AM CDT
gg, I can't imagine what point you're trying to effect
by gheorghe zamfir
Military personal have raped minors, our taxes pay for the military, so therefore we're already supporting raping minors, ok I get that point, though of course its not really a point since paying taxes in no way supports these actions, since neither our government nor our military condone or promote rape, that fact that it simply occurs isn't equivalent to the idea that it is supported. But lets put that that aside and just say paying taxes supports rapists, ok, so now what's your point, that we shouldn't attempt to find away to condemn and punish those rapes, but instead, since we pay taxes, we should then happily support everyone or anyone else who rapes minors? Or that having paid taxes we're already corrupted to such a point that no one should bother ever making any moral decisions whatsoever?
-
Aug 26, 2005 2:48:25 AM CDT
The victim in question has repeatedly said she's forgiven Po
by griffinmill
...So why can't all those sad talkbackers just let it go? For cryin' out loud: Polanski lived through the Warsaw getto, saw his pregnant wife being butchered by maniac murderers and has been living thirty years in exile, in constant fear of being apprehended by the police. That seeems punishement enough for what he did. Let's just judge the guy on the merit of his movies from now on. I for one hope he hits it out of the park with Oliver Twist, though I'm certain he'll fall inevitably short of Leans masterpiece.
-
Aug 26, 2005 2:59:09 AM CDT
Those Who Support Polanski Secretly Want To Be Raped By Him
by captain sulu
No other explanation makes sense really.
-
because you're missing out on some great fucking films. pastries my ass.
-
Hopefully we'll see more of them in other films.
-
Maybe my point was, that instead of arguing about a case that, for all matters other than the strict judicial, is closed (the girl has forgiven Polanski, and pointed out that it wasn
-
If you are so committed to the premise of fighting the rape of minors, why aren
-
Aug 26, 2005 6:04:09 AM CDT
I hope anyone boycotting Polanski films is also burning any copi
by cameron1
And they better starting ransacking any museums who have works by Gauguin.
-
Looks great. Sounds great. I replaced the Brothers Grimm poster in my theatre lobby today with this one, and not once was I thinking "man, i sure hope this poster doesn't strike up an argument over pedophelia." Gotta love how predictable the talkbackers are tho.
-
Besides, 13 year old girls...it's not THAT bad. When I was a kid I knew 13 year old girls who could pass for 30. It's not quite the same as Michael Jackson. Anyway, most people in the entertainment industry are scumbags in one way or the other. People need to learn to separate the people from the art. I believe Michael did it but I still think Thriller is a kick ass album.
-
In addition to not supporting one child rapist we should also be working to make sure our government and military is making efforts to punish and stop its personal from raping minors, or anyone for that matter, I totally agree. Still not much of a point, but you're right.
-
Though on this point, you're absolutely wrong. She has never, ever, said anything remotely close to this. She has always said that it was rape, that she said no, several times, that she resisted, and that Polanski basically had his way with her by drugging her.
-
Seriously, rape isn't funny. Unless you're raping a clown. All this impotent activism has inspired me though. Think I can use this with my GF, explaining how buying diamonds supports terrorism and South African warlords?
-
for example Neosamurai85, I dunna think "Think long and hard about this people. I
-
hmmm... unfortuantely... even if the girl was willing (not saying yay or nay on that) polanski would've still committed a crime and be in exile... whenever you hear of him... it is mentioned that he is living in exile due to statuatory rape charges in the u.s... willing or not... sex with a minor is illegal... what denotes a miner... well... she has to have a hard hat with a big light on the front... but that's besides the point... he should've just waited a year and then fucked her here in canada... age of consent is only 14... now you tell me what is sicker... some dirty old man that fucks a girl who is just barely a teen-ager... a government that promotes/allows it... oh well... "AllofHer Tits" or whatever it's called... doesn't look too bad... i'm meh on Polanski... sometimes good... sometimes he makes the Ninth Gate... oh well... at least the Manson Clan didn't get McQueen that night like they were planning... The Cancer Clan got him... or whatever... wreak it well...
havoc out... -
Aug 26, 2005 8:40:04 AM CDT
Congrats on the worst and most predictable TB ever...
by performingmonkey
End of transmission.
-
Foreman is great altho I didn't think he was used properly in Layer Cake. His lines should've been tighter. Check him in Gangster No. 1. Best British gangster-character going these days. Oh, and what from Polanski is something small and akin to Knife in the Water with all that great jazz music and queasy thrill.
-
and i hope to provide his children with drugs and fuck them someday.
-
Your and IDIOT!!!
Oliver Twist is a great story, as well as the other stories you said are crap.
IDIOT!!! -
okay...so i agree no pedaphile should be allowed to roam free, let alone escape a death via a shotgun blast to the groin in a dank, urine-soaked alley, however...we live in a society that lets these people operate because we have basic flaws in our judicial system. as a (non-sexual) child abuse survivor, i gotta say, what people need to do is to be stronger than the predacious fucks who hurt them. work towards making your own life as happy and successful as possible and don't live in the shadow of trauma. help out others who have been through what you have. the woman who beat my ass every day for a few months moved to colorado and disappeared, polanski and jackson got off, and the sick fucks at abu graib will never come to justice, and we have to learn as a society that no closure is provided for victims in a nationalized, televised, primetime type of way. what closure you get you provide for yourself. this includes people who are offended by criminals making films. love it or hate it, boycott it or not, you can't un-rape or un-beat someone up, even if you personally executed polanski yourself. my only suggestion to some of you highly opinionated talkbackers on either side of the moral fence is to spend some time volunteering with victims of these kinds of crimes and trying to take their mind off their pain for a while instead of wasting your time posting hate and expletive filled messages on talkback.
-
didn't we already do this? I just read the bulk of the t/b in this forum and only like 2% of you morons are actually talking about the movie and I didn't see anyone remark on moriarty's review. nice review moriarty, but even nicer are those pink slippers. ow and logo you need serious help or a bullet
-
It's not just that he committed a henious act, but the fact that he ran and avoided owning up to his crime. If he just turned himself in and accepted punishment a lot of people would be more forgiving. He would probably get a light sentance and his victim has forgiven him. So Mr. Polanski call your lawyer and turn yourself in and own up to your crime.
GFY -
the first recipient of an artificial heart? I didn't know he was an actor?
-
I'm not very excited about this simply because there's already several versions of Oliver Twist out there. I wish he couldn've chosen a different story to make for his kids because, after all, there's numerous children's stories out there that haven't been filmed.
-
Aug 26, 2005 11:32:56 AM CDT
trevorfactor and Darkside_Warrior: C'mon not all classics ar
by logo lou
A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, A Tale of Two Cities, and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde were all much better and more entertaining books by the same authors. NO ONE growing up having to read all these classics ever thought some of them weren't that great? Get real. (By the way, Darkside, I think you meant "You're an idiot," IDIOT.)
-
Polanski's new film sounds like it could be good, even though I'm not the biggest fan of Dickens's story. Nothing personal against Charles the man, since I understand he's considered one of the greats, but he's never been my cup of tea. That said, I like Ronald Harwood's work and the fact "Oliver" was shot in Prague. Also, I'm always glad to see a quality performance by an unknown actor, so I hope Mori's right about Barney Clark as Oliver -- I'm glad he didn't Disney-ify the role. I'll go see this film, since I tend to always separate art from the artist. Some art I like, some art I hate, and if I know the personal story of the artist, sometimes it makes a difference; most of the time, thought, it doesn't matter because there's no way I'll ever know the historical reality of the artist anyway. So I'll just read books, listen to music, watch movies, and not worry about it.
-
Aug 26, 2005 12:17:43 PM CDT
"Roman Polanski says he wanted to make something his kids could
by www.valiens.com
And by "his kids," he means his girlfriends. See what I did there?
-
Aug 26, 2005 12:22:54 PM CDT
"Woody and Soon-Yi have been together for over 10 years. Anyone
by www.valiens.com
No. But I think I see your point clearly: I should adopt a daughter and then rape her. Was that it or no?
-
Brock Tune is right about the "slippery slope." I'm a little surprised that I went that rout. Thus I backed off. Language is very important to me, and when I start spouting things like that... it's time to go to bed. My point was the hypocrisy of the logic. You need to look at the whole picture and what you are implying. Is it really what you stand for? I agree you shouldn -
You guys do know what Twain said about classics? Peace.
-
I haven't seen this much rape talk in here since "Phantom Menace."
-
Scary... sad... but perhaps very true... Peace.
-
are we talking about the roman polanski that had sex with the little girl and fled to france? that roman polanski?
-
maybe you're just trying to be funny, but I'll repeat what I said in the post RIGHT ABOVE the one you quoted, Soon-Yi was NOT Woody's adopted daughter. Mia Farrow adopted her with her previous husband, Woody did not raise her. He did not see her when she was growing up. When he began his relationship with her she was well over the legal age. Please stop spreading this misconception about Woody's actions, as all he did was betray his girlfriend, which is extremely callous, but not illegal and not worthy of mention on a talkback, let alone one about Roman Polanski.
-
Aug 26, 2005 1:34:28 PM CDT
Jesus I love this genius, I admire his artistic personality, his
by th1234567890
But only if we're talking about the art of filmmaking. He's ten times more brilliant and powerful filmmaker than Kubrick, Lean or Hark. You people are just blind and naive and can appreciate someone's true talent only when is on his death bed.
-
To each there own, but I'm having trouble seeing the better than Kubrick bit. Maybe because I've seen almost all of his films (even The Killing) and only a few of Roman's. Care to break it down? Peace.
-
Aug 26, 2005 1:53:33 PM CDT
A classic is something that people want to have read, but nobody
by logo lou
That's my best memory of the Twain quote.
-
Fine, so France won't send him back. My issue is with American companies who do business with him, because you know that if a convicted rapist who wasn't rich and famous had fled from the charges, he wouldn't be able to get a job (as himself, anyway), but since Polanski's rich and his films make money, American companies just disregard the fact that he's a wanted man and do business with him anyway. Seems to me that shouldn't even be legal.
-
I just wondered how that was possible...
-
Perents died in the furnaces
-
But I just can't bring myself to spend any money on his post-rape films. Sorry. I'm the king of leaving one's personal life out of my impressions of their work, but I just can't get past that he had the courage to hold down a little girl and force his cock into her ass while she begged him to stop (read her testimony), but ran like the wind when he was found out and has the balls to sue an American magazine in a British court over the fact that he didn't fuck another teenager on the day of his wife's funeral, but actually a couple days later. Art is great and all, but just as I won't buy tuna from companies that kill dolphin, or t-shirts from Wal-Mart cause of their factory policies, I can't contribute to the income of a rapist-fugitive. If she HAD been willing and/or he didn't know how old she was, that would be different. But that testimony of hers was some chilling shit.
-
Let me tell you that i was also a fan of Kubrick like you but later i found out that Kubrick is actually only the other half of Polanski's much deeper and flawless art. In fact Kubrick's talent as a story-teller was very limited (this will tell you a lot of critics) certainely in comparision with Polanski's - ok, we're talking about a filmmaker generally already very respected as were those true greatest of the last century. You're also probably missing how people were looking at Kubrick 20 years ago - definitely not like nowadays. To me he's become a bit unnecessarily overrated over the years. I don't think Kubrick has ever made so FLAWLESS film like Polanski's masterpiece Chinatown. The Shining - very simple story, very flawed narratively and VERY stupid at the end - i would go for Polanski's brilliant "Ninth Gate" any day or his legendary "Rosemary's Baby". Barry Lyndon - boring artistic costume drama, lacking any deep emotions, the film that is just visually impressive but story-telling-wise falls totally flat - Polanski's classic "Tess" is again immaculate narratively, the film full of emotions, or his brutal re-interpretation of Macbeth that is today considered as one of the best ever filmed. Full Metal Jacket/Paths Of Glory - i think we both know the winner -- "The Pianist", imho the best film ever that captured the reality and atmosphere of a certain war period almost documentary-like. And again classics like Repulsion, Cul-de-sac, Fearless Vampire Killers, Frantic, Bitter Moon, Knife in the Water are becoming even better with age.
-
I think Roman Polanski is still very underrated. I believe in some 20 years it'll be different. Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Kubrick, they're not even on the same artistic level of Polanski's.
-
Both have their strengths though. Kubrick for me has never been about narative. His films are more of a visual experience. It's all about the ambience. He's not quite in the surreal but their is a strong dream quality. Rosemary is indeed a strong film. I love it perhaps most because it is a kind of female venereal horror. Most horror of this type is really from the male perspective. The Shining has a weak ending but still holds strong as one of the great horror films that is just as scary with the lights on in the middle of the afternoon. He had a good sense of how to unnerve you long before Lynch and Jacob's Ladder came along. Ninth Gate on the other hand though quite good is very flawed it's self and I can't agree is stronger than The Shining. It has at least as many Flaws and I'd rather see Eyes Wide Shut between the two. Overall though, I don't see what makes Polanski light years beyond Kubrick. Polanski knows suspense and story structure well, Kubrick has made some of the most well known and powerful images in film history. They are very different directors in their aims and directions. Seems silly to compare them when neither plays by the other's rules. I'll try and catch up on his work. I really need to see Frantic again, and Repulsion, Tess, and Bitter Moon have been on the "to see" list too long. Peace.
-
I couldn't get through 20 minutes of Ninth Gate, and the Pianist was a color Schindler's List without the interesting plot. The production design and acting were fantastic, but that's about all that was going on in that one. Full Metal Jacket and Paths of Glory are great works of art on many levels. And Barry Lyndon is one of the most emotionally-rich films I've ever seen. There's more human nature communicated in their eyes than in the hammy emoting of most movies.
-
Aug 26, 2005 2:58:45 PM CDT
Pianist better than Paths of Glory? Can I buy pot from you?
by spectrebeeyatch
I'm writing that down as one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, and I like Polanski films. Also those ideas about not paying taxes because it supports rape, well in that sense shouldn't we not give aid to Africa? Since that money usually ends up in a war lords or corrupt leaders hands, who then has his militia men run around and rape hundreds?
-
You are absolutely right about the American companies who support Polanski financially. The guy is an incredible storyteller, but he's also a wanted criminal in the United States. To me, there is a moral conflict in supporting someone who breaks the laws of your nation and makes no movement to atone for his crimes. I'm not judging Polanski, and I can respect him as an artist, but I would never support him were I in the position to.
-
Yeah, Barry Lyndon is great. As time goes by it might be my favorite Kubrick film. I mean the ending is simply one of my favoite moments in any of his films. The whole thing is like a walk through victorian painting... Like Kurosawa's Dreams... only real... No other film looks that good dipicting that time. Peace.
-
Aug 26, 2005 3:54:14 PM CDT
Woody Allen is dating his step-daugher. It's creepy!!!!!!!
by barry egan
-
I didn't know about Salva's case until after I saw Powder, which I thought was a beautiful film. Knowing Salva's background can certainly influence your interpretation of the film, but it can still be seen in its own light. Despite my discomfort over the director's past, I still think it's a beautiful film. Sometimes we just have to live with the problematic nature of art and artists. I'm not saying it's not important - I don't think you can separate the art from the artist totally. But ultimately, you have to take all the aspects in and weigh them accordingly and see where you wind up.
-
I know... I know... you don't have to say it cause I KNOW! Polanski is on the run and Salva turned himself in. It's just that Salva took a boy and made him a sex slave and filmed it and shit. This was really fucking thought out and went on for a long period of time. Than you look at the themes of his films. Look at Jeepers Creepers with the monster taking the boy's eyes. I've seen Powder. It is pretty interesting. Some shots are really well done. But yeah... Not saying no one should watch his films. I'm just being honest. He's made some great films... but I have trouble watching them sometimes. Peace.
-
If so, I'll look at your defense of that scumbag with a different eye.
-
Geez, how the hell does Newton get thrown into a discussion of Polanski? The guy said on his deathbed that the accomplishment he was most proud of was remaining celibate. Weird, yes. Misguided, yes. Polanski-esque, no.
-
I remember reading an article on him years ago. Can't remember what the details were... it was probably bullshit, but in a way that also has a point to it. True we pretty much know Polinski did what he did and so on, but there is that issue of media. Whatever it was that I read or heard probably was some reaction to that statment. Who knows? I should refreash my memory of things before dropping them like that. Like I said, I was tired. That's a poor excuse I know. I wonder if I can find that article... Hmmm... off to google I go! Peace.
-
Aug 26, 2005 6:15:13 PM CDT
The Pianist is billion times more powerful piece of cinema than
by sonicss
Anyone who puts Paths Of Glory before such a grand unparalleled masterpiece like The Pianist should just put a gun to his head and shoot! You ignorant morons!!!
-
One more thing: Why then The Ninth Gate is being called Masterpiece nowadays??? Simply The Shining is absolutely no match for NG. Just put with it.
-
Are you kidding me, who are you responding to? I can't believe there's really someone here who crazily thinks that Kubrick's Path of Glory is even slightly better than The Pianist. Jesus, gimme a break.
-
but i'm 100% sure that (after so-called rape... please!) i'd do exactly what Polanski did. Even though of course i know it's a bad thing what he did. But you people also should know more facts about this. I strongly believe that he's a really good man after all of that.
-
Aug 26, 2005 6:36:29 PM CDT
Anybody who molests kids is a piece of shit, regardless of skill
by harry coin
-
Aug 26, 2005 6:38:33 PM CDT
oh yeah, Paths of Glory shits all over the Pianist and then donk
by harry coin
. . . and if you don't know what a donkey punch is ask Polanski. . . I'm sure he likes to do it to little kids
-
Let's see, he drugs her, she protests, he sticks his cock into her ass. Nope, doesn't sound like rape to me. Cretin.
-
Aug 26, 2005 8:31:27 PM CDT
Ill Clinton, HOW OLD ARE YOU, because i'd rape your little b
by fuckbill69
Yeah right, "Paths of Glory", give me a camera and the next week you have this shit.
-
and you're right guys, Paths Of Glory is very inferior...ah no, laughable war film. The Pianist is a MASTERPIECE, the film that Kubrick could made only in his wet dream, you bunch of illiterate kids. You need some film lessons on the true art of filmmaking.
-
will be actually his probably tenth masterpiece that will shit all over Paths Of Glory, which is if you ask me, really piece of shit.
-
according to their dark personality, both have also very sombre slow films. They actually are very similar stylistically, with only one exception, Polanski is a much more capable and strong filmmaker!
-
I don't really see any similarities between The Pianist and Paths of Glory besides that they both take place during a war (WWII and WWI respectively). I love both of them for different reasons. I think it's so infantile when people say things like "The Pianist beats the shit out of Paths of Glory" and then doesn't back up such bold and idiotic statements with their reasoning. So childish. Is it impossible to like both of those films? Is it ridiculous to respect and admire both Kubrick and Polanski?
-
I've long thought people who advocate for Polanski, secretly wish they could get away with what he did. Fuckbill, thank you for proving the point. Oh, and old enough. If it would spare a 13 year old from your sickness, by all means, try to rape an adult. I promise not to hurt you. Much.
-
He did it all, he made a career in the film industry, became famous and rich, won an Oscar and raped a little girl. Wow, he did it all, the question is: is he better as a rapist or a filmmaker.
So is he an inspiration?.................... YES HE IS as a filmmaker -
Aug 26, 2005 10:15:20 PM CDT
Ill Clinton, No you'll be actually my first little bitch, i
by fuckbill69
you seem to be like 10 year old - that's good enough. In fact there's gonna be a whole colony of Polanski's followers who will go in the steps of their inspiration. Gee, if i'm sick, then it's only of these idiotic Polanski bashers like you. Where's the end of this stupidity, i don't know.
-
The end of this stupidity lies in you getting help. Clearly in addition to your stunted social skills, you have some kind of learning disability (or you're a foreign rapist . . . french possibly?) that may be connected. There are plenty of good prescription drugs available. I suggest you seek a free clinic, if you do not have adequate financial resources. There should be one near your cave.
-
even if it was rape, and from what i heard it wasn't, it was so long ago. After a while, forgive and forget. and it was statury rape, she was thirteen. Have you seen some of the thirteen year olds around lately? the sure as hell look older. Or as Chris rock says, if a girl tells you she's nineteen, and looks sixteen? She's damn near twelve. also, he's made some amazing films, why can't we love the art and dislike the artist?
-
even if it was rape, and from what i heard it wasn't, it was so long ago. After a while, forgive and forget. and it was statury rape, she was thirteen. Have you seen some of the thirteen year olds around lately? the sure as hell look older. Or as Chris rock says, if a girl tells you she's nineteen, and looks sixteen? She's damn near twelve. also, he's made some amazing films, why can't we love the art and dislike the artist?
-
...and this affects the movie HOW?
-
Someone above mentioned this, if you want to watch his films, its simply cause you don't care, plain and simple, and really, that's fine. You don't need to justify watching a movie, so don't try to justify what Polanski because you do it. I don't know where this stuff about it not really being a rape comes from, but she said no, she resisted, she was drugged, its about as clear cut a case of rape as you can get. That it happened a long time ago doesn't make it any less of a rape, that 13 year olds sure can be purdy doesn't make it any less of a rape.
-
Its an absolutely damn fine film, though you not liking it has nothing or means nothing in terms of Polanski or his films, so I have no idea why anyone is bothering with the hate on this flick, especially since the way most of you who are hating on it sound like you haven't even bothered to see it.
-
Also mentioned how fucked up Hollywood was for booing Michael Moore and giving Polanski a standing ovation.
-
When I first saw this on tv years ago, I thought I remembered that after Johnny Depp has sex with that girl at the end, she turns into a demon and flies away. This isn't in the dvd version, did it actually happen or is my crack habit actually bad for me?
-
Aug 27, 2005 7:55:21 AM CDT
You know all the moronic teenagers in US will now be asking "So
by salvatoregravano
Half of them will add "Wah, I wanted something like an M. Plagiarist Shyalahack story!"... but - and that's the sad part - the other half will think they're making a good joke.
-
Aug 27, 2005 8:53:00 AM CDT
"This is being released on the same day as the FAR superiour SER
by dr_dreadlocks
The definition of our film geek society is very bleak.
-
Chinatown is great, yes, but I'll take 2001, Dr. Strangelove and Clockwork. In the future, perhaps all trials can be conducted through talkbacks! Nah, a disproportionate number will be sentenced to anal rape.
-
Those who didn't get all those little details and missed the element which makes this film so flawless, Go on imdb message boards to look up the meanings and details other guys discussing there. You'll be surprised how much you actually didn't get this film.
-
Aug 27, 2005 10:49:13 AM CDT
The Ninth Gate was truly overblown.Trash purporting to have dept
by the true priapic
Depp was doing his "I'm in a silly film so I'll do a performance that does everything but wink at the audience".Polanski is,I'm afraid,a horrible little man.My god,not only a pederast but a coward as well.I love that people try to point out that the girl was asking for it/shouldn't have been there/what was she expecting blah blah and Polanski has done his time by being an outcast fromthe West for so long.....he never faced the music and turned himself in.Why would that be?Hmmm?Hollywood applauding him for The Pianist showed what a bunch of airheads pricks are in the audience.I'll never think of Nicole Kidman the same way after seeing her sat rigid and unknowing as to what to do when Moore was booed/applauded.Idiot!Moronic idiot!Then again,I suppose it wasn't as funny as 'lifes of the party' Ed Harris,his mouse-faced wife sitting grim and humourless as Kazan got an ovation.God,their faces were funny!!Bwahahahhaha.Those crazy actinmg idiots.Why does Jon Stewart bring eejit actors on his show,they always appear like airheads.Anyone see Kate Hudson or Diane Lane recently?Fucking hell....no wonder these people go into a profession that lets people put words in their mouth.
-
We are way too quick to just let things like rape and child abuse slide. I mean, maybe if the courts passed a law that made the press add an accurate description of their crimes in parenthesis, the point would be made clear. So, every article on Polanski would have to read: "Roman Polanski (who drugged and raped a teenage girl) won the Oscar for best Director." or how about "Senator Ted Kennedy (who left a woman to die after getting in an accident while driving drunk), was outraged at the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court." Wouldn't that really help put things in perspective?
-
It's be nice. But really, all it would probably take would be for reviewers to publish an article on his crime instead of a review of his film. Just once, I'd like to see someone like Roger Ebert take a stand and publicly refuse to his films until he faces justice for his crimes. You guys keep comparing Polanski to Woody Allen (who's films I also won't see but don't begrudge people who do) and Salva (again, won't see em but don't care if others do). There's a big difference. Woody Allen didn't break any laws. Salva paid his debt to society. Polanski ran away and refuses to take responsibilty for his actions and yet is still allowed to profit from his films here in the US.
-
Aug 27, 2005 3:18:36 PM CDT
Tonay 2..for fucks sake go and have a wank over Whedon?
by the true priapic
Let me guess,Whedon wrote the bible and the gospels but God and the apostles copied him?Fuck ooooooorff....
-
Most of Polanski's detractors in this TB seem to have forgotten that Polanskit turned himself in and plead guilty to his alleged crime. The only reason he fled was because the judge was going to throw out the plea bargain which was supposed to gurantee him probation. Instead, the judge was going to sentence him to 50 years in prison. For having coked-up sex with some slutty druggy teenaged girl (think Drew Barrymore)? Fuck that shit. Murderers don't get 50 years in prison. Fifty years for statutory rape is fucked-up. I gotta totally support Polanski's actions here.
-
Thomas Kiernan's biography, "The Roman Polanski Story" was published in 1980, just three years after Polanski fled the United States following his arrest for drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl. Kiernan's smooth biography is candid about the legendary tyranny, sadism and pedophilia that led to Polanski's rape conviction. Said Kiernan, "Roman just couldn't understand why screwing a kid should be of concern to anyone. He's screwed plenty of girls younger than this one, he said, and nobody gave a damn." The child "had practically begged him"
-
I'm surprised no organized protest is underway. There should be someone at every movie theater with a sign "If you see Oliver Twist you're supporting a rapist." I think someone would get the message. Polanski is trying to rehabilitate his image, first with a holocaust movie and now a kids movie. He's gone to far and needs to be stopped.
-
Aug 28, 2005 1:40:23 AM CDT
"Anyone Who's Against Rape Should Boycott This Film" -- Oh P
by roger thornhill
So people who see this film support rape? Just like those that saw The Pianist, The Ninth Gate, Frantic and all the other post-Chinatown Polanski films? That's ridiculous. "He's gone too far and needs to be stopped." You're really a zealot on this Polanski issue aren't you? Honestly you need to stop wasting your time with an act that happened thirty years ago and use your energy for something far more important. Now I know your response to that will be "Oh so raping a girl is not important." No, it is, but it's not your problem. It's between Polanski, the girl, and the law. Period. Don't go on a moralist crusade over an incident that you claim to understand. There's far better things to campaign over like the War in Iraq and the West's increasing dependency on Middle Eastern oil. Those are actually current issues. If you don't want to see his films because of what he did to that girl, that's fine, but please do us all a favor and shut the fuck up about boycotting Oliver Twist over it. It's becoming tiresome and it's ruining a potential discussion of the actual film.
-
Number 2, I have done my part to support the soldiers in Iraq, so quit complaining my mind is not in the present. Number 3, if you do not see that Polanski is making this film to rehabilitate his image (after the one on the holocaust, could anything have been more transparent?) and think he is just making a "kid's movie," you need to examine your own moral compass and decide what is indeed to far. Israelis still hunt down nazis, the passage of time is irrelevant.
-
Would be to use meetup.com. I don't know how much luck you'd have Clinton, but it's one way to reach people in your area. It could even spread nationally. Just a thought. I check meetup.com all the time for things I'm interested. Maybe it's like if you build it they will come.
-
I'm unfamiliar with meetup.com, but I'll look into it. I know what it is, just never used it. Any other tips from anyone else would be appreciated. Who knows? We may have a genuine AICN movement coming together. ANd they dare to mock us in the press. Hah! We'll show our power and relevance as a force for social change.
-
Thanks Clinton, I really hope it helps. It seems to me ther are some organizations that help battered women and stuff, maybe someone with a contact could get them behind it. There's also some rape crisis counseling where I live, I don't know if they're national or not. If you know anyone in those groups, you could try to get them to tell people about the movie. I had a sister who was raped, so I'd be willing to help somehow. I just don't know how you'd go about doing it. Sorry if my ideas are lame, but it's all I've got.
-
And sorry to hear about your sister. I'm beginning to get an idea. Let's move this conversation over to the Aquaf@g thread. The people still posting on it are all politically active, well, at least interested. They may have some ideas as well. I already posted there asking for suggestions, guess I should have done it here. D'oh!
-
I think child rapists should go through extensive rehab, be castrated and then released. If they ever touch a child again then someone should unload a couple of rounds into their head. Problem solved. As far as the artist not the art... well art is expression of self so how can you seperate the two. That's like saying there is the serial killing monster and then theres the person who the monster overtakes from time to time. That's stupid. The man is the monster.
Oh, and if all you look for in movies is entertainment value why the hell would you want to support a movie made by a child rapist. If there's something else to be garnered then by all means go, but if you give money to a rapist to be entertained then you are supporting the rapist. Maybe not rape but the rapist none the less. It's like when I buy a C.D. and I know the artist or band is on illegal drugs. I don't support their drug habits, but at the same time a really could care less. So if you like Oliver Twist and don't mind that it's director likes to fuck minors than go for it. Just know that I won't sympathize with you when you get fucked up the ass and the person that did gets off and then starts selling some product that everyone gets behind. Don't cry to me that seeing everyone around you using his product is like a slap in your face. Now if you'll excuse me I need to go buy one of those books that Hitler wrote and stare at a John Gacey Painting because the book flows so nice and the painting is very pleasing to the eye. Psyche -
Aug 28, 2005 4:30:16 AM CDT
So, Ill Clinton, Meremoth, Red Lantern et al, are you guys going
by cameron1
I mean your holier than thou attitude only has credibility with consistency. And are you going to stop watching Jack Nicholson movies too? How about Harrison Ford films? I admire you taking such a strong stand on rape and rapists but your arguments are so terribly flawed.
-
Aug 28, 2005 4:42:06 AM CDT
Ill Clinton, when you copy and paste half an article from worldn
by cameron1
Really passing someone else's work off as your own is very very stupid.
And really Ill, worldnetdaily, way to go for a totally non biased non politically motivated site hahahahahaha. Terrible, just terrible. -
In no way did I try to pass this on as my own "work." If I was neglectfull in attribution, I take the fall. If your argument is based on some wierd claim that I wrote this, I humbly deny it. I cut and pasted an article for those Polanski apologists who claim that he must feel guilty and poor boy, he went through Hell due to Manson so that justifies his behavior. The fact is, he was paid for his life photo. Google all you want. He CHARGED for that picture. You are arguing semantics in the same way Polanski does. Some people even think the charge was statutory rape, not RAPE. They also think there was consent. Just read these posts. I never claimed that cut and paste job as my own. If that was inferred, I apologize. The biography is available for anyone who cares to read it. I suggest Polanski apologists do so. You support scum.
-
Aug 28, 2005 8:09:11 AM CDT
Sins of omission Ill. I would have thought someone with the name
by cameron1
That particular autobiography has it's own obvious agenda and the site you took it from is might suspect as well.
Now I haven't said I support Polanski, I've only said that if you wish to boycott his films then you need to start boycotting a hell of a lot of other peoples films too. A point you fail to respond to I see. Finally you should look up the word semantics to see my arguments are based on no such thing. -
The Rock,
Dangerous Minds,
Crimson Tide,
Bad Boys,
Jungleground, Hostile Hostages
Days of Thunder,Beverly Hills Cop II,Top Gun,Beverly Hills Cop, Thief of Hearts,Flashdance (1983).
I'd reccommend you give 5 bucks, for every time you went to see these at the cinema, to a drugs rehabillitation/treatment centre, and 5 bucks to a battered womens shelter as well. How about you stop seeing any Bruckheimer pictures too, you wouldn't want to keep supporting scum would you? yeh you had better start boycotting and protesting and Nicholson movies too. You do all that then maybe your arguments will have some weight. All they are now is typical blowhard bullshit masquerading as morality. You don't Polanski in the fucked up stakes but the devil has a place in hell for you guys too.
-
Aug 28, 2005 8:41:14 AM CDT
Oh and Ill, I hope you are not a Led Zeppelin or Stones fan.
by cameron1
Or a beatles fan. Or (god forbid) an R. Kelly record buyer. Now I'll try a touch of diplomacy with you but I'm not sure how much you'll want to listen. I agree Polanski was a sick man, a criminal and a rapist, not statutory either (which would give things a different spin). He should not have fled. But you have to see other side, where a judge was trying to make a name for himself by giving him a wholly disproportionate sentence for what he did. Before you come down on me for saying that, let me clarify I mean disproportionate when compared to what other child rapists were getting at the time. Polanski committed his crime in 70's, when, I'm sad to say rape was not treated in the same way as it is today. Back then there was still the "good ole days" idea about women, disgusting as that idea is now it was still fairly prevalent back then. So for Polanski to be faced with 50 years was, and i use this word careffuly with all consideration, an injustice. Ok I can see you are about to pop at me for saying for that, but I'm asking you to judge it with knowledge of that time. Polanski was plain wrong in his decision but there were strong factors for him to consider which we in the more enlightened 21st century don't think about. I can completely see where you are coming from in your wish to boycott his films but like I have said before, boycott Polanski you have to boycott a fuck of a lot of other things that are not as easily dismissed as one directors later films. Consistency is paramount in giving credibility to your cause and I can't see you being consistent. That's all, flame if you want but I'd prefer and expect from ill, a well worded argument.
-
i will not watch a polanski film. it's my own personal boycott against the man. my ex-girlfriend and i got into an arguement once about him. she compared polanski to russell crowe and said "crowe is an asshole in real life, but i'll still watch his films because he's a good actor". my retort was that yes, crowe is an unpleasant man, but he didn't FUCKING RAPE A LITTLE GIRL! i don't care that he's a "genius" and that he made one of my absolute favorite films ever, 'Chinatown' (which i saw before i found out about the rape) but he should be castrated and strung up for all to see...fucking pervert.
-
see all this moral outrage is fine as long as there is consistency, without that you just look fucking stupid.
-
and that's a way worse crime than anything Roman Polanski's ever done.
-
If Jack Nicholson or Harrison Ford ever rape a girl and flee the country, then, yeah, I'll boycott their future films. Don't know about Don Simpson except he was a druggee, but he's also DEAD, so he's not getting any of our money anyway!! You make no point. -
Aug 28, 2005 11:32:00 AM CDT
\Well Nicholson was at the party where the girl was raped. He st
by cameron1
As for Don Simpson I suggest you read "High Concept" and see what a sick pervert that man was. I know he's dead but his activities at the time were well known and not many people boycotted anything he produced. I make very good points jigzaw but dickheads like you don't understand them.
-
Aug 28, 2005 11:37:57 AM CDT
ok dickhead was harsh, I apologise. But seriously you can't
by cameron1
And you really should read about Don Simpson, a particular gut wrenching activity he liked to engage in was beating a 19 yr old girl with a riding crop while forcing her to lick his urine from a toilet bowl. It's not anal rape of a minor I grant you, but really if you boycott one not boycott the other is sheer stupid hypocrisy. Oh and Mr. Bruckheimer knew all about his partners little fetishes and did nothing about it. Again supporting a sexual abusive person. Consistency is all important in morality.
-
Cameron1 thanks for being a voice of reason. I was trying to do this earlier but coming near the end of a week that had consisted of going to bed around three to five and getting up to some very stressful days that all started around nine and so on and so fourth
-
The more I read from you the more I begin to wonder if you even care that Polanski raped someone. You
-
Aug 28, 2005 12:18:16 PM CDT
Ill Clinton...do people who see Oliver Twist support rape?
by roger thornhill
Do they? Because by your twisted logic they do. As Cameron1 pointed out, do you people who collaborate with Polanski support rape such as Harrison Ford and Adrien Brody? You said "you do not see that Polanski is making this film to rehabilitate his image (after the one on the holocaust, could anything have been more transparent?) and think he is just making a "kid's movie," you need to examine your own moral compass and decide what is indeed to far." Believe me I'm quite content with my own moral compass and I couldn't care less if Polanski is trying to "rehabilitate" his image. I've always like the man as a filmmaker no matter what he did thirty years ago. As Cameron1 and Neosamurai85 pointed out, perhaps you should examine your own moral compass and the hypocrisy of your arguement. Where do you draw the line? In any event, the girl who was raped by Polanski has said that the media frenzy surrounding that unfortunate incident has ruined her life. ""He did something really gross to me," said married mother of three Geimer in 1997. "But it was the media that ruined my life." Why would you want to bring more attention to her after she said the media attention has actually harmed her? In fact, she's even said that she wouldn't mind if Polanski returned to the United States. It looks like she's moved on with her life, maybe you should too. http://www.eonline.com/Features/Specials/Century/May/11.b.html
-
This was what I came back to post (Sorry, couldn
-
and I enjoyed it, even though it created a whole "new" subplot
not in the novel. -
I think what bugs me the most is just that a fugitive who wasn't rich and famous would not get the time of day from employers, but the American film distributers still do lucrative business with him even though he's wanted for a violent crime. I just have a hard time buying that it's even legal to do that. Except that rich stars seem to operate under a different justice system than we do. Do I think it's lame that Nicholson and Ford support him? Yeah. But that's their personal emotional take on it (they were also close friends with him for years before)- they did not rape anyone and run a way fromt he law, he did. Now, I love Chinatown. I think it's brilliant and I'll watch it over and over. I was also under the misconception that it was just statutory rape that happened at a party and he didn't realize how old she was. I could get past that. But, when I read her testimony it was just so violent and calculated and forced. It would have been worthy of a bullet to the head even if she had been an adult. Do what you want, I just don't want to take money that I've earned and contribute to his income. I'm an artist, a film director and an actor, and I still can't stand how it's felt among the "artistic" community that we're somehow higher and more important and exempt from even having enough civility to not commit violence on other people, especially if you have the money to buy that special golden ticket.
-
You've asked me to debate without the hate, so here goes. You're using the all or nothing argument. Which is called a slippery slope argument. To which I say, if we can't do everything, does that mean we should do nothing? Where do we draw the line? Is Polanski off the hook because he makes movies, and good ones at that? I ask again, if you, or someone you cared for, were raped, how would you feel? That really is the question. You are going with a six degress of Roman Polanski position, do you really have that position for everything? What do you stand for? Is the enjoyment of a good movie a greater good than punishing a rapist? You seem to have a liberal mentality (not so oddly enough so do I in principle), so are you posturing, or do you have some moral boundaries? If it was you, or your kid, or your girlfriend or sister, how would you feel? Before responding, just think about it. Create the scenario in your head. Man to man, let the thoughts flow and see where they take you. Then honestly tell me how you feel. I'll respect your answer as I respect you.
-
I've reread my post, and I've used some confrontational language. I don't mean to question your morality or ethics, it's clear that you have them. I'm not putting myself on a pedestal or claiming a moral high ground. To me this is white and black issue with no shades of grey. I'm sure I do a disservice to my point of view by being so vehement, but fuck! It's the way I feel.
-
I don't need to boycott Nicholson or Ford films because they worked with Polanski, I just need to boycot the films the make with Polanski. I don't think you understand the concept behind an economic boycott. You don't blindly refuse to see anyone or anything that had anything to do with Polanski. You just refuse to see anything created by Polanski or anything that he will profit from. If Harrison Ford, Jack Nicholson, or any major movie studio thought they weren't going to make any money off of a movie because Polanski wasn't involved, they wouldn't work with him. By seeing their other films, you are saying, I like your stuff, I'll pay to see it, but not when you work with a criminal on the run from the law.
-
Good to see you bsck. Ya monkey. Fuck Polanski - he's a child raping fuck who hasn't made a good film in 30 years. You want to say it's about the movies but those are shit also - fuck that paedo prick. Way hey!!
-
Tonay2 is a chatbot programed to advertise Serenity. That is why it lacks the capacity to include in its logic that you could just not see either! Gasp! Peace.
-
Cos I like spaceships better than rapists. but hey - that's just me!
-
Polanski is a scum sucking rapist, Polanski had rough go after Sharon Tate, He's a great filmaker, he makes shit movies, He paid his dues, he didn't pay shit, he deserves respect, he should be in jail. All this stuff has been said a million different times in a million different ways. Don't like the guy? Then stop talking about him. Think he's a great filmmaker? Then ignore the shit talkers. Then maybe we can talk about something new and refreshing like maybe a remake of Smokey and the Bandit? I'd like to see Jason Lee as the Bandit, maybe Scott Caan as Cledus, Jessica Biel in the Sally Field part, Kevin Heffernan or Jack Black as Sherrif Buford T. Justice.
-
Thank you... the flames were starting to cool and people were starting to talk on something close to the same level. We can't have that now! So thank you for that big ol' can of gas on the embers. I'm sure it was very expensive and could have been put to a better use by you. So thanks for being so thoughtful. Peace.
-
Polanski is a scum sucking rapist, Polanski had rough go after Sharon Tate, He's a great filmaker, he makes shit movies, He paid his dues, he didn't pay shit, he deserves respect, he should be in jail. All this stuff has been said a million different times in a million different ways. Don't like the guy? Then stop talking about him. Think he's a great filmmaker? Then ignore the shit talkers. Then maybe we can talk about something new and refreshing like maybe a remake of Smokey and the Bandit? I'd like to see Jason Lee as the Bandit, maybe Scott Caan as Cledus, Jessica Biel in the Sally Field part, Kevin Heffernan or Jack Black as Sherrif Buford T. Justice.
-
Because I'm betting that many of the people opposing the moral high standing and boycotting of Polanski's films by Ill Clinton, Tonay2, and Kuraykin are American too. In fact, we don't even know the nationalities of the three mentioned above, you assume they're American, but they might very well not be. I personally have no problem with them disliking Polanski because of what he did, but when they say things like "Anyone who's against rape should boycott this film" is going too far. I hate it when people try to shove their moral values down the throats of others, no matter what the cause. It's aggravating and unnecessary. No one here supports rape and Polanski's films never condone it.
-
Why the hell am I throwing a bone to the other side? I really don't know. But for some reason my devil's advocate urge is compelling me to mention Rosemary's Baby. Which could be read into as being just that. I don't agree that it is... but... Where did all these strings come from? I can't control my hands! AHHH! Seriously though, I agree with what Roger Thornhill said... and I'm from the states. I always found that film to express the perdicament of woman being controlled by men, family, and socity. It should be interesting to see if this stirs the embers.
-
"....Roman Polanski's house"
Stewie Griffin. -
Because I wrote that no one here on this website supports rape...as far as I can tell. But clearly you "anti-rape" people as you like to be referred to support torture and mutilation. So who's the one with the moral ambiguity? Your personal attacks are not only unnecessary and infantile, but they suggest that you're unable to actually debate without resorting to them. When someone writes "anyone who's against rape should boycott this film,' it suggests that people who do see Oliver Twist in fact support rape. Which is complete and utter nonsense. Thus such a statement is going too far in my view and is yet another example of so-called moralists trying to guilt and shame others into supporting their idiotic ideas like the boycotting of Oliver Twist. And as far as your assertion that everying in my mind is a shade a gray, you're partly correct, I tend not to view the world in black and white because that's not how reality is. Only fundamentalists and bigots view the world solely in black and white. There's always shades of gray out there.
-
Aug 29, 2005 12:00:19 PM CDT
The real pervert is the one who doesn't want to have anal se
by drunken rage
You all agree. I know you do.
-
Ok guys, sorry for the late reply but I have a life outside the internet....it's true I swear. Anyway I read your posts and had a good think. I do know someone close to me who has been raped and I want to castrate the person who did it. However I also know that while it would help me, it wouldn't be justice; just plain revenge. I'm better than that alhtough it takes a lot of effort for me to reign in my impulses. As for economic boycottS I understand them fine, I used to boycott nestl
-
not rape like pinned down and force sex rape, it was rape because she was young, she has even forgiven him for it, you all need to get a life, theres like 4 of you who are gonna boycott the movie, congrats he is gonna lose 40 bucks because you guys dont understand shades of gray. you people are so high and mighty. i wish someone would rape you guys. ha ha.
-
Then he pinned her down and raped her. Obviously you haven't read the thread because there's plenty of information here as well as links. Sorry, ass raping a 13 year old girl doesn't fit into my shades of grey. Cameron, back to you in a minute.
-
Ok, here's the way I say it. You can't boycott everyone who has a connection to Polanski, because then by that reasoning you have to boycott anyone with a connection to those people. Evenyually the chain would take you to everyone, except hermits on a hill in Tibet and I don't think any of them have anything I want to buy. I congratulate you for boycotting Nestle. I do the same thing with certain corporations. At a certain point it becomes impracticle to boycott everything. I'll answer your posts 2 ways. First, Harrison Ford didn't rape anyone, as far as I know. So while it may be a choice I would not make, I don't know his reasoning or why he sees things differently. Secondly, boycotting ONE movie sends a very clear message. If everyone boycotted this film, I doubt Polanski would ever get money from Hollywood again. He'd be box office poison. In fact, any director who escaped punishment would also be box office poison. As I see it, not allowing him to profit from his actions is the only punishment he's going to get. For the same reason I'm not going to buy OJ Simpson products, and in that case, a jury decided he was not guilty. If someone took me to task over OJ versus Roman, I'd concede they have more of a point because OJ did go through the legal process and was acquitted. I'm just wondering how his search for the "real killers" is going. I don't think there's going to be a huge national outcry on this. I just choose carefully who my money supports where I can. Obviously I have no idea where everything I buy comes from or who benefits as money changes hands many times over. I do feel that informing people of his actions will at least lead them to make an informed decision. As you can see even in this thread (and any other Polanski thread), there are a number of people who think it wasn't "real rape" and he got busted having consensual sex with a minor. Will knowing the truth change their mind regarding his films? I don't know. But I'd seen Chinatown before ever knowing who Polanski was and possibly some other films as well. Knowing what I know now, I will never pay money to see a Polanski film. If my friends are watching their Pianist DVD at home, I'm certainly not going to storm out of the room in protest or boycott my friends. I see one watching a Polanski film with a thirteen year old girl and a healthy supply of roofies, I'm going to draw some conclusions.
-
I can't believe you compared a man who started a war that led to the deaths of 50 million people with a man who raped a 13 year old. There's just no comparison. Furthermore, Hitler's regime murdered Polanski's entire family and damn near killed him as well.
-
Once again, if you can follow this: I don't want my money to support the exiled life of a fugitive who committed this violent crime against another person. Period. Boycotting Harrison Ford doesn't hurt Polanski, boycotting Polanski hurts Polanski. Polanski raped a girl by force, then ran away to a place where he could screw girls her age leagally. Harrison Ford never raped anyone. His opinions might bother me, but he is not a criminal. If he gets a dollar-fifty from my movie ticket I guess I'll live, but I don't want to support the lavish little-girl-fucking life of a fugitive. It's not about a message, it's about where my money goes.
-
I didn't make the comparison, and yes it's a bit of a melodramatic stretch, but please tell me where you draw the line between Hitler and Polanski. Exactly what does someone have to do before you stop supporting them with your money. Boycotting Ford or Nicholson accomplishes nothing. For a boycot to work it must be focused and public. It's not enough to just not see the movie. You need to write letters to the people involved letting them know why you aren't seeing it and why you won't see any of his movies in the future. By boycotting those who associate themselves with Polanski you spread yourself too thin and become a zealot. At that point, no studio is going to care whether you see the movie or not because they've already lost you. If I write a letter to Harrison Ford who makes his living off of box office success and explain to him why I won't be seeing him play a role in Polanski's next movie, it won't mean much to him. If a ton of people do it, he'll take notice and maybe think twice about working with the man. Money is the only real external power in this world and some of you might want to exercise a little restraint every now and then. Sure, the movie might look good and it might even be better than Citizen Kane, but that man doesn't deserve to make another dime unless it's for making license plates in prison.
-
It's funny how the only 2 real arguments against us are 1) Roman Polanski is a cinematic genius and the crime was so long ago that I can pretend it never happened, or 2) You are a war mongering American and your country routinely bullies the rest of the world around and kills innocent people. Yes. I am an American. I live outside of Chicago Illinois. I am a 34 year old white male. However, like almost 50% of our country, I did not vote for our current administration and do not support the war in which we are currently engaged so you can toss that argument out the window right now because 1) it holds no water, and 2) it has nothing to do with the fact that Roman Polanski raped a girl and fled the country. You are deflecting because you can't come up with a real argument for why anyone should be putting money in the man's pocket.
-
You're arguements are concise, logical, and avoid references to castration and/or torture. Polanski committed a heinous crime and should've done time for it, no doubt, whether or not he deserved 50 years (which is more than some murderers get) is up to debate. I don't think anyone is disputing that. I think what really seems irritating is when some of the posters here try to shame others into avoiding Polanski's films because of his crime. In effect, they try to make people who enjoy watching his films feel guilty. As if they're somehow supporting rape by watching his films and paying for them. I think that's a bit uncalled for. You can trash him and avoid his pictures all you want, but don't shame others into joining you. That's the wrong way to go about getting people to side with you because you come off as a zealot. Again, you didn't say it that way Funketeer and I appreciate that. I for one enjoy Polanski's films despite what he did and will continue to do so. And as to your question of where to draw the line between Hitler and Polanski and when to stop supporting someone, it's hard to say because it depends on the person. Some people won't support Tom Cruise movies because they dislike his religion. Some people refuse to support Mel Gibson movies because of his supposedely anti-Semitic themes in The Passion of the Christ. I mentioned the movie Detour earlier in the thread and how the lead actor murdered his wife and did time for it as manslaughter (although he most likely murderered her in cold blood). I've talked to people who've said they'll never buy that on DVD because of what Tom Neal did. I bought it. I love the film and Tom Neal's performance. I know what he did later on was wrong, but I still appreciate the film. Basically the answer to your question is I don't know where I'd draw the line, it depends on the situation and the person. If tomorrow Steven Spielberg murderered someone, would I pay to see War of the Worlds in the theater (providing it's still playing). Probably. But that murder would hover over the film and all his others. I know some people who refuse to watch John Landis movies because of the accident on The Twilight Zone Movie. I completely agree and I refuse to watch that particular film because several people died because of his sloppiness. And I can definitely see why some would refuse to support ANY John Landis film because of his actions (or inactions) on the set of The Twilight Zone Movie. So I don't have a line drawn in the sand where if an actor/director/musician crosses it I refuse to support them...it just depends on the situation and how I feel about that artist. Damn I'm rambling.
-
I'm glad you're not in the mutilation/torture crowd Anchorite, but your post suggested that you were one of them by calling yourselves "rape haters." You mentioned that there are some situations that are completely black and white and I agree that there are SOME situations that are indeed that clear, but in MOST cases there are shades of gray. "That people choose to hide their moral ambiguity behind a veil of tolerance, masking their lack of ethics behind ideas such as understanding and enlightenment is laughable." First of all, you have no idea what my morals are, you're pre-judging me based on my disgust with the boycott crowd and their efforts to guilt others into joining them. I think you're making assumptions that just simply aren't true. "People who make excuses or apologize for others who commit monsterous acts upon a child are not enlightened..." Where did I make excuses for Polanski's behavor? Where did I apologize for Polanski's raping on that girl? No where. Again you're making assumptions that just aren't true. "Continue to compartmentalize bad behavior and 'support the artist for the sake of art,' but don't expect everyone else to be so eager to." I'm not compartmentalizing anyone's behavoir nor do I honestly care whether everyone else is "so eager to" "compartamentalize bad behavior." "And you're wrong about the 50 year sentence of Polanski." Another talkbacker mentioned that sentence and I didn't verify the facts because I really don't care what the specifics were, although it helps to get the facts straight so thanks for that at least. What you fail to understand is that my main gripe is with these people attempting to shame others into despising Polanski and avoiding his pictures. If you have a problem with him and his films because of what happened in the mid-70s, that's fine, but don't shame me into following your lead by saying things like "anyone who's against rape should boycott this film." So, if you're not apart of that boycott shaming crowd, then we really have nothing to discuss, do we?
-
I have a lot of respect for those who have the moral fortitude to boycott all Polanski's work due to his vile actions. However I am not one of them. Why? Because I can divorce his crime from his work. Should I? No. But I can and I do. The honest truth is that the rich, powerful and influential members of our society often get away with this kind of behaviour, because they have the money to run or pay people off. Not that I am excusing my unwillingness to boycott Polanski. I just believe that most people either do not know about the charges against him or don't care. And as we all know, providing you are making money for a big corporation, you can get away with just about anything. [Unless you are Black though even this seems to be changing.] Case in point, the poster who wrote about the fallacy of booing Michael Moore then giving Polanski a standing ovation. I guess time makes people more forgiving. What I would like to know is why America didn't try to extradite Polanski from France? Is extradition only reserved for 'serious' crimes like murder and terrorism?
-
Aug 30, 2005 4:37:31 PM CDT
anchorite i've read many of your comments in other talkbacks
by cameron1
Ill Clinton made some damn fine points and as he said he doesn't judge his friends for having the pianist on dvd then I'm quite happy to align myself with his ideas and yes I will be boycotting Polanski films in future. But anchorite you haven't made a good argument just insults about tb'ers and the old "moral decline" argument. I agree with you that there is a moral decline but you are part of it, not part of the solution.
-
I'm blown away by your consideration of my arguments (and pleased) and subsequent decision. It is a rare thing on these talkbacks to engage in a discussion and have people actually consider the merits of other people's ideas. Kudos to you, not for your decision, but for the way you look at things. If I may ask, what was the determining factor? What did you weigh and what tipped the scales?
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 439 total posts 159 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 144 total posts 142 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 155 total posts 140 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 55 total posts 45 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 196 total posts 45 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 35 total posts 35 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 34 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 127 total posts 32 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 513 total posts 29 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 118 total posts 27 posts