Fr. Roman Polanski...

114 posts / 0 new
Last post
Timebandit Timebandit's picture

yarg wrote:

Some of you are way too complicated for me, but for my 2 cents i think the world would have been better off without his "brilliance" and perhaps improved if he had been made an example of when this crime was first committed.  Hopefully he will suffer for the remainder of his days for what he did.

I don't know that the world would have been better off without his "brilliance", but it certainly would have been without his perversions.

If he had been dealt with back in the '70s, it would have been a good thing.  Had he not gone on to make the films he did, I have no doubt the world would have continued to turn without them. 

BUT.  The films were made and stand on their own.  They are very good films.  Even so, they excuse nothing.  I have no problem separating the man from the work.

Infosaturated

I have a question for Merowe and anyone else who thinks Polanski should be pardoned or whatever at this point. What if YOU were drugged, then stripped naked and forcibly sodomized, say by your boss at work. I want you to genuinely try to imagine how you would feel if that happened to you. Do you think that the person who drugged and sodomized you should be punished?

al-Qa'bong

Quote:
Wasn't Charlie Chaplin, whose romantic proclivities were well-known, brought down when a calculating mother steered her underage daughter into his path?

 

I think that may have been Fatty Arbuckle, but I'm not sure. Chaplin was hounded out of the US for being a Commie.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Don't we need to examine why a pervert is able to create art that is deemed brilliant?

Fidel

Anybody see that oldie but goodie, Fearless Vampire Killers with Roman Polanski and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Tate#Marriage_to_Roman_Polanski]Sharon Tate?[/url] Funny movie. And too bad about Sharon. She was such a beautiful young woman and eight months pregnant at the time. I think I'd be crazy after something like that.

Stargazer

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Don't we need to examine why a pervert is able to create art that is deemed brilliant?

 

What? Yeah sure. let's examine why "perverts" are able to make art. First, let's define what a "pervert" is, and then let's define what "art" is. Then once we have those very solid examples of pervert and art, we can dictate to people whom they should like and why. Let's be sure to examine every single person who creates art. Get right into their backgrounds. Let's make sure they are hiding any secrets at all that we determine to be perverted. Then we must immediately get really pissed off when anyone dares to think they might like the perverts art by equating that like of art to a support of the "pervert".

Guess you've thrown out all your MJ records? have you any Jerry Lewis albums lying around? Or Elvis for that matter? How about Gary Glitter?

I hear Axle Rose once hit his girlfriend. We need to make sure we toss those out. Hell let's just start a big art and book buring party for perverts. Dali obviously hated women and Luis Brunel wasn't much better. Toulousse Latrec  was a notorious prostitute user and angry. And don't forget Roden, whose works come pretty much from his mistress Camille Claudel.Van Gogh was a pervert by today's standards. Toss those out too. Could be argued that Warhol was a pervert. We should burn that shit right on up. And I haven't even started on writers yet.

You know, you and a couple other peoiple are on rather nasty little witch hunts aren't you? If we happen to have liked Rosemarys Baby (because we were KIDS when we saw it and knew nothing about the director) we are supporting rape. If we are able to separate the man from his art, we're callous people who still support rape.

 

I really hope you are seeing how absolutely ridcules this is. No one in here is saying we condone what Polanski did. He is a twisted screw and it was a crime. I'm not going to say this again. But the next person who tells me I'm condoning rape because I like his films will be hearing from the moderators. This isn't a freaking witch hunt and for christ sakes no, we should not determine what a pervert is, what art is and how that makes them brilliant (which it doesn't and which has sweet fuck all to do with making art).

 

Unionist

I'm almost finished compiling a list of music that I will never listen to again - starting with the Beatles - because of Phil Spector. I may be a while.

 

Ghislaine

Good post Stargazer. I agree - we can still absolutely love all of Polanski's films (truth be told I have never seen any of them, not purposely - just never have).  If we consider how many more men are considered "artists" than women and how many men have sexually or violently assaulted women - there would be a hell of a lot of great art that was  completely off limits to enjoy and appreciate!

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
I'm almost finished compiling a list of music that I will never listen to again - starting with the Beatles - because of Phil Spector. I may be a while. 

Why?  Did they rape Phil Spector during one of the recording sessions?

Stargazer

No but Phil Spector killed his wife.

Unionist

Actually, he murdered Lana Clarkson, an actress and model, whom he had invited up for a drink - he was (and is) married, but not to her.

 

pookie

Stargazer wrote:

No one in here is saying we condone what Polanski did.

 

Are you sure? Merowe's posts seem to come really close. 

Ghislaine

pookie wrote:

Stargazer wrote:

No one in here is saying we condone what Polanski did.

 

Are you sure?

The only one I have seen condone anything is merowe. Apparently it was the fault of calculating women entrapping poor Polanski into raping her.

Stargazer

Aw okay editted. Yes Merowe's post is really offensive.

Tommy_Paine

I have to admit that I have difficulty separating an artists political views, or crimes, from their art.  This doesn't mean that I think I'm right in that, I really wish I wouldn't do that.  But, it's hard for me not to.

It does colour things.  I wish I never knew that Dali was such a fascist, for example.

But it colours things the other way too.  "On the Water Front", while not a terrible movie, certainly enjoys a certain "suffering artist" patina that it really doesn't deserve.  A lot of the emotional hooks are obvious, the movie is hokey at times. And, if one sees it as Kazan trying to explain his motivations in Roy Cohn and McCarthy's viscious insanity, the movie is really awful to look at.  Kazan himself invites us.

I dissagree with pretty much all the political views that Charleton Heston held.  But that doesn't mean that as an actor, he was any good.  He sucked.  He would have sucked had he been a marxist.  And being a lefty does nothing to improve the awful acting of Alec Baldwin.

I've seen a few Polanski movies.  I think they're ordinary.   Rosemary's Baby was boring. 

I don't think Polanski's "art" suffers from his infamy.

Quite the contrary.

Stargazer

But Tommy, there are a lot of people who had zero idea what his background was, and these people enjoy his movies. It isn't because of what he did that they enjoyed them. It is because for them, they liked the movies. Just like when we were kids and watched Rosemary's Baby. And I confess, Bitter Moon is one of my favourite movies of all time. And that is a Polanski film.

This doesn't mean either:

1) that I support Polanski's crime

2) That I am complicit in the young girl's rape

3) That we only like the movies because of his crime.

 

Tommy_Paine

I don't dissagree, Stargazer.  I just think all the effusive talk by Polanski's deffenders, particularly his European deffenders, about him being a great artiste are overblown. I'm not saying he's a terrible director, either. 

remind remind's picture

The culture of rape has continued to grow, not diminish, perhaps if Polanksi had been boycotted instead of lauded it would not have gone so far as it has.  By accepting his actions without boycott,  because one personally believes his work is brilliant, IMV, one gives a clear message to other men who are preditors of young girls. And that message is "go ahead".

We have viewed man after man in the "hollywood rock royalty set", to  be twisted fucks and get away with their crimes, and what kind of message has that given? Men can do what they want, and young women are the perks that they get.

My kidnapper, rapist, and would be murderer, went on to become a multi-millionaire business man, should I laud him for his brilliance in business and say it stands alone?

I don't, I lament the fact that he has had more access to other girls and women, because of his success, than he would have had he remained a simple farmer. Plus a whole whack of other things.

So too with Polanski, lack of; boycotts in a strong measure,  and ostracization, has allowed him to continue on with his sick fuck pursuits, and allowed others to to believe they can get away with too. Hence the further entrenchment of the culture of rape.

 Phil Spector did what he did  30+ years after  his affiliation with the Beatles, so it  as an example can hardly be taken seriously.

And frankly attempts to silence those who have a strong opinion, about what accepting Polanski's actions has done to society and for accepting the culture of rape, is...unacceptable.

 

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

Okay so since no moderator has yet come forward to address Merowe's stinking pile of misogynist bullshit, I suppose it's up to me.

Merowe wrote:

Because, when I think of rape, I think of rampaging Congolese soldiers, or sadists lurking in dark alleys who take their pleasure at least as much from the violent component as the intercourse.

While this may come as a huge shock to you, legal definitions of rape do not, in fact, hinge on what you, yourself, you, "think" of what rape is. Most women are raped by someone they know and trust.

And the phrase "rampaging Congolese soldiers" stinks of vile hateful racism. No. I. Am. Not. Calling. You. Racist. DO NOT use such language on babble. Ever.

Merowe wrote:

I don't think of compliant underage aspiring models and actresses who wind up on the casting couch. When the term 'rape' starts flying around as thickly as it is here, I think we need to keep in mind the wide range of behaviours it covers, and take note of the distinctions.

"We" are in fact doing that. You are not.

Merowe wrote:

Regarding this case, I must once again note that Polanski long ago apologized and settled with the child he violated, presumably to their mutual satisfaction if she took the trouble to initiate court proceedings to have the matter dropped, as she did last year. I note that she made the decision to seek to have the charges dropped of her own volition - as a fully autonomous adult and not incidentally married with children of her own to care for. But what do her wishes count for in this? There's a principle at stake here! We have to burn the village to save it!

Polanski, however, has not been held to account for what he was, in fact, CONVICTED FOR. And to speak of settling with the young woman, at the time, monetarily I'm assuming you are referring to, something I don't believe is true, and even if it were, the phrase "their mutual satisfaction" demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about the trauma of rape, it's lasting effects on women, and how power and position affect how rape is understood.

Merowe wrote:

At 74 years of age, it is unlikely he poses a threat to other underage women; what in God's name is the point of continuing this prosecution, what does it accomplish?

I dunno, perhaps because he BROKE THE LAW by running away to Europe?

Merowe wrote:
 Because to me, I just see a braying pack of angry villagers waving torches and pitchforks, stirred up on cue by a gutter press and incoherent with emotion, and not too fussy about the details. 'Rape' they yell, then everything goes red...

First of all the references to "braying pack of angry villagers" is offensive. No. I. Am. Not. Calling. You. Offensive. DO NOT use such language on babble. Ever.

And, um, have you ever read anything on how the mainstream takes up the "story" of any rape or other violence against women? Are we reading the same papers, watching the same t.v. news? Women are vilified, blamed; their pain, trauma and humiliation is minimized; irrelevant information such as the woman's sexual history and the man's position in the community are bandied about. You have, in fact, in your vile screed at post #38 demonstrated everything that happens. And in a case in which there is none of the "he said she said" nonsense, also speaks to ignorance of the facts themselves as they've been recorded. Please read Katha Pollit's piece in The Nation.

The mods will have a discussion regarding if Merowe is to be suspended for a time or banned altogether.

remind remind's picture

Quote:
On the New York Times op-ed page, schlock novelist Robert Harris celebrated his great friendship with Polanski, who has just finished filming one of Harris' books: "His past did not bother me." This tells us something about Harris' nonchalant view of sex crimes,

The widespread support for Polanski shows the liberal cultural elite at its preening, fatuous worst. They may make great movies, write great books, and design beautiful things, they may have lots of noble humanitarian ideas and care, in the abstract, about all the right principles: equality under the law, for example. But in this case, they're just the white culture-class counterpart of hip-hop fans who stood by R. Kelly and Chris Brown and of sports fans who automatically support their favorite athletes when they're accused of beating their wives and raping hotel workers.

 

No wonder Middle America hates them.

from Katha Pollit's article.

Which basically mirrors what I stated over here in post #50 and in post #39 above.

 

Michelle

Sorry, folks, I was off sick yesterday (and today too) so I only checked in earlier in the day and missed Merowe's utterly offensive post.  Thanks for posting what you did about it, Maysie.  I agree entirely. 

Caissa

tread drift/hope you feel better soon, Michelle. The Leafs loss can't be helping recovery. Wink/end thread drift

remind remind's picture

Thanks maysie and michelle!

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

First, let me be clear: I think Roman Polanski is a rapist and a coward. I have also found every film I have seen by him compelling and powerful. Timebandit and others believe that these two truths can be held separately in the mind simultaneously. I found myself totally agreing with Stargazer's excellent post.

But the more I think about it, the more I agree with remind and Tommy. Polanski makes films about the social control of sexual deviancy and the subjective repression of illicit desire. And he succumbed to his own demons and raped a thirteen-year-old girl. How can we separate these things? I think that one of the reasons we find Polanksi's films interesting is because he narrativizes his own struggle with deviancy. That is, one of the reasons his films are compelling is because he is a rapist.

We live in a society that fetishizes young girls and objectifies women. Rape underwrites every facet of our culture. I don't think it's wrong to say that I, a product of this society, harbour, despite my best efforts, some sediment of this fact. So when Polanksi allegorizes this conflict, holds a mirror up to society, he has a particularly personal, even intimate investment in it. Nabokov's Lolita isn't such an enduring novel because it sexualizes a young girl--it's interesting because Humbert Humbert spends 200-odd pages justifying an untenable and indefensible desire. That's what art can do: hold up a mirror to our darkest desires and make them real.

It's true that Polanski appeals most to a middle-class, white male, cultural elite. And why not? Middle-class white patriarchy is a rape culture. The elitist detachment just allows us to criticize rape culture while denying particpation in it. I think Polanksi, at least in his films, struggled with the sexual predation of our culture and the attendant sexual desires (who was saying that Catholic Bishops rape young boys because of enforced celibacy? I think there's something of that here). Make no mistake: his struggle does not vindicate him or excuse him in any way. But it is a struggle his films confront, and it is a struggle he failed, criminally, to win.

This is a highly disturbing observation to me. I make no claims on why anyone else likes Polanski, but no one should say they like Lolita but can't understand why anyone would be attracted to a thirteen-year-old. What I don't think we should do is pretend that Polanksi's crime (and the slimy defence being mounted by his colleagues) is a one-off, or isolated in any way. When someone speaks to soceity so effectively, we can't ignore where the message comes from.

Tommy_Paine

We live in a society that fetishizes young girls and objectifies women.

On Monday at 10:00 eastern on CBC Newsworld, "The Passionate Eye" takes a look at this.  A look at the Newsworld site says it's an examination of the internet, but the commercials for it on Newsworld gave me the impression that it takes a broader view,  and includes other aspects of pop culture.

This thread, appropriately or not, was begun trying to link this weeks news about Bishop Lahey's arrest for possession and marketing child pornography, with Roman Polanski's long, long over due arrest for rape.

And, it occurs to me that this is something I have been unsuccessfull in articulating.   How this society roundly condemns pedophilia, but at the same time sexualizes children more, and more and more. It is making young girls see themselves as sexual objects, and normalizing the perception of young girls as sexual objects.

I have difficulty articulating this, because I haven't got the language skills.  I don't know how to address what's happening in pop culture without using the language of prudes, the family values political/religious agenda loons, and those that are just plain anti-other people having sex.

Because that's not me either, by a long shot. 

I mean, I'm all for adults being free to do what they like, and I think we'd all be happier if we were free to explore sexuality.  I like fetish stuff.   But when you see it on "Bratz" dolls at Zellers, offered up for sale to your seven year old daughter, something is terribly, terribly wrong.

And I remain aghast that there are those in the media that would gloss over the fact that Polanski druged and raped a 13 year old girl.  What is it that silences the bell in your head that goes off when you see something that is undeniably, unequivocably wrong.

Anyway.  I'm getting emotional.

 

 

Unionist

remind wrote:

 Phil Spector did what he did  30+ years after  his affiliation with the Beatles, so it  as an example can hardly be taken seriously.

Gee, thanks - now I have to go retrieve those CDs before they pick up the recycling...

 

remind remind's picture

NP, and thanks also...for your continued trivilization.

Phil Spector's murderous actions stand apart from the Beatles, who ceased to be 39 years ago, and had he murdered someone years ago, he would have been in jail, and the Beatlles would still have been the Beatle's, juxtapositioning him and continued support of the Beatles, with Polanski's actions and people's continued support of him, and his fleeing from justice, is...distasteful, at best.

 

remind remind's picture

Thank you sincerely, Catchfire and Tommy, for your words and realizations.

And yes Tommy, it is very emotiona,l especially when you face the knowlege that generations of women in your family  and many many others, have been raped, and to face that fact and liklihood of it happening to your granddaughter too, is great, given the increased, not the decreased culture of rape occuring.

I will perhaps continue further  in addressing some of your fine points later on, but am too angry to do so now.

Sunday Hat

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Don't we need to examine why a pervert is able to create art that is deemed brilliant?

I've been troubled by this for a while. It really made my skin crawl when the Pianist won all of the Oscars - even though it may be a brilliant movie (haven't actually seen it). What troubles me isn't so much that Polanski commited a crime, it's that he's so utterly unrepentant about it. He tried to smear his victim's reputation. He refused to face justice. He's spent the last decades insisting it was no big deal.

But he's made some good movies.

It's funny. When I first saw Chinatown I knew nothing about the guy and I loved the movie. I can't enjoy the film now. I can't say it's now a "bad movie" - it's as good as when I first saw it - I just can't escape the fact that an unreptenent child-molesting rapist made it. I view it through that lens.

In the same way I can't enjot Ezra Pound's poetry. He was brilliant but he was also a fasicst. In the same way my enjoyment of John Steinbeck declined when I learned about his avid support of the Vietnam war.

It's a personal thing though. Odious people can make great art - I just can't enjoy it.

ETA: Funny thing: I still listen to Phil Spector or Ike Turner records and enjoy them.

Unionist

Giving up on that antisemite Shakespeare was one of my greatest personal trials, but I think I'm over it now.

 

Snert Snert's picture

In a similar vein, another thread is discussing whether or not Bruce Cockburn is a pariah for entertaining the troops.

Unionist

Snert wrote:

In a similar vein, another thread is discussing whether or not Bruce Cockburn is a pariah for entertaining the troops.

He is a pariah for entertaining the troops - and he's done some fine musical work. Life is a river.

 

 

remind remind's picture

"What is it that silences the bell in your head that goes off when you see something that is undeniably, unequivocably wrong."

Lack of empathy and/or singular focus on what you personally, or your gender/social group gain, perhaps?

And I say this with the understanding that it is unconscious perhaps in many.

Or perhaps even it is indoctrination of the Pavlovian kind, in some cases.

Then we cannot discount those, who feel they have every right to this, for whatever personal reason they have to justify their desires.

 

martin dufresne

Life is a river... and some people throw babies in it while some people try to save them and keep the offenders from doing that.

Re: the rapist v. great artist "dilemma", it seems to me that what is telling about is that we choose to set up this false dichotomy rather than insist thet a rapist be treated as a rapist and support whatever juridiction does that. I find it distressing that people react to the accounts of the rape he committed with "Yes but he's made great films" or "Yes but this other artist mistreated women".

S-O  F-U-C-K-I-N-G  W=H-A-T?!!!

(BTW a friend of mine met Polanski socially in the late sixties and tells me he was/is a total lecher.)

Stargazer

Martin that was a very ingenuous post. Besides merowe, not one person in this thread said BUT he makes great art so let's forgive him. Not one. In fact, everyone has stated he should do the time for the rape he committed against the young girl. You and a few others are stating, pretty obviously, that if we happen to like a couple of his movies, we're supporting him. It is total bullshit.

 

remind remind's picture

Would you go shop in the store of a known pedophile and rapist just because he had  what you perceived to be good quality clothing, or products? Would  you advocate others go to his store and support his life style?

Would you go to the home of a pedophile rapist, or let one into your home?

I doubt it, so why would you let one into your mind and pleasure emotions?

martin dufresne

If I am stating what you say I'm stating this "obviously", why don't you actually quote me, Stargazer? People discussing Polanski's alleged brilliance in the context of the rape he committed or other famous artists' misogyny is all I am getting at. It's (at best) a non sequitur and this is what I protested. As for supporting him, I never said anyone here did but it is obvious many outside of here are, and even more were content trotting off to see his films regardless of his criminal record and total disregard for justice and for women's and children's rights.

Stargazer

Okay this is beyond ridicules. I'll leave you two alone. I'm out of this thread. Fucking insulting.

And screw you both you claiming you have the corner on fucking morality. Let's have a look at all the books, music and movies you have, and I'll bet dollars for fucking donuts I can find something alarming and anti-women. Now leave me alone. I've fucking had it.

Pleasure my emotions? Holy shit. Yes remind, I'm often wont to have pedos over for tea and toast. And I'm not a feminist or a women who has survived rape. Nope. You guys have the corner on morality. Just you.

remind remind's picture

No one was claiming any such thing, in respect to yourself,.

I simply cannot fathom people who have let this man into their minds, and  have derived, and do derive pleasure from his work.

It is sickening  and insulting to me as a survivor of rape.

Not sure what you are on about, as I stated that I know you would not have one over, or go shopping in one's place of business, nor have anything personal to do with one, so I am trying to wrap my head around why you would allow one into your mind, and yes into your pleasure centre in your brain, as you have stated you enjoy his films, even though you know what he is.

This is not a personal attack, it is trying to understand, the discontinuity of actions and perceptions.

 

Unionist

Is it possible for people here to STOP ATTACKING EACH OTHER? This is a small community, and we need to be able to talk about issues.

 

Stargazer

Pleasure centre? Really? Didn't you just defend the Catholic church over in another thread? You know what I can't fathom? Is how people would defend an institution and it practices that villify women and girls and which defends pedo priests. 

Are we done yet? Or are we playing "Who is the hypocrite for 50 dollars?"

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

martin dufresne wrote:

Re: the rapist v. great artist "dilemma", it seems to me that what is telling about is that we choose to set up this false dichotomy rather than insist thet a rapist be treated as a rapist and support whatever juridiction does that. I find it distressing that people react to the accounts of the rape he committed with "Yes but he's made great films" or "Yes but this other artist mistreated women".

It's not a dilemma.  It's a paradox.

ETA:  The most interesting and troubling thing about human beings is that they aren't two-dimensional, and within most of us are contradictory and conflicting ideas, habits, compulsions, abilities and beliefs.  If Polanski would have kept his themes of taboo and desire on the screen and not acted on them in real life, very few people would have a problem with them.  The problem is that he did act on them, and for that he should be given a proper sentence. 

I suppose it's the difference between policing actions and policing thoughts.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

remind wrote:

No one was claiming any such thing, in respect to yourself,.

I simply cannot fathom people who have let this man into their minds, and  have derived, and do derive pleasure from his work.

It is sickening  and insulting to me as a survivor of rape.

Not sure what you are on about, as I stated that I know you would not have one over, or go shopping in one's place of business, nor have anything personal to do with one, so I am trying to wrap my head around why you would allow one into your mind, and yes into your pleasure centre in your brain, as you have stated you enjoy his films, even though you know what he is.

This is not a personal attack, it is trying to understand, the discontinuity of actions and perceptions.

 

 

I think you are over-personalizing this, remind.  Whether the films are artful or not has nothing to do with you. 

remind remind's picture

Actually...that paradox comment is helpful, Timebandit.

Perhaps enough time has not been devoted to discussing moral paradoxes, as really that appears to be what we are doing.

ETA: Timebandit, when "art" and "the artist, sell rape it sure as hell has wsomething to do with me, and it isn't fucking art in my view. It is pandering to one's personal pleasures at the expense of others and society.

Stargazer

Oh, well then, we all pander to our own pleasures don't we. Often at the expense of others. Do you drive? That's my lungs you're affecting. Do you eat meat? You're supporting the inhumane slaughter of animals. Do you attend church? You're proping up corrupt religions used to demean others to a place called "hell". Do you watch any shows that any one may deem objectionable? I'm sure you do. I suggest you stop, right now. It's simply "pandering to your own pleasures".  I suggest you take a poll. Allow people to come into your home, go through all your books, movies, art etc. then do a background check on every last one of them. Then once that is done, post your findings here so someone can come along and tell you how morally bankrupt you are, because according to them, you are simply "pandering to your pleasure" and obviously not thinking of society at large.

The Moral Majority would take a keen interest in those findings.

 

remind remind's picture

I was not defending the Catholic Church at all, not even close, go back and read my posts stargazer.

I was stating to defame one, while not defaming the other is hyprocritical, at best.

If one does good in one area, but bad in another, just because one is allegedly a "brilliant artist" does not mean there should not be equal overarching condemnation.

There should be a boycott of it all.

The culture of rape and pedeophilia has to STOP, full stop.

~

And now that I think more about this  how dare you accuse me of taking this too personally, Timebandit. I can bet you dollars to doughnuts, that if some middle aged whack, who was a film maker, raped and sodomized one of your daughters, you would not think his "art" was  brilliant.

 

martin dufresne

To call this a paradox is to accept the notion that Polanski's sexual assault on this child and his films are somewhat on the same plane, that they constitute a contradiction per se and that one can't do one if he does the other. I don't accept that.

What I would accept is the weight of personal choices, e.g. someone saying "I am so dead set against rape that I wouldn't accept a rapist as someone deserving admiration because of something else he or she did," or "I am so admirative of artists that I would never let whatever heinous stuff an artist did affect my appreciation of his/her art."

So there is no contradiction or paradox: some people give a moral pass to "brilliant" enough artists (or politicians or sports heroes or members of minority groups), and some peole blackball rapists/child molesters. whatever else they do. which I think they are entled to do without incurring the wrath of art fundamentalists.

remind remind's picture

This is worth a repeat:

Quote:
The widespread support for Polanski shows the liberal cultural elite at its preening, fatuous worst. They may make great movies, write great books, and design beautiful things, they may have lots of noble humanitarian ideas and care, in the abstract, about all the right principles: equality under the law, for example. But in this case, they're just the white culture-class counterpart of hip-hop fans who stood by R. Kelly and Chris Brown and of sports fans who automatically support their favorite athletes when they're accused of beating their wives and raping hotel workers.

 

No wonder Middle America hates them.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Quote:
"You ask a profound question. You are a very intelligent man, Daddy. You ask, 'If you respect life in all forms, how can you live?' The answer is you cannot. The traditional way by which a Jain holy man ends his life is by salla khana--self-starvation. Ritual death by salla khana is the price paid for perfection by the perfect Jain."

--Phillip Roth, American Pastoral (1997)

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

remind wrote:

~

And now that I think more about this  how dare you accuse me of taking this too personally, Timebandit. I can bet you dollars to doughnuts, that if some middle aged whack, who was a film maker, raped and sodomized one of your daughters, you would not think his "art" was  brilliant.

 

remind, stop trying to pick a fight with me by getting personal.  I've asked you in other threads in the past to leave my kids out of these discussions - it's not germane.

The reason I suggested that you were over-personalizing the issue is that you're insisting that if we all don't take your view re: boycott and what constitutes art, we are supporting a culture of rape.  It's bullshit.  We may be looking at it from a different perspective, but censorship by smear is underhanded and I'd really appreciate it if you'd back the hell off.

Pages

Topic locked