Fr. Roman Polanski...

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?

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

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).

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!

No but Phil Spector killed his wife.

Stargazer wrote:

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

 

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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.)

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.