Great artists often cannot pass the strict moral code of the day.
Many people can't, in general. I know it's a slippery slide, and hard to know when you are supporting someone or approving of them if you appreciate what they do--and if that supports what they *did*. I admit, I take it on a case by case basis--I do feel that, by this time, I can support Polanski's films and not feel morally bankrupt. But, a part of me does question that.
It's easier to do when they're dead (not that I wish death on Polanski, or Allen for that matter). "Who cares if that crazy man who wrote The Ring actually wrote that he wanted Jews to all die--I love the score!"
^ I was actually uncomfortable watching some of the Ring cycle cause I did feel it had an anti-semitic undercurrent.
And really? The drugging and sodomizing of a 13-year-old girl is considered 'strict' in regards to a moral code?
Other than Rosemary's Baby, I don't really feel an affinity to Polanski's film. So it's easy enough for me to avoid the uncomfortable feeling of supporting a rapist.
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/27/05
My issue is that Polanski not only committed a heinous crime, but he also never paid his debt for it. He ran away without facing any punishment for what he did. Yet people are still working with him and begging for his exoneration, all because he's seen as a "great artist."
I don't judge people who see and/or admire his films, but I do hope that they feel some degree of cognitive dissonance.
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/16/07
Great artists often cannot pass the strict moral code of the day.
This made me lol.
Woody Allen is infamous for his affair with Soon-Yi, but more troubling for me are Mia Farrow's allegations (or at least suggestions) that he molested their five-year old adopted daughter...but I never hear anyone refer to that. I don't know if there is any credence to her claims, and that's why I continue to see his films - I don't know, so I don't judge. Maybe I'm just letting myself off the hook.
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/16/07
I think people are entitled to feel however they want about celebrities and to support or withhold that support however they see fit. I don't boycott Roman Polanski movies, but I get why someone else would. But man, I hope Broadwayhunk was just trolling. Otherwise he's just gross.
I'd like him to back up his point with examples. Show, not tell.
Is he referring to Lindsay Lohan?
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/8/12
I don't care how talented he is. He is still a convicted rapist and child molester.
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/16/07
Only in this day of strict moral codes.
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/8/12
He is a convicted rapist and child molester.
I feel that there are some differences between what Polanski did and what Woody Allen did. Woody did marry his step daughter. Although that isn't a crime, that is still viewed as sketchy behavior by some. However, Polanski committed a crime, knew that he did and as a result fled the country so he wouldn't get caught.
I think that there is a difference between doing something sketchy but not against the law verses clearly breaking the law and running from it.
Woody Allen's marrying his stepdaughter is not so much the issue as the combination of that with the continuing molestation allegations. They could be all wrong, but they are widespread and out there, and have been substantiated by multiple sources.
darque said it for me.
"I think that there is a difference between doing something sketchy but not against the law verses clearly breaking the law and running from it."
Bull****--with all due respect. I spoke stupidly without knowing every detail about the Polanski case (I must live under a rock, but I didn't know about the drugging), but I still call bull**** on that. Everyone I know has done something illegal (usually involving drugs). I've also lived with a family "legacy" that has dealt with a history of incest which, I think Allen has done (adopted child or not). It's stupid to compare the two, and I'm sorry I brought it up, but...
Eric, there is a difference with how our society views things involving children. Using both filmmakers as an example, there are people who have no issue with seeing a Woody Allen movie, because, although disgusting, when Allen married his step daughter, she was of age. When Polanski raped a girl she wasn't and he fled.
Now, I am aware that there are allegations against Allen. but, for the most part, people tend to look past them ( or not know about them) and tend to find the whole thing just plain weird.
But, when it comes to children, there are plenty of people who refuse to give second changes. I am sure that if Polanski went to jail for what he did, served his time and when he came out started to make movies again, there would still be people who would boycott them. Another example of this is the Broadway actor James Barbour. Barbour did a crime, went to jail, served his time. And, yet, there people who still refuse to see him. Society does view people who do ilegal differently than someone who does something that is just plain weird. That is the point that i am trying to make.
That's well said, and I agree. I admit I completely put my own feelings into it.
Appreciate the art, revile the artist.
While we're on the subject of these two directors, it's odd how Mia Farrow has testified against one (Woody) but for the other (Polanski)...anyway, yeah...Venus In Fur...maybe I'll just wait 'til it's on tv, that's a dandy solution right?
They show French films in American TV now? :P
Um, does the Jimmy Fallon remake of Taxi count?
Videos