Did Roman Polanski's rape of an underage girl make you boycott..

[Fountain79]

his movies? This is basically a take on the whole Mel Gibson thing. I like his movies,(Freedom!) but I obviously can't condone his actions and hope that he honestly tries to make amends with the Jewish community. That being said, are the same people who are saying that they would never again see a Mel Gibson movie, going to say that they will never support a Roman Polanski film?

[CoffeeCat]

1. The important thing...

...is that Gibson has been revealed for the liar and the fraud that he is.

He lied repeatedly to the public in dozens of interviews--when he insisted that he harbored NO anti-Semitic views. He said his anti-Semitic upbringing had no affect on him. Furthermore, he depicted Jews in a very negative light in "Passion of the Christ."

Again, he insisted that he held no bad feelings toward the Jewish people, despite the film casting Jews in a very negative light.

He lied. He frickin lied about his beliefs. He portrayed the Jewish people as ugly, evil dogs in "Passion" while claiming that he was just depicting history.

For all we know--he made that movie solely to spread anti-Semitic messages.

So--he's an anti-Semitic liar and a drunk who makes movies. Roman Polanski is a child molester who makes movies. What's important is the truth surfaced about these people. I'm so tired of people lying. Lying has become a mundane sport for many people, and I think it's good news when we know the truth about people who otherwise hide their crimes.

[Fountain79]

2. At least Mel Gibson faced the music...

Roman Polanski is in France avoiding extradition, and the last time I checked, however despicable it is, being anti-semitic is not against the law.

[QuestionAll...]

8. I think I saw a different Passion movie than you did, Sparkles...

that is, you Did see it, right?

""He portrayed the Jewish people as ugly, evil dogs in "Passion" while claiming that he was just depicting history.""

I didn't get that impression at all - it was the Romans that were the evil dogs in my eyes.

[JVS]

27. I think that modern secular viewers are more likely to sympathize with...

the Romans in the film. Basically what we have in the film is a man who spreads unorthodox religious teachings being caught between two sides. The religious traditionalists (headed by Caiaphas) who view this guy as a threat are one faction, and the Romans (best exemplified by Pilate) who are largely indifferent to the religious implications of this new "messiah" but very much concerned with keeping an occupied territory stable are the other faction.

Pilate's stance of "I don't care what this guy claims to be, but he's a pain in the ass and my life would better if I agreed to have him killed" seems a lot more reasonable from a modern perspective than "This man is a heretic and must be taken down", which is considered passe by all but the most recalcitrant fundamentalists.

If it were possible to find a group of fundamentalists who are unfamiliar with the story ( unlikely, perhaps someday aliens will arrive and they'll have a zealous attitude toward their own religion ;-) ), it would be interesting to see their reaction to the film. I imagine that they'd view Pilate's relativism (the whole "what is truth?" thing) to be totally offensive, but could see Caiphas inquisitorial style ( "You've been brought here as a blasphemer! What do you say to that? Defend yourself.") as a completely legitimate way of dealing with religious dissent.

Anyway, what I'm kind of saying is that I could easily see where a modern viewer might think that Jewish characters come across as nastier than the Roman ones because the Romans' character flaws as written into the story (decadence and moral indifference) are a lot more palatable to us than those of their Jewish counterparts (zealotry and intolerance).

Another factor that comes into play is that the positive Jewish characters (Joseph, Jesus, Mary, the apostles) are often viewed through the modern lens which is built around a dichotomy between Jewish and Christian) Since this takes place before Paul went off to convert the gentiles, the original context is the religious conflict is between different factions of Judaism.

edit: Caiphas is hard to spell

[timtom]

40. The "Jewish" characters are not all Jews.

The Jewish characters who conspired to hand over Jesus to the Roman authorities for disposition, are, in fact, still with us today. Jewishness is completely beside the point in either case. Today, they are the Neocons and their apologists, as well as the televangelists with their cries of "Immorality!" (until it involves them).

If any characters in the "Passion" seem ugly, it is because of their black hearts -- not because of their ethnicity or religion.

Thanks for allowing me to attach myself to your post. I'm sort of a cyber-lamprey.

[Mandate My Ass]

56. Then Jesus was a terrorist, wasn't he?

Basically what we have in the film is a man who spreads unorthodox religious teachings being caught between two sides. The religious traditionalists (headed by Caiaphas) who view this guy as a threat are one faction, and the Romans (best exemplified by Pilate) who are largely indifferent to the religious implications of this new "messiah" but very much concerned with keeping an occupied territory stable are the other faction.

Religiously out of the "mainstream" and publicly advocating throwing off the Roman yoke. If Jesus comes back, he'd better watch out for the neocons in the US and Israel.

[LostinVA]

45. I agree with Spar\les -- I saw it that way, too

Especially since he used a lot of Emmerlich's anti-semitic "meditations," including the whole blood libel thing -- which WAS in the movie.

[Ohio Joe]

47. I agree

Before I had sen the film, I had heard that it was very anti-semitic. After viewing it myself though, I did not see that at all.

[walldude]

71. I saw it.. and I can safely say that not only was the movie

anti-semetic but he went out of his way to make the Jews look like a money hungry, bloodthirsty race. As I was coming out of the theater I thought maybe it was just me, until I heard a little kid asking her parents why the Jews were so mean. Gibson got his point across...

[madmusic]

73. Little kid?

Isn't the movie rated "R"?

[QuestionAll...]

75. taking a kid to that movie is just plain stupid.

maybe the stupid rubbed off on him/her with that question.

[mike_c]

3. who cares...?

I mean really-- who gives a rat's buttocks? We're talking about barking entertainers here, not people whose opinions actually mean more than mine or yours. So who gives a damn what Mel Gibson thinks about anything? If you find his movies entertaining, go see them. If you don't, don't. But for god's sake anyone who boycotts his movies because he's a loony idiot in his private life takes their entertainment way too seriously, IMO.

[Fountain79]

4. I agree...

that was my point. And I personally liked the Pianist, just didn't care for the guy who directed it.

[CanuckAmok]

12. Man, if everybody were to boycott movies based on the behaviour...

...of many of the people involved in making them, the industry would implode in 26 seconds.

Everybody has skeletons in their closets. Richard Dreyfus was busted snorting coke on the dashboard of his car while driving in the eighties, and most people don't seem to have it out for him.

Mel Gibson's a nutcase. So's Tom Cruise. So's Drew Barrymore. So's about 90% of the members of the Screen Actors' Guild. Actors are crazy. But I'm not paying them to be my moral beacon or to set society's ethical bar; I'm paying them to make me laugh or cry fulfil revenge fantasies or whatever.

[Benhurst]

5. No, but Mel's crappy movies have made me boycott anything

he is associated with.

[Fountain79]

6. You didn't like Braveheart?

:wtf:

[Benhurst]

19. I am an historian by training, and Braveheart was very bad

history even by Hollywood's standards.

[LostinVA]

46. Bingo -- it appalled me when I say it

As an historian by education, and a history preserver by profession.

Don't even get me started about the blue woad and "Great S0-Called Kilt" when I'm drunk. Nor the lack of Bridge at Sirling...

Plus, the movie is HOMOPHOBIC.

[joe_sixpack]

81. As historians,

you don't really expect Hollywood to be historically accurate in films do you? If you are, you are in for a lot of disappointment, and Gibson by far is not the first or only one to take extreme poetic license.

[CanuckAmok]

7. I don't think "rape" is the word I'd use.

And to answer your question, no.

It's never been established that Polanski drugged or forced Samantha Geimer into sex. The original charges of "rape by use of drugs", and "Furnishing a controlled substance to a minor" were dropped. Polanski's and Geimer's testimony agrees that he and Geimer were drinking champagne during a photo shoot when she was 13, but her original claims of being drugged and losing consciousness were proven to be false.

There is also evidence that Geimer, who was sexually active prior to the incident and in a relationship with a 19 year old man at the time, was attempting to blackmail Polanski, but these allegations, too, don't stand up well to close scrutiny.

Clearly he is guilty of statutory rape (by his own admission), and really poor judgement, but any allegations that the sex was not consensual have not been proven. Of course, there's a whole other issue about whether a 13 year old is able to consent to sex, but that's what the (still existing) charge of stat rape is for.

[Fountain79]

9. Again...he's hiding in France right now..

avoiding punishment.

[CanuckAmok]

14. If I were him, I'd hide, too.

If he had faced arrest, he would have been held in remand, as is foreign citizenship automatically defines him as a high rick of flight (from proescution). He would have been held in remand, without bail, for god knows how long until the trial began.

A small, rich, foreign, middle-aged artist, accused of child molestation, and from a Communist country, no less... He'd last exactly three seconds in holding. I'd have booked, too.

I'm not defending what he did with the girl, I'm just saying his fleeing the country does necessarily indicate his guilt or innocence. You have to remember that by fleeing the US, he basically destroyed his career; I'm sure it wasn't a decision he took lightly. I'm sure his decision was based on discussions with his lawyer(s) and other experts on the law, and made his decision based on their expert advice.

[LynneSin]

26. Destroyed his Career - what the hell is that Oscar with his name on it

and I saw "The Pianist" - fucking amazing film

[CanuckAmok]

37. He still makes good movies, no doubt about that...

...but If he had stayed in America, he could easily have been on-par, commercially, with Spielberg, Oliver Stone, etc.

And the only reason he's a household name today is because of his personal life.

Not that he's hurting financially, I'm sure, but he'd be a triple-digits millionaire if he had continued along his career path @ Rosmary's Baby. Instead, he produces arguably excellent films, but in a far less lucrative system, and to a smaller audience.

[KitSileya]

64. Heck, if I was a male arrested in the US,

I would have done my darndest to avoid getting put in prison too - regardless. Jails in America don't have very good reputations! (My school is also in charge of the education program in my city's main prison - I've never taught there, but many of my colleagues do, and I get a completely different impression of what it's like to be a prisoner in a Norwegian jail.)

However, statutory rape is statutory rape, and if you're guilty, you deserve the punishment. What you don't deserve is to be raped, abused, or killed. America, like many uncivilized countries, can't guarantee the safety of people put on trial or awaiting their appeals, so I don't think it's unreasonable to question the American prison system. That doesn't mean that people should escape punishment, just that I don't like the fact that they may be victims of crimes that in any other circumstances would warrant their own trials while imprisoned. Cruel and unusual punishment, and all that.

As for Roman Polanski and Mel Gibson, I like neither. The first for the crime he was accused of, the second for his bigotry. And I'm not talking about his anti-semitism here. I read in an interview that he believed that his wife, though he admits that she's a better Christian than himself, will not be saved, simply because she's an Episcopalian and not a Catholic. As a practising Catholic myself, that got my heckles up - none of us believers can guarantee that we'll be saved, and others won't. That's for God to decide. Anyone who're certain that some people won't be saved, or that they will, is wrong, and arrogant to a degree I cannot stand. I've therefore not seen any of his movies in theater, nor bought any of his dvds, and I only saw Passion of the Christ because I temped in a class where they were to see it (Norwegian seniors in High school has to take a class called 'religion and ethics', which teaches comparative religion and comparative ethics.)

[WinkyDink]

32. Age 13 makes it rape. Period and ipso facto.

[CanuckAmok]

63. That's for a court to decide. Is so, fatso

n/t

[Zensea]

10. Polanski escaped the Holocaust

Interesting choice as your example to make your point especially considering what Gibson is in hot water regarding.
born 1933
"Polanski directed the critical and commercial hits Rosemary's Baby (1968, starring Mia Farrow) and Chinatown (1974, starring Jack Nicholson). A childhood survivor of the Krakow ghetto in Nazi-occupied Poland, he began acting as a teen, then went to film school and in the late 1950s began winning international awards for his short films."

[Fountain79]

13. Does that change the fact that he committed statuary rape?

and is avoiding prosecution to this day?

[Zensea]

15. what if it doesn't?

In judging someone and their life it's always a good idea to look at the whole picture, don't you think?
Different folk will have different judgments regarding how to factor all the pieces.
Charles Manson murdered Polanski's wife as well.
My judgment is that Polanski's actions will not cause me to boycott his films & Gibson's actions might.
Of course, I've been basically boycotting them as a matter of taste all along -- that is, I certainly haven't paid to see one.
:)

I also doubt anything I could say will change your mind on this subject so that's my last word.

[CanuckAmok]

17. Yeah, point is that he hasn't made a decent movie in years.

The Lethal Weapon series is a joke, Payback was just embarrasing, and... uh... well, I can't think of any othe semi-recent MG vehicles.

I liked "The Road Warrior", though. I'll never boycott that one!

[ugarte]

16. How many rock stars do you suppose have had sex with underage girls?

You would have a very empty music library if you boycotted them all.

[WinkyDink]

33. 13??? I can think of only one: Bill Wyman.

Well, him and The Killer, but at least Jerry Lee's included marriage!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

57. Wow, he raped a statue?

And before Viagra was invented, no less?

THAT's power!

[NashVegas]

61. He Committed Rape, Period

The 12 year old was not a willing participant.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

65. Why does such a term - "statutory rape" exist then? -nt

[NashVegas]

68. To Differentiate Consensual Under-Age Sex from Non-Consensual of Any Age

..

[DianaForRussFeingold]

11. I believe it was a setup! Maybe another media distraction

We have more important things to worry about! He is in rehab. It is hard to get over the way you are raised,but I think he really deserves another chance. He may make it up to the Jewish community. There are things he could do to make it up. He apologized! I think we should accept it move on and make peace. On the other hand I have no forgiveness for Roman Polanski's rape of a child.

[Throd]

18. Woody Allen's actions sure as hell did!

Just looking at him makes me uneasy. I used to love his films as a teenager.

[CanuckAmok]

20. He's still a great film-maker.

Okay, all his films are about being an insecure, neurotic, deviant nerd. Why was anybody surprised when we learned he really is one?

[Throd]

23. Sorry, I missed the child rape movie.

[CanuckAmok]

38. Whatever.

:eyes:

[Fountain79]

39. Oh...snap! n/t

[CanuckAmok]

51. Fine then....

Woody Allen never lived with Soon Yi when she was a minor and under Mia Farrow's guardianship/adoptive parenthood.

Soon Yi was never Allen's adopted daughter.

There has never been any credible evidence of any sort that Allen and Soon Yi had any sort of sexual relationship when she was a minor.

The allegations of statutory rape were basless, and made by a hostile third party (Farrow) who was clearly angry about the end of her relationship with Allen. At the time, Farrow also accused Allen of sexually assaulting another adopted daughter, who was then 7. The NYPD investigated the allegations and found absolutely no evidence supporting Farrow's claim.

For the record, Farrow was once married to a man twenty-nine years older than herself (Frank Sinatra. He was 50, she, 21), and she somehow never found that inappropriate. Pot, meet kettle.

Soon Yi and Allen, as far as all evidence suggests, began a romantic/sexual relationship when Soon Yi was 22 years old.

22 is considered an adult age under the law of every state in the US, and every nation on the planet.

Farrow's allegations of Allen and Soon Yi being in a sexual relationship were based on her discovery of nude photos of Soon Yi taken by Allen. The photos were examined by experts in child-porn identification and photographic evidence and they unanimously declared that the photos of Soon Yi were taken within two years of their submission as evidence, meaning that the youngest Soon Yi could have been in the photos was 20. Furthermore, the photographs were described in court as being of an "artistic nature", not explicit, porno-mag style.

While the authorities examined all the allegations and evidence thoroughly, there was no cause to furhter investigate, or to charge Allen for any wrong-doings.

You know, because authorities don't really invest much time in prosecuting child molesters, particularly high-profile ones. :eyes:

The only chiding of any kind that Allen received, beyond the condemnation of an ill-informed public, was the judge overseeing the divorce proceedings calling Allen's relationship with Soon Yi "inappropriate".

Allen and Soon Yi have been legally married for nine years and have two children together.

But it's really refreshing to see such reactionary condemnation coming from opinionated ignorami on an so-called "progressive" discussion board, where liberal fundamentals such as "innocent until proven guilty" are held in such high-esteem.

Lucky for you that nobody important reads or gives a damn about our opinions, or you might find yourselves sued for defamation.

Snap that.

[arwalden]

52. Snap... and Bu-u-u-urn!!

[NashVegas]

62. Farrow Was SUCH a Hypocrite

I saw her interviewed in a documentary on Roman Polanski and she was a total apologist for his rape (not just statutory but forced, non-consensual sex) of a 12 year old, saying something like, "but she looked much older."

[RandomKoolzip]

66. Zingo-Wingo!

You earthlings and your earthling logic never fail to astound me.

[rolleitreks]

49. That would be "Manhattan." n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

21. Yes and I also boycott Woodie Allen movies ever since he had sex with his

DAUGHTER and married her. The man turns my stomach. Mel Gibson use to be one of my favorite actors, but he's on my blacklist. He's a drunk, a liar and a bigot. I LOVED Polanski films, but will never pay to see one of them now. I also refuse to watch any Disney films since they REFUSED to show F911 and Michael Moore had to find someone else to distribute the movie. Disney's going to release Gibson's new movie in Decemeber though. $$$$$$ talks to Disney. I hope they were kicking themselves in the ass after they saw how much money F911 made. Disney movies are banned in our home.

[kskiska]

34. Soon Yi was never Woody's daughter

She was Mia's adopted daughter, and he never lived in the same house or acted as her father in any way. She's now 30-something and they have two children.

Mia Farrow was married to Frank Sinatra, a man old enough to be her father. She went on to break up Andre Previn's marriage.

Maybe Lewis Carroll's books should be boycotted because he took photographs of naked little girls.

Elvis moved a teenage Lisa Marie Presley into his home and didn't marry her until a few years later when given an ultimatum by her father.

Roy Orbison and Jerry Lee Lewis had child brides.

The blacklist goes on and on.

[theHandpuppet]

43. Same here

You and I also share the same list. Where a person spends their money is all about choices. For example, I don't support Slave-Mart and make the choice to look for alternatives. They, like actors and filmmakers, have wares to sell and no matter how much I may want something I also consider who's profiting from the sale.

I don't look at it so much as a boycott but choosing not to put hard-earned spending money in the pockets of bigots and pedophiles.

[Fleshdancer]

22. that's the beauty about boycotting....

I can personally decide to boycott anything for any reason. I don't like how Walmart treats its employees so I choose not to shop there. Mel Gibson is a bigot and his recent movies suck so why bother wasting my time and money on him? I don't have to appreciate the "art" of rapists and child molesters and I don't have to support politicians or athletes who launder money or beat their wives. I see no problem with anyone choosing to boycott anything. It's not like my decision to not see something restricts other people from seeing it. :shrug:

[readmoreoften]

24. The difference between Polanski & Woody Allen & Mel Gibson:

Roman Polanski and Woody Allen are consummate intellects and brilliant filmmakers. Mel Gibson is a big budget Hollywood hack who distorts history for action flick "feel good" escapism. Anyone can make a Mel Gibson film. Only Polanski can make a Polanski film. Only Woody Allen can make a Woody Allen film.

So yes, I'd continue to see Polanski and Allen films, but if I want to see big budget shlock, I'll pick a non-RW director thanks.

[Throd]

25. Not trying to pick a fight, but...

...what transgressions does a "brilliant filmmaker" have to commit before you would not watch their product?

[readmoreoften]

36. If I can read Thomas Jefferson, who once wrote that lesbians should have a

hole cut out of their nose so people could identify them, then I can watch a movie made by a talented filmmaker that transgressed sexual norms. The dean of my gradute program confessed to me that he goes to Asia to have sex with young girls. Was I supposed to drop out of my Ph.D. program? Should we censure Elvis? Jerry Lee Lewis?

Mel Gibson's films are basically big budget garbage. If I'm in the mood for big budget garbage, I have plenty of choices. His films are MARKED by his transgression. They are antisemetic and profer a particular worldview. They are propaganda for his hate. If Polanski wrote a movie with sexualized 13 year olds I would find it distasteful. But The Pianist is an Oscar winning film about the Holocaust. Woody Allen's Zelig has nothing to do with sleeping with his 19 year old step daughter.

[Darth_Kitten]

48. Your Dean rapes little girls?

I would report that to somebody, that's sick. :(

[readmoreoften]

82. He's not American and it's not illegal where he goes in Asia.

It's definitely sick, but I don't really think I have anyone to report anything to.

[CanuckAmok]

53. DINGDINGDING!

Finally, a moment of truth.

Well played.

[Throd]

72. Feel free to watch whatever you want

I choose to boycott the products of companies and individuals that I believe are acting in an immoral manner.

As for your dean being an admitted sexual predator, I would have left the program. Again, my choice.

[Dorian Gray]

74. You know somebody that goes to

Asia, on those illegal trips, to have sex with underaged partners? You can (and SHOULD) immediate report him to the FBI! Immediately! They have divisions that specialize in the underage sex trade!

[norml]

28. I just think it's funny the right wing media clowns went on and on...

...about what a smear it was for any to accuse Mel of anti-semitism, and then this happens.

:+

I never have, and have no intention now of boycotting his movies, if they come on TV, and there's nothing better on.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

29. A great movie is a great movie

I don't care if the Director or main actor killed 40 people and is on death row. If the film itself is a great film, that stands on its own as far as I'm concerned. I don't check up on the personal lifestyle of those involved in the creation of a work of art to give my stamp of approval before enjoying the creation. I can approve of the creation without passing judgement on the actions of the creator outside the bounds of the moving picture frame.

Errol Flynn, another Australian, was supposedly a very big anti-semite (some quotes of his I've seen on the Internet are such that I wouldn't even want to paste them here). Also, he apparently left his wife and took up with a 15 year old actress during the last years of his life. I enjoy his old films when they come on TV. I don't think of the personal life of the individuals behind the role or behind the camera.

As far as Mel Gibson is concerned, I kind of liked the original Lethal Weapon when it came out, but I was never overwhelmed with his films. I hated John Wayne's politics but I like his movies. Hating the person does not prevent me from liking or disliking the creation on its own merits. Polanski to me is one of the greats. His early film 'Knife in the Water' is brilliant. What Polanski does outside the movie studio is his own business as far as I'm concerned, unless I've been called as a member of the jury to sit in judgement upon him. The same goes for Woody Allen, whose films I like.

[CanuckAmok]

54. No, you must deny your own pleasure so that your empty theatre seat...

...continues to make absolutely no difference to the major corporations which run the entertainment industry.

[soothsayer]

30. I can't give up Fearless Vampire Killers

[WinkyDink]

31. His movies did that all by themselves.

[Vidar]

35. No, & I'll continue to see Gibson's films & listen to Jerry Lee Lewis

as well. John Wayne & Reagan I boycott, because they couldn't act

[bliss_eternal]

41. I tend to not want to view "the art" of pedophiles...

but that's just me. :eyes:

Given that I also tend not to want to see the art of the bigoted, doubt I'll be running out any time soon to see anything Mel puts out.

If one feels strongly about something, they tend to act and make choices based on those convictions. I choose not to peruse the art of child molesters and bigots. My choice. Others may feel differently and they have that right. :)

No judgements here about what others want to see or not see. Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

[Elidor]

42. Actually, yes

But at least Polanski is good at what he does. I'm aware that I'm missing out on something where his films are concerned. I could never say that about Gibson's dreck, so it's a no-brainer.

[julialnyc]

44. I'll tell you one difference to me

First off the subject matters that both directors go after is quite different. Roman Polanski is outright dark and twisted in many movies and doesn't try to hide it. Anyone see Bitter Moon (and of course Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown,ect..)? I always connect his films with the sot of creepy character he is. Polanski has some female issues and it shows in his films (with adult women).......... but his films don't try to persuade people to think a certain way about a subject matter. And then there's the Pianist. A beautiful film which gave a very specific perspective (and one never shown before) to a piece of history which he lived through.

Then there's Mel. I actually loved Braveheart, but I don't know how accurate it is (I actually loved the love story the most). I don't know how accurate the story of the weak gay prince and his lover is-- but if that's not true it makes me wonder (and here's where I can see his comments left an impression with me).

The Passion of the Christ makes me have issues with Mel and not just for the film itself, but for the phenomenon that followed it. First off, I find it incredibly strange that all the conservative people that were flipping out about Janet Jackson's nipple,now wanted to take children on field trips to see this violent film. I feel that if he wanted the responsibility of bringing the last moments of of Jesus to the theater he could have entered the dialog that this was not an appropriate film for all.

Also, If Polanski started directing movies like Lolita it would make me uncomfortable.

[noonwitch]

50. Not really, but I can't stand to look at Woody Allen anymore

As far as Polanski goes, I'm not a huge fan of his movies. I thought "Rosemary's Baby" was well-done and I saw "Tess", but that's really about it. Plus, he's not acting in his own movies, so I don't see his face.

I do remember a 70's joke about Polanski.
Q"Did you hear about Roman Polanski's new movie?"
A "It's called Close Encounters With The Third Grade!".

Woody Allen, on the other hand, just makes me sick. Partly it's because I actually liked his movies prior to the scandal. Now, everytime I look at him, I think he's a scumbag. I don't think he's funny, I can't even watch his classic movies like "Annie Hall".

[Swamp Rat]

55. Gibson used his art to incite hatred against Jews. Did Polanski do that?

Mel Gibson’s Passion Play

Mr. Gibson has fashioned a blunt instrument of propaganda, edged with artistry, whose visceral power gives it the potential to become his most lethal weapon of all.

By Bruce Chilton
Bernard Iddings Bell Professor of Religion
Bard College
March 2004

(snip)

Medieval passion plays entertained their audiences and at the same time drew them into the sufferings of Christ. These efforts indulged flights of fancy and superstition, manufacturing perfidious Jews, assorted demons, buxom Magdalenes, gargoyle-faced demons, and the like, but they also offered vivid realizations of how Christ, by following the way of the cross, was transformed into his resurrected glory. The intent was to open the path of Christ to all believers.

(snip)

There are many more Jewish tormenters than in the Gospels. Satan weaves in and out of their midst as Jesus is betrayed, mocked, and denied. Satan’s hairless face and head somehow seemed familiar to me, but I could not quite place him at the beginning of the film. I lost my curiosity about that for a while, diverted by the baroque portrayal of the violence inflicted on Jesus by the high priest Caiaphas and his colleagues. They are all opulently but darkly dressed; their interior corruption is manifest. If we have any doubt about the moral standing of the high priesthood, one of Caiaphas’ colleagues wears an eye-patch. Pirates of the Caribbean meets Ben-Hur.

(snip)

As a passion play, this film is a hokey but reverent meditation on the death of Jesus. The music sustains the stately pace through what amounts to the Stations of the Cross that Cyril developed in Jerusalem and that Christians still use for devotion today. The score is derivative, sounding much like some of the work in Gladiator, but it comports well with the film’s tableaux and occasional bursts of violence and splattered blood. (Acting in this case requires no comment because there is no room for it in between static images and violent outbursts, most of which involve flaying latex skin.) More successfully, the camera work affects the aim of a passion play. We look on the action, appalled and uplifted by the various characters. The blind hatred of Caiaphas, the crazed disorientation of Judas, the mute betrayal of Peter, the dithering good will of Pilate, the magnificent loyalty of Jesus’ mother, the smoldering devotion of the Magdalene, the chaste quasi-conversion of Pilate’s wife, the sadistic pleasure of the Roman soldiers, the clueless cross-bearing of Simon of Cyrene: all reflect and heighten our own responses. We ask, as we should, where would we be and where are we in this action? As the film’s deliberate rhythm proceeds, Jesus himself looks up from his agonies to fix his gaze on the characters and on us so as to underline that question.

(snip)

Monty Python tried to be funny and succeeded because Brian was not about Jesus, but Brian. Putting this cockney hero into situations like those Jesus faced, under obviously phony historical circumstances, makes for brilliant parody. In Mr. Gibson’s case, the parody is equally powerful, although unintentional. By mixing together the genre of the passion play with the pretension of historical accuracy, Gibson has inadvertently made his passion play into pious vaudeville. Claims that this film reflects the Gospels or history are cynical. Critics who treat it as a historical work have confused their profession with self-promotion. Were this film directed by Mel Brooks, we would have something to watch with pleasure. But Mr. Gibson’s Passion is libelous farce, poor art, and an incentive for credulous viewers to confuse Christian faith with hatred. After I went home, I watched Die Hard with my younger son and felt morally restored.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Chilton_Passion.htm

[Mass]

78. No, but I see a common point between Woody Allen and Polansky, the two

only names used in this thread. Guess what.

No Christian actors who had problem with the morality?

[Swamp Rat]

80. Huh? Your post was unintelligible.

:shrug:

[Fountain79]

83. I made the argument about Polansky without even

considering the fact he was jewish.

[cgrindley]

58. I love Polanski's films

I love TS Eliot's poetry. Hell, even love some of Pound's poetry. For that matter, a lot of my bills are paid by me teaching Chaucer, and, quite arguably, he kidnapped and raped a young woman.

Gaugin abandoned his family. Einstein even managed to cheat on his mistresses. Joyce was a drunk. And so on.

It's idiotic to confuse the artist with the product. I wouldn't stop seeing Gibson's films, but I might stop financially supporting them.

[treestar]

59. Thing is, one usually does not have time to check out the

complete record and philosophy of a film director and producer and lead actor first before deciding whether or not to see a film.

It's like those who allegedly would not listen to the Dixie Chicks after they heard something of the lead singer's politics. You could inadvertantly end up liking a song and wanting to hear it, only to find out that the singer has some politics you don't like.

[NashVegas]

60. No, But Then Again, The Specific Details Weren't So Widely Known

Until The Smoking Gun published the court transcripts.

Hollywood was apparently full of apologists for Polanski's behavior. Seeing Mia Farrow (of all people!) defend him was a hoot and a half.

I'm sure The Pianist was a great film, but I don't know if I could watch it without thinking about what he did to that little girl.

[uppityperson]

67. Yes I do boycott Polanski's. Not going to boycott Gibsons though

[madmusic]

69. Polanski's victim is a misguided idiot

See for yourself:

Geimer, the victim of statutory rape case against Polanski in 1977, when she was 13, called this week for the movie to be judged on it merits.

"I believe that Mr. Polanski and his film should be honored according to the quality of the work. What he does for a living and how good he is at it have nothing to do with me or what he did to me," said Geimer, describing herself as a happily married mother of three.

Geimer, writing in the Los Angeles Times and speaking in an interview with CNN's Larry King, shed new light on Polanski's flight to France, saying he ran because the judge in the case reneged on a plea bargain struck by both parties that limited Polanski's punishment to the 40 days he had already spent incarcerated awaiting trial.

"Who wouldn't think about running when facing a 50-year sentence from a judge who was clearly more interested in his own reputation than a fair judgment?" Geimer wrote.

O'Neil said Geimer's decision to speak out was remarkable.

"The victim has suddenly painted him in a different light. People think they know what that scandal was about, but they don't. She is the first person to speak and say he fled not because he was running away from the law, but because he was double-crossed by the judge," he said.

http://movies.go.com/awards/oscars2002/news/polanski022603.html

Who the hell does she thinks she is disagreeing with Furies? Happily married? The bitch is in denial. Somebody smarter than her ought to go put that uppity victim in her place. :sarcasm:

[Cleita]

70. No! I have said before that actors are neither heroes nor

role models. They are doing a job pretending to be someone else and that is to entertain us. Many are real sleazeballs in real life and many are salt of the earth, just like in your workplace, neighborhood or place of worship.

[Totally Committed]

76. Yes.

All child rapists should have consequences to face. That was the only consequence at my disposal.

I also now boycott Woody Allen movies.

TC

[Mass]

77. I would not boycott his movies for that, but I hate his views and they

show in the movies he directs. So, he was already on my boycott list for this reason.

[WCGreen]

79. He has essentially made only one movie...

Over and over again...

There is no reason to see anything he does...

I could care less if he is anti-semtic...

Or that Woody Allen likes younger women...

Or that Polanski is alleged to have raped a young girl...

All I know is Woody makes good to great movies...

Polanski is obsessed with blood and the dark side...

And Gibson likes his movies drenched in Blood and gore....

My movie money goes to Woody...

the other two are just not worth it...