Roman Polanski season at BFI

(140 Posts)
BelleCurve Sun 30-Dec-12 15:58:37

www.bfi.org.uk/roman-polanski

I think it is awful that the BFI is organising a retrospective to celebrate child rapist Roman Polanski - any MNers want to campaign against it?

dangalf Tue 08-Jan-13 14:30:22

@Picadillycervix - well we only have avidence of one case despite what suspicions you may have based on that incident.
nor am I suggesting that victims choose the punishment - I was responding to apoint made by another poster stating that his victim would take no comfort from it being an isolated (as far as anyone here knows) event.

PiccadillyCervix Tue 08-Jan-13 14:31:37

You serve time for each crime that is why you get a longer sentence. Every individual crime of sexual abuse against a child is as evil as evil gets.

dangalf Tue 08-Jan-13 14:31:51

@drjohnsonscat - I believe the Saville stuff blew up not because of a retrospective but because Newsnight did not show the film alleging the crimes of Saville. It was rumoured this was because there was going to be retrospective and BBC people did not want to rock the boat.

Thus if you murder or rape someone once you get less punishment than if you murder or rape many people.

And if you are Roman Polanski you'll get away with it and have retrospectives lauding you.

Thanks for the Godwin's Law Bingo point though smile

dangalf Tue 08-Jan-13 14:34:32

Anyway, my pint is and always has been that a celebration of the art is seperable from a celebration of the artist as a person. Hence the rerospective is ok in my eyes. No-one here has offered any logical reasons as to why this is not the case.

dangalf Tue 08-Jan-13 14:36:16

@Beertrickspotter - twas only a matter of time Re: godwin's Law!

I'm not saying the Polanski should not have been punished. I think I said as much in my original post.

Do you not agree that his attitude to women suffuses his work, dan?

My pov is that it does. As a director he is not a mere commentator on attitudes and his actions are proof of that.

Enough is made of the influence of his early life on his films and I can't see how believing rape is ok is any different to that. BFI strangely silent on that fact.

PiccadillyCervix Tue 08-Jan-13 14:41:21

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

PiccadillyCervix Tue 08-Jan-13 14:44:40

Can I ask genuinely, why are artists allowed this special treatment? Why the fuck does it matter, lets pretend he was the greatest artist ever... Does it matter, can we not as a people see that while art is nice..it isn't as important as say taking a stance against sex crimes?

dangalf Tue 08-Jan-13 14:54:11

@picadillycervix - I don't appreciate the ad hominem attack on me where you suggest that I do not see child rape as a big deal. Nowhere have I said that and I would like an apology for your suggestion that that is my belief.

We can listen to Wagner's music and love it despite his anti-semitism etc. My pint is that the art is sperate from the artist just as the pot is different from the potter.

As regards your point re: special treatment for artists - I don't believe that is the case. Buildings can be admired irrespective of their archtiects crimes or what took place there.

@Beertrickpotter - that is a more interesting point. I think that yes his beliefs will on certain levels suffuse his work. One only needs look at the bleakness of Chinatown made after the murder of Sharon Tate to see that. However, I'm not sure I see much evidence of misogyny in his films - do you?

PiccadillyCervix Tue 08-Jan-13 14:57:21

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

drjohnsonscat Tue 08-Jan-13 15:06:44

It was the combination of the retrospective and avoiding acknowledging the truth that did for the BBC. Ditto the BFI here surely. There is a) a retrospective and b) an attempt to tidy away what he actually did.

dangalf Tue 08-Jan-13 15:19:17

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

dangalf Tue 08-Jan-13 15:21:59

@drjohnsonscat - I'm not sure there is an attempt to tidy away what he actually did though. I've not seen any attempt by the BFI to say that he is innocent, or that his crime was not reprehensible. They're making much the same argument as I have that his body of work deserves acknowledgement irrespective of his crime. One can argues about this point (as we are) and you've made some valid points - but not sufficient in my view to make an appreciation of his work immoral.

OhBuggerandArse Tue 08-Jan-13 15:43:10

In any case, there have been a number of separate allegations against Polanski made by different women, all of whom were very young at the time of the alleged attacks. Google is your friend.

PiccadillyCervix Tue 08-Jan-13 15:44:01

Oh FFS really? Deleted? Which bit was worth deleting? Bit trigger happy today MNHQ. Dangalf I won't continue to argue with you because obviously I am an irrational woman who can't have a sensible debate and you're a report happy baby

PiccadillyCervix Tue 08-Jan-13 15:45:56

Maybe If I had raped somebody my comments would be worthy of standing?

hellsbells76 Tue 08-Jan-13 15:49:22

I saw what you said PicadillyCervix and thought it was fair comment. Dangalf: the BFI certainly have glossed over his crimes. They say he 'fled' to France and 'sought refuge' in the wake of the murder of his wife, implying he was in fear of his life or similar, and completely failed to mention the little matter of his conviction for rape and his jumping bail. As for your claim not to be a rape apologist, well if it looks like a rape apologist, walks like a rape apologist, and trots out bullshit about Polanski like a rape apologist...

PiccadillyCervix Tue 08-Jan-13 15:56:20

Awaits Hellsbells deletion, (appears we only have one person on this thread who is actually for censorship...) ironic really.

hellsbells76 Tue 08-Jan-13 15:57:48

MNHQ - if you're going to delete PiccadillyCervix's posts for a completely fair comment that dangalf appears to be minimising child rape, perhaps you could do the same for his patronising implication that she's just an emotional little lady who can't debate?

hellsbells76 Tue 08-Jan-13 15:57:58

Yes - isn't it just...

Is that all you see in Chinatown, dan? It was an interesting choice of script considering his rape of a child, that's for sure.

Oh, but hellsbells, he's an auteur. They are tortured souls and as such cannot be held responsible for their actions. How deeply romantic to have to flee from an uncaring society which doesn't understand that they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions.

hellsbells76 Tue 08-Jan-13 16:05:16

You know what gets me? He successfully sued Vogue for libel a few years ago (can't remember what about, could google but can't be arsed). To win a libel claim, you have to be able to prove that your reputation was damaged. The fact that a fugitive child rapist still had a reputation that could be damaged tells you everything you need to know about how fucked up attitudes towards him are...

I would say that an individual appreciation of his work isn't 'immoral' as you put it. A well-regarded body such as the BFI shouldn't be bolstering the same old attitude of turning a blind eye to the background of a director, which is a different matter.

hellsbells76 Tue 08-Jan-13 16:09:29

(sorry, Vanity Fair not Vogue).

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now