Roman Polanski season at BFI

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

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?

Alisvolatpropiis Sun 30-Dec-12 16:52:44

I don't usually post here,though I do read threads often. I don't tend to feel I am informed enough not to come across like an idiot.

But this caught my eye. I would campaign against it.

I simply cannot understand how this man is being celebrated. It doesn't matter how talented he is. He raped a child talent cannot excuse it. It is shameful that Europe have harboured him for so long and he is now being celebrated by the British Film Institute.

FromEsme Sun 30-Dec-12 16:57:38

Yes, I want to campaign. Shall we write a standard letter that people can fire off to the BFI? Or would an email signed by lots of people be more effective?

Sunnywithshowers Sun 30-Dec-12 17:23:55

It's revolting. I'd sign up to a campaign.

bigkidsdidit Mon 31-Dec-12 10:16:27

I would too.

tethersjinglebellend Mon 31-Dec-12 10:27:17

Perhaps we could suggest a Jimmy Savile retrospective instead?


Count me in.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

FromEsme Mon 31-Dec-12 13:38:55

Bumping this, there MUST be more people interested? Or do people not really realise what the issue is, maybe?

GrrrArghZzzzYaayforall8nights Mon 31-Dec-12 13:51:42

Probably not, as a director his face and name are kinda hidden compared to the faces and names we see on the screen and can auto-identify.

I know a he has a couple things coming (or re-coming, I think one is an old moving being updated) to the cinema this year. It's appalling.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

StuntGirl Mon 31-Dec-12 18:04:01

I intensely dislike him and won't watch his films. Count me in.

BelaLugosisShed Mon 31-Dec-12 18:07:36

I'd love to see the uber famous stars explain how they can support a man who drug-raped a teenage girl, people like Johnny Depp for example.

FrothyDragon Wed 02-Jan-13 19:14:54

Count. Me. In.

AbigailAdams Wed 02-Jan-13 19:22:34

I feel a bit sick reading that. Count me in too.

JustAHolyFool Wed 02-Jan-13 19:31:00

BelaLugosisShed I KNOW. I LOVE David Lynch and was gutted that he signed that letter in support of Polanski. You know, the one that passed off the raping of a teenage girl as a "moral crime" as if it were some sort of grey area.

bigkidsdidit Wed 02-Jan-13 20:01:15

What shall we do? Tweet? Email?

FrothyDragon Wed 02-Jan-13 22:29:36

I'll be tweeting, emailing and commenting on their FB page.



ElephantsAndMiasmas Thu 03-Jan-13 14:36:04

I'm in, and in London within reach of the BFi if anyone wants to go there and do something. I LOVE the idea of mocking up a "Jimmy Saville Season" publicity poster or cardboard cutout.

FloatyBeatie Thu 03-Jan-13 15:21:52

Some of his films are excellent. I hope that he gets the legal punishment that he ought to have, but I very much dislike the idea of a campaign of censorship against his work.

I hadn't seen this (I've seen the facebook page and BFI's useless response).

I'm in.

I don't see what the quality of his films has to do with it, and 'censorship' seems to me - sorry - a ridiculously OTT word to use.

No-one is, so far as I can see, suggesting his films should not be sold. But that is quite different from saying he should be publicly celebrated for them.

It's a bit like William Mayne's books, IMO: before I knew about him I read them, thought they were charming, and I wouldn't want to see them banned. But I would be pretty shocked if someone decided to do a great big celebration dedicated to him, unless they also acknowledged he was himself quite a deeply nasty person who abused children.

JustAHolyFool Thu 03-Jan-13 15:36:26

FloatyBeatie would you say the same about Jimmy Savile? If the BBC decided tonight that they were going to show all the episodes of Jim'll Fix It, on the grounds that some people found it to be an excellent programme, would you stand by that as well?

Genuine question, by the way.

FloatyBeatie Thu 03-Jan-13 15:41:41

This would be a campaign to pressurise the BFI not to run a retrospective in which his works are shown. I can't really think of another work for that than censorship.

Of course people can see his works in other ways: censorship is not the same as banning. But you would be pressuring one of the UK's central bodies for arthouse cinema to exclude a central director from its analytical display of major films.

AbigailAdams Thu 03-Jan-13 15:44:53

They should be pressured Floaty. They are supporting a child rapist. Really, why would you want to support him?

FloatyBeatie Thu 03-Jan-13 15:49:44

I'd certainly question their judgement about what counts as an excellent programme JustaAHolyFool! I wouldn't campaign against their showing the pogrammes but I would noisily say that they lacked any merit that would justify showing them despite their associations.

A much better example might be Dennis Potter, (most of) whose work showed an appallingly troubling attitude towards women, but who is clearly enough of an artist for us to want to be constantly troubled by coming up against it on the BBC, despite the moral failings that it displayed.

FrothyDragon Thu 03-Jan-13 15:49:55

I have no interest in supporting rapists. Ever.

By running this, BFI have shown that survivors of rape do not matter to them. As a film student and a rape survivor, I'm beyond angry. I'm also no longer supporting BFI. I have done for many a year.

Censorship is something imposed by the state, isn't it? It's not response to pressure from individuals - that's just market forces at work.

I do get what you're saying, floaty, I just don't think it's censorship and I do feel that there is a wide issue with the way that that term gets a certain knee-jerk response in some circles. I cannot count the number of times I've heard someone accuse feminists of 'censorship'. It's 'censorship' to want women-only meetings. It's 'censorship' to object to women being heckled or taunted on marches. It's 'censorship' to object to misogynistic writers being taught.

I do feel it is a word that is (irony meter going through the roof) used to shut women up.

The BFI get to choose who they celebrate, and it is an honour. I don't see how that is ok.

*well, 'the state or a governing body', I guess. I mean, I don't think you can talk about 'censorship' unless it's carried out by an authoritative figure, can you? confused

ElephantsAndMiasmas Thu 03-Jan-13 16:19:45

Well, quite LRD. If a friend did or said something objectionable I could ask them to stop doing it or decide to limit/end our friendship based on their behaviour, even tell people what they were doing in an effort to get them to stop it. That's not censorship. Facebook (for instance) summarily removing pictures of breastfeeding women is censorship. There's a power relationship there.

Love this - made me snort: "I do feel it is a word that is (irony meter going through the roof) used to shut women up." Agree.

Anyway, the question is, what can we do about it? Is there a link to the facebook page?

AbigailAdams Thu 03-Jan-13 16:23:24

Here is the link to the BFI FB page.

There is a thread on there where the BFI have "explained" what they were thinking of - mainly that they weren't, in fact doing any kind of critical thinking.

Exactly, elephants.

I can't help feeling (and this is a general rant, not a go at you, floaty) that when people claim feminists are 'censoring' things it is rather bitterly ironic, because women typically do not have the institutionalized power structures to do that.

BFI's facebook page is here.

JustAHolyFool Thu 03-Jan-13 16:25:48

I do get what you're saying Floaty , I just don't think that something being good is grounds for supporting and actively promoting someone who has escaped punishment for a horrible crime.

FloatyBeatie Thu 03-Jan-13 16:39:01

I don't think that the concept of censorship implies an particular source for the suppression of expression -- state or whatever -- only the suppression itself. But I'm not particularly attached to the word, if you want to call it something else. (A semantic digression wouldn't be very helpful I think.)

I suppose that the word censorship does have the disadvantage of seeming to imply a primary concern with free speech/free expression. That's not my primary concern. I'm more concerned with preserving an experience of culture that isn't limited to the products of people whom we deem acceptable. Plenty of bad people are good artists. We'd have to cut an awful lot of holes in our reading, viewing, etc to avoid them all consistently. And we would be the worse for it, I think. Don't you think there is value in being constantly challenged by a very conflicted experience of artistic value, as we are when we see something excellent produced by someone bad or flawed, or (even more challengingly) when we see something excellent in an artwork that is itself morally flawed?

Ok, fair enough, and I take your point. I think I am reacting to the specific word.

But, leaving that aside - sure, plenty of bad people are good artists. But there's nothing stopping BFI from saying that upfront. Instead they insist they won't comment or judge, which I feel is really out of line. It's saying, they won't judge - therefore, they are valuing this man over his victims. IMO.

If they'd shown the films but acknowledged their maker was really problematic, I would have respect for that.

I think there's huge value in being challenged morally or aesthetically - but I don't see that that is what is happening here. I think what is happening here is simply that some people don't like to accept that a rapist is a rapist, or that someone who makes 'good films' may still be a bad person. That seems to me the opposite of 'challenge'.

ElephantsAndMiasmas Thu 03-Jan-13 17:04:05

I wish I could hack the BFI website and insert the words "after admitting raping a child" at the end of this sentence: "Roman Polanski undertook Tess, in memory of his murdered wife Sharon Tate, when seeking refuge in Paris after fleeing the USA".

grin That would be excellent.

MooncupGoddess Thu 03-Jan-13 19:27:02

Gosh, that biog is very weaselly, isn't it? The fact that they don't reference the rape at all demonstrates that they just want to brush the whole thing under the carpet.

If the BFI waited until Polanski was dead and then did a retrospective season in which they acknowledged upfront what he had done and his attitudes to women and presented his oeuvre in that context I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's the sticking head in sand approach that is so offensive here.

(I also think that celebrating a fugitive from justice is wrong - we have the rule of law for a reason.)

I feel the same mooncup.

I don't know if this is valid, but I also feel that it's a bad attitude given the kind of crime.

There are crimes that are horrific, but also widely condemned. I don't know what he did, but there's a man who used to write for the Guardian - Erwin James - who had served a life sentence. I didn't feel uncomfortable reading his work because I understood that the Guardian were trying to give some perspective into what it's like, and the writer was trying to show he'd really learned.

With Polanski, who's never really been punished for raping underage girls, it is not the same - rape as a crime isn't something that is as widely condemned as it should be. So the fact they are giving him a platform and honouring his work, contributes to the idea that rape is not really a serious crime and rapists are often 'perfectly nice' men.

FestiviaBlueberry Thu 03-Jan-13 19:50:50

I don't object to them doing a retrospective.

I object to them doing it without any reference to the fact that he's a rapist.

Whenever there's a big retro on Wagner, there's a huge amount of discussion and acknowledgement about his anti-semitism. It isn't swept under the carpet, the way this child-rapist's crimes are.

Shitty BFI for not having the guts to address it properly.

PiccadillyCervix Thu 03-Jan-13 20:57:39

cencorship in my opinoin is when the laws and the powers that be forbid you to show something.

This is capitalism. Consumers telling someone they don't want shite spewed out in a public forum and that they won't purchase it. This is no different to writing to ASDA and saying you would prefer they stop selling poly/blend baby pajamas.

PiccadillyCervix Thu 03-Jan-13 21:00:14

As has been said several times blush didn't see there was a second page!

PiccadillyCervix Thu 03-Jan-13 21:04:15

"Roman Polanski undertook Tess, in memory of his murdered wife Sharon Tate, when seeking refuge in Paris after fleeing the USA

That sentence makes it sound like he was some abused prisoner of war in the US doesn't it? Not just a rapist who didn't want to go to jail

hellsbells76 Thu 03-Jan-13 23:41:51

This has made me really fucking angry. The writer of that evasive piece of crap (Geoff Andrew) has form for this. This came from a similarly minimising Graun article from 2005:

"I like the man," says Geoff Andrew, the National Film Theatre's programmer, who has met and interviewed Polanski many times. "He always struck me as a very genuine sort of guy, a very courteous and a very old-fashioned person."

Geoff Andrew is now head of the BFI film programme. So it's all pals together, it seems. Who gives a damn about the child Polanski raped?

hellsbells76 Thu 03-Jan-13 23:45:25

Actually, just do a google of Geoff Andrew and Roman Polanski. The man couldn't have his head any further up Polanski's arse if he tried.

DoctorAnge Thu 03-Jan-13 23:53:36

This is appalling.
The film Industry is a misogynistic old boys club. I remember the standing ovation for him led by Martin Scorsese at the oscars one year. A fucking standing ovation for someone who drugged and raped a child.
Can we put something out on twitter about this?

hellsbells76 Fri 04-Jan-13 00:09:12

I don't do twitter but I've left a couple of messages on their fb. Would be well up for picketing some of the season too. (the screening of 'Repulsion' might be an appropriate one, if only for its name...)

DoctorAnge Fri 04-Jan-13 00:15:41

I'm in if I can help.
I know it may not be relevant but look at what is happening in India. The world is changing and these institutions ( film , BBC ) need to change too. Rape is never acceptable! Talented and charming men are rapists too that doesn't exonerate them somehow from their henious crime angry

NotOnTheBeach Fri 04-Jan-13 00:28:09

The films are good and should be shown, as part of regular programming, when there is a demand.

But bringing them together in a RP season celebrates the man himself, not the films as stand alone objects of art.

I won't be going and I think it arrogant of the BFI to decide to focus on the man and celebrate him as an individual. I think mock-up BFI flyers announcing a JS season by the BFI would be a suitable response.

The films should be shown, not surpressed, but meanwhile the man should be brought to justice.

NotOnTheBeach Fri 04-Jan-13 00:32:21

I wish I could hack the BFI website and insert the words "after admitting raping a child" at the end of this sentence: "Roman Polanski undertook Tess, in memory of his murdered wife Sharon Tate, when seeking refuge in Paris after fleeing the USA".

Is it possible to copy pages from the BFI website and adjust the sentence thus, and then re-publish the page as a separate website that would come up in a Google search?

Oh, hello BFI publicity team - welcome to MN smile

(Publicity depts always know what's being said on the 'net)

FestiviaBlueberry Fri 04-Jan-13 09:32:11

OMG that is so nauseating, imagine being a rape survivor in that crowd cheering on a rapist. Some of the women there, would have been (maybe some of the men). Imagine the level of cognitive dissonance and denial they have to employ, to be around rape-celebrating shit like that.

DoctorAnge Fri 04-Jan-13 10:33:06

nauseating indeed shocking

DoctorAnge Fri 04-Jan-13 10:35:10

note the shot of Jack Nicholson whom I believe was in the other room with Angelica Houston while it happened.

ElephantsAndMiasmas Fri 04-Jan-13 10:55:54

Are there any people on here who have the skills to mock something like that up? It doesn't have to be well done (quite the opposite) just photoshopped, and I imagine we could avoid legal questions by putting something like a smallish "What next a" at the top before the big splash of "JIMMY SAVILLE SEASON at the BFI". I would be happy to find places to put them up.

How are people contacting the BFI? I'm really upset about this, I actually was about to become a member because it's a great place and they have an amazing programme and bar and I'd like to tell them exactly why I won't be bothering now.

OhBuggerandArse Fri 04-Jan-13 13:01:32

A 'Jimmy Saville Season' mock up in electronic form would wing its way round Facebook and Twitter like wildfire. That would be a very quick and effective way to get the word spread widely. Wish I could offer, but my graphic skillz are sadly lacking.

JustAHolyFool Fri 04-Jan-13 13:42:28

Sounds like a good idea. Come on, who's got the skills?

OhBuggerandArse Fri 04-Jan-13 16:03:39

Actually, you could just do that on Twitter without the picture.

DoctorAnge Fri 04-Jan-13 16:24:33

DH could do something in Photoshop but I am not on Twitter

OhBuggerandArse Fri 04-Jan-13 16:34:36

OK, have started thread in Chat here to try and drum up a bit more support.

PiccadillyCervix Fri 04-Jan-13 16:46:16

hmmm wonder why Comments are disabled for this video.

I'm in.
I just watched that clip on youtube, with the standing ovation. I would have loved for Harrison Ford to have had the balls to say "Roman Polanski can't be here to accept his sycophantic award in person as he's hiding out in Europe to avoid going to jail for raping a child. So here's someone else to accept it for the raping bastard."

OhBuggerandArse Fri 04-Jan-13 16:56:58

Does anyone know how to ask slebs to retweet? I am not really twitter capable.

Smudging Fri 04-Jan-13 21:52:16

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

dangalf Tue 08-Jan-13 13:50:09

I'm not sure why the art of someone who has done bad things should not still be celebrated ifit is good art. We can seperate the art and the artist no?

dangalf Tue 08-Jan-13 13:55:06

Nor is the comparison with Savile particualrly apt. Savile it appears was a massive repeat offender. Polanski's act appears to be a one-off. He should've faced his punishment and served the time for it obviously. Savile also did not produce any art.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

hellsbells76 Tue 08-Jan-13 13:59:53

I'm sure his victim will take huge comfort from the fact that he (was never caught) doing the same thing to anyone else.

drjohnsonscat Tue 08-Jan-13 14:04:12

"seeking refuge" is what people trying to escape persecution do. Jumping bail and evading justice is what he did.

Emma Thompson was one of those who signed up in support of him before retracting when the crapness was brought to her attention. But you know, he is an artist, so it's fine to be a child abuser. Jimmy Savile's problem is that he wasn't an artist, so he's just a plain old paedophile.

drjohnsonscat Tue 08-Jan-13 14:06:24

blimey dangalf I was being sarky when I said it's ok for Jimmy Savile to be pilloried because he was not an artist....I didn't realise someone was going to say that for real.

And yes one can separate the art from the artist but one also needs to be honest about the artist and this is what the BFI have not done with their "seeking refuge..." terminology.

dangalf Tue 08-Jan-13 14:16:20

@hellsbells76 - well the victim has actually said as much herself. "I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever – besides me – and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it."

@drjohnsonscat - erm.. the point was that a retrospective of'art' requires art to be produced - Saville produced none. I amnot justifying Polanski's behaviour but explaining why I think a retrospective of his works is reasonable and thereby showing that the comparisons with Saville are not apt as the issue here is the retrospective.

dangalf Tue 08-Jan-13 14:18:04

@hellsbells76 - if you don't think there is a difference in someone doing something wrong once as opposed to many,many times then I'd say your taing a rather illogical position.

dangalf Tue 08-Jan-13 14:18:24

you're taking rather

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

drjohnsonscat Tue 08-Jan-13 14:23:36

the whole BBC fallout on Saville came about precisely because they showed a tribute to his - shall we call it output, instead of art. It is notable that it's the BBC not the hospitals (who clearly owed a much greater duty of care to their patients) that took the fall for this. The BBC showed retrospectives of his work and paid tribute to him and that proved to be a problem given what he'd done. Exactly the same applies to Polanski.

I'm astonished that you think the number of abusive incidents matters. Rape tends not to be a matter of degree when a 13 year old is involved. It doesn't matter that his victim doesn't deem him to be a danger to society. That doesn't mean that we should lie about what he did, say that he "sought refuge" when actually he skipped bail, etc.

PiccadillyCervix Tue 08-Jan-13 14:27:11

NO, assuming someone sought to get a young girl and drug her and rape her says to me this was not a one off. Although like Hellsbells I say once a rapist always a rapist. Maybe he has been "good" since then. But is that because he is now a reformed man or is it because he is being watched now that he is a known rapist and less likely to be let around young girls?

Everyone Wants to Fuck Young Girls
-Roman Polanski (actual quote)

His victim has forgiven him, yes. I suspect for her to get on with life knowing he would never be punished she needed to. Or maybe as a woman and a mother she has decided her mental health and what happened to her isn't as important as what is now happening to her family due to the media influence. Media that would have left her alone years ago if the piece of shit in question had been locked away> Locked away and unable to make his art.

Either way we don't let victims choose how we deal with the perpetrator. If we are going to let them choose sentencing be prepared for the next "one time rapist" to have his cock sliced off.

dangalf Tue 08-Jan-13 14:27:54

@beertrickspotter - no, I see a difference in someone doing something once and someone doing something serially. Thus if you murder or rape someone once you get less punishment than if you murder or rape many people. I don't see why this is particularly contentious. It does not detract from the seriousness of the crime to suggest that a crime against one person is less grievous than the crime being committed repeatedly against many people.

to take your arguments to a logical etreme - is someone who murders one person as morally abhorrent as Hitler who is reposnsibe for 6 million deaths?

PiccadillyCervix Tue 08-Jan-13 14:28:49

“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!”

That sure sounds like the shit a pedophile would say... Don't you think?

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.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

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.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

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 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...

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

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...

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

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

(sorry, Vanity Fair not Vogue).

RowanMumsnet (MNHQ) Tue 08-Jan-13 16:11:16


First off, for anyone new to Mumsnet, do take a moment to have a look at our We Believe You campaign on rape myths.

Second: however strongly posters disagree with a particular viewpoint, we do think it's an outright personal attack to call another poster a 'rape apologist', or to say that they 'see child rape as not a particularly big deal' - even if you, personally, believe this to be the case.

You are absolutely free to say what it is about another poster's viewpoint that you disagree with, and to address their arguments.


PiccadillyCervix Tue 08-Jan-13 16:15:30

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 find that fucking fascinating too.

hellsbells76 Tue 08-Jan-13 16:15:47

I don't agree that it's a personal attack if it's true, and every one of dangalf's posts reeks of rape apologist attitudes. He has openly said that Polanski's crime is less serious than Savile's crimes because it was apparently a one-off. That's textbook minimising, surely? I don't honestly see how you square deleting someone for pointing that out with your (wholly admirable) We Believe You campaign. But, your site, your rules <shrug>

dangalf Tue 08-Jan-13 16:18:47

@beertrickspotter - Chinatown was made before the rape occurred. And no that is not all I see in Chinatown - it is a complex and multi-faceted film and I think it is a brilliant film.

@hellsbells & @Picadillycervix - this is ridiculous. What have I said that makes me a child rape apologist. I know we're in the murky realm of the internet but you can't just bandy around things like that. It is a pretty serious accusation and it would appear that MN agreed with my contention that it was unnnecessary. the bit that was worth deleting, if you're really unable to work it out, was the bit where you said that I am a child rape apologist and thus by proxy that I think child rape is ok.

I have not referred to you as an 'irrational woman' but stated that you are clearly unable to discuss this topic in a rational manner, which as you then go on to call me a 'report happy baby' as you so maturely put it, would seem to be the case. I just felt that you had really crossed a line in what you said.

dangalf Tue 08-Jan-13 16:23:13

@hellsbells76- I think you're being wilfully obtuse if you cannot see that calling me an apologist for child rape is a personal attack. I have tried to debate the points in a calm manner and not get personal. I know it is an emotive subject but we will get nowhere if anyone with a differing viewpoint is accused of being something vile.

How is it minimising to state, as I did, that committing a crime once is a lesser evil than committing the same crime many times? I am really at a loss as to how that could be the case. I have stated several times that his crime is disgusting and he should be punished for it - how does this minimise it?

PiccadillyCervix Tue 08-Jan-13 16:23:30

I am just saying if you think a child rapist should be free to have a world forum it's a bit odd that you can get upset about me calling you an apologist and feel I should be deleted.

Some people might see that as you seeing rape as not a bad a crime as say slander. Some people might say that, obviously not me.

PiccadillyCervix Tue 08-Jan-13 16:24:33

I have tried to debate the points in a calm manner and not get personal.

A man arguing with a group of women about rape is personal. It must be nice to not be in a position to not understand that.

hellsbells76 Tue 08-Jan-13 16:26:28

Yup. Male privilege in action - lovely isn't it?

PiccadillyCervix Tue 08-Jan-13 16:30:33

It's an American website but you might find it interesting to see just how personal it is for a 1/4 of women on this thread.

PiccadillyCervix Tue 08-Jan-13 16:31:43

yeah hellsbells, makes you want to weep doesn't it.

hellsbells76 Tue 08-Jan-13 16:32:36

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

dangalf Tue 08-Jan-13 16:32:53

What? so now a man is unable to discuss rape? How am I displaying male privilige? I am trying to have an honest discussion. I have not been personal, I haven ot attacked anyone, I have merely tried to discuss the topic at hand.

@Picadillycervix - what have I said that could be construed as saying rape is not as bad a crime as slander? Or are you just making things up?

My point is that the work should be viewed independently of who created it - this quite different from saying he should have a 'world foru' as you put it.

Let's say theoretically that he had not skipped the US and had served his time. Would he then be free to pursue a career in film? Would it be permissible to have a retrospective of such work? Or does the crime itself render any work by the man untouchable. My feeling is that it should not. You obviously feel otherwise. But you should not have said the things you said about me for holding a different opinion to you.

dangalf Tue 08-Jan-13 16:34:24

@hellsbells - I am not a rape apologist. nowhere in anything I have said have I made an excuse for him raping the girl. I have said several times that it is disgusting and he should be punished. however, you clearly are only seeing what you want to see in what I am saying. If you can show me othewise from my posts then feel free to do so.

PiccadillyCervix Tue 08-Jan-13 16:36:08

What? so now a man is unable to discuss rape?

not to tell women how they should feel about it and it's perpetrators, no. I won't go trolling websites for racial awareness telling black people how they should feel about racial profiling. I would be a dick if I did that.

hellsbells76 Tue 08-Jan-13 16:36:14

I've already explained why I think you're a rape apologist. I'm sorry if you struggle with reading comprehension as well but that really isn't my problem.

dangalf Tue 08-Jan-13 16:39:47

@Picadillycervix - it is very saddening to see statistics such as that.

PiccadillyCervix Tue 08-Jan-13 16:40:44

Why are you here dangalf what are you getting out of this?

Actually further to my other thread, don't answer. I won't be engaging with you. Sure enough you will have other posters come on to say you have been unfairly attacked as my posts have been removed and what I have said will come off much worse with out the actual post for actual context.

dangalf Tue 08-Jan-13 16:42:04

@hellsbells76 - but you clearly haven't explained it as you state that I am kaing excuses for him. I have asked you to point out anywhere where I have done that. I think you will find that I haven't and as such it is an incoorect assertion on your part. To then move into rather childish sarcasm as you do by criticising my reading comprehension merely serves to illustrate that perhaps reasoning is not your strongest point.

PiccadillyCervix Tue 08-Jan-13 16:45:07

Hellsbells, just relax and leave it. I suspect we have a real live MRA in our midst and as "reasoning is not your strongest point" and I am simply and "irrational woman" we will never be able to have an intelligent debate with him.

hellsbells76 Tue 08-Jan-13 16:45:24

Well, if one was suspicious one might say he was here to derail a feminist discussion with all this faux-reasonable and head-patting explaining about stuff us silly women simply don't understand. I won't be engaging any further either. Oh for a 'hide poster' button...

hellsbells76 Tue 08-Jan-13 16:46:05

xposted PC, yes I agree. Very MRA style. How tedious.

dangalf Tue 08-Jan-13 16:47:00

@picadillycervix - I regularly read forums on here and have posted several times, although not much recently. I saw the topic title and was interested to see what people were saying as it is an area I have some interest in. I have attempted to argue in a reasonable manner.

The posts that were removed of yours would not improve the context - they merely show you calling me an apologist for child rape who clearly doesn't think child rape is a big deal. This is a pretty shocking accusation to level at someone.

You can feel free to stop engaging with me. I think it is probably for the best and obviously nothing I say will convince you that i'm not some evil twisted supporter of child rape but there you go.

hellsbells76 Tue 08-Jan-13 16:48:30

Anyway. Does anyone have any suggestions about what else we can do about this? FOI request to see where the proceeds are going and if any are lining Polanski's pockets? Complaint to the BFI's funding sources? (they get a lot of government money). I don't imagine we can stop the season going ahead (think it's already started) but perhaps we can make life difficult enough for them that they think twice about doing something similar again?

dangalf Tue 08-Jan-13 16:49:00

I have certainly not attempted to derail a feminist conversation. I merely offered a different opinion to you. This is maddening. How have I been faux-reasonable? I do not know what MRA means - care to explain?

chibi Tue 08-Jan-13 16:53:17

i find polanski fascinating in the context of repeated claims that an accusation (just an accusation mind) of rape is enough to ruin and destroy a man's life

hoo boy has polanski suffered personally and professionally after admitting to raping a CHILD oh my indeed

fuck everything

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

hellsbells76 Tue 08-Jan-13 16:55:19

This is from wiki:

The BFI operates with three sources of income. The largest is public money allocated by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. In 2011-12, this funding amounted to approximately £20m. The second largest source is commercial activity such as receipts from ticket sales at BFI Southbank or the BFI London IMAX theatre (2007, £5m), sales of DVDs, etc. Thirdly, grants and sponsorship of around £5m are obtained from various sources, including National Lottery funding grants, private sponsors and through donations (J. Paul Getty, Jr. donated around £1m in his will following his death in 2003). The BFI is also the distributor for all Lottery funds for film (in 2011-12 this will amount to c.£25m).

Official complaint to the Dept for Culture, Media and Sport for a start? Although with this misogynist shower in government I don't hold out much hope of that doing anything.

hellsbells76 Tue 08-Jan-13 16:56:00

please stop feeding it everyone - it'll get bored and wander off eventually.

dangalf Tue 08-Jan-13 16:57:08

I can assure you that I have not been trolling. I have not told women how to feel about rape or rapists. I have stated that I think it is ok for the BFI to have a retrospective of a famous director irrespective of his crime. I have not tried to dismiss this crime in any way. I have repeatedly said it is disgusting and he should be punished. I am just very upset by being unfairly maligned as a rape apologist, dismissed unfairly as someone who does not care about child rape etc.

dangalf Tue 08-Jan-13 16:59:50

@Beertrickspotter - I was only pointing it out when it was made as you said it was an interesting choice for a child rapist. As it was made before the crime was committed then I don't understand your point. Anyway - thanks you've at least engaged with me on a reasonable level.

Anyway... apologies if I have upset people. That was certainly not my intention. But my objection to what I have been called on here remains as I think that was bang out of order.

PiccadillyCervix Tue 08-Jan-13 17:01:40

Hellsbells i am not sure what can be done except protesting (which I can't attend as I don't live in the UK) but BFI are being very dismissive to posters on their fb site, so I suspect they won't voluntarily be taking it down sad

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PiccadillyCervix Tue 08-Jan-13 17:03:46

That is interesting chibi.

Official complaint to the Dept for Culture, Media and Sport for a start? Although with this misogynist shower in government I don't hold out much hope of that doing anything.

that's a good idea helles

hellsbells76 Tue 08-Jan-13 17:05:12

I suspect you're right. It's so bloody depressing. If enough of us make a fuss about it, do you think there's a chance they might think twice about doing it again? Their current head of programme (Geoff Andrew) is a real Polanski fanboy and I expect that's the reason for the 'celebration' but surely some people in the BFI must disagree with it?

aladdinsane Tue 08-Jan-13 18:26:32

For anyone who is concerned about censorship I suggest you read Nick Cohen 'you can't read this book: censorship in an age of freedom '
He demonstrates the UK's ridiculous libel laws and how they are used by undesirables such as Polanski to defend a ' reputation '

drjohnsonscat Wed 09-Jan-13 10:00:13

the only censorship here is by the BFI, glossing over the facts.

FestiviaBlueberry Wed 09-Jan-13 14:50:16

"Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!”

That quote ... it demonstrates Polanski's attitude to women doesn't it. That if they're young enough, they're there to be fucked. He's using "everyone" to mean all human beings who count. And guess who is missing from there? Anyone who doesn't want to fuck young girls. That's most women for a start and whatever percentage of men it is who aren't either boys themselves or rapey predators.

Whoever said it was a one off, was it? Natassja Kinsky was only 15 when she played Tess and Polanski became her lover, I'm not sure exactly when. That process, of an older predator in a position of power and authority over a much younger person, is known as grooming and it's a well-known way of powerful men getting to exploit girls and young women while calling it consensual. Because powerful old men (the type Polanski has so much fellow-feeling for, the ones who want to fuck young girls) made the laws and decided the customs and so grooming was a perfectly respectable custom until feminists identified and named it. Lots of people still have trouble recognising it though, particularly when it is done by rich, powerful and charming men.

Whatever, Polanski is obviously a skank and the BFI are actually censoring by pretending that he's some sort of noble refugee fleeing from persecution, when actually he's a rapist on the run from justice.

OhBuggerandArse Wed 09-Jan-13 15:38:18

Good post, Festivia. Fancy c&p-ing it over on the BFI FB page? Just Jo keep up the trickle...

Re. other not-one-offs, see what Charlotte Lewis has had to say about her experiences with RP. Fits in very well with your analysis above.

OhBuggerandArse Wed 09-Jan-13 16:32:30

Oh fab. Now we're getting called trolls over there.

hellsbells76 Wed 09-Jan-13 17:59:55

I saw that. What a prat.

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