Roman Polanski season at BFI

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.

@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.

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.

@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?

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?

@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.

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.

@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.

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.

@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.

?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?

@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?

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.

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.

you're taking rather

@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.

@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.

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.

"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.