Roman Polanski season at BFI

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

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.

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.

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.

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.)

That would be excellent.

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".

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'.

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?

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.

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.

www.facebook.com/BritishFilmInstitute

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.

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?

*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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

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

Twitter

Facebook

What shall we do? Tweet? Email?