Roman Polanski season at BFI

[BelleCurve]

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?

[PiccadillyCervix]

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]

@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.

[dangalf]

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]

@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.

[PiccadillyCervix]

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]

@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?

[drjohnsonscat]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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

[hellsbells76]

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]

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

[hellsbells76]

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]

Yes - isn't it just...

[hellsbells76]

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...

[hellsbells76]

(sorry, Vanity Fair not Vogue).

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello

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.

Thanks
MNHQ