Guardian reviews Polanski's latest film

[testing987654321]

Why? Why the fuck do they have so little respect for women and children that they are willing to overlook child rape?

Can you link to it OP? I'll brave it tomorrow, I can't read this stuff before bedtime. I'm guessing it's another Wokey blokey saying Polanski was a victim?

I didn't read it, I think they put 4 stars. It's the fact that a convicted child rapist who never served his sentence is STILL celebrated as a film director.

Why is Gary Glitter never played on the radio but Polanski is someone The Guardian wants to promote? Why not just ignore him? He doesn't deserve the publicity.

So glad I cancelled my monthly donation to the The Guardian online.

Hadley Freeman last year. At least there is one voice of reason at The Guardian.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2018/jan/30/hollywood-reverence-child-rapist-roman-polanski-convicted-40-years-on-run

The only surprising thing about that article is that they didn’t give it 5 stars.

Link to Guardian review:

www.theguardian.com/film/2019/aug/30/an-officer-and-a-spy-review-roman-polanski-venice-film-festival

Polanski has apparently drawn his parallels between his position and that of Dreyfus (the film is about the Dreyfus case).

I thought the reference to Polanski’s conviction in The Guardian was glib. The Variety reviewer handled it better. He pointed out that Dreyfus was innocent, unlike Polanski:

Polanski film premieres at Venice amid controversy [[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49527309]]

The Hadley Freeman article was excellent - thank you MargueritaBlue.

Bother - I have had problems before when trying to post links from the BBC news app. Here’s a link to the actual Variety review. Hope it works:

variety.com/2019/film/reviews/jaccuse-an-office-and-a-spy-review-roman-polanski-1203319146/

I think he should be in prison, in which case he'd not be making movies. So I'm disinclined to see his films even though he directed some I love.

On the other hand, as a general rule, I don't refuse to listen to music or look at art or read books made by horrible people, and I understand why many people see this as a matter of looking at the creation without it beinga reflection of their views on the moral position of Polanski.

I think there's a massive difference between supporting a rapist who should be in prison and reading or watching the art of people who are now dead and can no longer benefit from the interest.

There are plenty of decent people who could be getting the publicity instead.

Why is Gary Glitter never played on the radio...

Not to mention the entirely innocent Glitter Band who could do with the royalties in their dotage.

Chuck Berry and David Bowie also seem to get a free pass. And shall we get onto Manet, Degas and dear old Gaugin?

Polanski's work stands on its own merits. Chinatown is one of the very greatest films ever made. Its themes about how power lets you get away with anything are all the stronger for his association with it. His Oliver Twist, otoh, cannot be viewed except through the filter of his own crimes when its sensibilties are so open in the way it portrays girls.

I know nothing of Alfred Dreyfus so cannot comment upon the duffness of the evidence against him but as I was under the impression Polanski freely admitted to his own crimes I find this opening paragraph distasteful. No I don't think I will be drawing parallels between a seemingly innocent man and one who freely admits, boasts of even, his guilt.

Alfred Dreyfus was a Jewish captain in the French general staff, a man of spotless reputation and character accused of selling military secrets to the Germans. Convicted on duff evidence, he was exiled to flyblown Devil’s Island off the South American coast, railroaded and martyred, like Jesus, or Peter, or possibly Roman Polanski, who has spotted certain parallels between his situation and that of Dreyfus and has helpfully made a movie that may encourage us to do likewise.

Why is Gary Glitter never played on the radio but Polanski is someone The Guardian wants to promote?

This is an interesting question. Why does society overlook the sexual crimes of some men and not others? Is Gary Glitter's art not 'high brow' enough to warrant a free pass while Polanski's is? Is Polanski given leeway due to pity over the Manson murders?

No I don't think I will be drawing parallels between a seemingly innocent man and one who freely admits, boasts of even, his guilt.

That's what the Variety reviewer said too Arnold (link in earlier post)