France is getting it...

[Mockersisrightasusual]

...lentement

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51684494

A shame so many media outlets are repeating the 'alleged' lie about this convicted sex offender.

It seems like you're trying to avoid the question of what you, personally, should do. Other people can tell you what we'd do but that's still a decision that you have to make yourself and that can't be offloaded to others.

Funnily enough Clive James 'Unreliable Memoirs' was chosen by one of the guests (Richard Harrington) on BBC's 'A Good Read' this week.

The other guest, Njambi McGrath, highlighted what she thought were some problematic (to say the least) aspects of the memoir--James recollection of an obviously troubled young girl. She is described as having sex with a number of the boys in James' peer group, often while the others watched.

McGrath made a stand on this.

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000fp5r

Kittens I'm not trying to avoid the question, on the contrary, I'm seeking other opinions to consider what practical solutions there are and to deal with the conflict of enjoying the work whilst disliking the man. The way we treat the artistic work of abusive men is a question that's come up in recent years in arts management, and there is yet to be a commonly agreed upon solution - to censoring paintings, for example. I don't think I've ever bought a ticket to a Polanski movie anyway, so I'm not contributing to his financial success and feel better about that at least. I think his work shouldn't be submitted for awards, but at the same time I consume his films - should I feel guilty about that? I think a lot of people feel the same as me about this.

We watched Polanski’s Tess of the Durberville’s for A-Level Eng Lit in the mid 90’s. Teacher made a ‘joke’ about why it was filmed in France - to do with avoiding extradition from rape conviction. Most of us were girls - 16-17yrs.

I wonder if he is still shown... for GCSEs/A-Levels

I think there's a significant difference between how you treat a dead artist and how you treat a live one. As long as people go "but he's a genius though" whenever Polanski's crimes are brought up his career will continue, which likely means that a. he will likely continue to abuse women he works with as he has done in the past and b. the message other abusive men will take away is that as long as their work impresses people they're free to do as they like.

Kittens I do agree with what you've said and perhaps talented men need to lose their careers before we can reach a state where the abuse of women in these industries is not the norm. I would still grieve the loss to the arts though. I guess the conflict comes from if the belief that the arts are a gift to be shared with the world and that the world would be worse off without the contribution of someone like Polanski. That said, there is no shortage of directors out there who haven't raped underage girls.

A lot of very talented women in the arts are never seen or heard of etc because of sexism, boys club, and seemingly not insignificantly because they get abused by men and think no thanks I'm out, or have their opportunities destroyed by those in power.

Maybe if we she'd the abusive men and got rid of the boys club, there would be a much more varied interesting range of films art etc etc for everyone to enjoy.

Just a thought.

Shed the abusive men, that should be.

It's not only old white men who are artistic geniuses despite what centuries of male dominance would have us believe.

Sometimes young white men

But ageing is another barrier they don't seem to have unlike women

I honestly don't even know what to say to that. I think the world would be just fine without Polanski's films, or indeed without anyone's films. I can't imagine any film being worth more than the many girls Polanski has preyed upon throughout his career.

I'm seeking other opinions to consider what practical solutions there are and to deal with the conflict of enjoying the work whilst disliking the man.

Wow, you really think that's a dilemma? Child rape put to one side for you to enjoy a ducking film?

Is that why Gary Glitter was wiped from pop history, his pop songs just weren't good enough to overcome child abuse?

testing you're frankly talking bullshit and haven't engaged with anything I've said to suggest I'm putting child rape aside in any way at all. Interesting you mention Gary Glitter though, as one of his songs was recently featured in the Joker movie. There was some controversy over this, but it was reported that Glitter made no profit from the use of his song. Something like this is actually what I'm wondering, is there any way for the work to still be enjoyed and for the criminal to not profit?

a ducking film

I assume a typo and not a recognition of RP's fondness for immersing women in water to murder them, fictionally speaking.

I still think Chinatown is one of the greatest films ever made, not least for the irony in its message that rich, powerful men with connections will always get away with anything they choose, including murder and, in the case of Noah Cross, raping his own grandaughter born by raping his own daughter. (Spoiler alert, sorry.)

When Private Eye Gittes asks Cross what more he could possibly want to have with all his money, he is adament, "The Future, Mister Gittes."

way for the work to still be enjoyed

But why is that needed? Every time "the art" is prioritised abusive men take comfort and carry on abusing.

I

Well, why do people need to enjoy anything? The work exists and people do enjoy it, that's a fact, so much so that this can lead to letting off reprehensible behaviour. That reality is the reason I'm asking if there's a way to enjoy the work without the artist making a profit. Easier to manage in the Glitter case as he's in jail.

Please, Paul Gadd. Paul Gadd was tried and convicted for crimes committed by Paul Gadd.

The Glitter Band are innocent and could do with the royalties in their dotage.

France does not have a Catholic Conservative govt.

I'd also argue that great works of art, in any medium, have a value in spite of who made them. They demonstrate the possibility of a medium, innovation and what can be achieved in a particular genre by human creativity and I wouldn't want to see them boycotted or destroyed for that reason. At the same time, despite the delightful accusations of being a child rape apologist on this thread, I don't wish for corrupt men to profit from their work. You may disagree with how I value the arts, Kittens, as you've said that you think that the world would be just fine without films, but I'd say you're either in the minority or you're being dishonest. For most people the arts enrich life to the point that they are held as being essential. The outrage at Isis destroying Palmyra is a good demonstration of this - and no, that's not to say there should be more focus on this than the loss of life, but it shows how much arts are valued. I stated very clearly I wanted to question what to do with the work of someone like Polanski rather than give any kind of defence of the man himself, but instead with engaging with this question I've had allsorts of repulsive accusations thrown at me. The question I'm asking is exactly the one that needs to be asked by the academies doling out these awards to people like Polanski, but they're not.

You haven't responded to the point that removing abusive men from these areas might well have the effect of enriching the arts rather than the reverse.

You did say what should be done with him and suggested it would be good for him to be tried in USA but sadly that won't happen.

At that point you didn't seem to really have the facts of the situation to hand so you can't be surprised when you are met with challenges.

Frogs Yes, I initially thought he had fled the country whilst awaiting trial, but that it was well-known that he is guilty. I had no doubts that he was guilty, so don't know why you keep banging on about this or why that makes any difference to the question I'm asking about how to manage his creative work. You seem to want to suggest I can't possibly say anything of any value because I wasn't aware of the ins and outs of his case. I don't think it's relevant if I knew if he had already been tried or not to the other points I'm making, you seem just to want to jump up and down pointing your finger at me shouting 'haha, you got that wrong!' without having any engagement with the questions I'm asking. I also of course agree that abusive men in the industry and a general atmosphere of sexism makes things difficult for women to get ahead, obviously.

I have engaged and made a suggestion in response to your point that the arts will be lessened if the dodgy men are cut out, that you haven't mentioned at all. I think the result could be a massive enrichment of the arts.

The idea I'm not engaging with your points is just not true.

Also no one has accused you of talking 'bullshit' but you have said that to a couple of posters now. Why not relax and engage with the conversation rather than getting so defensive?

Haha, stop gaslighting, I've been accused of horrible things on this thread simply for trying to have a conversation about the questions this raises for the arts, which I've risen above for the most part. I think it's valid to call bullshit on being accused of 'putting child rape to one side' personally, simply for asking how to manage an abusive man's body of work. I have in fact engaged with your point in response to kittens, stating that perhaps indeed it is necessary for talented men to lose their careers in order to create a better environment for women. You're really scraping the barrel here.

simply for asking how to manage an abusive man's body of work.

I accused you of prioritising his work above child rape because you want a conversation about how it should be managed.

He has not served his sentence for his crime. He should be shunned by polite society and his work ignored, in my opinion.

I don't find your response of "bullshit" particularly persuasive.

Yeah I'm not sure.

You talk about talented men losing their careers when another way to phrase it would be abusive criminals

You have mentioned more than once once the idea of destroying work already in existence while literally noone else has mentioned that. And brought picasso and Gauguin into it, and said well should their work be removed from galleries. These feel a bit straw-manny to me or at least a distraction.