930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: markie on November 14, 2003, 12:28:00 pm
-
Apparently all the good ones are dead:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/page/0,11456,1082823,00.html (http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/page/0,11456,1082823,00.html)
-
Originally posted by markie:
Apparently all the good ones are dead:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/page/0,11456,1082823,00.html (http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/page/0,11456,1082823,00.html)
that's my opinion of men too :p
-
how the hell is Soderbergh rated so high
-
Originally posted by poorlulu:
Originally posted by markie:
Apparently all the good ones are dead:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/page/0,11456,1082823,00.html (http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/page/0,11456,1082823,00.html)
that's my opinion of men too :p [/b]
And the only good jocko is a dead one. :p
-
Errrrrr, the list is hardly dominated by women, unlike Mankie.
-
I hate Soderbergers movies. He is one step up from the twat in happy days.
But David Lynch cant even normally get enough money to make a movie. He seems like a rather odd choice, what is his magnus opus?
I wonder if Ridley Scott and Francis Ford Coppola are dead?
-
Originally posted by markie:
I hate Soderbergers movies. He is one step up from the twat in happy days.
But David Lynch cant even normally get enough money to make a movie. He seems like a rather odd choice, what is his magnus opus?
I wonder if Ridley Scott and Francis Ford Coppola are dead?
I thought David Lynch was the obvious choice, or more accurately, the easy choice, does not mean it is right or wrong, but he is adored by critics
-
Mulhollond Drive go mauled by a number of critics because in many ways it is an incomplete movie.
-
michael moore? where are roman polanski or terry gilliam? or like markie mentioned ridley scott and coppolla you can even add spielberg.
-
Originally posted by igor:
spielberg.
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
but yes to gilliam
-
I hate Spielberg.
Some beg to differ (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/movies/09SPIELBERG.html)
Polanski is a child molester. Why anybody would ever go see one of his movies is beyond me.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
I hate Spielberg.
Some beg to differ (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/movies/09SPIELBERG.html)
Polanski is a child molester. Why anybody would ever go see one of his movies is beyond me.
(You'll need to copy and paste the article because it won't link.)
I like early Spielberg but the later bores me.
Polanski may be a pervert but he does have some great films.
-
Originally posted by Jaguär:
Polanski may be a pervert but he does have some great films.
Sorry. I don't think that anybody should get a free pass on drugging and then sodomizing a 13-year old just because they make good movies.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Jaguär:
Polanski may be a pervert but he does have some great films.
Sorry. I don't think that anybody should get a free pass on drugging and then sodomizing a 13-year old just because they make good movies. [/b]
Nope, I agree with you there. I was just differentiating between the films and the person.
-
Originally posted by Jaguär:
(You'll need to copy and paste the article because it won't link.)
November 9, 2003
The Studio-Indie, Pop-Prestige, Art-Commerce King
Why Steven Spielberg really is the greatest living American director.
By A. O. SCOTT
n the second half of Jean-Luc Godard's ''In Praise of Love,'' a very tall African-American woman in a red sports car arrives at the home of an elderly French couple, veterans of the anti-Nazi resistance who need an infusion of cash to keep their small seaside hotel in business. The visitor and her colleagues are interested in purchasing the rights to the couple's life story on behalf of an outfit called ''Steven Spielberg Associates and Incorporated.'' This curiously named company's motives are summed up in a classic Old European canard: since Americans have no history of their own, someone observes, they are compelled to go around buying that of other people. At the news conference following the film's screening at the 2001 Cannes Film Festival, a journalist asked Godard what he had against Steven Spielberg. Of course it was nothing personal, Godard replied, and in any case a proper answer would require a detailed, shot-by-shot analysis of Spielberg's movies, for which there was, alas, insufficient time.
Needless to say, the unseen ''Spielberg'' of ''In Praise of Love'' is not the actual director of ''Jaws,'' ''E.T.'' or (most relevant to Godard's murky polemical purposes) ''Schindler's List,'' but rather a familiar straw man who goes, and not only in France, by the same name. The real Steven Spielberg is, by just about any measure, the most commercially successful living American filmmaker; three of his films (''E.T.,'' ''Jurassic Park'' and ''Jaws'') are among the 25 top-grossing box-office movies of all time. He is also, to an extent unmatched by any other director, living or dead, routinely invoked as a synonym for Hollywood itself, much in the way old-time studio bosses and producers used to be. This is partly because, since 1994, when he founded DreamWorks SKG with David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg, he has moonlighted as a studio boss; he has also been, for quite a bit longer, a producer of no small clout and influence. But neither his power within the industry (he was No. 2 on this year's Entertainment Weekly ranking of show-business heavyweights, after Jerry Bruckheimer) nor his track record at the box office is quite sufficient to account for his status as a symbol. Just as Godard is still seen to embody a notion of French art cinema -- difficult, aesthetically uncompromising, politically provocative -- that is both cherished and reviled, Spielberg, to audiences and critics alike, personifies American commercial cinema in all its glory and excess. He is celebrated for the sweep, accessibility and ambition of his movies, and also, sometimes in the same breath, attacked for sentimentality, overreaching and grandiosity. Like Alfred Hitchcock's (and, for that matter, like Jean-Luc Godard's), his name has been turned into an adjective of somewhat ambiguous meaning. Depending on the context, to call something ''Spielbergian'' is to say either that it is wondrous and full of feeling or that it is pushy, pandering and manipulative; the word refers equally to the exaltation of cinema as a popular art and to its debasement by a blockbuster mentality for which Spielberg, along with his friend and sometime collaborator George Lucas, is ritualistically held responsible.
This double meaning has less to do with our responses to particular movies Spielberg has made than with a persistent ambivalence about movies in general -- what they mean to us, what they do to us, how we feel about them. We crave the pleasure they supply -- the spectacle, the vicarious emotion, the sheer sensory overload -- even as we often regard it with puritanical suspicion. We want everything from movies -- and we want movies that appeal to everyone -- and then we recoil when someone tries to satisfy our profligate, utopian desires. And no single filmmaker has satisfied them across so many genres, and on such a global scale, as Spielberg, which may be precisely why, in spite of it all, he remains curiously misunderstood and even, strange as it is to say it, underrated.
Not least by the film industry itself, or at any rate by its official guardians of quality and high-mindedness, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Yes, the academy was lavish in rewarding ''Schindler's List.'' It is only a little bit cynical, however, to suggest that it could hardly have done otherwise, given its length, its subject matter and its unflinching sobriety. And that episode of glory punctuated several decades of remarkably consistent neglect. It is hardly surprising that the beloved crowd-pleasers of Spielberg's early years were snubbed at the Oscars, since they belonged to popular genres that the academy tends to patronize with minor and technical awards. And perhaps the more literary films of his middle period, ''The Color Purple'' and ''Empire of the Sun,'' struck voters (as they struck some critics) as too earnest, straining too hard after maturity and respectability. But it is a bit harder to fathom the academy's post-''Schindler'' indifference to Spielberg's work, which (with the arguable exception of the well-intentioned ''Amistad'') has gotten better and better. I don't only mean the notorious and still-controversial bypassing for Best Picture of ''Saving Private Ryan,'' one of the most influential American films in recent years, in favor of ''Shakespeare in Love,'' one of the least. In the past three years Spielberg has released three movies -- ''A.I.,'' ''Minority Report'' and ''Catch Me if You Can'' -- that are not only, individually and in the aggregate, as good as anything he has ever done; these films are also, in the current artistic and technological circumstances, as good as it is possible to imagine movies to be. The three have yielded a tiny handful of nominations, again mostly in secondary categories, and no Oscars.
Of course, the Oscars are, in the end, little more than a lustrous prelude to the trivia contests of the future, but the academy's recent marginalization of Spielberg nonetheless reveals something about the current ecology of American moviemaking. Increasingly, the industry functions according to a two-tiered system, whereby the largest portion of money is spent (and made) by the major studios on big, effects-driven action movies, while the traditionally award-worthy prestige pictures -- the literary adaptations, the melodramas of terminal illness and domestic dysfunction, the historical dramas -- are more and more of a niche enterprise, handled by the studios' art-house and ''classics'' subsidiaries, which the Internet movie columnist David Poland aptly calls ''the dependents.'' (Of last year's nominees for the Best Picture award, only one-half of one movie, ''The Hours,'' came from one of the seven majors. This year, the studios are trying to redress this imbalance by releasing a slate of holiday action movies -- ''The Last Samurai,'' ''Master and Commander,'' ''The Missing,'' -- with A-list actors and period costumes.)
Spielberg's work tends to fall into the gap between these categories. ''A.I.'' and ''Minority Report,'' classified by default as science-fiction adventure movies and laden with eye-popping digitally enhanced special effects, were released during the summer blockbuster season, even though their dark, complex, morally troubling narratives seemed unlikely to appeal to thrill-seeking teenagers. ''Catch Me if You Can,'' which was released last Christmas and did blockbuster business, was both a dazzling pop caper comedy and a heartfelt variation on the Lost Boy theme that has been so central to Spielberg's imagination.
The problem may be with the categories themselves, which function as crutches for critics and studio executives at the expense of the movies and their audience. Perhaps because the experience of moviegoing remains one of sensuous immediacy and subjective feeling -- because both good movies and bad ones have the power to strike us dumb -- the language of movie talk is thick with abstractions and received ideas.
Perhaps because dividing movies into the only categories that really matter -- ''good'' and ''bad'' -- seems both overly facile and intellectually overwhelming, we devise more elaborate, more knowing ways of sorting them out. The division between studios and so-called independents is only the latest in a long series of dubious dichotomies that come and go over the years: between prestige pictures and B-movies; between auteurs and industry hacks; between movies as a form of personal expression and movies as a commercial product; between movies aimed at the widest possible public and those tailored for more restricted and refined taste; between the perennial imaginary antagonists art and commerce.
pielberg's career is exemplary in part because it reaffirms the uselessness of such distinctions. A child of the studios, placed under contract at Universal at the tender age of 22, he quickly became, in the ways that really matter, an independent filmmaker, able to do his work with minimal creative interference and with very little budgetary constraint. Without being overtly autobiographical, a number of his films seem deeply and obviously personal, especially those that perceive the world through the eyes of lonely, resourceful boys in difficult circumstances -- ''Close Encounters of the Third Kind,'' ''E.T.,'' ''Empire of the Sun,'' ''A.I.'' But all of these, along with quite a few others, originated as projects intended for other directors. Spielberg is clearly the author of his movies, but only once in his entire professional career, with ''A.I.,'' has he taken sole screenwriting credit. More significant, his movies, while never ceasing to court the appetites (and the dollars) of a public hungry for spectacle, have also been, to an extent that his skill makes it easy to underestimate, challenging and serious works of popular art. To try to sort them by genre and appeal, to divide the prestige projects from the B pictures, is an increasingly futile exercise.
Which is not to say that the movies -- Spielberg's own movies, and movies in general -- haven't changed in the 30-odd years he has been making them. Spielberg, who is 56, began experimenting with cameras and handmade special effects as a child; he has been directing feature films professionally for most of his adult life. In his 20's, he became one of the protagonists -- either a hero or a villain, depending on which version you follow -- in a story by now so familiar that it has acquired the air of myth. By the end of the 60's, the ancient studio system, which had weathered the Second World War, antitrust litigation, McCarthy-era witch hunts and the rise of television, had at last reached a stage of terminal exhaustion, and the movies seemed, perhaps for the first time in their history, to be drifting out of touch with the rest of the culture. Hollywood was transformed by a cohort of young directors, many of them film-school graduates or dropouts, all part of a ''film generation'' whose view of the world had been shaped, to an unprecedented degree, by earlier movies, and whose obsession with the medium expanded the formal range and, perhaps paradoxically, deepened the realism of American movies. Their names form, now that the 70's have been officially canonized as a golden age, a familiar roster of heroes, martyrs, survivors and burnt-out cases: Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, William Friedkin, Peter Bogdanovich, Hal Ashby, Bob Rafelson.
And also, of course, Spielberg and Lucas. Their places in the greatest-generation pantheon have been subject to a fair amount of contention and revisionism. In the received wisdom of hindsight, a heady period during which directors enjoyed unprecedented creative autonomy was brought to an end by two antithetical kinds of extravagance: the extravagant failure of a number of hugely, some might say hubristically, ambitious projects and the extravagant success of, in short order, ''Jaws,'' ''Star Wars,'' ''Close Encounters of the Third Kind'' and ''Raiders of the Lost Ark.'' Hollywood, the legend goes, began to turn away from tough, grown-up movies toward sequel-ready, cartoonish kid stuff, the dominance of which has continued to this day, in spite of the indie insurgencies of the late 80's and early 90's. Realism was supplanted by fantasy; storytelling was abandoned for sensation.
The accusation, though, depends on a highly selective reading of film history and on a misreading of the films themselves. What is most striking now about ''Jaws'' is not only how seldom the shark appears, but how slowly the action moves, how much time is spent generating suspense through scenes of dialogue. And while ''E.T.'' and ''Close Encounters'' are not inaccurately recalled as sentimental, supernatural fables, they are also notable for their fine observations of character and place, for rough, naturalistic edges that place them securely within the New Hollywood aesthetic of their time.
They look, in other words, positively old-fashioned. Their director, meanwhile, has long since passed through his phases of brilliant apprenticeship and precocious triumph to become a senior member of the Hollywood establishment -- and, more important, a conservator of the nobler visions and traditions of American cinema. His more recent work, from the quiet post-battle sequences in ''Private Ryan'' to the haunted futures of ''A.I.'' and ''Minority Report'' to the exuberant colors of ''Catch Me if You Can,'' has a calm precision that might even be described as classical, especially when compared with the fast cuts and narrative non sequiturs that dominate the summer multiplexes.
So Spielberg, who made ''Jurassic Park'' and ''Schindler's List'' almost simultaneously and who will pick up the ''Indiana Jones'' cycle next year, remains a category unto himself, both an incarnation of Hollywood's large-scale, world-conquering ambitions and a rebuke to its cynicism and coarseness. It would take a detailed, shot-by-shot analysis of his movies to prove this assertion. Chances are that you, along with a few million other people, have already undertaken it.
-
Originally posted by markie:
But David Lynch cant even normally get enough money to make a movie. He seems like a rather odd choice, what is his magnus opus?
Wild At Heart
-
Originally posted by markie:
Errrrrr, the list is hardly dominated by women, unlike Mankie.
I wish!
-
I was almost sucked in, well until:
"In the past three years Spielberg has released three movies -- ''A.I.,'' ''Minority Report'' and ''Catch Me if You Can'' -- that are not only, individually and in the aggregate, as good as anything he has ever done; these films are also, in the current artistic and technological circumstances, as good as it is possible to imagine movies to be. The three have yielded a tiny handful of nominations, again mostly in secondary categories, and no Oscars."
I have not seen catch me if you can, but the other two are really very average movies. File under instantly forgetable.
As for Polanski:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html)
do the crimes of the artist taint the art? I really dont think so.
-
Where the f*ck is Kevin Smith.
And Neil Labute (okay, maybe not on this list, but he rocks)
-
Originally posted by Bagster:
Where the f*ck is Kevin Smith.
New Jersey
-
Originally posted by markie:
I have not seen catch me if you can, but the other two are really very average movies. File under instantly forgetable.
Catch Me If You Can was awesome, one of my favorites last year for sheer enjoyment.
I dunno, I think Spielberg's catalog is awfully varied, and whatever genre he works in, he comes out with pretty fine films. Not all hit it just right, but the track record's impressive.
But in lists like this, they tend to go for those cutting edges or forging new ground, with little concern (or at times outright scorn) for enjoyable, entertaining movies. Hey, my faves are Smith, Coens, Alexander Payne, Spike Jonze, Wes Anderson, Neil Labute, Scorsese and Todd Haynes, so I'm all on it. Just something to think about.
-
Where the f*ck is Kevin Smith.
snorting blow and feeding his big ugly face
And Neil Labute
probably deflowering a 15 year old retarded blind girl or something
-
Ohhh this I gotta read! (PR's a filmmaker)
Be right back after I read through the list. :)
-
O right, just read it. It's a fairly well-put together list, in my opinion.
There are many names I don't recognize, mainly Russian, east european and middle eastern filmmakers whose films are not well released in the states: Kiarostami, Tarr, Kaurismaki, Sokurov, Mhakmalbaf. So Kudos to the list-writers for really getting around to these filmmakers. Sadly, I can't remember the last time I saw a Russian film.
The Wachowski brothers don't belong in that list. I must be one of the few who think that The Matrix movies aren't the oh-so-deep masterpieces which many people very foolishly consider. Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions were dissapointing.
Terrence Malik should be lower on that list--he has only made three movies in thirty years. Give his spot to an actual working director.
Tarantino should be higher, at least on the top ten. 'Kill Bill' is magnificent, regardless of its blood and over-emphasis on style.
Scorcese should be lower. I guess I was one of the few who thought 'Gangs Of New York' was an overambitious, overlong, muddled dissapointment.
I'm glad to see Hayao Miyazaki on the list. His films (Spirited Away, Princess Mononoke) take Japanese animation to the next level as accomplished cinema.
I agree with whoever said Kevin Smith should be on that list. Take the Wachowski bros out and put Kevin Smith there instead. Better!
Another notable omition: Darren Aronofski (Pi, Requiem For A Dream). He should be on the list.
Also, Spike Lee should be on that list, despite his big mouth. His last film, The 25th Hour, was remarkable.
As for no. 1, I think David Lynch deserves the spot. No other filmmaker who's on that list films will mistify future audiences more than David Lynch. :cool:
-
posted by ggw
Polanski is a child molester. Why anybody would ever go see one of his movies is beyond me.
Oh come on, Polanski is a fine filmmaker. 'The Pianist' was remarkable. If you're going to discredit an artist's works by his 'crimes' or legal troubles, you might as well burn half your record collection. :cool:
-
spielberg hasn't really put out any great films lately, but almost half of the people they had on that top 40 is less deserving.
as for polanski, like someone said, if you separate the person and the films that person made, he deserves to be up there.
-
I want Stephen Frears on this list.
-
Yes, Spielberg should be somewhere on that list. At least for his past work if not his most recent films.
Coppola technically should be there too.. although he's 'in decline' now. :cool:
-
Originally posted by PR_GMR:
Oh come on, Polanski is a fine filmmaker. 'The Pianist' was remarkable. If you're going to discredit an artist's works by his 'crimes' or legal troubles, you might as well burn half your record collection. :cool:
Why is 'crime' in quotes? Is drugging and anally raping a 13-year old not really criminal in your opinion?
He's a fugitive. It's not like he made some 'errors in judgment' and did his time and moved on with his life. He fled to escape prosecution, so I'm not going to line his pockets so he can continue to avoid paying his dues.
If any artist in my record collection is a fugitive child molester, I'll happily burn their discs.
-
Not a bad list though I disagree with the numbering. I was very happy to see Lynne Ramsay on there. She is a brilliant director. If you haven't seen Movern Callar, you should.
Where is David O Russell right now? Love his stuff.
And I was pretty anti-Spielberg until I saw Minority Report. That was a very good film.
Oh and I'm not knocking David Cronenberg as a director (though I'm also not a fan), but I don't understand why he's so high on the list.
-
Originally posted by PR_GMR:
Scorcese should be lower. I guess I was one of the few who thought 'Gangs Of New York' was an overambitious, overlong, muddled dissapointment.
So? That doesn't take away from Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver or the King of Comedy.
After Hours may be the movie I hate most in the universe, but Scorsese is still a master.
-
posted by ggw
If any artist in my record collection is a fugitive child molester, I'll happily burn their discs.
In that case, go ahead and burn your Michael Jackson CDs.. your Who/Pete Townsend CDs... and all those CDs by bands whose members have sex with underage women. :p
-
What is the allure of Kevin Smith? I'm not criticizing here; I just genuinely don't understand why he's regarded so highly in film circles. Don't get me wrong here; Clerks was laugh-out-loud funny, and the absurdity of Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back and Dogma made them enjoyable films, but I don't see where the reverance comes from. And this is from someone who gets and chuckles at every geeky comic book and movie joke he throws into his movies. Case in point, nothing cracks me up more than Bob saying "No Ticket" after tossing the angels from the train in Dogma. I just don't see where he's anywhere near deserving of being considered a great director. Any help, Bags?
Originally posted by Bagster:
Where the f*ck is Kevin Smith.
-
posted by Bagster
So? That doesn't take away from Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver or the King of Comedy.
After Hours may be the movie I hate most in the universe, but Scorsese is still a master.
Yep, he's still a master. I'm hoping his next one, 'The Aviator', turns out good. :cool:
-
Originally posted by PR_GMR:
In that case, go ahead and burn your Michael Jackson CDs..
What Michael Jackson CDs?
Originally posted by PR_GMR:
your Who/Pete Townsend CDs...
Cleared of possessing child pornography. Not even close to the same thing.
Originally posted by PR_GMR:
and all those CDs by bands whose members have sex with underage women.
What bands have given young girls quaaludes and then sodomized them? Gary Glitter maybe?
-
it's nice to see that one of the actors from markie's favorite film, Johnny Mnemonic (http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,6737,966251,00.html), made it.
-
John Woo! Either an oversight or his recent Hollywood crap got him blackballed from the list but the Killer and Hard Boiled should give him a lifetime pass onto these lists.
-
Originally posted by PR_GMR:
The Wachowski brothers don't belong in that list
Don't you mean sister (http://www.tgcrossroads.org/news/?aid=719)?
-
posted by ggw
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by PR_GMR:
In that case, go ahead and burn your Michael Jackson CDs..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Michael Jackson CDs?
Don't act innocent. :p
posted by ggw
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by PR_GMR:
your Who/Pete Townsend CDs...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleared of possessing child pornography. Not even close to the same thing.
Yeah, he was doing 'research'... yeahhhhhhhh, right. :p
posted by ggw
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by PR_GMR:
and all those CDs by bands whose members have sex with underage women.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What bands have given young girls quaaludes and then sodomized them? Gary Glitter maybe?
The laundry list of bands who take advantage of their underage groupies is too long to list. :p
-
Originally posted by PR_GMR:
Yeah, he was doing 'research'... yeahhhhhhhh, right.
Not only was he not convicted of child molestation, he wasn't even charged with molestation. Or even investigated for it. Apples and oranges. Actually, more like apples and staplers....
Originally posted by PR_GMR:
The laundry list of bands who take advantage of their underage groupies is too long to list.
Can't you name even one artist that was convicted (or even charged) with forcibly sodomizing a minor and then fled to escape prosecution?
-
You know what, you're probably right. I just LOVE him, everything about him. I want to marry him (if I can't have Grohl).
But, I also feel he has helmed a type of rebelious indie comedies that had been wanting -- irreverant and laugh out loud funny, but smart. 'Cuz most other comedies that are supposed to be that funny are usually way to stupid for me to even sit through. I appreciate the ability to go to a screwball comedy and not be embarrassed.
Originally posted by nkotbie:
What is the allure of Kevin Smith? I'm not criticizing here; I just genuinely don't understand why he's regarded so highly in film circles. Don't get me wrong here; Clerks was laugh-out-loud funny, and the absurdity of Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back and Dogma made them enjoyable films, but I don't see where the reverance comes from. And this is from someone who gets and chuckles at every geeky comic book and movie joke he throws into his movies. Case in point, nothing cracks me up more than Bob saying "No Ticket" after tossing the angels from the train in Dogma. I just don't see where he's anywhere near deserving of being considered a great director. Any help, Bags?
Originally posted by Bagster:
Where the f*ck is Kevin Smith.
[/b]
-
posted by ggw
Can't you name even one artist that was convicted (or even charged) with forcibly sodomizing a minor and then fled to escape prosecution?
Michael Jackson... R Kelly.
How about Jerry Lee Lewis.. who married his 14 year old cousin?
Wasn't Chuck Berry convicted once of 'taking a minor over state lines'... something which sounds like an euphemism for sex with a minor?
ggw, my ultimate point is this. You are acting all incensed over Polanski when the whole issue of sex with minors and the criminality of it can be applied to a wide variety of artists. Your self-righteous anger seems misdirected. If you're going to crusade against one artist for his indiscretion, you need to apply that policy to others also. :cool:
-
Originally posted by Bagster:
You know what, you're probably right. I just LOVE him, everything about him. I want to marry him (if I can't have Grohl).
I wonder if he puts the toilet seat down, rinses his whiskers out of the sink and gives good head? Find these things out before you commit, Bags.
-
Originally posted by PR_GMR:
Michael Jackson... R Kelly.
Where have they fled?
I wouldn't own any of their work either.
How about Jerry Lee Lewis.. who married his 14 year old cousin?
Legal. Sick, but legal. He's not a fugitive.
Wasn't Chuck Berry convicted once of 'taking a minor over state lines'... something which sounds like an euphemism for sex with a minor?
Convicted and went to jail. Did his time and moved on. Rape wasn't involved.
ggw, my ultimate point is this. You are acting all incensed over Polanski when the whole issue of sex with minors and the criminality of it can be applied to a wide variety of artists. Your self-righteous anger seems misdirected. If you're going to crusade against one artist for his indiscretion, you need to apply that policy to others also. :cool:
"sex with minors and the criminality of it"
"his indiscretion"
LOL
You can't even bring yourself to say it.
Polanski was convicted of drugging and raping a 13-year old and then fled the country. Your spirited defense of his actions makes me wonder if you haven't committed similar "indiscretions."
It's not self-righteous anger, it's intellectual curiosity at the way people exonerate somebody because of some abstract notion of the "artiste."
Really, if Polanski was a plumber, a car mechanic, a politician, or a CEO, you wouldn't be acting as though he were innocent.
-
I can live with all/any/none of it. ;)
Originally posted by Celeste:
Originally posted by Bagster:
You know what, you're probably right. I just LOVE him, everything about him. I want to marry him (if I can't have Grohl).
I wonder if he puts the toilet seat down, rinses his whiskers out of the sink and gives good head? Find these things out before you commit, Bags. [/b]
-
John Waters
John Boorman
-
Polanski was convicted of drugging and raping a 13-year old and then fled the country. Your spirited defense of his actions makes me wonder if you haven't committed similar "indiscretions."
Wonderful. So in order to discredit me, you vaguely point a finger at me trying to cast me as a child rapist. Such great intellectual debater your are, ggw! (/sarcasm)
I never said that child rape (yeah, I said it, happy now, wanker?) wasn't a heinous crime.. I was simply reaction to your over-moralistic reaction to the mentioning of Polanski on this thread. And No, I'm not a rabid Polanski fan. :cool:
-
Originally posted by PR_GMR:
Wonderful. So in order to discredit me, you vaguely point a finger at me trying to cast me as a child rapist. Such great intellectual debater your are, ggw! (/sarcasm)
Not trying to discredit you (your fallacious arguments did that on their own), I'm just searching for the reason why you defend him so.
Originally posted by PR_GMR:
I never said that child rape (yeah, I said it, happy now, wanker?) wasn't a heinous crime.. I was simply reaction to your over-moralistic reaction to the mentioning of Polanski on this thread. And No, I'm not a rabid Polanski fan. :cool:
"over-moralistic"
I love that defense -- portray anyone who would criticize Polanski as "Puritanical" or "self-righteous" or "overly-moralistic." I guess the "moral" part is fair. But then again, sodomizing a child is as "immoral" as one can get.
If you agree that his crime is heinous, and you admit that he actively avoids owning up to it and paying the price for it, how can you happily contribute to making him a wealthy man by patronizing his work?
Do you worry that people might think you're being "moral"?
-
Live with no head? You are a brave soul, Bags ;)
As for your post about Smith above, I guess I can see your point. I just have heard too many film kids gush over his "great" works, which, to me, just amount to funny comedies. I don't really see anything great about them, except that some are humorous.
I guess I've also met too many Kevin Smith types, being that I'm a comic geek at heart. I always just cast him as a real-life Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons: bitingly sarcastic, obsessive references to comics and sci-fi, annoying, total fanboy. But again, that's just me.
Originally posted by Bagster:
I can live with all/any/none of it. ;)
-
I'm a giver, what can I say.
I hear you on the Smith types, I went to college with a bunch (we probably all did, but I think it was especially prevalent at a small, NE liberal arts school -- we got more of the fringe smarties, not the ivy smarties...). Plus, I think Smith is really handsome...go ahead, mock me. He has a wonderful face and a wonderful voice.
I'm a geek, no doubt!
Originally posted by nkotbie:
Live with no head? You are a brave soul, Bags ;)
I guess I've also met too many Kevin Smith types, being that I'm a comic geek at heart. I always just cast him as a real-life Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons: bitingly sarcastic, obsessive references to comics and sci-fi, annoying, total fanboy. But again, that's just me.
Originally posted by Bagster:
I can live with all/any/none of it. ;)
[/b]
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
He fled to escape prosecution, so I'm not going to line his pockets so he can continue to avoid paying his dues.
If any artist in my record collection is a fugitive child molester, I'll happily burn their discs.
Line his pockets???? Making this list (or really, not even making the list, but rather somebody's obscure-message-board list of omissions from the list) comes with a stipend???? Huh????
Players don't get paid bonuses for being drafted in fantasy leagues. The context of this discussion contains absolutely no economic incentives or disincentives for any of the directors on or off the list.
You're perfectly free to boycott Polanski's movies on account of his confessed criminal behavior. You're equally free to argue against his inclusion on the list for the same reason. But get off your high horse about other peoples' choice to stick with the explicit topic of discussion, which is "TOP DIRECTORS." Not top role models.
And by the way, you'll need to get back to sorting your record collection if you're determined to be such a purist. I have yet to read about the elimination of drugs from pre- and post-concert celebrations by musicians, or the institution of carding for groupies wishing to join said celebrations. I will garan-friggin-tee that if you own more than 100 rock CDs, you've donated money to someone who Polanskied a young one and just didn't get caught.
-
Originally posted by Liberte:
Line his pockets???? Making this list (or really, not even making the list, but rather somebody's obscure-message-board list of omissions from the list) comes with a stipend???? Huh????
Players don't get paid bonuses for being drafted in fantasy leagues. The context of this discussion contains absolutely no economic incentives or disincentives for any of the directors on or off the list.
You're perfectly free to boycott Polanski's movies on account of his confessed criminal behavior. You're equally free to argue against his inclusion on the list for the same reason. But get off your high horse about other peoples' choice to stick with the explicit topic of discussion, which is "TOP DIRECTORS." Not top role models.
Oh, sorry. Was I "off-topic?"
If a thread is about a band's upcoming concert, is it okay to mention their album? Or who the band members are dating? Or must we strictly stick to the concert -- and only the upcoming one -- not any previous ones -- or concert's on the same tour but in a different city?
And by the way, you'll need to get back to sorting your record collection if you're determined to be such a purist. I have yet to read about the elimination of drugs from pre- and post-concert celebrations by musicians, or the institution of carding for groupies wishing to join said celebrations. I will garan-friggin-tee that if you own more than 100 rock CDs, you've donated money to someone who Polanskied a young one and just didn't get caught.
Since some people do it and don't get caught, we should exonerate those who do get caught and convicted? Wonderful logic......
-
posted by Liberte
And by the way, you'll need to get back to sorting your record collection if you're determined to be such a purist. I have yet to read about the elimination of drugs from pre- and post-concert celebrations by musicians, or the institution of carding for groupies wishing to join said celebrations. I will garan-friggin-tee that if you own more than 100 rock CDs, you've donated money to someone who Polanskied a young one and just didn't get caught.
YES. YES. YES. THAT IS MY FREAKING POINT! Well put, Liberte. :cool:
-
Don't want to get too involved in your argument..but if Polanski had done that to my daughter and did a legger to France I would've hunted the bastard down and cut his balls off with a blunt Swiss army knife then force fed them to him.
-
Where's Jack Nicholson in all of this heated debate?
-
Yeah but most pollocks are ball lovers anyway. He probably would have found them tasty.
Originally posted by mankie:
Don't want to get too involved in your argument..but if Polanski had done that to my daughter and did a legger to France I would've hunted the bastard down and cut his balls off with a blunt Swiss army knife then force fed them to him.
-
I do not remember the specifics of the case, but where were the girls parents? Did Polanski have reason to believe the girl was of legal age? I always got the impression she was consenting, I mean if not what was she doing there in the first place and she didnt put up a fight. Furthermore he wasnt a sicko with some pre-pubescent girl.
Thirsties point is a good one as well, where was Jack?
But does making a terrible, heinous, stupid mistake, negate anything positive you do in your life? Can you really not judge an artist by his art and not his life.
What about art that touches on child abuse. Did you never enjoy, or empathise with humbert-humbert?
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:Oh, sorry. Was I "off-topic?"
....Since some people do it and don't get caught, we should exonerate those who do get caught and convicted? Wonderful logic......
What the %$#! are you on about?
Find where I said you were off topic, or that "off topic" was the issue.
Find where I said anything about exonerating anybody.
You can't because, as any idiot with a passing knowledge of reading English prose could tell, I said no such things.
What I object to is your attempt to inflict upon everyone else your view of the proper response to Polanski's art. I took considerable pains to point out that you are entitled both to make and to advocate that response. If you try to cram it down my throat as the only possible morally acceptable position, plan on getting it spat right back in your face.
Polanski's inexcusable behavior isn't the only example of heinous in this thread. (Oh, and by the way, the former 13-year-old in question seems to take a somewhat more forgiving stance about the offense in question: http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html (http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html) "Samantha Geimer, who lives in Hawaii with her husband and three sons, went public in March to say she forgave Polanski for drugging her and raping her when she was a starstruck kid. She told London's Mail on Sunday that he should be pardoned. ") Twisting someone's words to deflect attention from an insupportable moral absolutism is heinous. Accusing someone who disagrees with you of being a child molester himself is heinous. According to your logic, none of us should ever forgive you for those crimes of Talibanistic mendaciousness and slander, right?
-
posted by markie
I do not remember the specifics of the case, but where were the girls parents? Did Polanski have reason to believe the girl was of legal age? I always got the impression she was consenting, I mean if not what was she doing there in the first place and she didnt put up a fight. Furthermore he wasnt a sicko with some pre-pubescent girl.
Yep, unless someone cares to dig out the actual facts of the case, I too remember the specifics of the case as Markie posted and as such Polanski's crime was that of 'statutory rape'. It doesn't make him a 'neat-o' guy.. but doesn't put him in the same league as so many serial murderers, serial rapists, and pedophiles. I think 'heinous' is too strong a word for what Polanski did.
posted by Liberte
Polanski's inexcusable behavior isn't the only example of heinous in this thread. (Oh, and by the way, the former 13-year-old in question seems to take a somewhat more forgiving stance about the offense in question: http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html (http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html) "Samantha Geimer, who lives in Hawaii with her husband and three sons, went public in March to say she forgave Polanski for drugging her and raping her when she was a starstruck kid. She told London's Mail on Sunday that he should be pardoned. ") Twisting someone's words to deflect attention from an insupportable moral absolutism is heinous. Accusing someone who disagrees with you of being a child molester himself is heinous. According to your logic, none of us should ever forgive you for those crimes of Talibanistic mendaciousness and slander, right?
Word. Liberte. word. :cool:
-
I wonder if GGW believes that all practicing Catholics are just as bad as the priests that molest children during the week then hold mass on Sunday?
Is it the mass or the priest?...is it the director or the movie?
Don't get me wrong, I'd kill the fucker after he's enjoyed having his nuts served to him...but if the movie is good, it's good. I'm not taking sides and I don't see or rent any Spike Lee movies because he's a racist little twat that gets away with it because of his color
-
From the accounts that I've read in the past, the girl's mother sort of encouraged her to go along with Polanski. Whether or not she considered what it would lead to, I don't know, but she had to have some clue as to the potential of what could happen. No, this does not excuse Polanski's part whatsoever. I'm only stating how the girl didn't have the best of direction (no pun intended) in the parental department. Sort of like all the young girls led into prostitution in Bangkok. Though I'm highly against all of that sort of stuff, you could argue it being a cultural difference. Not one I'm likely to accept, btw.
To answer your question Thirsty, Jack wasn't home. Some could play their little legal games and act like he's to blame too because he owned the property but if he knew nothing about what was going on, how on Earth could you rightfully blame him? (I don't know what he did or didn't know prior to leaving his home with Polanski.)
-
Originally posted by Liberte:
What the %$#! are you on about?
Find where I said you were off topic, or that "off topic" was the issue.
Originally posted by Liberte:
get off your high horse about other peoples' choice to stick with the explicit topic of discussion
.
Originally posted by Liberte:
Find where I said anything about exonerating anybody.
You can't because, as any idiot with a passing knowledge of reading English prose could tell, I said no such things.
No, you never said that directly. However, you claimed that it is inconsistent to own some records that may have been made by someone who may have raped somebody and to simultaneously condemn the work of Polanski who did molest a child. The implication is that since the ownership of the records implies that nothing is held against some people who may have done something Polanski definitely did, one can't hold anything against Polanski.
Originally posted by Liberte:
What I object to is your attempt to inflict upon everyone else your view of the proper response to Polanski's art.
I'm not entitled to state my opinion and argue for it?
Originally posted by Liberte:
I took considerable pains to point out that you are entitled both to make and to advocate that response.
Wait.....So I am entitled to state my opinion and argue for it?
Make up your mind.
Originally posted by Liberte:
If you try to cram it down my throat as the only possible morally acceptable position, plan on getting it spat right back in your face.
That's okay by me. You're welcome to argue your points as vociferously as I argue mine.
Originally posted by Liberte:
Polanski's inexcusable behavior isn't the only example of heinous in this thread. (Oh, and by the way, the former 13-year-old in question seems to take a somewhat more forgiving stance about the offense in question: http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html (http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html) "Samantha Geimer, who lives in Hawaii with her husband and three sons, went public in March to say she forgave Polanski for drugging her and raping her when she was a starstruck kid. She told London's Mail on Sunday that he should be pardoned. ")
If a guy beats the shit out of his wife and she declines to press charges, is that okay? This is a criminal matter not a civil matter.
I'm glad the victim has forgiven Polanski. It's been thirty years and she probably realized long ago that the healthy thing to do was to "forgive" him and put the incident behind her and move on with her life. More power to her. However, that doesn't mean the crime never happened and he didn't take off to avoid paying the price.
Originally posted by Liberte:
Twisting someone's words to deflect attention from an insupportable moral absolutism is heinous. Accusing someone who disagrees with you of being a child molester himself is heinous.
It was an implication, not an accusation, "as any idiot with a passing knowledge of reading English prose could tell."
Originally posted by Liberte:
According to your logic, none of us should ever forgive you for those crimes of Talibanistic mendaciousness and slander, right?
Uh huh.....
Please stick to your moral relativism if it makes you feel better. Just remember, it's a completely bankrupt philosophy, as it has the strange logical property of not being able to deny the truth of its own contradiction. (http://www.friesian.com/relative.htm)
-
Originally posted by markie:
I do not remember the specifics of the case, but where were the girls parents? Did Polanski have reason to believe the girl was of legal age? I always got the impression she was consenting, I mean if not what was she doing there in the first place and she didnt put up a fight. Furthermore he wasnt a sicko with some pre-pubescent girl.
Polanski told the girl and the mother that he thought she would be a good model and he would take some pictures and submit them to French Vogue. He took some photos of her on one occasion when the mother was present, and then invited her back for a second "shoot."
He was a sicko with some pre-pubescent girl. Or do you really believe that giving a 13-year old champagne and a quaalude and then sodomizing her despite her protests is not sick?
Originally posted by markie:
But does making a terrible, heinous, stupid mistake, negate anything positive you do in your life? Can you really not judge an artist by his art and not his life.
What about art that touches on child abuse. Did you never enjoy, or empathise with humbert-humbert?
If you knew your plumber was a fugitive child molester, would you choose to use him as your plumber?
I'm sure his art is great, but, like I said, I can't see how anyone would choose to put money in his pocket while he remains on the lam for child molestation.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Liberte:
What the %$#! are you on about?
Find where I said you were off topic, or that "off topic" was the issue.
************
And GGW tries to palm this off as his "example"????
************
Originally posted by Liberte:
get off your high horse about other peoples' choice to stick with the explicit topic of discussion
.
***********
Ye gods. Since when does "Get off your high horse about OTHER PEOPLES' CHOICE to stick with the explicit topic..." equal "You are off topic" ? Don't answer, you're bound to get it wrong at your current hit rate. The correct answer is never, in any language.
***********
Originally posted by Liberte:
Find where I said anything about exonerating anybody.
You can't because, as any idiot with a passing knowledge of reading English prose could tell, I said no such things.
No, you never said that directly.
***********
Goddamned right. And the following crock of shit is about as poor an excuse at self-justification for having made an insupportable accusation as one could ask for. You utterly missed the point. Let me try again: It is certainly inconsistent to claim moral superiority over other POSTERS HERE for choosing to admire (or pay for)Polanski's art when you yourself, beyond a shadow of a doubt, admire AND pay for works of art by people who have committed equally reprehensible acts. The problem is your GGW's-shit-doesn't-stink attitude toward other discussants, not your condemnation of Polanski.
***********
However, you claimed that it is inconsistent to own some records that may have been made by someone who may have raped somebody and to simultaneously condemn the work of Polanski who did molest a child. The implication is that since the ownership of the records implies that nothing is held against some people who may have done something Polanski definitely did, one can't hold anything against Polanski.
Originally posted by Liberte:
What I object to is your attempt to inflict upon everyone else your view of the proper response to Polanski's art.
I'm not entitled to state my opinion and argue for it?
Originally posted by Liberte:
I took considerable pains to point out that you are entitled both to make and to advocate that response.
Wait.....So I am entitled to state my opinion and argue for it?
Make up your mind.
**********
Ye gods (again). My position on your right to your own opinion was firmly established before you began this sophistry.
**********
Originally posted by Liberte:
Twisting someone's words to deflect attention from an insupportable moral absolutism is heinous. Accusing someone who disagrees with you of being a child molester himself is heinous.
It was an implication, not an accusation, "as any idiot with a passing knowledge of reading English prose could tell."
**********
Implying that somebody is guilty of something--especially in the service of an ignoble end like evading his point--is functionally equivalent to accusing him of it. Ad hominem is ad hominem is ad hominem, and it does not become one so intent on hogging the high moral ground to stoop to such tactics.
**********
Originally posted by Liberte:
According to your logic, none of us should ever forgive you for those crimes of Talibanistic mendaciousness and slander, right?
Uh huh.....
Please stick to your moral relativism if it makes you feel better. Just remember, it's a completely bankrupt philosophy, as it has the strange logical property of not being able to deny the truth of its own contradiction. (http://www.friesian.com/relative.htm) [/b]
*********
Moral relativism is a completely irrelevant term in regard to my argument, which is simply that you do not have the right, which you have attempted to arrogate, to impugn others for choosing to consider a man's art and life separately. What's more to the point is the moral indefensibility of misrepresenting others' words and slandering them, and then having the brass balls to lecture them regarding their ethical shortsightedness.
***********
From your next post:
If you knew your plumber was a fugitive child molester, would you choose to use him as your plumber?
I'm sure his art is great, but, like I said, I can't see how anyone would choose to put money in his pocket while he remains on the lam for child molestation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, some progress. The topic of the thread was, "Whose art as a director qualifies for a top 40 living practitioners list?" Personally, I'd put him on the list for some truly extraordinary movies in his oevre. That certainly does not mean I'm in favor of child rape, thank you very much. I believe the board consensus on that non-issue which you've attempted to club people with would be entirely one-sided.
I can also state with confidence that I wouldn't let the fellow anywhere near my plumbing. :D
As I've said now several times, you are free to argue against Polanski's belonging on that list FOR ANY REASON YOU LIKE. What is out of bounds in civilized discourse is condemning others' moral fitness for having the temerity to disagree with your criteria. Dump that holier-than-thou-ness, and we have no substantive argument.
-
"GGW.....If you knew your plumber was a fugitive child molester, would you choose to use him as your plumber?
I'm sure his art is great, but, like I said, I can't see how anyone would choose to put money in his pocket while he remains on the lam for child molestation. "
This seems to be the crux of your argument and quite compelling too. But I guess the point is he is not a plumber. He makes great movies. Personally I think it probably takes more skill to make great works of art than fix pipe work.
If he were a plumber, the irony is, you probably wouldnt know he was a child molester and you would get him to unclog your shitter.
Unless you are saying that you ask every company or person if they are a child molester/criminal before you accept their products or services?
But I am sure he is not the first person ever to do something odious? Do you not watch Woody Allen movies anymore? How about the rolling stones? Bill Wyman started an affair with Mandy Smith when she was 13.
Your argument does however have an anolgy with science performed under the nazi regime. For years no one would go near it with a barge pole....
-
Liberte....
"I believe the board consensus on that non-issue which you've attempted to club people with would be entirely one-sided."
Just because an argument is one sided or only one person holds a belief, it does not make that argument or belief incorrect. You know the earth is round because Galileo said so, right?
-
I really do see both sides to this discussion and agree with both....regardless of his personal past, if he makes great movies he makes great movies. That being said, I personally would never go see one of his movies and put money in his pocket just on principal, and missing a good movie will not cause me great pain or misery. That is MY decision and I wouldn't try to force my decision on anyone else.
I think it's time for all to simply agree to disagree and move on.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
I think it's time for all to simply agree to disagree and move on.
spoilsport..... I think it was an interesting debate. I had never thought about it before at all.
-
Originally posted by markie:
Liberte....
"I believe the board consensus on that non-issue which you've attempted to club people with would be entirely one-sided."
Just because an argument is one sided or only one person holds a belief, it does not make that argument or belief incorrect. You know the earth is round because Galileo said so, right?
Markie, what I actually meant (forgive me if this was not clear) was that a referendum on whether child molesting was a bad thing would have a one-sided outcome. Um, right? Or do we have someone that would like to stand up for the chickenhawk contingent? I found it somewhat appalling that the argument seemed, at times, to be cast in terms of "If you disagree with me about Polanski, you must think that drugging and raping children is OK."
-
Give Polanski (http://www.ccchronicle.com/back/2003-01-06/arts7.html) a break. "...his mother [...] dying in Auschwitz at eight months pregnant [...]married with a baby on the way, his first American film, Rosemaryâ??s Babyâ??s in theatersâ?? Polanskiâ??s personal life was uprooted. Along with three of Polanskiâ??s friends, Charles Mansonâ??s infamous clan murdered and dismembered Tate "
His mother and wife both murdered while pregnant?
Has he been found guilty in absentia of 'unlawful sexual intercourse' yet. No? Well, then what about the presumption of innocence?
-
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
Give Polanski (http://www.ccchronicle.com/back/2003-01-06/arts7.html) a break. "...his mother [...] dying in Auschwitz at eight months pregnant [...]married with a baby on the way, his first American film, Rosemaryâ??s Babyâ??s in theatersâ?? Polanskiâ??s personal life was uprooted. Along with three of Polanskiâ??s friends, Charles Mansonâ??s infamous clan murdered and dismembered Tate "
His mother and wife both murdered while pregnant?
Has he been found guilty in absentia of 'unlawful sexual intercourse' yet. No? Well, then what about the presumption of innocence?
Polanski pled guilty to one count of, I think it was "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" before fleeing in advance of his sentencing hearing. So there is no defense of presumptive innocence.
As you correctly point out, though, the guy has led a fairly horrific life. Being imprisoned inside his own skin is not such a fabulous upgrade over the jail time he would likely have gotten had he not skipped the country. There's a whole school of aesthetic philosophy which maintains that such guilt and misery is a necessary precondition for the creation of great art. (Now there's a thread topic that can lead to endless debate....)
I don't believe, however, that that bails Polanski out of responsibility for his actions. So I have to respect Mankie's position, which I believe is a less absolutist version of where GGW was coming from. However, in view of Polanski's having already suffered more than anyone should have to bear, and the fact that there was at least an element of consent (to the extent one believes that possible for a minor--but then, we were letting Jerry Lee Lewis off the hook on that score, weren't we?) in the crime, and most of all that the victim appears to have been able to enjoy a more or less normal life afterwards and has forgiven the perp, I believe that a position of forgiveness and moving on would also bear one's respect.
-
Dear Liberace,
AHHH. I stop in now and again to read some of these posts in the 930 Forum - and I love it when I run into one like this. It reminds me how great it is to be a human being - you know - with free will - freedom of choice - freedom of speech. And I love it when someone like you comes along (I have a feeling you must be at the stage of menopause) and pretends to have the answers and take control of the situation.
I - for one - agree with GGW (regardless of what the topic of this thread was - because on this postboard no one EVER sticks to the topic) and I would never spend a penny towards anyone who molested a child.
So in the spirt of Freedom of Speech - Go Suck a Donkey Dick. :p
-
Originally posted by swell:
Dear Liberace,
AHHH. I stop in now and again to read some of these posts in the 930 Forum - and I love it when I run into one like this. It reminds me how great it is to be a human being - you know - with free will - freedom of choice - freedom of speech. And I love it when someone like you comes along (I have a feeling you must be at the stage of menopause) and pretends to have the answers and take control of the situation.
I - for one - agree with GGW (regardless of what the topic of this thread was - because on this postboard no one EVER sticks to the topic) and I would never spend a penny towards anyone who molested a child.
So in the spirt of Freedom of Speech - Go Suck a Donkey Dick. :D
-
god, i hate long posts......
and i don't know shit so i wont post my opinions....
-
god, i hate long posts......
and i don't know shit so i wont post my opinions....and no one would agree with me,..,.
-
i dont have a clue what i just did..........
-
You quoted yourself instead of editing. Don't worry, you aren't the first to make that mistake.
-
pedro almodovar, terry zwigoff, quentin tarantino, david lynch, david cronenberg, spike lee, spike jonze, wes anderson, martin scorsese, oliver stone, michel gondry (at least the music videos), joel coen, jane campion
those are the ones that usually make movies I want to see. :)
-
What about the truly great Blake Edwards? (http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=2:88685) He's still alive.
Who in hell is Spike Jonze? Didn't he make just one crappy film? How does that make him "Great!"???
-
Originally posted by Liberte:
though, the guy has led a fairly horrific life. Being imprisoned inside his own skin is not such a fabulous upgrade over the jail time he would likely have gotten had he not skipped the country.
Awwwwwww. Poor Roman had a tough life.
Jail isn't necessary. We'll pardon him because we're sure that he feels bad for sodomizing that 13-year old that he drugged........
Originally posted by Liberte:
However, in view of Polanski's having already suffered more than anyone should have to bear, and the fact that there was at least an element of consent (to the extent one believes that possible for a minor--but then, we were letting Jerry Lee Lewis off the hook on that score, weren't we?) in the crime, and most of all that the victim appears to have been able to enjoy a more or less normal life afterwards and has forgiven the perp, I believe that a position of forgiveness and moving on would also bear one's respect.
Do you advocate this position of "forgiveness and moving on" for all fugitive child-fuckers, or just the ones that make cool movies?
-
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
Who in hell is Spike Jonze? Didn't he make just one crappy film? How does that make him "Great!"???
Nope, he made one phenomenal film and another really good film. There are many others on that list with only two under their belts, so his position is deserved in my opinion.
Adaptation was my favorite film last year, if not of the last few years.
-
Would you do yourself a favor and buy a clue, GGW?
At no point in this dialogue (and I use that term loosely, since you seem incapable of actually comprehending what anyone else writes) have I or anyone else suggested absolving Polanski of responsibility for his behavior. The irony of your persistently distorting the words of those who don't swallow your entire position would be laughable, if it weren't so ugly.
You have attempted to sell a false dichotomy, and I'm not buying. You seem to think that holding someone responsible for his actions requires total, permanent, scorched-earth jihad against every aspect of his being, and that failure to follow your dogma is a mark of moral degeneracy. That, my friend, is simple selfish hatemongering wrapped in a veneer of sanctimony.
I will not apologize for taking a moral position based on hating the sin, not the sinner. I spit on your characterization of considering the whole context as "moral relativism." I laugh at the foolish inconsistency of your arguments. Jerry Lee Lewis (alcoholic, drug-abusing, confessed pervert--nah, he couldn't have committed exactly the same acts on his 13-year old, could he?) is off the hook because he picked a state for his depredations whose bizarre laws permitted what was proscribed in Polanski's case??? (Or is the problem that ol' Roman neglected to choose a blood relative as his target?) The don't-ask-don't-tell rule absolves you from thinking about the pervs whose works litter your own music collection??? It's perfectly okay--nay, mandatory-- to trash the hundreds of non-child-molesting contributors to Polanski's movies to make a "statement" about not putting money in the sinner's pockets (even though in all probability not one thin dime will ever reach said sinner, who has already been paid whatever he was going to get)???
Puh-leeeeeeeeeeze.
I will now use short words and sentences. Maybe you can finally wrap your tiny mind around them. </font>- <font size="2" face="Arial, Veranda">Child molesting is bad.</font></li>
- <font size="2" face="Arial, Veranda">If Roman is caught, make him serve the time.</font></li>
- <font size="2" face="Arial, Veranda">You want to boycott his movies, go ahead.</font></li>
- <font size="2" face="Arial, Veranda">Others disagree, you respect their choice.</font></li>
<font size="2" face="Arial, Veranda">
See if you can focus on those simple points, and stop pulling snarky bullshit out of your butt.
-
Originally posted by Liberte:
At no point in this dialogue (and I use that term loosely, since you seem incapable of actually comprehending what anyone else writes) have I or anyone else suggested absolving Polanski of responsibility for his behavior
You seem to have trouble remembering what you posted:
Originally posted by Liberte:
However, in view of Polanski's having already suffered more than anyone should have to bear, and the fact that there was at least an element of consent (to the extent one believes that possible for a minor--but then, we were letting Jerry Lee Lewis off the hook on that score, weren't we?) in the crime, and most of all that the victim appears to have been able to enjoy a more or less normal life afterwards and has forgiven the perp, I believe that a position of forgiveness and moving on would also bear one's respect.
Or will you now offer some tired semantic discourse on the distinction between "forgive and move on" and "absolve"?
Originally posted by Liberte:
You have attempted to sell a false dichotomy, and I'm not buying. You seem to think that holding someone responsible for his actions requires total, permanent, scorched-earth jihad against every aspect of his being, and that failure to follow your dogma is a mark of moral degeneracy. That, my friend, is simple selfish hatemongering wrapped in a veneer of sanctimony..
I'm saying that there is a fugitive child molestor living in France who makes his living by selling movies. I'm saying that if one attends his movies one is contributing to his economic welfare.
Would one willingly choose to contribute to the well-being of a fugitive child molestor? If so, why?
The only answers seem to be, "Maybe the 13-year old girl wanted it." "Why wasn't the girl's mother around?" "Leave him alone, he's a great filmmaker." and anything else that can minimize Polanski's responsibility.
Hitler made the trains run on time and revitalized the German economy. Let's praise him too.
Originally posted by Liberte:
I will not apologize for taking a moral position based on hating the sin, not the sinner. I spit on your characterization of considering the whole context as "moral relativism." I laugh at the foolish inconsistency of your arguments. Jerry Lee Lewis (alcoholic, drug-abusing, confessed pervert--nah, he couldn't have committed exactly the same acts on his 13-year old, could he?) is off the hook because he picked a state for his depredations whose bizarre laws permitted what was proscribed in Polanski's case??? (Or is the problem that ol' Roman neglected to choose a blood relative as his target?) The don't-ask-don't-tell rule absolves you from thinking about the pervs whose works litter your own music collection??? It's perfectly okay--nay, mandatory-- to trash the hundreds of non-child-molesting contributors to Polanski's movies to make a "statement" about not putting money in the sinner's pockets (even though in all probability not one thin dime will ever reach said sinner, who has already been paid whatever he was going to get)???
Jerry Lee Lewis is sick. Please refer to my earlier post where I stated that. I hope Arkansas, or whatever back-ass state it was, has changed the laws. But last time I checked, he wasn't a fugitive, there were no charges of rape, no charges of drugging, no charges of sodomy.
As for my record collection, the fact that you continue to try to construct this flimsy house of cards based on speculation, supposition, and flawed logic to support your claim of moral equivalency between Polanski and all the artists in my record collection is ridiculous.
You say my music collection is tainted because of the actions of somebody represented in it. Can you give any names? Nope. Can you point to any incidents? Nope. You don't even bother to offer up some saucey snippet from Pamela des Barres or anything even remotely tangential to your assertion. Instead, based purely on conjecture, you just proclaim that somewhere, at some point in time, somebody may have committed some act, that may in some way bear some resemblance to a specifically identifiable man, convicted of a specifically identified crime which he has never denied, and that this is equivalent.
Further, you assert that this chimerical transgression stains all of my music. As though I have argued that Polanski's act means all movies and directors are guilty of his crimes.
Clearly, you are the expert at foolish inconsistency.
Originally posted by Liberte:
I will now use short words and sentences. Maybe you can finally wrap your tiny mind around them. </font>- <font size="2" face="Arial, Veranda">Child molesting is bad.</font></li>
- <font size="2" face="Arial, Veranda">If Roman is caught, make him serve the time.</font></li>
- <font size="2" face="Arial, Veranda">You want to boycott his movies, go ahead.</font></li>
- <font size="2" face="Arial, Veranda">Others disagree, you respect their choice.</font></li>
<font size="2" face="Arial, Veranda">
See if you can focus on those simple points, and stop pulling snarky bullshit out of your butt. [/b]
Readinz phun......
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Readinz phun......
Sure is. You should learn how to do it sometime.
Since it it now established beyond a reasonable doubt that you have not the decency to refrain from lying, misrepresentation, and sophistry in the attempted defense of your absurd jihad against anyone who disagrees with you, I believe it's best to let you fester alone in your obsession. If you don't like the fact that others find value in art, regardless of whether the artist is a saint or a monster, tough shit.
-
Originally posted by Liberte:
Since it it now established beyond a reasonable doubt that you have not the decency to refrain from lying, misrepresentation, and sophistry in the attempted defense of your absurd jihad against anyone who disagrees with you, I believe it's best to let you fester alone in your obsession. If you don't like the fact that others find value in art, regardless of whether the artist is a saint or a monster, tough shit.
So you concede that you can't fight my arguments?
Well then, I graciously accept your white flag.
Thanks for playing.
His art may be great, but it is also his economic production and the source of his livelihood. I'm curious how people are comfortable with supporting him through the consumption of his art.
People boycott the economic production of Wal Mart and Starbucks and Gap and dozens of other corporations because they represent union busting or gentrification or sweatshops. However, when it comes to an "artiste," it's somehow different, even if the artist is a fugitive child molester. The only explanation given is that because it is "art" we are talking about, the typical considerations don't apply. I don't buy it. And if that makes me a moral absolutist, then a moral absolutist I will happily be.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
So you concede that you can't fight my arguments?
No. I concede that you have no regard for the conventions of civilized rational discourse, are incapable of comprehending viewpoints other than your own, are a completely self-oblivious hypocrite, and bore the shit out of me. And I've given you more than sufficient opportunity to convince many others reading this board of the same things. So why should I bother wasting any more time on you?
Um, that was a rhetorical question. No need to answer.
-
Originally posted by Liberte:
So why should I bother wasting any more time on you?
ah, but having already invested so much time into this, it would be a shame to quit now....
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
Originally posted by Liberte:
So why should I bother wasting any more time on you?
ah, but having already invested so much time into this, it would be a shame to quit now.... [/b]
LOL. Y'know, Celeste, I did consider that point of view. But the old maxim finally prevailed, "Never wrestle with a pig--you'll get all dirty and the pig will just enjoy it." So I'm scraping the muck off and looking for something less greasy for my next bout ;)