Roman Polanski

lavender

Cautiously Optimistic
Joined
Apr 6, 2001
Posts
25,108
For all of you who are as sickened by this man's award, please take the time to send an email to news sources, send it to your local paper, send an email to The Academy.

I am currently writing as many places as I can.

I am sickened. I am repulsed. This absolutely kills me.



I am appalled by the Academy's selection of Roman Polanski for Best Director. I find a glaring contradiction in the Academy's moral and political attitude towards the war and the fact that the same people are willing to award a man who committed such an atrocious act, against an innocent young woman, on American soil.

If The Academy wants to be a voice for politics, they should really analyze their own choices.

After the Academy's selection, I will no longer be watching any of their Awards. This award is a travesty for justice and an affront to young women across the country.

It is truly sickening.
 
I'm not defending him, but his "real life" has never obviously affected how "well" he does his job.

I don't agree with his "real life" doings, but he may very well in fact be a decent director.
 
Might want to reference the thread you mentioned him in before Lavy for the people who may not know what you are talking about.
 
Azwed said:
Might want to reference the thread you mentioned him in before Lavy for the people who may not know what you are talking about.

Can you link that Azwed. You are better at it.

Would you mind writing a quick thing to a few sources?

If anyone wants to know, he drugged and anally sodomized a 13 year old girl. He was convicted and fled the country to France. France will not extradite him.
 
I agree with, Lo. Well I don't agree with what he did, he is a good Director.
 
Tha Academy has no mind of its own. It is a collective, and the decisions are made by majority vote. Nobody but PriceWaterhouseCooper knew what name was in the envelope before it was opened.
 
This is the old Pete Rose and the Hall of Fame argument.

Circular depending on your emotional attachment.
 
breakwall said:
This is the old Pete Rose and the Hall of Fame argument.

Circular depending on your emotional attachment.

No, it's completely different than Pete Rose. Polanski has been honored before.

Additionally, raping a 13 year old is a bit different than gambling.

It's in a different fucking league.
 
breakwall said:
This is the old Pete Rose and the Hall of Fame argument.

Circular depending on your emotional attachment.


All I can say is......its a political statement.

Nuff said.
 
Does no one give a fuck?

Well, that's nice.

What if that girl were your child?
 
I think it is late Lavy and people are burned out.

I will bump this thread in the morning before I go to work though.

Side note

Have you seen the thread on my insane university?

And do you want to get on AIM?
 
What if Mr. Polanski were your brother? Should he be denied recognition in the field of work in which he excels?

Even if he were forced to direct films from a jail cell, he would still produce high quality work.
 
Well Lavy...

Lets agree to disagree here...

He was awarded an award as a director... not for his humanity, or inhumanity as you will... This was not the Academy's Irving Thalberg award .. He received the award for his art.... and it was a tremendous movie... I have seldom seen a movie as moving and haunting as this one was... I feel he deserved the award for the movie he made... not for his life..
 
Lavy, there is no question that his real-life actions are heinous.
Did you know that Jack Nicholson has similar proclivities? I know this to be true. And if interested in why I know, you are welcome to PM me.

It is important to separate the man from the art.
Often the most creative people are the most kinked.

<Not pinting any fingers here, mind you>

You are right to be outraged. He's a creep. But heis a talented creep.
 
The Academy is a collective voting body, and only a person's work is considered. Many actors and actresses (remember Vanessa Redgrave anyone?) have alienated the Academy members by their political view points especially those overly political speeches delivered by winners over the years. Polanski won on the merit of his work not his personality or proclivities. I did not watch the Academy Awards this evening because I have come to disagree with the film industry in the same manner that I disagree with the Music industry and the Grammy awards. This disagreement however, had not included Polanski or his work because I have not ever been impressed with him as a director.

~Edited to add, I disagree with Susan Sarandon's perennial war protesting as well but I still like her as an actress. The Dixie Chicks however...
 
Last edited:
Polanski is a gifted director, so what. What will always be attached to him is what he did with a thirteen year old child. The stench of it will follow him even long after he is in the grave.

This is something I suspect even he knows. There are many things I will give a pass to in life, child sexual abuse is not one of them.

I have always loved most of Jack Nicholson's movies, but if he has in fact done similar things ... well fuck him to.
 
Marxist said:
"Statutory" seems to be a lost word in this discussion.

Well, don't act as if that's all it was.

If you know the facts, you KNOW that they plea bargained DOWN to statutory rape. But, statutory rape, is different from other rape in that it was consensual. It's proven that this girl was drugged and that she said no - so it was clearly a rape case just plead down to statutory.

And how the fuck does that make it any different?
 
The film industry is also very careful, being aware that anything that smells of Blacklisting may come back to haunt them. So, they are sticking strictly to the letter of their charter. Lavender, you are well aware that the Law is not a Moral beast. Law exists to treat men and women fairly in cases that are the same or similar. Morality or the lack of it in the Law is up to persuasiveness of the individual lawyer or judge...but the Law itself is without moral consideration. When any one of us stands in front of a court of law all we pray for is not then justice but mercy that the court will see our good points and our bad ones and judge us accordingly. I think the Academy has done well remaining impartial in regard to Roman Polanski, but it has a long way to go in other fields of acceptance.
 
My question...is he going to come here to accept the award? Seems that is the least he could do.

What he did, he should not have been able to continue his 'work' to be eligible for the award in the first place. Statutory rape is a sickening and selfish act and crime. Had he not gotten away, to France I might add...he would have been in prison for quite some time, and probably not ever allowed to direct again. There is a far huge big difference between statutory rape and gambling or other crime in my book. I feel that he should be put up there with Gacy or Dahlmer. To be perfectly honest...Woody Allen is a close one to that title too.

Just because they put out 'great' movies, does not put them above the law, or make them able to have the public ignore their evil. Sex with any person under the age of consent is an evil, dispicable act. Giving him an award is to condone his actions. Wrong 'Wrong Wrong.:mad:
 
Well I was as shocked as you were, the Oscar was for Best Directo, not Best Morale. Did Clinton's infidelity make him a bad President? Or, like Perky said, Kennedys? My point is, what they do in their personal life has nothing to do with what they do in their professional life. He's a sick man, yes. But, a sick man who directs good movies.
 
Back
Top