dagblog - Comments for "Not About Polanski"

My mom loved Woody Allen

Orlando — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:29:57 +0000

In reply to Well, most of those people

My mom loved Woody Allen movies. She was already out of her mind a bit when he slept with his step-daughter, which I suspect would have altered her opinion. I finally broke down and saw Match Point a few years ago. It left me utterly baffled at the hoopla. Also, utterly bored. I was duped into watching Vicky Cristina Barcelona last year and had a similar experience. I don't want my money back, but I would like Mr. Allen to arrange to have my life extended by 4 hours.

Everyone once in a while,

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:37:02 +0000

In reply to Lately he sucks. I still

Everyone once in a while, when one of his films get good reviews, I go see it, but I'm always disappointed. His earlier films are classics, and his old stand-up routines are hilarious.

IIRC, I liked Sleeper, but

Nebton — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:31:11 +0000

In reply to Lately he sucks. I still

IIRC, I liked Sleeper, but found Annie Hall to be only so-so, which is to say much better than Mighty Aphrodite, which I don't think I was even able to finish watching.

Whoopi Goldberg astonishingly

DF — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:57:00 +0000

In reply to Let me respond without the

Whoopi Goldberg astonishingly went so far as to say that he didn't, and I quote, commit "rape-rape", whatever that means. Here's the video:

Even more astonishing is how much sense Sherri Shepherd is making here.

Lately he sucks. I still

DF — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:56:04 +0000

In reply to Well, most of those people

Lately he sucks. I still like some of his earlier stuff like Sleeper and Annie Hall, but I think these days he mostly views making movies as an excuse to spend time with Scarlett Johannsen.

Well, most of those people

Nebton — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:20:49 +0000

In reply to Let me respond without the

Well, most of those people are just crazy, then. For Woody Allen, it's probably self-defense. However, he's still crazy regardless. (Also, am I the only person who thinks Woody Allen films aren't really that good?)

Let me respond without the

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:35:59 +0000

In reply to At the risk of getting

Let me respond without the skewer:

I, too, maintain that his art is separate from his personal deeds, and always have. I paid to see The Pianist, love Chinatown, don't grudge him his Oscar and bought a DVD of his within the last six months. (Macbeth, which is terrible.) That position is mine, and I am not attacking it.

But many of his prominent defenders go far beyond that, defending the man because of the art. (How grotesque, really, to use the Leni Riefenstahl defense.) The denounce the arrest and want Polanski freed.

A very partial and selected list of those people include:

Anne Applebaum at the Washington Post. The French Culture Minister, the Polish Foreign Minsiter (Appbelbaum's husband), Whoopi Goldberg, Debra Winger, Martin Scorsese (which explains why I singled out the last three for examples in my post), pedro Almodovar, Costa Gavras, Woody Allen, Wes Anderson, and a legion of film types.

Here's a link to a list of film people who've signed a petition in which they "demand the immediate release of Roman Polanski."

That's "immediate," "release" and "demand." It's not art criticism.

At the risk of getting

Nebton — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:19:31 +0000

In reply to Not About Polanski

At the risk of getting skewered, I do want to point out that many of the Polanski "apologists" were most definitely not making excuses for Polanski. Rather, they were stating that his act was vile, he should be prosecuted for it, but that his art is independent of his person.

I'm not the artsy-fartsy type, but that does sound like a reasonable argument to me.

Thanks for the kind words,

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:15:33 +0000

In reply to Not About Polanski

Thanks for the kind words, gang.

I've been having fun around here.

Thanks, DF. The thing about

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:14:57 +0000

In reply to Great post, Dr. C. Last

Thanks, DF.

The thing about the statute of limitations is that the clock stops if you *flee the jurisdiction*. The reason we're still dealing with "old stuff" is because Polanski fled during his trial. The statute of limitations is about not dredging up ancient history for fresh prosecutions, and varies with the crime. (Midemeanors expire quickly if they don't get charged, murder raps last forver.) You

And I would add to Harding's point about the victim that weirdly, the victim's wishes are paramount when they happen to serve Polanski. Her voiced wishes weren't worth a damn when Polanski didn't want to obey them. That's an interesting rule.

I don't believe for a second that Polanski's defenders would be swayed by the victim's wish for prosecution.