MovieChat Forums > Roman Polanski Discussion > Polanski, bad ... Woody Allen, OK

Polanski, bad ... Woody Allen, OK

posted 3 years ago by brux (14736)
32 replies | jump to latest

Polanski should have done his time, and they should not forget about it just because he was rich enough to hop a jet to Switzerland.

[–] liscarkat (18605) 3 years ago

The difference is that Polanski is guilty, even by his own admission, but in Allen's case, after an intensive investigation both police detectives and child psychologists came to the conclusion that the child was lying, and had been coached to do so by her mother.

[–] Ace_Spade (9577) 3 years ago

Yes. The two cases aren't connected at all.

[–] brux (14736) 3 years ago

They are associated in the public mind as child molesting or pedophilia, whether that is technically equivalent or not.

[–] Ace_Spade (9577) 3 years ago

In this instance, though, liscarkat and I are responding to your post that links the two, if not equates them.

[–] brux (14736) 3 years ago

You're reading into that

[–] Ace_Spade (9577) 3 years ago

Your post is titled "Polanski, bad ... Woody Allen, ok". You're drawing a comparison there, aren't you?

The fact that the body of the post itself didn't mention Allen at all led me to believe that you were saying, "Since Polanski, thus Allen," but even if that's not true, the title of the post compares them. Since the rest of the post doesn't say, "There should be no comparison," the absence of that statement does its own work to imply a connection there.

I take it you didn't intend that? But that's why I'm drawing that conclusion.

[–] brux (14736) 3 years ago

What's the opposite of comparison?

[–] Ace_Spade (9577) 3 years ago

Contrast. I can see where the title goes there, but an absence of Allen discussed in the body made it seem more like equating than separating to me.

[–] [email protected] (153) 3 years ago

Didn't Polanski do time at a county jail but was released for good behavior or crowded prison system? That was the time when he fled.

[–] Ace_Spade (9577) 3 years ago

I don't really remember the details. To the best of my recollection, Polanski was convinced to plead guilty so he could get a light sentence or time served or something. When he did, he somehow got the impression that the judge was going to throw the book at him and make an example of him, so he fled to Europe. But it's been awhile since I really read up on the case.

[–] brux (14736) 3 years ago

No, Polansky was guilty, and at the time the mother was guilty to because she let her daughter go with Polanski to get drugged and anally raped underage. Polanski did not want to go to jail/prison, so he jumped bail. Since that time both mother and daughter say they are ok with it, or over it ... whatever. Both, or all three low-life scums. What a great mother, and what a great role model who should be making movies for millions.

Polanski guilty, Woody Allen not-guilty, if you need it spelled out.

[–] [email protected] (153) 3 years ago

First paragraph: OK, understood.
Second paragraph: No need to be so condescendign. Enough with online rudeness.

[–] brux (14736) 3 years ago

Do you mean "condescending". LOL

[–] Ace_Spade (9577) 3 years ago

I know the differences between the Polanski and the Allen cases, even if I was fuzzy on the details of Polanski's.

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

I can't stand the sight of either of them, and am not watching any of their films, buying any product they make, or clicking on any of their interviews.

Which none of you can argue with, try though you might. There is no moral, legal, or social obligation to buy or otherwise support any efforts put out by an individual you despise.

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

I can and will argue with your dumb position. Firstly, there’s no evidence that Allen is guilty of anything so not watching his films based on some false accusation is… insane.

And Polanski, he is guilty but if you’re a film lover then you’re depriving yourself of one of cinemas finest directors and a living legend, you’re just shooting yourself in the foot.

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

You are assuming that my contempt for these two men is based entirely on the illegal activity they've been accused and/or convicted of, that is a false assumption. My loathing of them includes those actions, as well as many other actions and statements they've made over the years, the whole of which is fed into my capacity to understand and judge other people's character.

And FYI, no power in Heaven or Earth, real or imaginary, will convince me that my capacity to understand and judge people's characters is in any way inferior to that of a person who goes around defending pervs and creeps.

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

You are assuming that my contempt for these two men is based entirely on the illegal activity they've been accused and/or convicted of, that is a false assumption. My loathing of them includes those actions, as well as many other actions and statements they've made over the years, the whole of which is fed into my capacity to understand and judge other people's character.

What actions and statements have made you refuse to watch the works of Woody Allen and Roman Polanski, and which other artists’ works do you refuse to absorb based on their actions/statements?

And FYI, no power in Heaven or Earth, real or imaginary, will convince me that my capacity to understand and judge people's characters is in any way inferior to that of a person who goes around defending pervs and creeps.

How is this relevant? Which ‘pervs and creeps’ are being defended and who is defending them?

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

With both men, there is a pattern of harming others, and showing every intention to keep harming others. Which is IMHO both an indication of poor character, to put it politely, and/or one of the personality disorders involving a "clinical lack of empathy", or end-stage Hollywood Ego Disease.

As for who's defending them, that would be the batshit delusions incels on Moviechat. They are legion.

[–] clashwho (758) 3 years ago

Who has Woody Allen harmed? Mia Farrow?

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

Among others.

[–] clashwho (758) 3 years ago

Such as?

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

Enough to convince me that he's not a good person.

And no, I'm not going to elaborate on that, because I'm sick of the Incel game where some asshole who wishes he could get away with the stuff Harvey Weinstein blames the victim and excuses the perpetrator, and claims to his own satisfaction that Harvey Weinstein or Kevin Spacey are wonderful men who are being unfairly persecuted. That game is an idiotic waste of time for all involves, and I'm not going to play it.

[–] clashwho (758) 3 years ago

http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html

[–] [email protected] (153) 3 years ago

Exactly. Just like when you punish the whole country of Russia just because of what its leader does. You are gonna miss some fine caviar and vodka!

[–] strntz (12484) 3 years ago

But it's worth it. At the end of the day, the Russian people are wholly responsible for the POS sitting as "president". It was the Russian people who let Pute become dictator. Screw 'em.

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

agreed, or at least continued to support him. initially he was elected for the very reason because he wasn't a crazy ideologue and didn't have much baggage (although I don't know how a former KGB officer cant) who basically turned into a pseudo dictator.

and seems to have a very strong, dangerous militant support base outside the general Russian voters support

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

If Putin is a dictator then by definition the Russian people don’t have any say in whether or not he is in power.

Why is Putin being brought into this discussion about filmmakers?

[–] strntz (12484) 3 years ago

If Putin is a dictator then by definition the Russian people don’t have any say in whether or not he is in power.

They don't now but they did when he first took absolute power after his elected terms were over. If Joe Biden tried to become dictator of the U.S., the citizens would march on Washington and throw him out, or at least die trying. I would grab my guns and head to Washington even if Abe Lincoln himself wanted to appoint himself dictator.

Why is Putin being brought into this discussion about filmmakers?

Good question, but a better one might be to ask why he even has a page on MC at all?

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

Well they didn’t know he was going to turn out to be a dictator (assuming he actually is, that’s still debatable) when they voted him in.

Most Russians seem broadly happy with his philosophy and policies, so I don’t think they feel the need to march on the Kremlin to assassinate him and get immediately gunned down by the military in the process.

[–] strntz (12484) 3 years ago

Which is why I say screw 'em. The Russians elected him, they seem OK with him, so they deserve all the misery he will bring upon Russia.

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

an acceptable sacrifice for a just outcome hopefully. Putins control is so absolute and an interconnected web in that country that any individual targeted sanctions would do nothing. ohh no the uber rich will have less caviar and expensive vodka. ohh poor them they can wipe their tears with money while they sip cognac. the poor victims