The Criterion Collection

[CHEЯNOБLY!]

Originally Posted by xanderville

Hmmmm....All this Polanski talk. If you dont want to support him by choosing to avoid watching some amazing movies, then fine, your choice. But I do know some famous masterpieces of art you should not look at either if that is your though process.....

Speaking of Polanski I just watched Carnage the other day. Very intriguing.

There is a difference between controversial subject matter in art, and an artist who actually committed illegal, repugnant and amoral crimes, like drugging and raping a 13yr old girl, and then running away and hiding in another country for almost 40yrs where he could not be held responsible.

As a former art history major, I am drawing a blank trying to come up with 20th century masterpieces made by rapist hebephiles.

[Judex]

Originally Posted by SidneyFalco

Persona! (Person A)

Not that much of a surprise, given that it went up on Hulu, but good to have relative confirmation.

December title hopefully...

[JJJ225]

Originally Posted by SidneyFalco

Definitely one of his top 4 or 5 films, along with Fanny & Alexander, Through A Glass Darkly, The Silence, and The Seventh Seal.

One of his top 4 or 5 films? More like one of THE top 4 or 5 films!

[blkhrt]

Originally Posted by SidneyFalco

Persona! (Person A)

Not that much of a surprise, given that it went up on Hulu, but good to have relative confirmation.

Nice call. For some reason I couldn't figure this one out, maybe because it was so obvious. I am super excited for Persona on blu, and have to point out that it would make a great pairing to release Persona the same month as Mulhulland Drive....

[xanderville]

Originally Posted by CHEЯNOБLY!

There is a difference between controversial subject matter in art, and an artist who actually committed illegal, repugnant and amoral crimes, like drugging and raping a 13yr old girl, and then running away and hiding in another country for almost 40yrs where he could not be held responsible.

As a former art history major, I am drawing a blank trying to come up with 20th century masterpieces made by rapist hebephiles.

So because in modern society we have acknowledged the serious of forced sex upon a child it is wrong and it is agreeable. But in Ancient Greek and Roman times it was ok to have sex with young children because they had no laws governing it and it as socially acceptable. Still it was ok?? You enforce him drugging the girl first so as long as you don't drug the child it is ok?

This is a small example of what one must avoid if they choose to NOT support someone who has committed such acts, by not buying, viewing or participating in anything that individual has created. Are you picking and choosing which crimes or wrong acts deserve this kind of treatment?

[SidneyFalco]

Originally Posted by CHEЯNOБLY!

There is a difference between controversial subject matter in art, and an artist who actually committed illegal, repugnant and amoral crimes, like drugging and raping a 13yr old girl, and then running away and hiding in another country for almost 40yrs where he could not be held responsible.

As a former art history major, I am drawing a blank trying to come up with 20th century masterpieces made by rapist hebephiles.

He "ran and hid" because the US Judge lied to him and baited him into a deal with the intention of never upholding that deal. Not condoning his actions, but if the justice system is corrupt, then I'd probably do the same thing, too. It's not simply as black and white as you made it out to be.

[starman15317]

Originally Posted by The Narrator

Finally, Radiohead enters the Collection!

I see what you did there

[octagon]

Originally Posted by xanderville

This is a small example of what one must avoid if they choose to NOT support someone who has committed such acts, by not buying, viewing or participating in anything that individual has created.

So if one avoids Polanski films because of his behavior one must avoid the Venus de Milo too?

Seriously? That's your argument?

[lordmorpheus72]

Wow... this thread took a big turn. Eek.

Soooo.. September Criterion sale, anyone gotten emails yet?

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by SidneyFalco

Persona! (Person A)

Not that much of a surprise, given that it went up on Hulu, but good to have relative confirmation.

Hell. Yes!

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by SidneyFalco

He "ran and hid" because the US Judge lied to him and baited him into a deal with the intention of never upholding that deal. Not condoning his actions, but if the justice system is corrupt, then I'd probably do the same thing, too. It's not simply as black and white as you made it out to be.

No, it's pretty black and white. As a former prosecutor and someone who's very familiar with the case, it's about as clear cut as it gets considering all parties agree it happened. Drugging a teenage girl and raping her is undoubtedly one of the more heinous crimes there is. Although you may not be condoning his actions, to give him any sort of leniency due to your perceived notion of unfairness in the justice system is ridiculous. The justice system didn't force him to drug and rape the girl, he consciously chose to do so. And I wouldn't say you'd probably do the same thing too in running away. I don't know you, but I'm sure you're not a child rapist.

Turning to his films, I too have made a personal decision to not watch his films. That doesn't mean I don't think he's hugely influential and important to cinema. It also doesn't mean that I look down on those who watch his films and ignore what he did. I can certainly understand those who separate his artistic life from his private life. I just personally cannot do so, especially considering my former career.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by SidneyFalco

He "ran and hid" because the US Judge lied to him and baited him into a deal with the intention of never upholding that deal. Not condoning his actions, but if the justice system is corrupt, then I'd probably do the same thing, too. It's not simply as black and white as you made it out to be.

That naughty judge! How dare he trick this statutory rapist!

Free pass for Polanski!

[CHEЯNOБLY!]

Originally Posted by SidneyFalco

He "ran and hid" because the US Judge lied to him and baited him into a deal with the intention of never upholding that deal. Not condoning his actions, but if the justice system is corrupt, then I'd probably do the same thing, too. It's not simply as black and white as you made it out to be.

Garbage. Judges can change deals, and law enforcement can deceive in order to apprehend. He is a coward.

Originally Posted by xanderville

So because in modern society we have acknowledged the serious of forced sex upon a child it is wrong and it is agreeable. But in Ancient Greek and Roman times it was ok to have sex with young children because they had no laws governing it and it as socially acceptable. Still it was ok?? You enforce him drugging the girl first so as long as you don't drug the child it is ok?

This is a small example of what one must avoid if they choose to NOT support someone who has committed such acts, by not buying, viewing or participating in anything that individual has created. Are you picking and choosing which crimes or wrong acts deserve this kind of treatment?

Are you seriously trying to justify his actions? First of all, Polanski did not live in ancient Greece or Rome, and second he RAPED her. And he was well aware that what he was doing was wrong and illegal. It is fine if you want to watch his films, I have seen a few myself, but I am tired of people trying to make excuses and marginalize what he did because he made a few good films. "Poor Roman." F**k him, how about that poor girl. I don't know how Emmanuelle Seigner can touch him without wanting to vomit.

Think about it...if he wasn't Polanski, if he was just your neighbor, or if that was your daughter, would you be flippant with your assessment? Would you be so forgiving?

[The Great Owl]

I'm admittedly going to entertain hyperbole here by saying that I don't see how anybody who truly loves cinema can avoid films simply because they disagree with an actor or director's offscreen antics or offscreen viewpoints. Roman Polanski is the most controversial example, but I've also had people try to call me out on my love for the early James Bond films by mentioning Sean Connery's statement in the Barbara Walters interview about hitting women. I don't care for his statements, of course, but the only way that I'm going to part with my Blu-rays of Dr. No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, and Thunderball is if someone pries them from my cold, dead fingers.

I grew up watching Tom Cruise movies, and I still love watching his movies. The man has undeniable charisma onscreen, and he chooses good roles that suit his approach. He can worship any religion of his choosing, for all I care, and he can ruin as many sofas as he wants to, as long as they aren't my sofas.

My elderly parents, both of whom are joined at the hip to Fox News, refuse to watch any movies starring Tom Cruise, George Clooney, Sean Penn, or Matt Damon. Whenever they chastise me during visits for expressing an enjoyment of a recent movie from one of the above, I just sort of laugh and roll my eyes. I'm a pretty conservative Georgia red-stater myself, but those actors have talent, and I don't care for whom any of them are voting during each election, because it has nothing to do with great cinema.

[vader4]

Originally Posted by octagon

So if one avoids Polanski films because of his behavior one must avoid the Venus de Milo too?

Seriously? That's your argument?

If I chose movies based on what people involved had done I wouldn't have seen most (if not all) of my favorite movies.

[Edward J Grug III]

Like I said earlier, I don't argue for a boycott of his films, I just find the defense of him to be reprehensible.

Same as, for example, Jodie Foster's and several other Hollywood types trying to gloss over Mel Gibson's incidents.

Watch what you want, just don't try and say the man is getting an unfair deal or that it doesn't matter, because he isn't and it does.

[The Great Owl]

Oh...and...

Today, we got Criterion's Persona hint, Kino's specifics for the 1922 Nosferatu, and an announcement that one of the most underrated horror films of all time, Tourist Trap, is coming to Blu-ray.

I love it when the universe throws me a bone like this.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by vader4

If I chose movies based on what people involved had done I wouldn't have seen most (if not all) of my favorite movies.

What are you talking about? Kubrick was the perfect gentleman.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Oh...and...

Today, we got Criterion's Persona hint, Kino's specifics for the 1922 Nosferatu, and an announcement that one of the most underrated horror films of all time, Tourist Trap, is coming to Blu-ray.

I love it when the universe throws me a bone like this.

I am also someone who hasn't seen Persona, and have only recently got into Bergman so I'm very excited too.

Tourist Trap I saw fairly recently as a Rifftrax release... Crazy film.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I'm admittedly going to entertain hyperbole here by saying that I don't see how anybody who truly loves cinema can avoid films simply because they disagree with an actor or director's offscreen antics or offscreen viewpoints.

I don't mean to single you out but this is the second time you've used the word antics.

Is that really the best choice of words here? Offscreen antics?