Roman Polanski’s The Ghost Writer

[Lord_Stewie]

Originally Posted by Jamespic1118

Good thing I read this post....I was about to go off on this animal.

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

If you would care to discuss the topic, shoot me a pm. I would be greatly interested in why you would feel the need to go off of me and call me an "animal," when I was merely commenting about my frustration, albeit off topic. The fact of the matter is, I would not have commented if shadblz had not provided a link that is relevant to both the movie and his legal case. But, alas, I do not want to hijack this thread more than I have done so, for the respect of others, so if you care to discuss, I would be more than happy to do so.

Hope you guys work this conf. out in a fashionably manner.

As to back to the topic,

What do guys think. Another possibly great story being told?

What do you expect?

[Foggy]

I think pierce brosen makes for a great PM, at least better than that one we have now.

[koontz1973]

Originally Posted by shadblz

What do guys think. Another possibly great story being told?

Yes! Polanski is a great director and I do enjoy most of his films. With the cast involved, I have high hopes for this.

[koontz1973]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I think pierce brosen makes for a great PM, at least better than that one we have now.

What's wrong with having a half deaf, half blind PM that looks like he is one steak dinner away from a heart attack

[Moviefan1203]

Roman Polanski is a damn fine filmmaker, and I have been interested in The Ghost for awhile now. I can't wait for the film to get released in theatres and then on Blu-ray.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Lord_Stewie

Hope you guys work this conf. out in a fashionably manner.

As to back to the topic,

What do guys think. Another possibly great story being told?

What do you expect?

I can't recall a Polanski film I care to watch again - they're just not very impressive. It's different for films from directors like Scorsese, or Coppola, go right on down the list.

At one point, I did a self-check on my revulsion for his personal problems, but truly, that isn't it. It's more a problem of great actors, trying to portray characters, being forced to over-act - think of a dedicated Method actor being corrected to fit the dialogue, over and over again.

It was most obvious in Chinatown, where the supporting cast all seemed to be getting pushed around (except for Houston and Nicholson), especially Dunaway. Polanski, childishly inserting himself in a brief role, was a very bad fit. "Stunt self-casting" is invariably a mistake.

The only true great film he's made, in my opinion, is the moody "Knife In The Water", and the violence and misogyny in the rest of his films - blithely explained away by most fans as a reflection the horrors inflicted on Sharon Tate - seem forced.

The real problem is that discussing Polanski as a director, ignoring the facts about his life, is disingenuous at best. A director who makes films about his life, his ethnicity, and his shared experiences - think of The Pianist - can't be separated from them when discussing his work. Many criminals have created works of art, some banal, some sublime, and some in an attempt at sheer misdirection from their life stories, depending on their mood at the time. Had Polanski sprung this latest work (or any work he's done since his criminal act) via pseudonym, pulling an "Alan Smythee", perhaps it would be different.

The point is, lionizing his work can't be described as reviewing or supporting it as a stand-alone endeavor. Many people, who support his actions as "eccentricities" for whatever reason, seem to enjoy castigating critics of his personal actions for not separating the man from his creations. It's not clear why they do it, and everyone is different, so the same motives can't be ascribed to everyone.

But without comparing him to other criminals who have created art/entertainment - down that road lies only arguments - he should be viewed in totality, as an artist, and as a human being. Some artists do minor crimes, or live outside the bounds of societal norms, and their work is unfairly criticized in an attempt to bring them into some arbitrary standard.

Polanski's actions were different, and go a bit too far afield, for this reason: they did not involve an act of choice, by the other participant-viewer-whatever. As a result, I don't consider him to be an honest artist - as I take his life, and work, as a whole.

To review his work, I must compensate him for it. I must buy a ticket, from which he benefits. To hand him money, after he performed the crime to which he confessed, is so far outside my limits of acceptance that I can't describe it adequately.

So, to you who are not disturbed by such things, I hope you enjoy the film. It is probably a decent effort, in an of itself. He will be rewarded for it, monetarily, and that will encourage others of his ilk to do as he as done; but the line of decent behavior towards children will not move. It will only be crossed, again and again, to the applause of onlookers who really, ultimately, do not care about such things.

[Sussudio]

Blu-Dog, I understand what you are saying and there's nothing wrong with that view....for me personally, I always try to separate the artist from the person (which can be very difficult to do in some cases). Polanksi and Mel Gibson are too good examples for me and I will not go any more in depth than that.

I watched Ghost Writer through a "Polinski as an artist" lens, and that is how I evaluated it. Others are welcome to disagree with that mentality, though I will remind everyone that this thread is about the movie itself, not events in the director's life.

[Moviefan1203]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

Blu-Dog, I understand what you are saying and there's nothing wrong with that view....for me personally, I always try to separate the artist from the person (which can be very difficult to do in some cases). Polanksi and Mel Gibson are too good examples for me and I will not go any more in depth than that.

I watched Ghost Writer through a "Polinski as an artist" lens, and that is how I evaluated it. Others are welcome to disagree with that mentality, though I will remind everyone that this thread is about the movie itself, not events in the director's life.

Perfectly said Sussudio. When I watch film, I separate one's personal life from their professional life. To be completely frank, their personal lives are none of my business and certainly none of my concern. What I am concerned about is the quality of work.

[phoenixram1977]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

Blu-Dog, I understand what you are saying and there's nothing wrong with that view....for me personally, I always try to separate the artist from the person (which can be very difficult to do in some cases). Polanksi and Mel Gibson are too good examples for me and I will not go any more in depth than that.

I watched Ghost Writer through a "Polinski as an artist" lens, and that is how I evaluated it. Others are welcome to disagree with that mentality, though I will remind everyone that this thread is about the movie itself, not events in the director's life.

I totally totally agree!

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

Blu-Dog, I understand what you are saying and there's nothing wrong with that view....for me personally, I always try to separate the artist from the person (which can be very difficult to do in some cases). Polanksi and Mel Gibson are too good examples for me and I will not go any more in depth than that.

I watched Ghost Writer through a "Polinski as an artist" lens, and that is how I evaluated it. Others are welcome to disagree with that mentality, though I will remind everyone that this thread is about the movie itself, not events in the director's life.

No problem, man. I understand your point of view.