Oscar

Off Topic
21

Doogie: arrrgghhhhh :slight_smile:

No, I’ve never seen a movie that was so good I reassessed my idealistic views that men who drug and anally rape 13 year old girls should be forgiven if they have talent.

Not the point and you know it.

What about athletes? They have talent. They entertain, inspire, and move people. Would you buy Lakers’ tickets if Shaq did what Polanski did?

Well being a Jazz fan the liklihood of me buying a Lakers ticket is pretty slim. But [1] There are more players than Shaq in the team [2] I doubt such actions would represent the Lakers organisation [3] Shaq’s skills as a basketballer are not linked to his potential to carry out the above crime.

We’ll never convince each other, so let me end by saying that I think the world is a worse place because people like you (and I may actually like you if we ever met) are willing to overlook evil for your own benefit.

Well thanks for the ad hominem vote of confidence there Doogie. Precisely which part of I don’t condone his actions don’t you get?

  • Polanski is guilty of the rape
  • Polanski may be a shit [I supose you think he deserved to have Manson butcher his wife and unborn child now]

But he is also talented.

22

iscariot,
Anyone who tries to defend polanski’s right to do anything except sit in a damp jail and rot are bad. People who accuse George W. Bush of insider trading without a shred of evidence are bad. People who put bill clinton and George W. Bush in the same sentence are bad.
Think about this: Maybe jeffrey dahmer was a talented cello artist. Would you still go and see him? Get the point. The horrific things people do DO HAVE AN IMPACT ON EVERYTHING ELSE. If you would still go and knowingly see him, then you are VERY, VERY BAD.

23

Iscariot:

Thanks for this discussion. It’s really made me think. Which is why it’s taken me a bit to answer. Especially compounding the fact that I’m a creative (artist) and am trying to see both sides of this discussion (your’s and doogies).

First of all let me address what my idea of film is. It can be entertainment, it can be enlightening, it can be historical (or be used to give life to historical events), it can be funny, it can be ground-breaking, it can be action packed, it can be scary, it can be sexy and it can be dramatic. There is soooo many facets to film. And I can understand, iscariot, your frustration when someone/anyone limits film as just “entertainment” (and I did sense some frustration, correct?).
If all I want is some simple entertainment, I look for a movie that fits my mood at that moment and I go see it. Same for action/adventure, science fiction, horror, etc. NOT ALL movies are made purely for entertainment. Film, IMO, can be another canvas, the director is the artist who is creating HIS idea of what should be recorded in celluloid.

Also, many of the general public don’t really know of the history of the Oscar. Or how Hollywood began as a small community of actors and these awards were began as a way for this community to get together and pass on kudos to their peers. And yeah, the Oscars have morphed over the years into this huge media and political (film politics) beast. But at it’s heart, there is still some “good stuff”.

The one thing that has puzzled me over the years, is how can a Best Picture winner not also have a Best Director, Best Script, or Best Actor/Actresses? I’d also like to point out that if you look at the long list of past Best Picture winners, you’ll notice that many, many of them have withstood the test of time. Films like, “Casablanca”, “Ben-Hur”, “Lawrence of Arabia”, “The Godfather”, “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, “The Sting” and there are more.

Now, about Polanski. Haven’t seen “The Pianist”. And I admit, it’s due to his past. I would like to, and due to your post, iscariot, I may do so soon. I believe the story to be VERY interesting (based on Wladyslaw Szpilman’s autobiography). But how do you seperate Polanski’s personal history from his professional creative “brilliance” (and I do believe him to be brilliant film maker, due to “Chinatown” and “Rosemary’s Baby”)? I’m rather torn. Since, if he is indeed guilty of the crime, he should be serving his time. AND then if that did happen, there would be no “The Pianist” and no “Best Actor” performance from Adrian Brody.
Also, here has been a few writers that began their “careers” while serving time. It’s like they are instantly
“celebratized” for the mere fact that they wrote a book while in a corrections facility.

Iscariot, I just don’t think this is an issue where I can just say, “that’s it, I’m going to completely set aside my issues with Polanski’s personal history and just go and see this movie and celebrate his brilliance.”
I can’t. I’ll admit that right now. He’s just got this whole history of having relationships with really young girls (like, Natashia Kinski when she was 15). Just seems really odd.

So, I’ll go see “The Pianist” and while I may leave the theater astounded at this really, really good film; I may also be just flat-out bewildered as to why this man can create such good films, but not “rise above” in his own life.

Something I need to spend some time to examine. Thanks for opening up the dialogue.

24

US=GG
huh?

iscariot,
Anyone who tries to defend polanski’s right to do anything except sit in a damp jail and rot are bad.

Again, not the point.

Would you still say this if he had done his time?

Can I therefore assume that you believe that a person once released from prison for a crime is of no worth whatsoever
because their past is tainted?

People who put bill clinton and George W. Bush in the same sentence are bad.

You’re quite correct, Clinton didn’t initiate an unjustified war against anyone. Clinton didn’t withdraw from things like the Kyoto Protocols because US business would be hurt [fuck the world lets make us some money]
and don’t get me started on US tarrifs
I think Clinton’s a shit, but I’d prefer him any day

But again not the point

Think about this: Maybe jeffrey dahmer was a talented cello artist. Would you still go and see him?

Yup. Stick him in a cage of stage, or whatever security precautions you’d care to take.

Don’t confuse the person with the product

Get the point?

Still waiting for you to make one :slight_smile:

The horrific things people do DO HAVE AN IMPACT ON EVERYTHING ELSE. If you would still go and knowingly see him, then you are VERY, VERY BAD.

Guess I’m bad then shrug. Karma accrues to the person in question, they’ll get theirs eventually.

25

Now now fellas –

Let’s not get so emotional about this. Iscariot has left unstated the main point of his argument, and you guys are arguing past him. As I see it (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong), Iscariot is saying that the producer and the product can and should be viewed as two separate things. I think that’s basically correct, and it’s logical.

Divorce yourselves for a moment from whether you like or dislike Polanski or what he did. That does not bear on the inherent artistic merit of his movie. Now, you can have a moral objection to spending money to see it, as that money would go to Polanski, but that is not the point.

If you want to see how these types of arguments are used against conservatives all the time, simply look at how anything having to do with race is generally argued. Someone who disagrees simply finds someone who is racist who agrees with said idea and attempts to discredit the whole thing via association. Obviously, the idea and someone backing the idea are different. The same principle governs the product and the producer. If a person with racist ideology had come up with the idea of ending affirmative action or restricting immigration by people from Saudi Arabia, that does not affect the underlying merit of the idea (although it should bring about closer scrutiny of the underlying merit of the idea – this is a different thing).

For a less politically charged example, think of the movie “A Dangerous Mind.” Rusell Crowe’s character (feel free to berate me for my feeble memory as I can’t remember the man’s name) basically invented game theory, and even if you found him deplorable, you shouldn’t throw away game theory as a tool of analysis on the basis of dislike of its creator. Similarly, I think Picasso was a schmuck, an idiot, and a deplorable person, but that does not affect my appreciation for his art work. Same holds for Hemmingway. I think you get the point.

Anyway, in sum, don’t confuse the merit of the creator with that of the creation. Polanski should be in jail, but that does not affect whether “The Piano” was a good movie (I haven’t seen it, BTW, so I wouldn’t know).

26

iscariot,
You view the world through a very strange lens. Let’s get to it.
First of all, I’m glad you admitted that you are bad. It has clarified everything nicely.
Second, your statement that bill clinton didn’t initiate an unjust war against anyone makes me laugh. How about the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan? Forget that “wag the dog” scenario?
Oh, I assume that the iraqi war is unjustified in your opinion. I hope you will be man/woman enough to admit you were wrong when the iraqi citizens, scientists, and soldiers are finally free from tyranny. I can’t wait to see people who think like yourself squirm when they reveal the horror of the regime. Not to mention when the scientists and soldiers reveal the direct threat that the current regime poses to civilization (including us). I also can’t wait when we find the huge caches of weapons that hussein said he doesn’t have. Oh, as an aside, why do you think we have found thousands of chemical weapons suits on iraqi soldiers thus far in the war? Maybe it’s a new fashion statement?
HAVE YOU EVER READ THE TEXT OF KYOTO? Of course you haven’t. I have. I’ll sum it up. It’s the europeans foisting their environmental views on the United States WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY ONE RED CENT. We would have footed all of the bill. Please read it. That treaty would have been disasterous for us. Maybe that was the whole point.
Finally, I find your statement about confusing the person with the product puzzling. An artists work reflects his/her life experiences. There is no detachement. How many times have you heard writers say, “we write what we know.” polanski’s experiences are bad. Your question about debt to society is moot. If he stood trial, he would have been in jail throughout his adult life and would never have made any movies. Your assumption that I wouldn’t go see any of his movies anyway is right on. I am against pedophilia and polanski’s odium stinks up any theatre.

27

I don’t want my above comments to be taken as a defense of Polanski himself (and if you did you missed the entire point of what I posted). Here are the details on Polanski, courtesy of Smoking Gun:

That said, I have to parse a little bit with US=GG, even though I like the name. You can divorce the writer from the written and the artist from the painting in that those are stand-alone creations that have independent existence. Refer to the example above of an “evil” person creating a mathematical/economical model.

Everyone creates based on what he knows, but that does not mean the creation has no existence independent of the creator. Polanski presumably knows 2+2 =4, and if he incorporated that into a creation that would not be at all objectionable. What matters is whether anything “evil” actually is expressed in the product. All this “guilt by association” reasoning only highlights circumstantial evidence that one should examine the product more closely for whatever evil tainted the artist – it does not mean the product is automatically tainted by the producer (BTW, this reasoning is even worse in this case than with a writer or a painter, because Polanski only directed this film, which is based upon the biography of a Polish pianist – the writers, actors, and of course the biographical subject all had inputs equal to or greater than Polanski’s).

Again though, this a completely different idea than whether you should refrain from seeing the movie in order to make sure none of your money goes to Polanski. That involves a moral decision, not a logical one.

28

To US=GG

Interesting reply - if we ignore all the ad hominem attacks and scatalogical accusations, but that’s beside the point.

You view the world through a very strange lens.

Possibly. It’s more a case of my believing that there is no such thing as black or white, at least from a judgemental perspective. Do I believe that some actions are wrong? Yes. But that doesn’t mean that they are necessarily wrong in all contexts, for all people. Take for example, clitoral circumcision as practised by numerous African tribes. Personally,I think it’s a barbaric,inhumane practise BUT, I am not a African from one of the practising tribes so all I can do is place my own cultural understanding on it.

Similarly with Polanski, I abhor child rape, and what he did, but I am not so blind to reality as to decide thatPolanski’s total worth as a human being, and any contribution he may make in other areas is immediately undermined by one act. In a way, although seriously moderated by degree, it comes down to a glass house scenario, I’m not perfect in all facets of my life, so I accept the talented or good facets in others. This doesn’t absolve them of such actions though.

And considering the intolerance, bigotry, homophobia and sexism that runs rampant on this forum sometimes this is last place that should be throwing stones.

I won’t go into the inability to read in context, parse semantics etc

First of all, I’m glad you admitted that you are bad. It has clarified everything nicely.

Every hear of irony? Essentially I am A bad person because I don’t subscribe to the tenets of your moral imperative. I was merely agreeing with you per your definition. This doesn’t make me bad, it makes me bad by your definition of such.

What was I not saying about context?
[I wish I was as patient as my buddy Boston - whose name I’ve just taken hidiously in vain :)]

Second, your statement that bill clinton
 didn’t initiate an unjust war against anyone makes me laugh. How about the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan? Forget that “wag the dog” scenario?

Not at all. But that wasn’t the point. You were holding Bush up as a paragon in comparison to Clinton, I merely pointed out that Bush isn’t lily-white. Did you miss the bit where I said Clinton was a shit? [I should have added selectivce reading to that list]

Oh, I assume that the iraqi war is unjustified in your opinion.

Since I, unlike some, don’t claim to be the last word in being correct of course it’s an opinion.

I can’t wait to see people who think like yourself squirm when they reveal the horror of the regime.

Now this bugs me. What is it with those of you who think that because we disagree with the war, we, by default agree with Saddam’s regime. The two are not causal, hell, they’re not even linear or contingent. Everyone, even the idiot French, think Saddam’s a nutter, they’re are aginst the war. Yes, you have to acknowledge the commercial interest involved, as you do with the US [and I mean the rebuilding contracts that the US and Britain are already fighting over not the oil], and this takes us right back to Polanski. You can’t acknowledge the good in what the US is doing unless you also acknowledge the bad, and vice versa otherwise you’re a hypocrite. By extension, such logic should default to other modes of reasoning.

HAVE YOU EVER READ THE TEXT OF KYOTO? Of course you haven’t.

I have actually, but since you’re on your high horse over there I’ll let the assumption pass.

It’s the europeans foisting their environmental views on the United States WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY ONE RED CENT. We would have footed all of the bill.

Now here’s a novel concept for you, the US contributes about IIRC %40 of Greenhouse gas emissions, therefore they should get to pay for it.

The whole point of Kyoto was to get the world working together to reduce said emissions. The US is very big on the whole world working together until such time as it hits their special interest groups in the pocket and they start to scream. Sure, Kyoto had holes, but the intent was the right idea, here’s hoping, that we find a soltion before you choke to death on your carbon monxide.

An artists work reflects his/her life experiences. There is no detachement.

I wasn’t aware that a person’s life was an amorphous blob of a single continuous experience. When I write stories I may draw on personal experience but not every experience for the one story. Polanski drew on his experience as a Polish Jew during the WAr for the Pianist, not on his experiences as a potential statutory rapist.

Your assumption that I wouldn’t go see any of his movies anyway is right on. I am against pedophilia and polanski’s odium stinks up any theatre.

And I respect your right not to see his movies, but I feel sorry for you if you think anyone who sees his movies is supporting child rape, because that is what you’re saying. Understanding is about more than black and white


29

iscariot,
I appreciate the time it took you to respond.
You said, “clinton didn’t initiate an unjustified war against anyone.” Don’t dick around. Admit that I proved you wrong. At least be a gracious loser. Sudan is the perfect example.
I am more than happy to “admit” the commercial interests involved in our middle east policy. I have never understood the argument that liberals such as yourself are trying to make there. OF COURSE, WE DO THINGS IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST. It is very important to reap some kind of benefits when our sons and daughters are dying for something. Let me repeat, we will benefit from oil in the long run. Dick Cheney’s FORMER (AS IN HE OWNS NO STOCK) company Haliburton will make money. Now that the obvious is out in the open, how about we talk about the more important reasons to go to war. Survival is the number one issue here. Hear about the mural we found in saddams palace showing 9/11 and the planes crashing into the twin towers. Go ahead, iscariot bury your head in the sand. Believe that the United States has mixed motives, therefore we shouldn’t deal with important issues. You know where that kind of thinking ends up? The grave. He pays terrorists (see palestine-$36,000 to the families of suicide bombers), he attacks neighbors unprovoked (see iran/Kuwait), he uses chemical weapons (see iran/Kurds). I just am baffled that you cannot make the intellectual leap to realize that someday, sometime it will be iscariot in the sights of saddam. Oh, here is another reason to go to war, humanitarism. We pay over 60% of the free aid to the world every year. I said FREE aid. To all of you cynics, I would like you to think about that when you snicker about our aims in iraq. We are a humanitarian country. We believe in Democracy. If we didn’t try to help foster it around the world, we would really be hypocrites. No, we haven’t fostered it everywhere, however that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make it an aim and a goal now.
Let me say it again, I cannot wait until all you weenies (iscariot, french, etc
) are forced to admit by incontrovertible evidence that saddam was on his way to dropping anthrax on 134 iscariot way. I cannot wait until those scientists reveal that he was building those weapons to use on iscariot. If this argument doesn’t get through to you, then I am done talking. If you admit that your case against the war leaves us with serious security liabilities, then we can discuss this further.

30

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
Friedrich Nietzsche

31

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.
Theodore Roosevelt (1858 - 1919), “Man in the Arena” Speech given April 23, 1910

This is how I feel about you and your friends, iscariot. This is also how I view the “worthy cause” in iraq. God bless our troops.
By the way, you and your friends have given comfort to the iraqi regime. The iraqi un ambassador has quoted your little “movement” in his address to the un. He says that the American people are against the war. This just isn’t true by any objective or subjective measurement. Nearly three quarters of us are behind our troops and this war. You should think about how important it is for us to present a united front. No one could hope to defeat a united America.