Current Events > Studying Roman Polanski's films academically is always so weird

(+) Yeah! (+)

Taking a film course and we're discussing Polanski's films. Of course he's made some incredibly significant films and you can't really deny that. But no one ever brings up that he raped a 13 year old girl. And Sharon Tate is hardly ever brought up.

Which is interesting because with directors like Scorsese or Coppola usually every aspect of their lives is picked apart in order to understand their work better. But not Roman Polanski for some reason.
---

Take it up with the professor on why there's some sort of double standard.
I mean, we know why but acknowledge it anyway and see what lulz reason the class will get from that.

---

Jagr_68 posted...

Take it up with the professor on why there's some sort of double standard.
I mean, we know why but acknowledge it anyway and see what lulz reason the class will get from that.

Film professors are some of the most sensitive teachers I've ever come across. I would but I genuinely think that would cause the professor to dislike me lol
---

Might having something to do with the fact that the women involved has forgiven him and wants to move on. She is also sick of it being brought up as she feels people are just using them both for their own agenda, not because they actually give a shit about her.

---

Smashingpmkns posted...

But no one ever brings up that he raped a 13 year old girl.

His rape case always gets brought up. I mean, you came here after class with the express intent to bring it up. Thats not an outlier.

I would bet $1 that you werent even alive yet when this happened and became an adult after his relevancy was over.

Maybe you missed a lot of the conversation.

---

Rape has nothing to do with the films themselves so why would anyone bring it up when talking about his films?

---

Gamerguymass posted...

Might having something to do with the fact that the women involved has forgiven him and wants to move on. She is also sick of it being brought up as she feels people are just using them both for their own agenda, not because they actually give a shit about her.

I'm strictly speaking in terms of how these events may have had an impact on his directing style. Or how him being capable of doing that (with no remorse it really seems) could give us insight on his directing.

It's pretty disturbing topic for sure but I dunno. Might be worth thinking about if we're gonna be studying him anyways.
---

NecroFoul99 posted...

His rape case always gets brought up.

Not in school. Which is what this is about.
---

it has nothing to do with his style

---

sabrestorm posted...

Rape has nothing to do with the films themselves so why would anyone bring it up when talking about his films?

Half of his movies up until 1979 have a rape scene. Or rape is a part of the story at the very least.
---

Yo teach, Medea on CE said this would really get to brass tacks

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095943431
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

I'm strictly speaking in terms of how these events may have had an impact on his directing style. Or how him being capable of doing that (with no remorse it really seems) could give us insight on his directing.

It's pretty disturbing topic for sure but I dunno. Might be worth thinking about if we're gonna be studying him anyways.

that seems like psychoanalysis stuff that probably isn't super relevant for studying media

---

averagejoel posted...

that seems like psychoanalysis stuff that probably isn't super relevant for studying media

It's basically a quarter to half of what a Directing Styles class is lol
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

It's basically a quarter to half of what a Directing Styles class is lol

There is also the fact that you did say you do so for Scorsese and Nick Cage's uncle

---

Smashingpmkns posted...

It's basically a quarter to half of what a Directing Styles class is lol

I thought it would be more about revolutionary directing techniques, lighting, use of space, what they brought to the medium sort of stuff. Not, And this is where you can see Polanskis remorse for what he did in this scene.

I dont think that scene exists, but maybe. Probably need a bit of insight from Polanski himself. But its not needed anyway to discuss his use of shadow and moving light.

I dunno. Ive been around since before the crime and after all these decades, I can confidently state that if his name gets brought up, 9 times out of 10, someone will say, no one ever brings up that he raped a 13 year old girl. :).

---

M_Live posted...

Yeah fuck roman Polanski, there's a million other films/directors with artistic significance that can be studied instead of his

I think he's a fucking monster but his movies are worth studying for the sake of the art imo.

Dathrowed1 posted...

There is also the fact that you did say you do so for Scorsese and Nick Cage's uncle

I always forget Cage is a Coppola. People would be surprised at how in depth these classes can get. Makes you completely rethink some aspects of filmmaking.
---

metallica846 posted...

This still makes me ill to watch. Listen to the roar of the crowd and watch these sick fucks give a STANDING OVATION to this pedophile.

https://youtu.be/PXnNOBj26lk

That is really surreal.

---

NecroFoul99 posted...

I thought it would be more about revolutionary directing techniques, lighting, use of space, what they brought to the medium sort of stuff. Not, And this is where you can see Polanskis remorse for what he did in this scene.

I dont think that scene exists, but maybe. Probably need a bit of insight from Polanski himself. But its not needed anyway to discuss his use of shadow and moving light.

I dunno. Ive been around since before the crime and after all these decades, I can confidently state that if his name gets brought up, 9 times out of 10, someone will say, no one ever brings up that he raped a 13 year old girl. :).

That's pretty much the rest of it with quite a few other things in regards to the actual process of making a film. But a good portion of it is getting inside the mind of the director.

And it's not necessarily something as simple as "this scene is him apologizing" or something like that. More along the lines of stuff like "Coppola was suicidal on the set of Apocalypse Now and this is how it effected his vision and the final production." Just as an example, probably not a very good one.

And again I'm talking about an academic setting. I know people bring it up often otherwise.
---

Even if you ignore whatever impact the rape itself might have on his film making (which you shouldn't because he raped a fucking child), to ignore how being a fugitive for decades and unable to set foot in countries that would extradite him to the US would impact his filming seems like a pretty big miss in a film studies class.

Gamerguymass posted...

Might having something to do with the fact that the women involved has forgiven him and wants to move on. She is also sick of it being brought up as she feels people are just using them both for their own agenda, not because they actually give a shit about her.

I'm glad this woman was able to personally find it in her heart to forgive him. That does not mean he didn't rape a child and doesn't deserve to face justice for the crime. You don't just get to avoid punishment because you are really good at hide-and-seek.

---

It's why you absolutely should not take anything Hollywood stars say about supporting the metoo movement seriously.

Just a decade before they were all giving a standing ovation in spiritual support of a pedophile and wanting him returned to their fold.

The Pianist is fucking fantastic, though.

---

Smashingpmkns posted...

I'm strictly speaking in terms of how these events may have had an impact on his directing style. Or how him being capable of doing that (with no remorse it really seems) could give us insight on his directing.

It's pretty disturbing topic for sure but I dunno. Might be worth thinking about if we're gonna be studying him anyways.

true if you ate studying only him but its its about only his movies what he did has no bearing


---

metallica846 posted...

Oh and look whos standing and cheering!

Scorsese is pretty open about how he feels about Polanski. It's not great.

Compsognathus posted...

Even if you ignores whatever impact the rape itself might have on his film making (which you shouldn't because he raped a fucking child), to ignore how being a fugitive for decades and unable to set foot in countries that would extradite him to the US would impact his filming seems like a pretty big miss in a film studies class.

I agree.
---

Compsognathus posted...

I'm glad this woman was able to personally find it in her heart to forgive him. That does not mean he didn't rape a child and doesn't deserve to face justice for the crime. You don't just get to avoid punishment because you are really good at hide-and-seek.

That poster has defended rape in the past

---

metallica846 posted...

I was talking about fat ass Harvey Weinstein behind him.

Oh wtf I didn't even see him lol
---

Yeah, its sort of the elephant in the room that everyone keeps ignoring. What's really troublesome is that so many of his films seem so empathetic to their female characters. Far more than his male ones. No foolin', that he can make those movies before and after raping a 13 year old girl is monstrous.

---

Smashingpmkns posted...

I think he's a f***ing monster but his movies are worth studying for the sake of the art imo

Agreed. You can learn about filmmaking from Polanski. I do wonder if him being a child perv or that his wife was needlessly slaughtered shows up in the psychology of his films

---

Dathrowed1 posted...

Agreed. You can learn about filmmaking from Polanski. I do wonder if him being a child perv or that his wife was needlessly slaughtered shows up in the psychology of his films

He's said that him not being there for Tate's death is the only watershed moment (or only watershed moment that matters, I forget) in his life or something like that. Which is a pretty awful thing to say. But I wonder how that kind of thinking played a part in his filmmaking. It definitely had to but I'm just not sure how.

I think overall it is a hard and disturbing conversation to have but it's interesting to think about.
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

Taking a film course and we're discussing Polanski's films. Of course he's made some incredibly significant films and you can't really deny that. But no one ever brings up that he raped a 13 year old girl. And Sharon Tate is hardly ever brought up.

Which is interesting because with directors like Scorsese or Coppola usually every aspect of their lives is picked apart in order to understand their work better. But not Roman Polanski for some reason.

"And here we see that the pedo-rapist in Chinatown escapes justice. One can see Polanski's own life reflected in this ending."

Smashingpmkns posted...

More along the lines of stuff like "Coppola was suicidal on the set of Apocalypse Now and this is how it effected his vision and the final production." Just as an example, probably not a very good one.

yeah I don't think it's at all reasonable to draw that direct a line from a creator's mental state to the work they create

---

averagejoel posted...

yeah I don't think it's at all reasonable to draw that direct a line from a creator's mental state to the work they create

I'm just gonna block your path with INUS Conditions and carry on
---

averagejoel posted...

yeah I don't think it's at all reasonable to draw that direct a line from a creator's mental state to the work they create

Why? Especially with Coppola who works better under the extreme conditions that put him in that mental state. Both Apocalypse Now and to a lesser extent Godfather are proof to that. His wife even acknowledges this.

Hearts of Darkness is a great documentary about the making of Apocalypse Now for anyone interested. Probably one of the best "making ofs" actually.

Also this is something pretty common across pretty much all artistic mediums. Writing, painting, film etc.
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

Why? Especially with Coppola who works better under the extreme conditions that put him in that mental state. Both Apocalypse Now and to a lesser extent Godfather are proof to that. His wife even acknowledges this.

Hearts of Darkness is a great documentary about the making of Apocalypse Now for anyone interested. Probably one of the best "making ofs" actually.

Also this is something pretty common across pretty much all artistic mediums. Writing, painting, film etc.

first of all, there are lots of factors involved in the creation of a work that have nothing to do with the person created it. this is especially true for a collaborative medium like film. saying that there's a direct line between any of those factors and some actual content of the work is completely asinine, and this is no less true for the director's mental state

second, people can create things like that regardless of what their mental state is. your ideas are basically the thought process that leads to people saying shit like "you must have been on drugs when you wrote that" -- it pathologizes creativity, and it can even create a sort of vicious cycle with the already existing substance abuse problems within creative communities

---

averagejoel posted...

first of all, there are lots of factors involved in the creation of a work that have nothing to do with the person created it. this is especially true for a collaborative medium like film.

second, people can create things like that regardless of what their mental state is. your ideas are basically the thought process that leads to people saying shit like "you must have been on drugs when you wrote that" -- it pathologizes creativity, and it can even create a sort of vicious cycle with the already existing substance abuse problems within creative communities

This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of filmmaking (really the duties of auteurs like Coppola or directors in general) and artists in general. It is nothing like comparing it to drugs lol like do you think Frida Kahlo's art wasn't effected by her mental illness? Or Jim Morrison? Hell, regular non-artistic work is effected by these things. Why wouldn't the arts be?

Yes people can create things regardless of their mental state. But mental state can absolutely effect their work. As seen with Coppola. For the better in his case.
---

I was Once Upon A Time In Hollywood SPOILERS disappointed Tarantino put him in his film but didnt fuck him up.

Smashingpmkns posted...

I think he's a f***ing monster but his movies are worth studying for the sake of the art imo.

Are they worth watching though? Like would I enjoy watching Rosemarys Baby or whatever today? Or is there value more just as intellectual curiosities?

---

Shablagoo posted...

I was Once Upon A Time In Hollywood SPOILERS disappointed Tarantino put him in his film but didnt fuck him up.

Smashingpmkns posted...

I think he's a f***ing monster but his movies are worth studying for the sake of the art imo.

Are they worth watching though? Like would I enjoy watching Rosemarys Baby or whatever today? Or is there value more just as intellectual curiosities?

Pretty sure Tarantino is pretty open about his views on Polanski and they're also not great lol

And definitely. At the very least Chinatown and Rosemary's Baby. Chinatown is one of the greatest movies ever made.
---

Tarantino called the relationship consensual and pretty much only regrets that the incident ruined a great filmmaker's career.

So fuck Quentin Tarantino.

FortuneCookie posted...

Tarantino called the relationship consensual and pretty much only regrets that the incident ruined a great filmmaker's career.

So fuck Quentin Tarantino.

he apologized for that and recanted

---

Shablagoo posted...

Are they worth watching though? Like would I enjoy watching Rosemarys Baby or whatever today? Or is there value more just as intellectual curiosities?

If it weren't for his kiddy diddling and the ensuing flight from justice, he'd probably be freely regarded today as one of the very greatest living directors; and probably the greatest English language filmmaker alive today, and for the same reason as the likes of Scorsese, Coppola and Spielberg...which is to say, yeah, the movies he actually made are very engaging and even enjoyable, in a classical sense, although like Scorsese and Coppola his movies tend to be pretty weighty.

---

Smashingpmkns posted...

This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of filmmaking (really the duties of auteurs like Coppola or directors in general) and artists in general. It is nothing like comparing it to drugs lol like do you think Frida Kahlo's art wasn't effected by her mental illness? Or Jim Morrison? Hell, regular non-artistic work is effected by these things. Why wouldn't the arts be?

Yes people can create things regardless of their mental state. But mental state can absolutely effect their work. As seen with Coppola. For the better in his case.

It you want an incredibly simple example of a person's real life impacting work, just look at comic book writer Jeph Loeb. If you started reading through his comics chronologically, I guarantee you could identify when his teenage son died of cancer. There is a wild drop in quality and very dark shift in tone.

Like the idea that life events and mental states can't impact work is pretty wild and I don't know what Joel is on trying to downplay that.

---

Smashingpmkns posted...

This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of filmmaking (really the duties of auteurs like Coppola or directors in general) and artists in general. It is nothing like comparing it to drugs lol like do you think Frida Kahlo's art wasn't effected by her mental illness? Or Jim Morrison? Hell, regular non-artistic work is effected by these things. Why wouldn't the arts be?

Yes people can create things regardless of their mental state. But mental state can absolutely effect their work. As seen with Coppola. For the better in his case.

of course it has an effect. the asinine part is attributing certain identifiable aspects of the film directly to their mental state.

the exception here is stuff that's just blantant, like "director x was depressed here and character y shows many of the same symptoms that he was experiencing"

---

ledbowman posted...

he apologized for that and recanted

Did he apologize for spitting on Spike Lee or trying to slander Bruce Lee?

I don't believe that a man who went to the trouble of making a movie defending Roman Polanski would have a sudden and sincere change of heart. He's saying sorry because he wants to have a career going forward. That kind of "apology" doesn't mean anything to me.

FortuneCookie posted...

Did he apologize for spitting on Spike Lee or trying to slander Bruce Lee?

I don't believe that a man who went to the trouble of making a movie defending Roman Polanski would have a sudden and sincere change of heart. He's saying sorry because he wants to have a career going forward. That kind of "apology" doesn't mean anything to me.

he said it was a fucked up thing to say and he was wrong. what more do you want. you seem really reasonable

---

averagejoel posted...

"director x was depressed here and character y shows many of the same symptoms that he was experiencing"

I know this is high entropy posting, but does anyone feel like this excuse was made by English teachers?

Not saying you are making that excuse
---

ledbowman posted...

he said it was a fucked up thing to say and he was wrong. what more do you want. you seem really reasonable

I don't think it's unreasonable to hold a grudge against him when I don't believe the sincerity of his apology.

He apologized for being a rape apologist. He wasn't in ignorance of what happened. He knew what Polanski did. He knew it was wrong. He defended him anyway.

Even if he apologized for that, he doubled down on the unwarranted smear campaign against Bruce Lee; portraying him as an arrogant showoff who needed to be put in his place and spreading lies about a fictional fight in which he was allegedly choked out by "Judo" Gene LaBell. The two trained together. They learned from one another. They respected each other. This supposed fight never happened and I can't honestly believe that Tarantino would believe it either. So why's he spreading lies?

And there's still the time that he spat on Spike Lee because Lee (as a friend) casually told him he used the n-word too often in his movies. Tarantino cursed him out. Lee walked away, calmed himself down, and came back to try and apologize for offending Quentin. Quentin cursed him out again and spat on him. Why should I accept QT's apology when he literally spits on people for trying to apologize to him?

Pulp Fiction's still one of the definitive films of the 90s, but Quentin Tarantino is a very toxic person.

FortuneCookie posted...

I don't think it's unreasonable to hold a grudge against him when I don't believe the sincerity of his apology.

He apologized for being a rape apologist. He wasn't in ignorance of what happened. He knew what Polanski did. He knew it was wrong. He defended him anyway.

Even if he apologized for that, he doubled down on the unwarranted smear campaign against Bruce Lee; portraying him as an arrogant showoff who needed to be put in his place and spreading lies about a fictional fight in which he was allegedly choked out by "Judo" Gene LaBell. The two trained together. They learned from one another. They respected each other. This supposed fight never happened and I can't honestly believe that Tarantino would believe it either. So why's he spreading lies?

And there's still the time that he spat on Spike Lee because Lee (as a friend) casually told him he used the n-word too often in his movies. Tarantino cursed him out. Lee walked away, calmed himself down, and came back to try and apologize for offending Quentin. Quentin cursed him out again and spat on him. Why should I accept QT's apology when he literally spits on people for trying to apologize to him?

Pulp Fiction's still one of the definitive films of the 90s, but Quentin Tarantino is a very toxic person.

*backs away slowly*

---

averagejoel posted...

of course it has an effect. the asinine part is attributing certain identifiable aspects of the film directly to their mental state.

Okay but that's not what I'm talking about. Again, the Coppola example.
---