LoathedVermin72 wrote:By many accounts, Thomas Edison was a giant shitbag. Should people have not used light bulbs while he was still alive?
Being a shitbag and raping little girls are not the same thing
not watching a movie that is better than some other movies is also not the same thing as depriving yourself of something that is considered a basic need of modern life. Watching a Roman Polanski film is entirely avoidable. Supporting Roman Polanski is entirely avoidable. Light Bulbs are not reasonably avoidable.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:By many accounts, Thomas Edison was a giant shitbag. Should people have not used light bulbs while he was still alive?
Being a shitbag and raping little girls are not the same thing
Of course not, and I'm not suggesting they are. Just offering a similar scenario on a different scale.
But your scale is unrealistic and frankly, pretty silly. Even the obvious comparisons (OJ) have been convicted of their crimes or at least owned up to the possibility of punishment. Roman Polanski not only raped an underage girl, he has refused to accept his punishment, and continued to work instead of accepting it?
It is one of the most baffling things in modern society for me is how the left minded, liberal thinking pro-feminist movement can be so strong and steadfast, but so willing to accept Roman Polanski (some, not all) because his work is "amazing"
LoathedVermin72 wrote:Okay, so if it were revealed that Paul Attanasio raped a little girl, would you no longer think Homicide was a show that's worth watching?
I cant imagine that I would. And I can say without a shadow of a doubt that I would not seek out future works to support, or be "excited" by them, especially if he were in a position to financially gain from it.
I can't tell if Skitch is serious or just trolling. I think he is serious. The good news is that his argument seems to amount an if/then statement which is in no way necessarily true. What if a polanski film contained a hidden message which could save the lives of billions of antelope. On that basis, a guy might watch the film to extract the useful antelope information, not because he supports violence against women. In that case you might say it's his duty to watch the film.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:By many accounts, Thomas Edison was a giant shitbag. Should people have not used light bulbs while he was still alive?
Being a shitbag and raping little girls are not the same thing
Of course not, and I'm not suggesting they are. Just offering a similar scenario on a different scale.
But your scale is unrealistic and frankly, pretty silly. Even the obvious comparisons (OJ) have been convicted of their crimes or at least owned up to the possibility of punishment. Roman Polanski not only raped an underage girl, he has refused to accept his punishment, and continued to work instead of accepting it?
It is one of the most baffling things in modern society for me is how the left minded, liberal thinking pro-feminist movement can be so strong and steadfast, but so willing to accept Roman Polanski (some, not all) because his work is "amazing"
Like I said, man: I'm not defending him as a person, nor am I defending what he did. All I'm saying is that I love his films. Again, I've never really been able to reconcile the two. But I'm also not going to deprive myself of any work of art that may enrich my life because of the person who made it. Perhaps we just have differing views on compartmentalization when judging art.
Dev wrote:I can't tell if Skitch is serious or just trolling. I think he is serious. The good news is that his argument seems to amount an if/then statement which is in no way necessarily true. What if a polanski film contained a hidden message which could save the lives of billions of antelope. On that basis, a guy might watch the film to extract the useful antelope information, not because he supports violence against women. In that case you might say it's his duty to watch the film.
It's both honestly. While LV is getting grillied on it (and to his credit, answering honestly), it really is something that bugs me. Polanski should be an outcast that still is spoken out vocally against. Instead it seems totally backwards, the more artistic types (who tend to be more liberal) support him because of his art, regardless of his "personal acts".
And your antelope example is absolutely ridiculous.
Sincerely though its simple loathed you have 2 pretend like nothing happened and go about your day. Everyone else is ignorant. And remember its the internet so the whole world can see how bad they treat you
LoathedVermin72 wrote:
Like I said, man: I'm not defending him as a person, nor am I defending what he did. All I'm saying is that I love his films. Again, I've never really been able to reconcile the two. But I'm also not going to deprive myself of any work of art that may enrich my life because of the person who made it. Perhaps we just have differing views on compartmentalization when judging art.
I suppose we just disagree. I just can't wrap my brain about continuing to financially support a violent criminal just because he does good work.
This is something that I struggle with in regards to Woody Allen, too. The only time I paid money to see a Roman Polanski film was The Ninth Gate. Subsequently, I bought the DVD. I have seen a few of his other films but I always borrowed them or watched them on HBO or whatever. However, that all happened before I was aware of the scandal. Since learning about all of that, I haven't spent any money on Roman Polanski. Actually, I haven't watched a single Polanski film. Though, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed, provided it didn't cost me or earn him any new money.
Allen though... I have "supported" his career even after learning of the molestation charges. And I feel gross about that. I'll always love a handful of Allen's films regardless. I can't help it. I saw all of them before I knew about any of this and they are genuinely magical films. But I do feel weird spending money to see any NEW works. I probably shouldn't support him at all. But I'm not sure I'd ever be able to all together abandon great films like Annie Hall or Midnight in Paris.
Dev wrote:I can't tell if Skitch is serious or just trolling. I think he is serious. The good news is that his argument seems to amount an if/then statement which is in no way necessarily true. What if a polanski film contained a hidden message which could save the lives of billions of antelope. On that basis, a guy might watch the film to extract the useful antelope information, not because he supports violence against women. In that case you might say it's his duty to watch the film.
Omg I thought you had a bfa in philosophy. This is no way to act what a spaz.
durdencommatyler wrote: Though, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed, provided it didn't cost me or earn him any new money.
I can buy this element of it, to an extent. Using LV's Paul Attenasio example- I already bought the Homicide DVD's. Im not going to throw them out, but I could probably reconcile continuing to watch them, because I wouldnt be SUPPORTING his work, simply enjoying it. But promoting upcoming things as being "excited" about them is, or spending money to support them or encouraging others to do so just seems... wrong.
Dev wrote:I can't tell if Skitch is serious or just trolling. I think he is serious. The good news is that his argument seems to amount an if/then statement which is in no way necessarily true. What if a polanski film contained a hidden message which could save the lives of billions of antelope. On that basis, a guy might watch the film to extract the useful antelope information, not because he supports violence against women. In that case you might say it's his duty to watch the film.
It's both honestly. While LV is getting grillied on it (and to his credit, answering honestly), it really is something that bugs me. Polanski should be an outcast that still is spoken out vocally against. Instead it seems totally backwards, the more artistic types (who tend to be more liberal) support him because of his art, regardless of his "personal acts".
And your antelope example is absolutely ridiculous.
My point is that the argument, "if you watch a polanski film, then you support violence against women," does not necessarily hold up. However, I brought it up because these kinds of problems do trouble me. I think there is a level of validity to your argument, but that it does not hold up as absolutely true, and you are kind of acting like it does.
Dev wrote:I can't tell if Skitch is serious or just trolling. I think he is serious. The good news is that his argument seems to amount an if/then statement which is in no way necessarily true. What if a polanski film contained a hidden message which could save the lives of billions of antelope. On that basis, a guy might watch the film to extract the useful antelope information, not because he supports violence against women. In that case you might say it's his duty to watch the film.
It's both honestly. While LV is getting grillied on it (and to his credit, answering honestly), it really is something that bugs me. Polanski should be an outcast that still is spoken out vocally against. Instead it seems totally backwards, the more artistic types (who tend to be more liberal) support him because of his art, regardless of his "personal acts".
And your antelope example is absolutely ridiculous.
My point is that the argument, "if you watch a polanski film, then you support violence against women," does not necessarily hold up. However, I brought it up because these kinds of problems do trouble me. I think there is a level of validity to your argument, but that it does not hold up as absolutely true, and you are kind of acting like it does.
I think that has been somewhat addressed. Being excited for, or promoting, or paying for or vocally supporting it is not the same as simply viewing it, or even enjoying it.
durdencommatyler wrote: Though, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed, provided it didn't cost me or earn him any new money.
I can buy this element of it, to an extent. Using LV's Paul Attenasio example- I already bought the Homicide DVD's. Im not going to throw them out, but I could probably reconcile continuing to watch them, because I wouldnt be SUPPORTING his work, simply enjoying it. But promoting upcoming things as being "excited" about them is, or spending money to support them or encouraging others to do so just seems... wrong.
I can definitely see where you're coming from. And you're not even really wrong. For example, I don't patronize Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby because I don't want my money to go to supporting their causes. So I guess that just makes me a huge hypocrite, haha. But honestly, I've never really looked at paying money to watch a movie as supporting the filmmaker - I'm just paying to be able to see a film I might enjoy. But if I think that, then shouldn't I just be able to pay for a chicken sandwich I might enjoy at Chick-Fil-A too? Fuck, man. I don't know.
Like I said, I've never been able to reconcile this shit, even after thinking about it for years. It's a fucking hornet's nest. I just don't fucking know. I just can't imagine my life without Polanski's films in it; they mean so much to me and informed so many of many cinematic sensibilities. The waters of this issue couldn't possibly be any murkier for me.
durdencommatyler wrote: Though, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed, provided it didn't cost me or earn him any new money.
I can buy this element of it, to an extent. Using LV's Paul Attenasio example- I already bought the Homicide DVD's. Im not going to throw them out, but I could probably reconcile continuing to watch them, because I wouldnt be SUPPORTING his work, simply enjoying it. But promoting upcoming things as being "excited" about them is, or spending money to support them or encouraging others to do so just seems... wrong.
I think I agree. I'm still trying to figure out how to reconcile all of this. John Lennon by most accounts was known to be mentally and at times physically violent toward women. Especially earlier in his life. But I does that mean I shouldn't listen to the Beatles? I'm not sure how I could abandon their work given how much they've meant to me.
But, on the other hand, I have no intention of supporting anything Bill Cosby ever does again. The news about Cosby has been eye opening for me personally, and has gone a long way toward helping me figure out how I want to chose to react to these sorts of things. It should all be equal. There should be consequences to actions. And it's time that men stop being sheltered because of status. I believe that. And I'm aware that it makes me a hypocrite when it comes to Woody Allen. I'm genuinely not sure how to deal with these things. Is it case by case? Is it a blanket policy? I really don't know. I'm learning a lot about myself through all of it and I'm not sure I like all of it, frankly.
I just can't imagine my life without Polanski's films in it; they mean so much to me and informed so many of many cinematic sensibilities. The waters of this issue couldn't possibly be any murkier for me.