The goal of /r/Movies is to provide an inclusive place for discussions and news about films with major releases. Submissions should be for the purpose of informing or initiating a discussion, not just to entertain readers. Read our extensive list of rules for more information on other types of posts like fan-art and self-promotion, or message the moderators if you have any questions.
In before the tired "separate the art from the artist" oft-repeated Redditism, just leave it. Some people put their morals first and will boycott "art" from anyone they consider problematic, and Roman Polanski certainly fits the bill. That is a valid position.
That said, my wife and I embarked on a project to watch all IMDb Top 250 films, sometimes going on tangents of all films from this filmmaker or watching the other movies in a series where an entry made the list.
Anyway, we made it to number 33 last night and I was torn. I want to finish this project, but to hell with Roman Polanski. For those who don't know, this despicable piece of shit was arrested in 1977 for drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl.
We decided to watch it--and I don't mind telling you I used a method involving ships on the high seas--and I'm glad we did. If anyone else out there is avoiding this film because Roman Polanski is a vile scumbag, I would suggest you to you that the moral thing is actually to watch it.
For those unfamiliar, The Pianist is a biographical Holocaust war drama film based on the autobiographical book The Pianist (1946), a memoir by the Polish-Jewish pianist, composer, and Holocaust survivor Władysław Szpilman. In other words, it's a true story, and it's a significant one.
I've seen a lot of WWII/Nazi Germany/Holocaust films, and there are even quite a few on the IMDb Top 250, but this one is different, both in its narrative and a lot of what it does feature versus what it doesn't. It packs a tremendous emotional punch without ever being cheap about it. For what's it worth, it is directed brilliantly, Paweł Edelman's cinematography is astounding, but what you're really watching it for is Adrien Brody putting on the performance of his career, an absolute masterclass.
Long story short, I don't want to give anything away, but please consider viewing this film to honor a terrible history, those who died, and those who suffered through it and survived.
You have every right to boycott a filmmaker, and do so if that's your inclination, but consider the real moral imperative and importance of real stories like these and weigh the two.
And don't take my word for it. Aside from its place at 33 on the IMDb Top 250 with a score of 8.5/10, it's 95% on RT (and I cannot fathom a credible critic giving it a negative review, but apparently 5% decided to be contrarian), and 85/100 on Metacritic.
Tragically, the story remains painfully relevant to current world events. History, sadly, repeats.
So are Chinatown, Rosemary’s Baby, Repulsion, The Ghost Writer, An Officer and A Spy, Frantic
Just wanted to say this. Polanski has made a bunch of masterfully crafted films. Chinatown may be my favorite, and Rosemary's Baby is one of my all-time favorite horror films, together with Kubrick's The Shining.
I'm happy to see love for The Ghost Writer. Maybe my favorite final shot of any movie ever. If you haven't already, also check out The Ninth Gate and Death and the Maiden.
I like The Ninth Gate a lot.
It’s not just a moral thing. Roman Polanski is a criminal-at-large. He plead guilty to drugging and raping a 13 year old girl then he fled the United States before sentencing. And everyone who made The Pianist knew that. He won the Oscar that year for Best Director and was given a standing ovation since he wasn’t there to receive it. Why wasn’t he there? Because he’s a wanted criminal and if he came to the States he’d be arrested. It’s beyond immoral, actually. It’s insane how people would travel all over the world to work with him but only in countries that wouldn’t extradite him. So it’s not just about Polanski when I don’t watch these movies. It’s also about all the people who went out of their way to work with a wanted child rapist.
This. It sickens me to my stomach that not only was he nominated, he won. I could never watch it knowing that.
And he was given a standing ovation! Some people even signed petitions that year saying he should be pardoned so he could come to the awards.
What's really sad is when you look up the cast for his 2011 film "Carnage". Just lost a lotta respect for John C Reilly.
Bring on the downvotes but don't voice your opinion because you're defending a pedo rapist.
And all of these people acting totally surprised that Hollywood has a sexual abuse problem just a few years later. You’ve all gone out of your way to work with a wanted rapist. No shit a bunch of other rapists decided “this is a safe community for me to do my thing.”
But the story is more complex than that. Here's the summary from Wikipedia:
On 11 March 1977, three years after making Chinatown, Polanski was arrested at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel for the sexual assault of 13-year-old Samantha Gailey. Gailey had modeled for Polanski during a Vogue photoshoot the previous day around the swimming pool at the Bel Air home of Jack Nicholson.[158][159] Polanski was indicted on six counts of criminal behavior, including rape.[152][160] At his arraignment, he pleaded not guilty to all charges. Many executives in Hollywood came to his defense.[161] Gailey's attorney arranged a plea bargain in which five of the six charges would be dismissed, and Polanski accepted.[162]
As a result of the plea bargain, Polanski pleaded guilty to the charge of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor",[163][164] and was ordered to undergo 90 days of psychiatric evaluation at California Institution for Men at Chino.[165] Upon release from prison after 42 days, Polanski agreed to the plea bargain, his penalty to be time served along with probation. However, he learned afterward that the judge, Laurence J. Rittenband, had told some friends that he was going to disregard the plea bargain and sentence Polanski to 50 years in prison:[164][166] "I'll see this man never gets out of jail", he told Polanski's friend, screenwriter Howard E. Koch.[167] Gailey's attorney confirmed the judge changed his mind after he met the judge in his chambers:
"He was going to sentence Polanski, rather than to time served, to fifty years. What the judge did was outrageous. We had agreed to a plea bargain and the judge had approved it."[167][168]
EDIT: Adding one more quote given by the victim in an interview:
"Let me be very clear: what happened with Polanski was never a big problem for me. I didn't even know it was illegal, that someone could be arrested for it. I was fine, I'm still fine. It was so unfair and so in opposition to justice ... Everyone should know by now that Roman has served his sentence. Which was ... long if you want my opinion. Anyone who thinks that he deserves to be in prison is wrong. It isn't the case today and it wasn't the case yesterday."[202][203]
For those not trusting wikipedia, the numbers represent references that can be checked.
Comment deleted by user
This man has 100% spent the last 40 years raping children. No doubt. This isn't someone who thinks they did anything wrong.
Comment deleted by user
Oh, ok. So he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl and fled when he didn't like the completely legal sentence the judge was going to give him? There's no complexity here, there's just the fact that he thought he was going to get lighter sentence. So what? Do you think he was being wronged or some kind of victim?
Wiki isn't a reliable source. Rape is rape, there's nothing complex about it. All that is him trying to weasel out of taking responsibility for what he did.
Wiki isn't a reliable source. Rape is rape, there's nothing complex about it. All that is him trying to weasel out of taking responsibility for what he did.
Wiki isn't a reliable source. Rape is rape, there's nothing complex about it. All that is him trying to weasel out of taking responsibility for what he did.
Sigh… I mean you’re right. But remember when you take that stance, you can’t watch most things, or listen to most music, because someone involved was fucking a kid, guaranteed.
They don’t even have to be fucking a kid. They are a rapist of adults, or a Nazi, or something.
I GUARANTEE if you do your homework, you’ll have to swear off movies and music and video games.
Unfortunately there isn’t a label for “cruelty free” art.
Fuck Roman Polanski, but that child rapist knows his way around a camera.
This is just gibberish. People's opinions can be nuanced. They can think the making of one movie crosses too many moral boundaries and that other's don't. You're just conveniently ignoring the existence of nuance so you can broadly paint people as hypocrites. Gtfoh.
Yeah you’re right. So where do you draw the line? Do you still watch movies produced by Harvey Weinstein?
You're right; and that's the struggle. We have here a masterpiece in telling a true story with tremendous value in both historical relevance and modern relevance sadly, but it's largely the work of an atrocious human being who has gotten away with rape of a minor and is largely supported by a disgusting industry that protects its own.
I promise you there’s nothing so special about what Polanski brought to this project that couldn’t have been done without a child rapist on the run involved. This is not a case of them finding out after the fact. Everyone involved decided “hey I want to make this movie with a wanted criminal, not anyone else.”
I gained respect for Celine Sciamma when she simply left Cannes when he was getting an ovation. She was fucking furious.
It's truly disgusting how unscrupulous so many Hollywood types are.
I am very much aware of that.
That's the point of this post.
Apparently you’re not because you say it’s a “must watch.”
What an absolute crock of shit. It would make sense if you chose not to see it in order to avoid enriching him in any way financially, but then again, you could find a place to view it for free. But to boycott on principle is such a moronic take. What about all the crew, many of whom don't have the luxury of picking and choosing their jobs based on your ivory tower morality, and are more concerned with feeding their families? They worked for months on this film too. What about the story being told, which is still important and worthy of being heard. Unless Polanski is slipping rape apology themes into his film, why would the film itself offend you? And how about other films? Did you boycott 95% of other films in existence because somewhere on the production team there happened to be a criminal? Did you boycott every Hollywood actor who applauded Polanski? Did you boycott every film of Christoph Waltz, Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Harrison Ford, Jack Nicholson, etc because they enriched Polanski by working with him? Polanski is behind the camera, telling an important true story, but it's not a one man show. Boycotting his work shits all over that story and the hard work of thousands of other people who had nothing to do with his crime. Most boycotts are stupid, often poorly justified and badly misdirected. This is one of those.
I would never applaud Polanski just as I would never applaud Elia Kazan, both were/are scum. But they made masterpieces that are worthy of viewing. If you can, watch their work for free and don't give them a penny. Personally I don't get all hung up on the lives of the people who create the art. I don't go to an art gallery and ponder the grievous wrongdoings of the artist whose art hangs on the wall before me. Must really suck to be like that, not being able to appreciate art in its own right. Downvote away.
It’s easier to build a false narrative about how I engage with art than to debate my point about Polanski on its own merits. I get it.
Also if this story is so important why are you out here suggesting everyone read the book which is an actual biography of the person who lived it? Stop acting like the only way this story can be told or experience is thru this movie.
The book is excellent but I wasn't the user who suggested reading it. The film is excellent too. Polanski himself was a victim of WWII in Poland, and had a personal connection to the story. Nobody said this story couldn't be told without him, that's called a strawman argument. In many ways he was telling his own story and that of his family. Your constant moaning that it would have been a good story to tell without him being involved makes zero sense, and I pity the person who thinks that way.
You gotta remember this place is full of children.
No relevance to the films he made
How is raping a girl not relevant?
To the perception of his films?
Why would it be?
I think it's reasonable for people to not want to support a terrible human being, and child rape is going to be a hard line for a lot of people, understandably so.
Let's say you find out your favorite restaurant is owned and operated by a known pedophile. Do you continue to eat there and support the business?
Do you say, yeah, pedophilia is bad, but they make the best steak in town?
I’d say it’s extremely relevant to every movie he’s made since 1978.
Not to me
Sure and it’s ok for others to judge you on what you value.
What does any of that have to do with the movie?
It was made by a rapist.
What's that have to do with the quality of the movie?
It literally has nothing to do with the quality of the movie. The movie shouldn't have been made, because he should be in jail, because he's a convicted child rapist.
Child rapist
She was 13; he was 43
I think this is a choice people have to make. Some people can separate the art and the artist, some can't. There is no right or wrong way.
In this case, the book is right there and is in no way connected to a child sexual assaulter. People can read that and get an understanding and perspective of the story instead of watching the movie.
That's a good point that the autobiography exists and can be read without supporting Roman Polanski, but there is a difference in experience.
I think you can read the book or visit a concentration camp for the same or better “experience”.
Are you insinuating the only way to learn of or comprehend the history of marginalized peoples is to watch a film by someone who drugged and raped a child?
The survivor in question deserves better.
"There is no right or wrong way. "
I think we can all agree that supporting a child rapist is wrong.
Well, obviously However, we aren't talking about supporting a child rapist here. We're just talking about watching a film that involved the effort of a child rapist in its production. Supporting the film does not mean one supports him or what he did. It's supporting a genuinely great film.
Pretty much every movie has at least one person who worked on it that is a terrible person, so if you can't separate the art from the artist, may as well just not watch any movies
What a ridiculous take.
If the best boy or key grip is behind in child support or guilty of jaywalking isn't important to most people.
The star(s) and/or producers, filmmakers, etc. RAPING A CHILD is rightly worth considering.
As a survivor of SA, I cannot put it to one side. It makes sense that you can do that (edit: in theory I understand separating the art from the artist). But do recognize that not everyone will be able to. Same reason why I can’t enjoy a Woody Allen film or listen to musicians who have abused children. It literally makes me feel sick.
I watched the Pianist before I knew who directed it. I enjoyed it for what it was at the time, but it was not necessary to my understanding of the subject matter.
I’m pretty sure you can honor that terrible history by watching … a million other things made on the subject that were not created by abusive people.
Watch what you like, I’m not here to police anyone’s relationship with media. I am just failing to see how watching a film about oppression that was created by an abusive person is a moral imperative.
Edit: I anticipated the downvotes, but it’s still disappointing to see how dismissive yall can be when a survivor of assault explains their POV on consuming media. Like, damn.
People can honor the history and story of this man by simply reading the book instead of watching the movie.
And I have.
I don't think I'm writing anything groundbreaking when I say reading an autobiography and watching a film are very different experiences.
Nobody’s telling you not to be critical. I just think it’s important that you understand that you’re being selective in how you apply the moral foundation behind your decision not to watch a specific artist. You’re allowed to do that, as long as you’re aware that you’re doing it.
Cognitive dissonance is a fundamental human behavior, nobody’s judging you for doing it—everyone does it. Nobody’s being dismissive of you or your experiences by making sure that you’re held accountable for the opinions you hold—especially when you’re the one who broadcast them to the world.
I wouldn’t say it’s a moral imperative but I will say this:
Art is an expression of human emotion—and it very, very frequently comes from the experiences, feelings, sentiments, and world views of its creator.
That being said—if you wish to avoid any art created by bad (read: evil, disturbed, troubled, problematic) people—then probably close to 75-85 percent of film, music, and art is going to be closed off to you—including a bunch of stuff that you probably blindly enjoy, not knowing the history behind the people who made it.
Especially movies—which are the result of dozens (if not hundreds) of different people’s visions.
I am objecting to the moral imperative aspect of this assertion. I am aware that a majority of artists/those in popular media are not great people. It is hard to succeed in these worlds without stepping on others.
But once I am aware (of certain things that connect with my experiences), it impacts my ability to view.
I don’t object to reality, I know how the world works. But I also know that our unique lenses are impactful.
What I wrote was that it's a moral imperative to weigh the two and decide; I did not write that is a moral imperative to watch the film.
“if anyone is avoiding this film because roman polanski is a vile scumbag, I suggest to you that the real moral thing is to actually watch it.”
Also - I do not enjoy things “blindly.” I look people up every time I watch something because I like to know about the artist in general.
If they reveal themselves to be abusive after I’ve enjoyed their work, it doesn’t negate everything I got out of it. Just means I’m done supporting them.
Media history is so vast. Even if I am relegated to 1% of it, it would be enough to sustain me.
In your earlier comment you admit that you know that it’s very difficult to succeed (and thus, make your art accessible) without stepping on others—and you simultaneously claim to stop supporting people once you’re made aware of them being abusive.
You understand that this makes it sound like “enjoying things blindly” is exactly what you do, right?
The clothes you wear, the food you eat, the entertainment you consume—most of it, unless you’re very careful to avoid it, came at the expense of—at some point down the line—human suffering.
You can choose to only view ethically produced entertainment, but you’re limited pretty much to indies made by college students.
You realize that unless you want to admit to being a hypocrite (which is fine, we all are), you’re basically saying you don’t watch any films produced by any of the 5 major studios—which is possible, sure, but I’d be very hard pressed to find many people who are both movie fans and also don’t watch any of the major releases in what is presumably the country they live in.
It’s not hypocritical to acknowledge two things can be true at the same time. I stay open to new experiences but I also stay critical. Not that big a deal.
Edit: I do not have a puritanical approach to consuming media just because I am decisive. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism but we still gotta maintain jobs and buy things to survive. Should we not stay critical of the systems that bind us?
What I wrote was that it's a moral imperative to weigh the two and decide; I did not write that is a moral imperative to watch the film.
75-85 not 70-80?
Comment deleted by user
It’s not a long known accusation. Roman Polanski is a convict who plead guilty to child rape then fled the United States before sentencing. For 40 years people have gone to France or whatever and worked with him knowing full well he is a wanted child rapist who’d get arrested if he entered the States.
Do we need to support them? They already got paid
Royalties are a thing, but, as stated, in my case, I was sailing whilst wearing an eyepatch and flying the Jolly Roger.
No one made any money off me.
Uh, for the company? Cause 99% of the employees aren’t getting those
I get that. I grew up on Harry Potter, it was a huge part of my life and development. I am also queer and nonbinary, and the author has chosen to become a vocal transphobe, so I refuse to support her work anymore.
But I WILL watch the movies, as I already own them, and I have so much appreciation for the work of the actors involved. Especially Daniel Radcliffe, who has spoken against JK’s problematic ideologies.
There is so much gray area. It’s much more complex than just being able to set things aside.
Yeah, I got a Deathly Hallows tattoo to commemorate the incredible father/child bonding experience I had with my child after we finished reading the books together, but then the JKR bigotry came out... and then my child came out.
I got a coverup tattoo.
And that's an author who has some shitty views on people. Polanski is a child rapist.
While I do not condone JKR and her shitty rhetoric regarding trans women, it's not a crime to hold shitty views. It is absolutely a crime and an act of pure evil to rape a child.
Daniel Radcliffe is the fucking GOAT. Turned out to be a pretty awesome human being and talented actor.
Daniel Radcliffe is the Greatest of All-Time at what?
She has an opinion that's awful. He raped a 12 year old. There's a difference.
Of course the issues are in two different worlds, but it’s the same in that my unique lens and experiences impact my perceptions of her art.
Woody Allen never did anything
Was your SA also consensual and then you regretted it later? Would you still have considered it SA if it was consensual? Do you see some degrees of gray here or is it all black and white?
Polanski's case is one of statutory rape, not rape. Some folk (males, usually) like to say "rape in rape", but that's because they never experienced rape. I can tell you that if I was given a choice of how to be raped, I'd definitely pick the statutory option. Make me a teenager again and charm me into having sex with me - I'll take that option, thanks for giving me a choice.
So I get that Polanski did something illegal, but his victim seems to be fine with what happened (she literally stated so in an interview), so what is all this boycott for if he doesn't seem to have harmed anybody? And it seems strange to focus on Polanski's interest in young girls, when he was photographing such girls for Vogue. What about Vogue's interest in 13-year olds and what about their readers' interest in seeing photographs of 13-year olds? What does that tell you about the hypocrisy of American society?
As for Woody Allen, those claims are without support. Look at what his own son wrote about the atmosphere in his family:
https://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html
The only relevant fact is that they were willing to have "sex" with a child in the first place.
This is an interesting topic I’ve had a number of conversations about. I have two degrees in art history (feel free to make fun of my unemployable degrees haha), and there’s always conversations about “can we separate the artist from the art?”
Paul Gauguin abandoned his family and raped his way across Tahiti spreading syphilis. But he’s also in every art history text book. Picasso, Pollack, Caravaggio… All artists that you’d visit a museum just to see one of their works, but all really bad people.
This is still relevant today, can you enjoy Harry Potter with all the controversy of JK Rowling? Actors like Kevin Spacey, Armie Hammer, and Jonathan Majors have had their careers effectively ended for being terrible people, despite being great actors.
Polanski is in the same boat of controversy. Can you still like his movies despite who he is as a person? I have no idea. I would never support a single person I’ve mentioned here as a person, but I do still love me some Harry Potter… It’s an interesting topic to debate!
You could've just said how much you enjoyed the pianist.....
Yeah, ignore the elephant in the room and make a statement that's nothing new.
That'd be interesting.
Random guy on the internet thinks highly of highly regarding film.
Fascinating stuff.
So ....this isn't about the film?
Proceed with your non-movie post on r/movies
Enjoy.
Yeah, you figured it out.
A post about filmmaker Roman Polanski and his MOVIE The Pianist isn't about movies and doesn't belong on r/movies.
You are truly a genius.
Talk about the child rapist all you want.
I sub this reddit, movies, to discuss movies
Not to debate about children being raped
But, again, continue with what you prefer to think about......
I promise you don't have to reply to me anymore
You're already getting the attention you obviously can't get anywhere else...
In fact, you'll prolly discover you've been blocked after your next reply to me.
Horrible horrible human being, but he made a fantastic film.
Just because I dislike Polanski’s behavior, doesn’t mean he is a bad director. He is actually very good at what he does. I find that whole boycotting thing a hypocritical farce.
Can you elaborate on how boycotting something is a “hypocritical farce”?
Might not have been a good choice of words. Let me be a bit more detailed, I believe that everybody has the right to make their own decisions about what to watch or read. If that means that person decides he or she will no longer support the work of an artist, with their time money, then that is perfectly fine with me. What annoys me is when the same people are then trying to tell everybody else that they should no longer see the work of somebody due to that persons behavior, alleged or proven crimes. Sidney Pollack has been tried and found guilty, so if they get a hold of him, I’m entirely in favor of throwing his ass in jail. What he die is no reason to admire him. But I enjoy many of those movies he made, and am not going to punish myself, by depriving me of those just to take the moral high ground. I didn’t throw away my DVDs with Kevin Spacey either, or any movie produced by Harvey Weinstein. If somebody breaks the law they need to have a trial, a verdict snd a sentence, but it’s not up to public opinion to do that trial.
Of what? What did he do?