What Are You Watching Right Now? Episode 3 - Turtles in Time

Discuss past, present, and future releases. This is the place for news, reviews, and your 'best' lists.

Moderators: Buscemi, BarcaRulz, Geezer, W

W
Dr. Strangelove
Posts: 7180
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 4:37 pm

Re: What Are You Watching Right Now? Episode 3 - Turtles in Time

Post by W »

A couple of things that I don't believe are accurate:

He has been accused of it after. At least four other times: https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/8/17/1 ... er-robin-m And he has admitted to having sex with many minors in California where the age of consent is 18 when he was in his 40's. These kinds of people don't have a "one and done"-type mentality.

It was not just statutory, though I that's what was plead to to keep the victim out of the spotlight. It involved drugging and getting a minor drunk, her still saying no even though she was in a limited state, and him continuing anyway. If he had as light of a penalty as he expected he would still have had to register as a sex offender, which has limits the access to children. I do not see anywhere where this has been the case in France or Poland. Also, it seems he has/had a hobby of making child pornography. I believe taking photos of nude 13 year olds fits that definition, and there's at least one more accusation by a 10 year old.
Dr. Julius Strangepork

User avatar
JohnErle
The Frankenstein Monster
Posts: 2596
Joined: October 22nd, 2009, 4:01 am
Contact:

Re: What Are You Watching Right Now? Episode 3 - Turtles in Time

Post by JohnErle »

I don't plan to spend the next week arguing about this, since neither of us will ever change our minds, but I feel I need to offer a few thoughts on why I still support Polanski as an artist. Sorry for the length but I have no Wi-Fi at home, which means I can't post here on weekends, so I had a long time to think about my response.

I freely admit that if his criminal history was the first thing I'd learned about him I'd probably have a very different opinion of him. My first exposure to him was as a great artist, and then I learned about his tragic childhood in the ghettos of Poland, his rise to fame despite being an immigrant who barely spoke English, and the murder of his wife and unborn child just when it seemed he had it all. He'd suffered through things most of us could never imagine long before he made anyone else suffer. He's neither a martyr nor a monster, just a deeply flawed human being who's done some terrible things and had terrible things done to him.

The main difference between Roman Polanski and a thousand other celebrities is that Polanski got caught and the case went viral. Charlie Chaplin is just the tip of the iceberg. Tune in to classic rock radio and chances are you're hearing someone who committed statutory rape, or worse. I don't like the selective outrage that focuses so much attention on Roman Polanski while ignoring someone like Mark Whalberg, who was convicted of a hate crime. People still listen to R. Kelly and Michael Jackson, so I reserve the right to still watch Polanksi movies if I want to.

As for that quote, it seems outrageous now, but consider the fact that the judge in his case WAS fucking young girls! In 1979 Polanski was hardly the only person with a casual attitude about sex with minors. That's why we was so open about it in his memoir. That's why movies like Almost Famous and Lolita exist. When the Beatles sang “She was just 17, and you know what I mean” it's obvious what they were talking about. Chuck Berry's “Sweet Little 16”, The Stray Cats' “Sexy & 17”, Kiss' “Christine Sixteen”, the list goes on and on. That in no way excuses what happened in the Grenier case, I'm just saying that all those 17 year girls in and out of his Swiss chalet would have been no big deal in those days.

Forget about the studios who bankrolled him, what about all the A-listers who were willing to work with him for decades after his arrest? Harrison Ford, Kate Winslet, Pierce Brosnan, Jodie Foster, Ewan McGregor, Sigourney Weaver and many more all chose to work with him knowing full well what his history was. Are they all guilty by association or does that again show how much attitudes have changed in recent years?

As for those other accusations, they may or may not be true. He once successfully sued Vanity Fair for libel after they printed false accusations against him. I don't know if he had to register as a sex offender in Europe, but his access to children absolutely should have been limited. If it wasn't, and if he did re-offend, that's a failure of the justice system and that never should have been allowed to happen. Assuming the worst and he did re-offend, I think the most recent accusation against him dates back to 1983. Even the worst case scenario seems to indicate he's been rehabilitated for a very long time.

His one proven victim, Samantha Grenier, has forgiven him and has spent decades trying to get the charges against him dropped. The legal system is supposed to consider victim impact statements when prosecuting someone, but in this case the victim's wishes have been ignored for years.

If he was a plumber instead of a director, would you say he shouldn't be allowed to work as a plumber, or would you say, yeah, he did a terrible thing, but that was a lifetime ago. He's a married man now with kids of his own and he's apparently stayed out of trouble for a long time. At what point is a criminal forgiven and allowed to be a productive member of society? If the answer is never, then every sentence is a life sentence.

W
Dr. Strangelove
Posts: 7180
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 4:37 pm

Re: What Are You Watching Right Now? Episode 3 - Turtles in Time

Post by W »

To me, anything he's associated with after what happened is tainted just as anything Bill Cosby has ever done is tainted. Those that work with him now are at least a little tainted, but I can watch their stuff without thinking about it. I can't watch his stuff without thinking about it. It's probably because the details are out there, I've read them, and they are worse than any celebrity crime not involving murder that I can think of. I also haven't seen a shred of evidence that he's remorseful. Just the quotes from him saying how a drunk, drugged little girl "wanted it."

All those people you mentioned are a bit tainted for me as well. I can't stand how people love Mark Wahlberg, for example, even though I believe he has changed. But this is worse than anything you mentioned (that I know of, and I don't want to know) except R. Kelly. 13 is different than 16/17 as well.

I do not take into consideration what the victim feels now. If she were an adult when it happened and wanted to forgive him, maybe, but this is a child sex crime. Research shows that people that are attracted to kids almost never change. If they want to drop it, fine, but it's going to have no bearing on whether I watch his new stuff or not (I won't).

Having an atrocious life does not have any bearing to me on actions like this. It can lead to a life of crime, of course, but this is something else.

If he were a plumber he would have not had the opportunity to leave to finish his work. He then would have not been able to leave the country. He would (probably) not been able to come up with the bail. He would have been punished, had to register as a sex offender, let everyone in his neighborhood know that he is a sex offender, not be within x feet from schools or playgrounds, and would have had tighter restrictions on where he could plumb for a period of x number of years after release. If after all that he had changed I personally still don't want to be around him. I have a tiny bit of experience with it. Nothing that affected me or anyone I know personally, but I still won't go around that person. They're now a contractor and I wouldn't let them do work on my home for free. I don't think that makes me a bad person, but maybe...

I don't judge anyone that wants to see his stuff past 1978, just the fact that it was made to begin with and that he was aided in putting out a new movie every 2-3 years. And the fact that he was defended by so many people over the years. And that he was and is so flippant over the whole thing.

To me art vs. artist can't apply after something as bad as this. I'm not going to watch a new OJ Simpson movie, but I could laugh at Naked Gun. I'm not going to listen to a new R Kelly album. I could probably watch Space Jam, but would turn the radio off if they played his stuff. Hell, even I don't know my rules. I don't typically think about it much.
Dr. Julius Strangepork

User avatar
JohnErle
The Frankenstein Monster
Posts: 2596
Joined: October 22nd, 2009, 4:01 am
Contact:

Re: What Are You Watching Right Now? Episode 3 - Turtles in Time

Post by JohnErle »

Well, at least you're consistent in saying you'd shun a plumber the same as you'd shun Polanski. I don't agree with that attitude, but I understand it. If a criminal is treated like a criminal his entire life, then there's no hope for rehabilitation and they might as well re-offend, stay in prison, or be given the death penalty. Hate the sin but not the sinner, as the saying goes.

My only real issue with what you're saying is that you wish he hadn't been allowed to work after his arrest. I don't know how someone who's seen The Pianist could wish that movie didn't exist. I agree his access to minors should have been limited after fleeing the US, but not his access to film sets. Maybe he shouldn't have been allowed to jump right back in like he did, but after a suitable time in exile, a sort of unofficial parole, if you will, I would have had no problem with him returning to work. As for registering as a sex offender, his case was so well-publicized that would have almost been redundant, but as I said, I would have had no problem with that.

And my rules aren't cut and dry either, so each case needs to be considered on its own. I loved Bill Cosby when I was a kid and had several of his comedy albums memorized. I tried listening to one after his arrest and it was tainted for me. Maybe with time that'll pass, it's hard to say. And I don't hate Mark Wahlberg or want to take away his right to make shitty movies. I wouldn't wish cancel culture on anyone, but as long as it exists it should be applied equally to everyone.

User avatar
Buscemi2
Michael Myers
Posts: 3672
Joined: July 25th, 2017, 9:13 pm
Location: Neither here nor there.

Re: What Are You Watching Right Now? Episode 3 - Turtles in Time

Post by Buscemi2 »

It's funny that we are having this conversation about things being suppressed because I really pissed someone off on Reddit for using this word. The conversation was over the lack of a Blu-ray release for Happiness and I mentioned that Lionsgate has seemingly suppressed the film due to its graphic content, nothing that the film has been out of print for years and isn't even available on streaming, not even through a semi-legal YouTube stream. I also pointed out that Kids, a film with similar issues, does have a Blu-ray in Germany and can be found on YouTube. So this guy goes off on me, foaming at the mouth, using the word "conjuncture" like Vizzini used "inconceivable", and compared me to Alex Jones, claiming I was making up wild conspiracies about a semi-remembered 1998 film.

I think I won the argument as the other guy got more downvotes. Also, I looked up his post record (I was already familiar with him through some rambling comments on wrestling) and found he's nothing more than your basic troll.

Meanwhile, I watched the last film in my 20's earlier. Il Mare, which I'm sure Chien has seen. Good but the subtitles on Amazon's copy are awful.
It's like what Lenin said...I am the walrus.

W
Dr. Strangelove
Posts: 7180
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 4:37 pm

Re: What Are You Watching Right Now? Episode 3 - Turtles in Time

Post by W »

I have a guy that comes into my work and has me order pre-code and 1930's films and is certain specific films aren't available on DVD because they're "suppressed." I point out that very few people are looking for this film (most with less than 100 IMDb ratings) and normally it's in the public domain so how can it be suppressed? "But they would sell so many of them."

There's a few real reasons they don't release a movie. It's not worth the negative publicity. There's not enough interest in it compared other movies they could release. And legal reasons. What you're talking about is probably a combination of the first two. If they thought Kids would net them more compared to other movies they are releasing that won't rock the boat then they would do it.
Dr. Julius Strangepork

User avatar
Buscemi2
Michael Myers
Posts: 3672
Joined: July 25th, 2017, 9:13 pm
Location: Neither here nor there.

Re: What Are You Watching Right Now? Episode 3 - Turtles in Time

Post by Buscemi2 »

Yeah, I can't see a movie that has a subplot about pedophilia selling well in 2020. Sure, Criterion released the terrible sequel but I don't think Lionsgate wants to open up a can of worms by making Happiness available on Moviesphere (Lionsgate's Amazon Prime channel) or on Blu-ray.

That guy you describe sounds like half of the Blu-ray.com users. They don't understand economics. Look at a title from the now-defunct Twilight Time. Those were titles that really only could move 3,000-5,000 units and had to be sold at $29.95 just to break even. And yet, these idiots believe that a million copies of some forgotten 80's movies could move at $9.95.
It's like what Lenin said...I am the walrus.

W
Dr. Strangelove
Posts: 7180
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 4:37 pm

Re: What Are You Watching Right Now? Episode 3 - Turtles in Time

Post by W »

Insomnia (Nolan) 7/10 (seen every Nolan now)
Eyes Without a Face 6/10
Purple Noon 8/10
Scoob! 4/10
The Gold Rush 6/10
But I'm a Cheerleader 8/10

A couple favorites I caught again on HBO Max:
Armageddon 9/10 (Looking back, was there a better 90's cast? Just for how many legit stars were in it. Especially for a popcorn film like this?)
That Thing You Do 9/10
Dr. Julius Strangepork

User avatar
Buscemi2
Michael Myers
Posts: 3672
Joined: July 25th, 2017, 9:13 pm
Location: Neither here nor there.

Re: What Are You Watching Right Now? Episode 3 - Turtles in Time

Post by Buscemi2 »

I think The Rock had the better Bruckheimer cast. Lots of familiar "hey, it's that guy" people in there.

And I imagine you had a lot of the same problems I had with Scoob.
It's like what Lenin said...I am the walrus.

User avatar
transformers2
Inspector Jacque Clouseau
Posts: 5145
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 5:15 pm

Re: What Are You Watching Right Now? Episode 3 - Turtles in Time

Post by transformers2 »

It may be because I just watched it in April, but Out of Sight would be my pick for best 90's cast. Even the cameos (Michael Keaton, Samuel L. Jackson) are done by great actors!

edit: Con Air is also a strong contender.
BRING BRENDAN FRASER BACK TO THE BIG SCREEN DAMN IT
Check out my blog http://maitlandsmadness.blogspot.com/
Movies,Music,Sports and More!

User avatar
Chienfantome
V
Posts: 9418
Joined: May 29th, 2010, 4:22 am
Location: Paris, France
Contact:

Re: What Are You Watching Right Now? Episode 3 - Turtles in Time

Post by Chienfantome »

A Polanski debate ! It feels like it's the César awards all over again :lol:
Fluctuat nec mergitur

W
Dr. Strangelove
Posts: 7180
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 4:37 pm

Re: What Are You Watching Right Now? Episode 3 - Turtles in Time

Post by W »

Yesterday I watched a couple that are leaving The Criterion Channel at the end of the month.

My Own Private Idaho 6/10
Things Behind the Sun 9/10: Has anyone seen this one? I didn't know it existed. It never had a theatrical release. I guess it was made for or bought by Showtime? It's pretty brutal emotionally with great performances by Kim Dickens (especially) and Don Cheadle.

I may not get to any by the end of the month (when they leave), but any suggestions on these: Seconds, Bullitt, Pierrot le fou, Hero (Dustin Hoffman).
Dr. Julius Strangepork

User avatar
Buscemi2
Michael Myers
Posts: 3672
Joined: July 25th, 2017, 9:13 pm
Location: Neither here nor there.

Re: What Are You Watching Right Now? Episode 3 - Turtles in Time

Post by Buscemi2 »

I saw Things Behind the Sun years ago but remember little about it. The story about the distribution goes that it got acclaim at Sundance but no distributor would buy it due to the subject matter, leading it to premiere on cable (other films that had this happen: The Last Seduction, Adrian Lyne's version of Lolita, The Believer, etc.). It did win a Peabody though, an honor that few films intended for theatres get.

And out of the four you mentioned, I'd pick Seconds. I'm not sure how you'd like Pierrot le Fou (which just got announced for a Criterion reissue) but it's fascinating to watch for its influence on Wayne's World.
It's like what Lenin said...I am the walrus.

User avatar
transformers2
Inspector Jacque Clouseau
Posts: 5145
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 5:15 pm

Re: What Are You Watching Right Now? Episode 3 - Turtles in Time

Post by transformers2 »

July (and the last few days of June) viewings:
Eurovision Song Contest 7.5/10
Lost Bullet 7/10
All the Bright Places 7.5/10
7500 5.5/10
My Spy 7.5/10
Definitely, Maybe 7/10
House Party 3.5/10
Desperados 6/10
Intolerable Cruelty 7/10
Guns Akimbo 8/10
Life After Beth 8/10
Wake Up, Ron Burgundy 7/10
Hard Rain 7/10
The Old Guard 8.5/10
Palm Springs 8/10
Julien Donkey Boy 3/10
Brawl in Cell Block 99 7.5/10
Dark Places 7/10
The Take 7/10
A Serious Man 7.5/10
Ride 6/10
The Rental 8/10
From Dusk Till Dawn 8/10
Ready to Rumble 4/10
Freedom Writers 5/10
Spies in Disguise 7.5/10
The Mustang 7/10
BRING BRENDAN FRASER BACK TO THE BIG SCREEN DAMN IT
Check out my blog http://maitlandsmadness.blogspot.com/
Movies,Music,Sports and More!

User avatar
Buscemi2
Michael Myers
Posts: 3672
Joined: July 25th, 2017, 9:13 pm
Location: Neither here nor there.

Re: What Are You Watching Right Now? Episode 3 - Turtles in Time

Post by Buscemi2 »

Gone with the Wind is back on HBO Max. People can stop freaking out now.
It's like what Lenin said...I am the walrus.

Post Reply