Saturday, July 17, 2010

Still in the News?!

Several months ago (I believe roughly in the vicinity of September), renowned filmmaker (renowned strictly in cinematic circles) Roman Polanski was apprehended by authorities in connection with a 1977 child-rape case. I blogged about the event when it occurred, likening the media to vultures swooping upon decaying carrion, but also saying it's right and just that Polanski pay for his crime. And quite frankly, child rape is, in my opinion, one of the worst crimes of them all.

Well, people are still talking about it! There was an opinion piece in one of the newspapers recently calling for a boycott of Polanski's films.

You have got to be kidding me.

Let's all agree that the rape was heinous and disgusting. Rape always is. But what bearing does it have on the quality of a movie like Rosemary's Baby, which was released nine years before the crime was committed? Or Polanski's adaptation of Shakespeare's "Scottish play," which was released six years before?

I'm sure that proponents of the boycott will insist that, for instance, Rosemary's Baby reflected early signs of a troubled, potentially violent mind. The film's plot involves a young wife being drugged by her neighbors and dragged unconscious to a Satanic ritual wherein the living devil is conjured up, then proceeds to impregnate her. Disney fare it ain't. But before you boycott it, bear in mind that: (a) it is based on a novel written by Ira Levin, who has no other connection to the director; (b) it's purely fictional; and (c) the whole nine year thing!

Polanski's films exist in a world completely separate of his crime. It is not fair to the hundreds upon hundreds of other artisans who craft a motion picture together to boycott them because of one individual. If you object to Rosemary's Baby, object to the content or the thematic elements. Even object to the tacky 60s styles before the director! Polanski's crimes should be judged as criminal. His films? Purely as cinematic. Take OJ Simpson, for example. The man may be one of the worst actors in history, but that's how I remember his film work. And only how.

1 comment:

The Seavy Clan said...

I agree with you, brother. The crime was his own, no reason to hurt the innocent people who just happen to work with/ act in the movie. Excellent point.