Follow @wfpman

I won’t see Polanski’s new film

with 3 comments

The question is whether your decision to see this film is affected by Polanski’s personal life: the sex-related charges, his fleeing from this country before sentencing. It’s not a new question — maybe you asked yourself the same thing before seeing The Pianist, Frantic or any of the filmmaker’s movies from the 1980s onward. However, the extradition issues from late last year have brought Polanski’s past back into the spotlight, in a way they were not when The Pianist was released, for example.

via Discuss: Will You See Polanski’s New Film? – Cinematical.

As good and interesting as it looks I will not be going to see the Ghost Writer. Yes, it is all about the man Mr. Polanski who fled prosecution for what he has done so many years ago. While it is hard to be a socially responsible consumer I must try. I have given up Starbucks and have started patronizing local businesses, local chains and other socially responsible companies. I’m getting better and I must.

Therefore, I cannot knowingly go and see this movie after all the pain Roman Polanski has caused. It is sad that all these companies Summit Entertainment LLC., R.P. Films, Elfte Babelsburg Film, France 2 Cinema,  and Runteam III would work to put out his film. It is also sad that good actors would act in Polanski’s film. For the movie corporations it is about making money which is corporatism. For the actors I don’t have an answer.

In the end there is a time when you have to draw the line. Of course you can’t be the best at judging and will sometimes choose to consume or support something that you should not unknowingly or even knowingly. But that does not mean that you must continue to keep on doing it. If the director had accepted his responsibility it would have been a different story, but he did not.

As for how far you take a boycott of a film I’ll end it with the director, but I question the actors and the film companies who worked with him. If they were to continue to make bad judgments then I assume I’d have to reconsider them as well. If anything I’ll be more quick to stay away from Summit Entertainment LLC.

Related posts:

  1. CRUDE: A Joe Berlinger Film
  2. Black Gold: A Coffee Film That Has Starbucks Scared
  3. Capitalism: A Love Story – Michael Moore’s new film

Written by Jason Gooljar

March 6th, 2010 at 10:41 am

Posted in Corporatism

Tagged with ,

«
»
opinions powered by SendLove.to
  • Marshal

    Actually, Polanski WAS prosecuted and both parties had agreed on a plea bargain the mother had pressed for to avoid a trial, after medical evidence didn’t quite support her daughter’s claims and therefore demanded no incarceration. He fully accepted his responsibility for unlawful sex with a minor, but the judge reneged on their agreement to be freed on probation on racist grounds and was removed by both attorneys for multiple counts of legal misconduct. That’s why he fled after nearly a year of proceedings, not to avoid sentencing. And that’s why the Swiss won’t extradite him, because the US courts cannot prove he was up for more than he had spent time behind bars then already. That’s why he wasn’t sentenced in absentia months back either, because the case is one legal mess ever since they cannot correct anymore. That’s why people worked with him, or show his films – it never was rape the way people think she declared herself later in several interviews and to let him be, actively campaigning for the case be closed since years now – they simply know better to support him, in contrast to the ill-informed public.

  • http://jasongooljar.com Jason

    That is a very interesting and informative rebuttal. Of course I will have to do more reading on the matter but I do acknowledge your statement here. He appears by your words to have admitted to his unlawful act.

  • Marshal

    He has indeed, and it was as such recorded in the probation officers’ and the psyche evaluation reports, that is why the plea was struck. But unfortunately the judge went off the rails for personal reasons and was removed too late, otherwise the attorneys could have helped Polanski earlier and seen the plea through with another judge, or of course appealed. No party wanted a trial for several reasons, but the judge wanted to spin out the case simply for who Polanski was, and effectively foiled any attempts to appeal his threatening him with a further sentence none of the parties demanded, and into self-deportation, which was unlawful. The case is much more complex and legally unsound than people realise. But of course, the media has no interest in enlightening people.

    If you’re interested in more facts and details on every level as they arose over the decades, I link you to someone’s microanalysis given within the sociopolitical times and most of judicial developments and failings of then, who was there. But it is very long, be warned and an ongoing project to update it as things develop. It also touches on his life more in-depth most have no clear understanding of and films as well given in context, all in a systematic timeline breakdown to this day. The comments on both shorter and the main versions are worth reading too.

    http://novalislore.wordpress.com/

    If you don’t want to post this comment or for others to gain more insight via the given link, I leave that to your discretion, but it is most definitely worth going through to inform yourself on a very comprehensive level no other source can offer, to form a more objective opinion. Otherwise feel free to disseminate the article if you so wish. You can also comment on the article directly on site and the blogmaster will be happy to oblige any replies or queries.