Comments on: On Polanski and Other Gods and Monsters

By: Jessica

Jessica — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:29:01 +0000

Thanks for this, PS. It was relieving to read. Although I’m not famous, I am an artist, and reading all those names on the petition sent me into my own freak out. I wrote about it here: http://jessicaferris.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/polanski-god-auster-me-a-kind-of-free-association/

Now that some time has passed, this is what’s sticking with me: most artists in the world did not sign that petition.

And Emma Thompson? Appears to have had a change of heart!

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/11/emma-update.html

By: bb

bb — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:24:32 +0000

PS, this was a brilliant and beautiful (if tragic) post.

By: Diziet_Sma

Diziet_Sma — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:37:59 +0000

Really? I thought: “And just to add, I am NOT defending Polanski, nor any other ‘artist’. Also, I do not think of them as being special human beings,” was pretty clear. But whatever, apology accepted.

By: mischiefmanager

mischiefmanager — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:49:23 +0000

@Diziet_Sma: “You can’t MAKE a person how you want them to be, unfortunately.” and “I think that part of the psychological makeup of an ‘artist’ is selfishness.”

So I think we’re in agreement. I’m saying that maybe we can’t change anyone’s psyche but we can make sure that they pay a price for their selfishness when that amounts to criminal behavior. I didn’t see you saying in those two posts what you say explicitly later down the thread, but I apologize if I misunderstood your stance.

By: ceejeemcbeegee

ceejeemcbeegee — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:04:31 +0000

People that other themselves, or otherwise feel entitled to a special set of rules, are not artists: they are assholes.

By: Diziet_Sma

Diziet_Sma — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:10:17 +0000

@mischiefmanager: Huh? You have misunderstood me. I think Polanski should be subject to the law, and should come back and do his time. Where do I say his art justifies his behavior? Do I think he’s an exceptional film director? Yes. Do I think he’s a child-rapist who should be held accountable? Yes. There is no contradiction there.

By: mischiefmanager

mischiefmanager — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:38:48 +0000

Word, PSoul! Well said.

But just in case the Dank one is still reading:

You have got to be kidding. Are you really saying that a person who has suffered can go out and make others suffer with impunity? Are you really saying that having grown up as a child of Holocaust survivors allows you to commit violent acts on a child? Are you really saying that having had your wife horribly murdered puts you beyond accepted ethical standards? If so, you are a vile and contemptible man.

The idea that anyone could use the Shoah to justify violence on *any* innocent human being is so appalling and such an insult to the victims of the Nazis that it deserves a special condemnation. That is utterly disgusting, Dank, and Polanski and his defenders should cringe in shame for having even thought it.

And this is what I’m saying, Diziet_Sma. No, we can’t change someone’s psyche. But we can refuse to admit them into civil society. No producer or distributor should handle Polanski’s work until he submits himself to the law. That goes for every artist who acts in a morally repugnant way. For me, no work of art, however great, can justify this kind of behavior.

By: ssharlow

ssharlow — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:02:12 +0000

Great comments, PSoul. I felt gteat reading yours and the others until getting to the one by Barry Dank. However your dismissle of him brightened me up again.

By: yvanehtnioj

yvanehtnioj — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 05:52:20 +0000

“In any event, no one here is interested in this kind of rape apologism. The people reading and writing on this website are survivors of the harm you seek to minimize by your arguments. Your kind of reasoning is not only lazy and obtuse, it isn’t welcome in this forum. Thanks for visiting, but don’t come back.”
If I ever need to be reminded why I love this place, I will come back and recite this paragraph to myself over and over. That was very very very fucking gratifying to read.

By: baraqiel

baraqiel — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:03:29 +0000

“You may consider it a righteous harming, but it is still a harming. Whether you call it justice or revenge, you apparently want to harm Polanski.”

Yes, well, there’s this thing we like to call the criminal justice system. Long and storied history. Maybe you should look it up? So, either you have a problem with the criminal justice system and think that every single criminal should have their past taken into account when we decide whether or not to punish them for their crimes, or you think that Polanski is some sort of special case, which is logically indefensible. And this is what you were paid to teach for 35 years? But apparently you’re quite invested in defending men who abuse power over women, given the interest apparent on your site in “consensual” female student/male teacher relationships. As a female college student, that’s…um…charming. And by charming, I mean skeezy as shit.

(P.S., PS, I agree with you that optimistically the artist is more equipped with a sense of imaginative empathy than others might be but I do think there’s a question here of how many people on that list of signatories are engaged in creating art, per se, as opposed to creating media. Regardless, in the history of art there is a strong trend in the opposite direction, i.e. towards solipsism, which is more at play here, I’m sure.)