It seems to me Manohla Dargis’ argument for being able to separate the work from the dumb things Lars Von Trier said in Cannes about being a Nazi might be more persuasive if she’d left out the part about Roman Polanski. As it is, she buried her own lede because the only really compelling part of her piece is this:
All I know is what I see in his movies, which are not Nazi-promoting vehicles for anti-Semitism any more than Mr. Polanski’s are advertisements for rape and pedophilia.
To love a film by Mr. Polanski, though, as I know from other irate readers, is to guarantee that you will be accused of going easy on a criminal. Some of this anger can be blamed on avid Polanski supporters who assert that he did nothing wrong, or that he’s an old man now and has suffered enough. And, true, that Swiss chalet of his where he stayed after he was arrested in Switzerland in 2009 while waiting to hear if he would be deported to America sure looked as chilly as a medieval dungeon. Some Polanski apologists repellently portray his victim as a culpable seducer rather than a 13-year-old who was drugged and marinated in booze. Others trivialize statutory rape, never mind that their opinions are legally immaterial. Some detractors remain insistent that he should return to America to face judgment, as do I.
The plain truth is that the Polanski case can’t really be lumped in with Von Trier, Chaplin, Elia Kazan or Walt Disney: it is a whole separate thing. That is why it prompts readers to react the way they do.
As for Von Trier and Melancholia, which Dargis calls his best film, it seems to be that no one really wants to go near it. To love a film is to celebrate a season of winning. But the bloom is off the rose now and the buzz is gone. I suppose one can’t really talk about Melancholia’s buzz without turning it to the Oscar race, and therein the film, which would have been a tough sell anyway, will have to remain somewhere in a room with The Beaver, a film that involves Mel Gibson who is slightly closer to being in the same camp as Von Trier. I’d have left Polanski out of it. And really with Polanski, must we? Must we really?
Jean’s name links to a blog that can in turn take you to at least one other blogspot (called False Rape Society) also built on the premise of “false rape” accusations. The man is a misogynist sociopath and could not make it more obvious why he is a supporter of Polanski: his contempt for women knows no bounds.
Jean is a liar; she refers to Dargis as “a false rape accuser”, but it’s Jean who is bending the truth, and accusing Polanski’s -victim-, and the man himself, as well as Dargis, of lying:
the grand jury heard the girl in question testify that she repeatedly cried when Polasnki asked her to remove her clothes, and at every further point in her ordeal. Polanski -accepted- this testimony. The creep fled because he -knew- that the charges were going to be raised against him for his criminal behaviour.
She was -13-. And drugged. This alone constitutes rape so how is Dargis “a false rape accuser,” Jean? Here’s an idea for you: if it’s acceptable to support men who drug and rape -anyone-, let alone minors-, it’s more than acceptable to support any regime that might “liquidate” men like Polanski, and their sick-in-the-head apologists.
Those people who can’t -see- this comparison are either imbeciles or ideologues too in love with Polanski to ensure him and his aberrant criminal behaviour are open to scrutiny as much as anyone else’s.
It’s -clear-:
Lars von Trier makes some rather senseless and insensitive comments about Nazi Germany and he is being crucified; Polanski drugged and raped a minor and the same bunch of liberal bourgeois idiots leap to absurd lengths to defend the indefensible.
Yes, the crime of the latter and the frankly confusing comments of the former are not related but neither does joking about Jews remotely -compare- to being a sex offender, and, therefore, the response is evidencing what is a noticeable emerging paradigm of “racism”=bad/misogyny= good to go, that’s increasingly common among liberals.
Were I at a party and had to listen to some jerk go on and on about Lars von Trier only for them to turn around and talk about Polanski as if he were a “victim,” I’d break his jaw.
Those sympathising with Lars von Trier understand that the moment or the language can lead to misunderstandings at best, or that the man is a racialist at worse; in contrast, those sympathising with Polanski are complicit to the sexual predation of a -child-. Plain and simple. I hope you’re proud of yourselves.
Why Polanski? That is possibly the worst comparison available for Von Trier. As many above have said Mel Gibson is the closest parallel we have to Von Trier’s Cannes gaffe. But if it gets some hits I guess she wins anyway.
Why Polanski? That is possibly the worst comparison available for Von Trier. As many above have said Mel Gibson is the closest parallel we have to Von Trier’s Cannes gaffe. But if it gets some hits I guess she wins anyway.
“I’d certainly like for Polanski to come back and own up to his mistakes (which could’ve been easily remedied if he stayed, but whatever)”
I don’t understand this because, what does Polanski really owe America? .. he has no loyalty here and probably despises it (USA letting the holocaust go on too long before getting involved, culture bringing out manson, media circus).
” I just can’t wrap my head around the opinion that he should get a “get out of jail free” card just for the sake of “great art.” Seriously, what’s the deal with that?”
It depends how much you value the arts. The Pianist could be argued, deserves a nobel peace prize, its existence makes the world a better, more compassionate place. You can watch that, and it would change your life. I can say with hindsight (his life after fleeing) that he was completely correct to flee and be ‘above the law.’ we are talking spirit of the law vs. letter of the law.
I mean justice for the victim was done, because he made her a millionaire… The greater justice, for victims of rape, I understand their pain and outrage. but that sort of emotion isn’t what our justice system represents. and if it boils down to Polanski vs. the US justice system then i’m glad he fled
“I’d certainly like for Polanski to come back and own up to his mistakes (which could’ve been easily remedied if he stayed, but whatever)”
I don’t understand this because, what does Polanski really owe America? .. he has no loyalty here and probably despises it (USA letting the holocaust go on too long before getting involved, culture bringing out manson, media circus).
” I just can’t wrap my head around the opinion that he should get a “get out of jail free” card just for the sake of “great art.” Seriously, what’s the deal with that?”
It depends how much you value the arts. The Pianist could be argued, deserves a nobel peace prize, its existence makes the world a better, more compassionate place. You can watch that, and it would change your life. I can say with hindsight (his life after fleeing) that he was completely correct to flee and be ‘above the law.’ we are talking spirit of the law vs. letter of the law.
I mean justice for the victim was done, because he made her a millionaire… The greater justice, for victims of rape, I understand their pain and outrage. but that sort of emotion isn’t what our justice system represents. and if it boils down to Polanski vs. the US justice system then i’m glad he fled
Right on Ryan. On the other hand, somehow I still have a problem watching Mel Gibson. I don’t regret all the money I gave him in the past – as when I paid $12 to see Passion of the Christ – but I don’t want to give him more of my money just yet. Perhaps that will change. I’d like to not have the strident loss you mention, but I’m not quite there yet.
Right on Ryan. On the other hand, somehow I still have a problem watching Mel Gibson. I don’t regret all the money I gave him in the past – as when I paid $12 to see Passion of the Christ – but I don’t want to give him more of my money just yet. Perhaps that will change. I’d like to not have the strident loss you mention, but I’m not quite there yet.
When I read that Lars Von Trier had been declared persona non grata at Cannes, I immediately checked to see if the festival had made the same declaration for Roman Polanski – at any point in time. After all, the man is a convicted child rapist on the lam.
I get the point of her argument. The separation of an artists personal failings – whatever they may be – from his art. And the hypocrisy of banning Von Trier, while celebrating Polanski.
When I read that Lars Von Trier had been declared persona non grata at Cannes, I immediately checked to see if the festival had made the same declaration for Roman Polanski – at any point in time. After all, the man is a convicted child rapist on the lam.
I get the point of her argument. The separation of an artists personal failings – whatever they may be – from his art. And the hypocrisy of banning Von Trier, while celebrating Polanski.
I’m a massive fan of Polanski as a filmmaker, but I still think the notion of all those people signing a petition to set him free is absolutely bizarre. I just can’t wrap my head around the opinion that he should get a “get out of jail free” card just for the sake of “great art.” Seriously, what’s the deal with that? That said, It’s none of my business and I’m looking forward to seeing Carnage.
I’m a massive fan of Polanski as a filmmaker, but I still think the notion of all those people signing a petition to set him free is absolutely bizarre. I just can’t wrap my head around the opinion that he should get a “get out of jail free” card just for the sake of “great art.” Seriously, what’s the deal with that? That said, It’s none of my business and I’m looking forward to seeing Carnage.
Well just like what she said: “Some detractors remain insistent that he should return to America to face judgment, as do I.”
So I kinda know where she’s coming from… But I agree that it’s a different case… And I really like Polanski as a film maker so I don’t care if he was a rapist or whatever, as long as he’s doing great cinema, I’m good with that. Some people just have to know the thick line between personal and professional life…
As for Von Trier, his Nazi remark was really inappropriate, and it sucks that everything ‘Melancholia’ has to suffer from from that… So far, It was one of the best film this year and probably his best to date in my humble opinion… Then again, I haven’t seen his 90’s films
Well just like what she said: “Some detractors remain insistent that he should return to America to face judgment, as do I.”
So I kinda know where she’s coming from… But I agree that it’s a different case… And I really like Polanski as a film maker so I don’t care if he was a rapist or whatever, as long as he’s doing great cinema, I’m good with that. Some people just have to know the thick line between personal and professional life…
As for Von Trier, his Nazi remark was really inappropriate, and it sucks that everything ‘Melancholia’ has to suffer from from that… So far, It was one of the best film this year and probably his best to date in my humble opinion… Then again, I haven’t seen his 90’s films
Here’s a thought: Polanski grossly manipulated an underage girl. He did something terrible, even through all the murkiness of the case. But no matter to what extent he could potentially be defended (and I would go some way to defending his actions, as much as possible), he did make a terrible mistake.
On the other hand, von Trier is not a Nazi. He made some comments in poor humour, but is, quite clearly, not a man who believes in Nazi ideology. Why did Manohla even bring Polanski up? von Trier was kidding when he made those infamous comments. Polanski was hardly kidding when he committed statutory rape…
Here’s a thought: Polanski grossly manipulated an underage girl. He did something terrible, even through all the murkiness of the case. But no matter to what extent he could potentially be defended (and I would go some way to defending his actions, as much as possible), he did make a terrible mistake.
On the other hand, von Trier is not a Nazi. He made some comments in poor humour, but is, quite clearly, not a man who believes in Nazi ideology. Why did Manohla even bring Polanski up? von Trier was kidding when he made those infamous comments. Polanski was hardly kidding when he committed statutory rape…
The film is already his most financially successfulI, and i don’t think Trier care at all about Oscar. The only one involved in that film who should worry is Dunst, but she got her credit in cannes, so she’ll be alright i guess. Should the film somehow be nominated Trier won’t even attend because of his phobia of flying. He only goes to Cannes because he can drive from Denmark.
The film is already his most financially successfulI, and i don’t think Trier care at all about Oscar. The only one involved in that film who should worry is Dunst, but she got her credit in cannes, so she’ll be alright i guess. Should the film somehow be nominated Trier won’t even attend because of his phobia of flying. He only goes to Cannes because he can drive from Denmark.
And let me comment on something else. I respect Polanski as an artist as I think Dargis does as well. Both she and I know that there’s a certain point where a piece of art leaves the hand of the artist and becomes its own thing. I liked The Ghost Writer along with several of his films. In fact, I’d argue that the way America has treated him has shaped him into creating more interesting pieces of art than his previous American days. I’d like the day when we can discuss Polanski without discussing his bad side, but look at a handful of reviews of his last film, support or non support (both ultimately stupid & pointless) for him is still there.
And let me comment on something else. I respect Polanski as an artist as I think Dargis does as well. Both she and I know that there’s a certain point where a piece of art leaves the hand of the artist and becomes its own thing. I liked The Ghost Writer along with several of his films. In fact, I’d argue that the way America has treated him has shaped him into creating more interesting pieces of art than his previous American days. I’d like the day when we can discuss Polanski without discussing his bad side, but look at a handful of reviews of his last film, support or non support (both ultimately stupid & pointless) for him is still there.
Artists aren’t morally, socially, or politically exempt just because they make films you like. The blog that Jean linked is not only biased in favor of Polanski (he’s the greatest human being ever?), but without links whatsoever for proof (get this, his defense was that they were TAKEN DOWN, even I know if I found something as incriminating as those are, I’d print them out and scan them to the computer). It’s as disturbing and odd as a 9/11 truther, something I don’t doubt Jean is (he’s the type).
I’d certainly like for Polanski to come back and own up to his mistakes (which could’ve been easily remedied if he stayed, but whatever), but as a human being who can empathize with the situation he’s in (on a very, very surface level), I wouldn’t want to return nor would I risk myself. If I was Polanski, I’d let bygones be bygones and move on like he’s done. I don’t like he should be hunted down nor do I feel like he should be defended.
But Dargis makes a good point. Von Trier hasn’t ever physically hurt somebody, yet Polanski has and he’s defended by them.
But I guess an argument can be made that Kobe didn’t rape a girl, OJ didn’t do it, and that there’s a valid reason as to why Bush invaded Iraq.
But I guess an argument can be made that Kobe didn’t rape a girl, OJ didn’t do it, and that there’s a valid reason as to why Bush invaded Iraq.
Let’s also consider this argument: When the American “Justice System” stops murdering innocent men like it did to Troy Davis a few hours ago, then maybe we can have greater confidence that people like Polanski will be justly sentenced and not railroaded to put on a show for the rabid bloodthirsty public and media
Artists aren’t morally, socially, or politically exempt just because they make films you like. The blog that Jean linked is not only biased in favor of Polanski (he’s the greatest human being ever?), but without links whatsoever for proof (get this, his defense was that they were TAKEN DOWN, even I know if I found something as incriminating as those are, I’d print them out and scan them to the computer). It’s as disturbing and odd as a 9/11 truther, something I don’t doubt Jean is (he’s the type).
I’d certainly like for Polanski to come back and own up to his mistakes (which could’ve been easily remedied if he stayed, but whatever), but as a human being who can empathize with the situation he’s in (on a very, very surface level), I wouldn’t want to return nor would I risk myself. If I was Polanski, I’d let bygones be bygones and move on like he’s done. I don’t like he should be hunted down nor do I feel like he should be defended.
But Dargis makes a good point. Von Trier hasn’t ever physically hurt somebody, yet Polanski has and he’s defended by them.
But I guess an argument can be made that Kobe didn’t rape a girl, OJ didn’t do it, and that there’s a valid reason as to why Bush invaded Iraq.
But I guess an argument can be made that Kobe didn’t rape a girl, OJ didn’t do it, and that there’s a valid reason as to why Bush invaded Iraq.
Let’s also consider this argument: When the American “Justice System” stops murdering innocent men like it did to Troy Davis a few hours ago, then maybe we can have greater confidence that people like Polanski will be justly sentenced and not railroaded to put on a show for the rabid bloodthirsty public and media
Someone was looking for an opportunity to bash Polanski, methinks.
Someone was looking for an opportunity to bash Polanski, methinks.
if Dargis had ever had a look at the documents of the Polanski/Geimer case, rather than their interpretation in the media, it would have never occurred to her to say:
“Some Polanski apologists repellently portray his victim as a culpable seducer rather than a 13-year-old who was drugged and marinated in booze.”
Please read the analysis of the documents here: http://polanski-oddmanout.blogspot.com/
Or, if the task of reading seems unsurmountable, here is a very short video compendium: http://www.youtube.com/user/RomanPolanskiCase
Maybe then you’ll see why we, “Polanski apologists” see her – no, not as a “culpable seducer”, but as a disgusting perjurer and false rape accuser.
Thank you.
I tend to agree with you Jean, I can’t say for sure, because I don’t even feel like reading her little essay. I like Dargis as a critic. (movie critic; not social critic). I don’t want to start having a problem with her reviews just because she wrote something I might find way off base.
I’d maybe say she’s a slanderer instead of a perjurer. But I’m only going by the quotes I see you all bringing into the comments.
Just as soon not get involved in whatever muckraking she felt compelled to stir up.
if Dargis had ever had a look at the documents of the Polanski/Geimer case, rather than their interpretation in the media, it would have never occurred to her to say:
“Some Polanski apologists repellently portray his victim as a culpable seducer rather than a 13-year-old who was drugged and marinated in booze.”
Please read the analysis of the documents here: http://polanski-oddmanout.blogspot.com/
Or, if the task of reading seems unsurmountable, here is a very short video compendium: http://www.youtube.com/user/RomanPolanskiCase
Maybe then you’ll see why we, “Polanski apologists” see her – no, not as a “culpable seducer”, but as a disgusting perjurer and false rape accuser.
Thank you.
I tend to agree with you Jean, I can’t say for sure, because I don’t even feel like reading her little essay. I like Dargis as a critic. (movie critic; not social critic). I don’t want to start having a problem with her reviews just because she wrote something I might find way off base.
I’d maybe say she’s a slanderer instead of a perjurer. But I’m only going by the quotes I see you all bringing into the comments.
Just as soon not get involved in whatever muckraking she felt compelled to stir up.
I teach films to undergrads. This semester, its one class of 35. Last week, before beginning “knife in the water,” I asked who had heard of Roman Polanski. Most hadn’t. Some young woman, god bless her, said that he’s famous because his pregnant wife was killed by Charles Manson. I said, yes, what else? A few people asked, rape? Anyway I clarified and then asked if anyone had any problem watching the film. Oh yes I do like to stir the pot with them. No one had any issue! Perhaps they’re intimidated by me. (or RP?) I was hoping for a long conversation where someone would say they won’t see Carnage. Oh well.
Last week my students were assigned David Bordwell on “art cinema,” where he says that the two main features are realism and authorial expressivity. Basically it’s an odd blend of contemporary minimalism and odd gestures designed to remind you of the director’s hand. What I’m saying is, in some ways Von trier and Polanski bring it on themselves with intentional counter-intuitive choices. They remind us of them, and that affects our reactions to the films, don’t you think?
They remind us of them, and that affects our reactions to the films, don’t you think?
Unlikelyhood, you’re right. Undoubtedly when we recognize a director’s signature style so readily it can’t help but remind us of that director’s presence as the hand that makes the artistic choices. Same applies to music and fine art — Springsteen, Dylan, Picasso, Van Gogh. A large part of the thrill of experiencing the art of someone whose imprint is so intense is the frisson of recognition and all the tangents involving that artist that crisscross in our minds to inform us where he’s coming from.
Maybe some people see a Van Gogh and first thing they think is: “financial failure, manic depressive” or Picasso representing “womanizer, narcissist” — and maybe those personality problems get in the way of some people appreciating the art itself. We’d feel sorry for those people, right? I pity them, but can’t really be bothered to convince them to change their attitude.
When I’m reminded of Polanski the first adjectives I’d use to describe his are not “rapist, collateral Manson damage” (‘rapist’ isn’t even legally correct). I might think of “psychologically complex, dark sense of humor” — but I don’t really know the guy so mostly his name means “Chinatown, Repulsion, The Pianist” — and I’m comfortable with that. Obviously a lot of people are not so comfortable, and they’re entitled to feel however they want to feel. But again, I’d pity anyone who can only think “rapist! pedophile” and not be able to get past that.
I’d feel sorry for them a little, but not much. Because, as you say, we’re responsible for our own reactions, so if that’s what some people choose to get hung up on, then they’ve brought the strident loss upon themselves.
I teach films to undergrads. This semester, its one class of 35. Last week, before beginning “knife in the water,” I asked who had heard of Roman Polanski. Most hadn’t. Some young woman, god bless her, said that he’s famous because his pregnant wife was killed by Charles Manson. I said, yes, what else? A few people asked, rape? Anyway I clarified and then asked if anyone had any problem watching the film. Oh yes I do like to stir the pot with them. No one had any issue! Perhaps they’re intimidated by me. (or RP?) I was hoping for a long conversation where someone would say they won’t see Carnage. Oh well.
Last week my students were assigned David Bordwell on “art cinema,” where he says that the two main features are realism and authorial expressivity. Basically it’s an odd blend of contemporary minimalism and odd gestures designed to remind you of the director’s hand. What I’m saying is, in some ways Von trier and Polanski bring it on themselves with intentional counter-intuitive choices. They remind us of them, and that affects our reactions to the films, don’t you think?
They remind us of them, and that affects our reactions to the films, don’t you think?
Unlikelyhood, you’re right. Undoubtedly when we recognize a director’s signature style so readily it can’t help but remind us of that director’s presence as the hand that makes the artistic choices. Same applies to music and fine art — Springsteen, Dylan, Picasso, Van Gogh. A large part of the thrill of experiencing the art of someone whose imprint is so intense is the frisson of recognition and all the tangents involving that artist that crisscross in our minds to inform us where he’s coming from.
Maybe some people see a Van Gogh and first thing they think is: “financial failure, manic depressive” or Picasso representing “womanizer, narcissist” — and maybe those personality problems get in the way of some people appreciating the art itself. We’d feel sorry for those people, right? I pity them, but can’t really be bothered to convince them to change their attitude.
When I’m reminded of Polanski the first adjectives I’d use to describe his are not “rapist, collateral Manson damage” (‘rapist’ isn’t even legally correct). I might think of “psychologically complex, dark sense of humor” — but I don’t really know the guy so mostly his name means “Chinatown, Repulsion, The Pianist” — and I’m comfortable with that. Obviously a lot of people are not so comfortable, and they’re entitled to feel however they want to feel. But again, I’d pity anyone who can only think “rapist! pedophile” and not be able to get past that.
I’d feel sorry for them a little, but not much. Because, as you say, we’re responsible for our own reactions, so if that’s what some people choose to get hung up on, then they’ve brought the strident loss upon themselves.
No one with half a brain would let the nazi comment prevent them from seeing it. It is a made up controversy that no one cares about. The rape thing though, will follow RP forever, just like people only know van gogh by him cutting his ear off.
No one with half a brain would let the nazi comment prevent them from seeing it. It is a made up controversy that no one cares about. The rape thing though, will follow RP forever, just like people only know van gogh by him cutting his ear off.
Billyboy, I just think that her point was that she likes Polanski the artist even if she struggles with him as a human being and I think that’s fair. Sasha’s probably right though that it’s unwise to open that whole Polanski can of worms the way she did because she’s just asking for people to miss her point and start arguing Polanski all over again.
She lets known her issues with his past behavior and she makes it known she thinks he should come back and appear in court, but I agree those things just cloud her argument.
Billyboy, I just think that her point was that she likes Polanski the artist even if she struggles with him as a human being and I think that’s fair. Sasha’s probably right though that it’s unwise to open that whole Polanski can of worms the way she did because she’s just asking for people to miss her point and start arguing Polanski all over again.
She lets known her issues with his past behavior and she makes it known she thinks he should come back and appear in court, but I agree those things just cloud her argument.
The only thing I know is that Trier and Polanski are two great directors who have created fabulous pieces of cinema. I have to say that has to be considered apart from any of their behaviours or personal convictions.
How would someone be capable to say The Ghost Writer and Dancer in the Dark are horrible movies ? Really ?
The only thing I know is that Trier and Polanski are two great directors who have created fabulous pieces of cinema. I have to say that has to be considered apart from any of their behaviours or personal convictions.
How would someone be capable to say The Ghost Writer and Dancer in the Dark are horrible movies ? Really ?
Sasha, it sure is a stupid thing to lump Von Trier and Polanski together. And I have to remind people (or inform them, rather) that Melancholia has been Von Trier’s biggest hit yet outside of Scandinavia. In France and Germany it is a big hit, actually. If American audiences (or the media, who “guides” said audience) turns away from Von Trier because of the Cannes incident, it is, ultimately, their loss. Von Trier won’t suffer on behalf of this, his films are safe and secure with European investors, as they have always been.
Political correctness is a dubious thing, if it amounts to censorship and the negligence of great art.
Ok, Von Trier made a mistake. I saw the man live on stage last week in Copenhagen at a debate meeting with a renowned Danish journalist and he made a very clear point on his fascination with Nazi aesthetics, namely that Riefenstahl, Speer et al are fascinating figures because of their confluence of art and politics. The grandness (and madness) of their vision is endlessly fascinating. Besides, we have to constantly be reminded about Hitler’s regime in order not to act like “little Hitlers”. And we have to be able to confront the inherent fascistic traits within us, if we repress it too rigidly, it will return with a vengeance. That’s all. No big mystery. Now, let the man be, and focus on his wonderful films. They are deserving of any film lovers’ attention.
Sasha, it sure is a stupid thing to lump Von Trier and Polanski together. And I have to remind people (or inform them, rather) that Melancholia has been Von Trier’s biggest hit yet outside of Scandinavia. In France and Germany it is a big hit, actually. If American audiences (or the media, who “guides” said audience) turns away from Von Trier because of the Cannes incident, it is, ultimately, their loss. Von Trier won’t suffer on behalf of this, his films are safe and secure with European investors, as they have always been.
Political correctness is a dubious thing, if it amounts to censorship and the negligence of great art.
Ok, Von Trier made a mistake. I saw the man live on stage last week in Copenhagen at a debate meeting with a renowned Danish journalist and he made a very clear point on his fascination with Nazi aesthetics, namely that Riefenstahl, Speer et al are fascinating figures because of their confluence of art and politics. The grandness (and madness) of their vision is endlessly fascinating. Besides, we have to constantly be reminded about Hitler’s regime in order not to act like “little Hitlers”. And we have to be able to confront the inherent fascistic traits within us, if we repress it too rigidly, it will return with a vengeance. That’s all. No big mystery. Now, let the man be, and focus on his wonderful films. They are deserving of any film lovers’ attention.
Totally agree, Sasha. Her arguments are all over the place.
Sorry for the typos. I meant “were in jail” and ” is this one”
Totally agree, Sasha. Her arguments are all over the place.
Sorry for the typos. I meant “were in jail” and ” is this one”
** where in JAIL, I mean.
** where in JAIL, I mean.
@Craig. I see that. But I also sense a certain ambiguity that might lead us to think she’s not that comfortable with these directors/artists making films. Almost like “sure, we must separate the artist from the man, but it would be great if these men where in jain instead of making films.”
The most revealing sentence, in my opinion, is this once:
“Mr. Polanski belongs to a long line of liars, adulterers, sadists and slaves, wife beaters, rapists, miscellaneous miscreants and even murderers who helped make Hollywood great.”
Geez, I didn’t expet this in a million years from Dargis.
@Craig. I see that. But I also sense a certain ambiguity that might lead us to think she’s not that comfortable with these directors/artists making films. Almost like “sure, we must separate the artist from the man, but it would be great if these men where in jain instead of making films.”
The most revealing sentence, in my opinion, is this once:
“Mr. Polanski belongs to a long line of liars, adulterers, sadists and slaves, wife beaters, rapists, miscellaneous miscreants and even murderers who helped make Hollywood great.”
Geez, I didn’t expet this in a million years from Dargis.
now = know, of course 🙂
now = know, of course 🙂
Even people who have disliked Von Trier’s other films love Melancholia. I now a couple of people who each hated Antichrist or Dancer in the Dark, and they think it’s the best film they have ever seen.
So sad that Von Trier loves to be so scandalous, if the movie is really that amazing. Look what happened to Apocalypto, Mel Gibson’s best film ever (as a director and/or actor, even though he didn’t star in it). My opinion, anyway. And Von Trier is by no means a Nazi, he just wanted to explain a point and got way too deep into his weird self trying to get it across.
And too bad for Dunst, if this could have been her true serious breakthrough. Let’s just see what happens to the film. If I were the American distributor, I would downplay Von Trier’s name as much as possible releasing the film and just concentration on the title and its star. Then there would be a chance that it could increase its box office a little bit, although all the reviews will talk as much about the Cannes incident in their reviews as the film itself when it’s finally released.
Even people who have disliked Von Trier’s other films love Melancholia. I now a couple of people who each hated Antichrist or Dancer in the Dark, and they think it’s the best film they have ever seen.
So sad that Von Trier loves to be so scandalous, if the movie is really that amazing. Look what happened to Apocalypto, Mel Gibson’s best film ever (as a director and/or actor, even though he didn’t star in it). My opinion, anyway. And Von Trier is by no means a Nazi, he just wanted to explain a point and got way too deep into his weird self trying to get it across.
And too bad for Dunst, if this could have been her true serious breakthrough. Let’s just see what happens to the film. If I were the American distributor, I would downplay Von Trier’s name as much as possible releasing the film and just concentration on the title and its star. Then there would be a chance that it could increase its box office a little bit, although all the reviews will talk as much about the Cannes incident in their reviews as the film itself when it’s finally released.
I take her point to be, and this is where Polanski fits in like a glove, that it doesn’t matter what a director says or does in their lives really, all that matters is what’s on the screen – a point I happen to agree with.
Riefenstahl doesn’t get a pass because her films furthered her repellant Nazi beliefs. There’s nothing in von Trier’s work to promote Nazism, just as there is nothing in Polanski’s work that espouses pedophilia.
But don’t think it’s weird to lump Polanski and Von Trier together? I do and I’m a Polanski apologist.
I take her point to be, and this is where Polanski fits in like a glove, that it doesn’t matter what a director says or does in their lives really, all that matters is what’s on the screen – a point I happen to agree with.
Riefenstahl doesn’t get a pass because her films furthered her repellant Nazi beliefs. There’s nothing in von Trier’s work to promote Nazism, just as there is nothing in Polanski’s work that espouses pedophilia.
But don’t think it’s weird to lump Polanski and Von Trier together? I do and I’m a Polanski apologist.
I honestly don’t get the point of her argument. I admire Dargis profoundly, her writing and passion for cinema are kind of unique among critics, but this I don’t get. What’s her point, again?
I honestly don’t get the point of her argument. I admire Dargis profoundly, her writing and passion for cinema are kind of unique among critics, but this I don’t get. What’s her point, again?