Yes, I’ve seen those threads, but on this board he doesn’t seem to be revered to the same degree that a lot of other directors are. Just curious about why that is.
He’s a pedophile. But it’s probably more likely because the majority of the people on this site are more aware of Polish directors as a whole, and he’s incredibly boring in comparison to his fellow countrymen.
^ I think said definition often deters people.
@Malik — I couldn’t disagree more
Because anyone who likes Polanski’s work knows that it’s a waste of time trying to discuss it seriously on an interet discussion board. Ten posts in and the whole thing degenerates into a pedophile! rapist! set-up! fight.
I agree with Sanjuro. And I would rather see more Polanski threads and fewer Tarantino threads.
I have no idea why his fans get so defensive about a crime that he admits to committing.
@Kate
You think he’s as interesting Andrzeg Zulawski, Krzysztof Kieslowski, Andrzej Wajda, etc.? Really?
@Uli
There aren’t any discussion on Tarantino here. It’s just series of personal attacks coupled with wishes that he would die.
The Astor Theatre is running a Roman Polanski retrospective at the moment. I know most of you don’t live in Melbourne, but in case you’re interested in what has already played/is playing in the line-up:
“Knife in the Water”
“The Tenant”
“Cul-de-sac”
“Repulsion”
“Rosemary’s Baby”
Roman certainly has something about car accidents and near-accidents in his films, doesn’t he? I really enjoyed “The Tenant”: excellent film, strange it isn’t discussed more widely.
It’s a pity “Chinatown” is not available to the cinema. I saw “Ghost Writer” and thought it was very good.
Last year I saw the documentary “Wanted and Desired.” Just horrible what happened to Sharon Tate—murdered while eight months pregnant.
And before people talk shit about Polanski, you might want to get upset about those morons who walk around in t-shirts with Charles Manson on the front and consider what Roman went through at what was meant to be one of the happiest times of his life. Manson sits in prison living safely to this day and has been made into a friggin’ cult hero by dweebs in search of a twisted god-like figure to worship, the blood of Sharon Tate and her child lingering on his hands. Nobody is defending Polanski—what he did at Jack Nicholson’s house was utterly deplorable—but I also find some people have very cute “double standards.” Roman is a heel to them but glorifying the likes of Charles Manson, Che Guevara and others on t-shirts seems to be A.O.K.
I’d hardly call Polanski boring. Loved Knife in the Water, which I would say stacks up pretty well with his fellow Polish directors. Really enjoyed Cul-de-Sac. Reminded me a lot of Harold Pinter. Interesting how his early films reflected each new setting he found himself. The Tenant was wonderful.
Plenty of people defend Polanski, but I’d rather not sidetrack Kate’s thread so I’ll it at that.
@Dzimas
I don’t believe he’s boring either. But Polanski is too mainstream for this board, so often the discussion will be directed towards going for more ‘alienating’ films from other Polish directors. Even Kurosawa, who I’m sure most people here would say at worst is only a very good director, often has discussion about him diverted into the inevitable discussion about Ozu or Mizoguchi.
^ I wouldn’t say Polanski is too mainstream with The Tenant or Macbeth.
What? for example is the most twisted allegory of Alice in Wonderland you’ll ever find. I may consider Chinatown a towering neo-noir spectacle but What?, Knife in the Water, Repulsion and curiously enough, 2 of his short films are where my adoration for his work lies. He became mainstream when Rosemary’s Baby turned into a widespread horror phenomenon, for critics and fans alike but that didn’t lessen his authority in mainstream jewels like Tess (a marvelous adaptation of Hardy’s novel) and the beginning of downfall with the uneven Frantic.
Speaking of other Polish legends like Zanussi or Zulawski, only 1 Polanski film could reach their personal agendas and that would be none other than What?
Roman is a heel to them but glorifying the likes of Charles Manson, Che Guevara and others on t-shirts seems to be A.O.K.
This is exactly what I was saying about the lack of political knowledge: people who think that Manson and Guevara are similar to each other have no idea about political history other than his / her own land. (and that’s debatable as well)
Che Guevara murdered, tortured, and imprisoned people just because their politics varied from his own and they didn’t want to go along with his little “revolution.” He was also a rampaging homophobe.
Politics has nothing to do with the fact Manson and Che are/were both murderers, Dimitris. Stop pretending people “don’t know” anything outside their own country just because they know the facts about your precious little “rebels.”
This is exactly what I’M saying about people attempting to defend a warmonger like Che Guevara, posing like a foolish little man in his military outfit, chomping on his little cigars he shared with Fidel.
I never said Manson and Che were extremely similar in every way, I simply said they are two examples of deplorable individuals who are turned into personality cults by people who know no better.
I won’t defend what Polanski did but at the same time it’s pretty awful that we live in a world where you can buy Che Guevara baby rompers.
He was also a rampaging homophobe.
…and Emil Jannings and Ezra Pound were both fascist, please don’t mix politics and art altogether again.
I didn’t mix politics and art. Che Guevara was not an artist, he was a politican. And a homophobe. So my point stands.
You were the one who brought up the fascist actors. You mixed politics and art, not me.
Art CAN be used to express politics, but this is not the point. Don’t blame me for brooching the subject when you were the one who did it.
But Polanski is too mainstream for this board
Polanski has done some mainstream movies, but that doesn’t diminish his earlier films, which I think are worthy of discussion in any forum. Even his mainstream films inspire discussion, because he usually gives these movies a different feel than you would otherwise expect. Rosemary’s Baby is a perfect example of this. It is a remarkably subversive film, handled with a deft touch and outstanding performancs by Mia Farrow and Ruth Gordon.
I didn’t mix politics and art.
We’re in an art thread. The fact you’re bringing up political discussion alone is irrelevant to Polanski’s FILMS. If you want to gossip about his personal life, go ahead…but you’re off the subject anyhow.
Guevara being a political killer is the same with Jannings and Pound supporting tyranny. Different strokes for different folks I guess. But stick to the subject which is: Polanski’s cinema.
Your narcissism and ego won’t prevail this time.
chomping on his little cigars he shared with Fidel.
If you want to take this into a political discussion and equate Castro and Kim Jong-il, do so on my wall, don’t violate threads like these with your pollution.
I’ll give it a shot:
He is too mainstream for most people on this board.
He is too obscure for the rest.
He did have sex with a 12 or 13 year old, and people have a hard time reconciling that with his art.
He has made at least 1 masterpiece, in Chinatown, but a lot of his work is just so-so.
Knife in the Water is not nearly as good as it is made out to be.
He made the worst Macbeth film that ever gets talked about.
^^
Wow, I wholeheartedly agree with a post made by Jason for the first time ever!!!
Polanski’s Macbeth is one of the best interpretations of the play to the screen and the one I prefer next to Throne of Blood.
And I’m all ears as to why Knife in the Water isn’t “nearly as good as it is made out to be”…
^ Because people think that just because Chinatown has some popular actors and actresses makes it a better film. Yup, that’s the reason why.
Polanski’s Macbeth by the way is more mature than Welles’.
Moreover, I’ll have to agree with the crime vs art arguments here. It’s pathetic to see that whenever a new Polanski films thread comes up, we ought to mention his dos and don’ts about his crime. Let’s get over with this gossip crap.
Well you see Polanski is relavent after all. Haven’t seen Macbeth so can’t comment one way or the other on it. Speaking of underage sex, I would have loved to have seen Polanski take a stab at Lolita. I think he would have better understood Nabokov’s subversive nature than did either Kubrick or Lyne.
He is too mainstream for most people on this board.
Have you taken a look at some of the forums on this board recently?
Chinatown is good because it has good actors and a good plot. It makes no difference if I had heard of one of them before I ever viewed the film.
Personally, I found Polanski’s Macbeth to look very dated, and there was nothing about it that impressed me. Kurosawa and Welles both trump it, easily.
Knife in the Water has the pacing and mood of a Bergman film, without the wit, intellect, or quality of acting. I remember the first time I saw it on TCM, when I was a kid, it was neat to see a nekkid woman on tv; but it has all of the hallmarks of a student film.
I think he would have better understood Nabokov’s subversive nature than did either Kubrick or Lyne.
Eh, I’m not so sure about that. First of all, it’d be in bad taste. Second, Kubrick and Lynne pretty much covered Lolita thoroughly from two very different angles. What could Polanski have possibly added that they didn’t? Besides, Nabokov deserves to have his better works adapted to film (Bend Sinister, anyone?).
Macbeth is quite good, actually. As he’s wont to do, Polanski turned Shakespeare into blood-soaked Gothic horror, and the result is simultaneously grotesque and dreamy. Detractors of the film might want to give it another look — it’s better than you remember it.
Get it right for one, deckard. Nabokov summed up the Kubrick version perfectly,
the swerves of a scenic drive as perceived by the horizontal passenger of an ambulance.
and the Lyne version was little more than a brooding fairy tale. I think Polanski would have gotten much more out of the novel.
Chinatown is good because it has good actors and a good plot. It makes no difference if I had heard of one of them before I ever viewed the film.
It amuses me to see someone dismiss Polanski’s role in making this film so casually. It was a great film on so many levels, not least of all his direction. Who would think you could make such an compelling movie about water rights.
Who would think you could make such an compelling movie about water rights.
I think at least half the credit should go to Robert Towne, no? Chinatown is as much his film as it is Polanski’s.
Kate
I’m new and still finding my way around, but I’m surprised by the lack of nods Polanski gets.
I think he belongs among the greats, although most of his good work happened in the sixties/seventies. He is probably my favorite director, which isn’t to say I think he’s objectively “the best,” if such a thing could be quantified, but he appeals more than any other to my personal taste.
I’m curious to know why he hasn’t garnered more of a presence on this board. Is it because people view him as too Hollywood, too narrative, not groundbreaking enough?
It’s true that his films aren’t groundbreaking in terms of the technique or the theory behind them in he way that Tarkovsky’s or Godard’s films are. But I don’t think a director needs to be groundbreaking to be great. They just have to present a distinct vision that resonates on a deep level, and that’s something Polanski at his best does in spades.