|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Feb 6, 2018 7:18:17 GMT
www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/quentin-tarantino-2003-defense-roman-polanski-rediscovered-article-1.3801810smh. Just when you thought he cleared up the Uma mess, someone brought forth this old interview. Listen to the clip. I was so disgusted. Listen to how he sounds like a biased fanboy apologist for Polanski because he read his book. Well, she says she didn't want it, Quentin. Why do you assume she did? And even if she did, he gave her drugs and alcohol and oh yeah, she was 13 fucking years old. What the fuck is wrong with him? She dated him? 13 year old party girls? The way he minimizes it all is mind-boggling. But that's also what he admits he did when it came to Harvey Weinstein's actions towards women he knew (even his former girlfriend) over the years. Wonder what his response is to this. Edit: Audio was removed. Just know it was way worse than the article excerpts.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Feb 6, 2018 8:08:00 GMT
His career is over.
|
|
anita
New Member
Posts: 19
Likes: 4
|
Post by anita on Feb 6, 2018 12:45:21 GMT
He looks like a douche, he sounds like a douche, he IS a douche. Yuck.
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Feb 6, 2018 12:47:27 GMT
“And by the way, we’re talking about America’s morals, not talking about the morals in Europe and everything.”Wow !!!! Fuck you , Quentin ! Drugging and raping teenage girls is abnormal in Europe as well ! Gifted director but a piece of sh!t of an human being !
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Feb 6, 2018 15:49:49 GMT
Smh. He can't seem to get out of his own way.
It speaks to a larger issue in Hollywood though. This was in 2003, the year after Polanski won an Oscar. Hollywood supported him back then. Though QT's defense is over the top and particularly vile.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Feb 6, 2018 15:50:27 GMT
Massive overreaction. This was 15 years ago - the year after Polanski won an Oscar.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Feb 6, 2018 15:54:14 GMT
Massive overreaction. This was 15 years ago - the year after Polanski won an Oscar. And these quotes are resurfacing now, in the current climate.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Feb 6, 2018 16:05:07 GMT
This is getting ridiculous. The Internet goes nuts about Tarantino after the Thurman article, but Thurman clears his name. But that's not enough for the Internet - this 15-year old recording resurfaces as if it's news. Although it's been there for ages, available for everyone to hear. I guess the desire to sink Tarantino down to the ground is just too strong. How is this news? I disagree with his comments as much as the next guy but what do they have to do with anything? So they're now trying to destroy people for just commenting on other people 15 years ago? Rough times. I guess the Polanski petition signers should be destroyed as well. And how about turning that video of Polanski's Oscar win into news too? I mean, most of Hollywood was cheering like crazy, also 15 years ago. Instead of posting this old audio, a better option would be to ask him about it all now. That'd be news worthy.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Feb 6, 2018 16:08:16 GMT
Massive overreaction. This was 15 years ago - the year after Polanski won an Oscar. And these quotes are resurfacing now, in the current climate. So the guy who made a comment has his career ended but not the guy who actually committed the crime? That makes sense. Polanski and Allen made films in 2017. We are going to end someone's career for something they said 15 years ago? That's massive rabbit hole. Alec Baldwin is vehemently defending Allen in 2018. Thousands of films and comments look problematic now. Why can't someone be an asshole and still make films? I don't understand the need for purity in every aspect of life. People do and say stupid/bad things. Disagree and move on. It's ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Feb 6, 2018 16:22:00 GMT
And these quotes are resurfacing now, in the current climate. So the guy who made a comment has his career ended but not the guy who actually committed the crime? That makes sense. Polanski and Allen made films in 2017. We are going to end someone's career for something they said 15 years ago? That's massive rabbit hole. Alec Baldwin is vehemently defending Allen in 2018. Thousands of films and comments look problematic now. Why can't someone be an asshole and still make films? I don't understand the need for purity in every aspect of life. People do and say stupid/bad things. Disagree and move on. It's ridiculous. I'm just saying what I think is going to happen. Polanski is one of my favorite directors and I've never stopped watching his movies, same for Tarantino, even though I find them despicable people.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 6, 2018 16:28:39 GMT
Yeah, I don't get this, Roman Polanski, engaged in a clear criminal act, as a first time offender, on one count, there is no reason for him to lose his career over it. Does that surprise you..........well no one in LA County did jail time in the two years prior for the same charge and his same criminal record.
Let's not assess a 1977 crime by 2017 standards first of all.
Woody Allen did far, far less than than that, he doesn't deserve to lose his career either.
QT was talking, just talking - he did less than Allen, who did far less than Polanski..........and he doesn't deserve to lose his career either.
Now if I was sitting there talking to QT in this discussion, I might call him a wackjob but that's the end of it.
We've lost all sense of perspective.....
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Feb 6, 2018 16:49:01 GMT
This is getting ridiculous. The Internet goes nuts about Tarantino after the Thurman article, but Thurman clears his name. But that's not enough for the Internet - this 15-year old recording resurfaces as if it's news. Although it's been there for ages, available for everyone to hear. I guess the desire to sink Tarantino down to the ground is just too strong. How is this news? I disagree with his comments as much as the next guy but what do they have to do with anything? So they're now trying to destroy people for just commenting on other people 15 years ago? Rough times. I guess the Polanski petition signers should be destroyed as well. And how about turning that video of Polanski's Oscar win into news too? I mean, most of Hollywood was cheering like crazy, also 15 years ago. Instead of posting this old audio, a better option would be to ask him about it all now. That'd be news worthy. You can take issue with it resurfacing now. I'm just reacting to it because I had never heard that clip before in my life, and it was shocking to hear. I would have been shocked and disgusted by his attitude back then too had I heard it (hell, Howard Stern and Robin Quivers were shocked too. It was Hollywood that seemed to have the blinders on). But I'm someone who bashed everyone who signed the petition. I've been consistent on this. I've never been for taking Polanski's Oscar back because that had nothing to do with his crime. That was for a film. Now that this has resurfaced, I hope Tarantino does get the opportunity to be asked about this now, and hopefully, he's done some growing in the last 15 years and no longer has this blase attitude about it.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 2,107
|
Post by cherry68 on Feb 6, 2018 16:52:06 GMT
“And by the way, we’re talking about America’s morals, not talking about the morals in Europe and everything.”Wow !!!! Fuck you , Quentin ! Drugging and raping teenage girls is abnormal in Europe as well ! Gifted director but a piece of sh!t of an human being ! I thought he meant that American moral was more open than European standards.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Feb 6, 2018 16:55:00 GMT
“And by the way, we’re talking about America’s morals, not talking about the morals in Europe and everything.”Wow !!!! Fuck you , Quentin ! Drugging and raping teenage girls is abnormal in Europe as well ! Gifted director but a piece of sh!t of an human being ! I thought he meant that American moral was more open than European standards. Yeah, no. He seriously thinks (thought?) that something like that is acceptable here in Europe.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 2,107
|
Post by cherry68 on Feb 6, 2018 16:55:27 GMT
I guess the Polanski petition signers should be destroyed as well. I think it's a good idea. They don't even feel the need to apologize.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Feb 6, 2018 17:07:12 GMT
Not at all surprised...
|
|
|
Post by mrimpossible on Feb 6, 2018 17:11:04 GMT
What we knew back then of the Polanski case is different then what we know now. Back then reports made it seem like the 13 year old was looking for fame and it was consensual.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 6, 2018 17:22:49 GMT
Here's the thing: a lot of people didn't hear the Howard Stern interview, and it is indeed quite startling to hear Tarantino try and rationalize a 44-year-old man taking advantage of an underage girl. Even if she was the one who initiated it or wanted it, she still had no way to give consent. Hell, she was under the influence at the time, so even if she weren't underage, it's still taking undue advantage. And the problem with living in a society where everything you say or write can be dredged up at any time is just this: nothing is off-the-cuff anymore, and even if this comment was blasé, it can look pretty damning down the line.
Do I think this means that Tarantino approves of what Polanski did? No. Same with when Whoopi Goldberg talked about it a few years ago. (Remember? "It wasn't rape rape!") But they, as did many of those people who signed that petition, felt back then that Polanski was screwed over by an overzealous judge who reneged on a plea bargain after Polanski served his jail time. That is a reasonable argument. It's ridiculous that Polanski had gotten such an easy deal in the first place, because regardless of the traumatic life he'd led until that point, he still victimized a teenage girl. He needed to be punished for that. But the judicial powers-that-be overstepped their boundaries after the fact, and the idea that our legal system can all of a sudden do that on a whim is terrifying. So from that standpoint, yeah, people felt that Polanski's decades-long exile had been enough, and the victim herself had come forward and said that she had forgiven him and that she wanted it all put behind her.
Now, in the wake of the downfall of Weinstein and the more laser-like focus that society puts on things like this, scrutiny is at an all-time high and previous issues are being brought up, even if new evidence hasn't been brought up (i.e. Woody Allen, where aside from Dylan Farrow reasserting her claims, there hasn't been a shred of any new evidence since the investigation nearly thirty years ago). People who were at ease with being able to recognize an artist for their work is now being condemned because they are seen to be tacitly approving the crimes, alleged or otherwise. It's one thing to awaken to the realization that you used the wrong language to describe an act in order to mitigate it because you like someone's work, or to realize that you were far too dismissive of it, but what frightens me is the hypocrisy that boils to the surface.
For years, Carrie has vocally lambasted those who signed that petition and who applauded Polanski the night he won the Oscar. And yet many of those same people are willing to openly decry Polanski or Allen today, and while I don't entirely disagree with them being able to do that, a lot of it seems to be because it's fashionable to piggyback off of a growing movement of change or to ensure they are bulletproof against accusations of their own or the withering scorn that they feel might come their way for not speaking out.
13-year-olds, dude. Doesn't matter what the girl's intent was. She couldn't legally give consent. Even if Polanski didn't know how old she was and could prove that, the act is what matters, not the intent. That's the law.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 2,107
|
Post by cherry68 on Feb 6, 2018 17:23:41 GMT
He sounds like Polanski 's book is the only book he read ever. "he dated her"? Tarantino isn't responsible for someone else's crimes, but his attempt to prove Polanski 's innocence is just out of place, to say the least. Just shut up and find a better cause to fight for.
A teenager looking for fame and attention isn't anything new, but it doesn't mean she can be abused by wealthy and famous people. Do you think that being a director puts you above the law? And I'm not mentioning morals.
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Feb 6, 2018 17:25:33 GMT
Yeah, I don't get this, Roman Polanski, engaged in a clear criminal act, as a first time offender, on one count, there is no reason for him to lose his career over it. Does that surprise you..........well no one in LA County did jail time in the two years prior for the same charge and his same criminal record. Let's not assess a 1977 crime by 2017 standards first of all. Woody Allen did far, far less than than that, he doesn't deserve to lose his career either. QT was talking, just talking - he did less than Allen, who did far less than Polanski..........and he doesn't deserve to lose his career either. Now if I was sitting there talking to QT in this discussion, I might call him a wackjob but that's the end of it.
We've lost all sense of perspective..... Well, that's what my post was about. He sounds like a wackjob. Woody Allen is a different discussion altogether because we don't know what happened there. Regarding your first part on Polanski, he engaged in several clear criminal acts (among them furnishing a controlled substance to a minor and lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen) and plead guilty to a lesser charge. Let's not minimize what he did. At this moment, I'm not interested in a discussion about what would have been the appropriate jail time in 1977 for a lesser charge because he was never even sentenced anyway. This is more of a discussion about Tarantino's framing of it as "oh, 13 year old party girls. Not a big deal."
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Feb 6, 2018 17:54:15 GMT
For years, Carrie has vocally lambasted those who signed that petition and who applauded Polanski the night he won the Oscar. Agree with what you said except I didn't lambast people who applauded his Oscar win. I think Polanski deserved his Oscar for the Pianist. I see people often blasting Meryl Streep for standing up and applauding Polanski's win back then. I can see it making people uncomfortable, but I look at it as standing up for Polanski's work only. Same for the people standing up to applaud Elia Kazan.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 6, 2018 18:06:29 GMT
For years, Carrie has vocally lambasted those who signed that petition and who applauded Polanski the night he won the Oscar. Agree with what you said except I didn't lambast people who applauded his Oscar win. I think Polanski deserved his Oscar for the Pianist. I see people often blasting Meryl Streep for standing up and applauding Polanski's win back then. I can see it making people uncomfortable, but I look at it as standing up for Polanski's work only. Same for the people standing up to applaud Elia Kazan. Just call me Ed Harris and Amy Madigan, then. But in all seriousness, I don't mind applauding the work. But in the case of Polanski, the fact that they stood up and applauded a man who wasn't even there doesn't simply feel like they're applauding the work. The award itself is the recognition; any applause or ovations are for the artist.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Feb 6, 2018 18:16:33 GMT
Agree with what you said except I didn't lambast people who applauded his Oscar win. I think Polanski deserved his Oscar for the Pianist. I see people often blasting Meryl Streep for standing up and applauding Polanski's win back then. I can see it making people uncomfortable, but I look at it as standing up for Polanski's work only. Same for the people standing up to applaud Elia Kazan. Just call me Ed Harris and Amy Madigan, then. But in all seriousness, I don't mind applauding the work. But in the case of Polanski, the fact that they stood up and applauded a man who wasn't even there doesn't simply feel like they're applauding the work. The award itself is the recognition; any applause or ovations are for the artist. You said it. For the artist, not the man. If I'm watching a Polanski movie in a theater and I stand up and applaud at the end of it, I'm applauding the artist. The thought that someone might think that I'm justifying his actions frightens me and disturbs me. (Not talking about you, of course)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2018 18:17:17 GMT
These celebrities always have a strong need to defend each other especially when they don't know what happened. They are not morally above anyone.
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Feb 6, 2018 18:28:51 GMT
Agree with what you said except I didn't lambast people who applauded his Oscar win. I think Polanski deserved his Oscar for the Pianist. I see people often blasting Meryl Streep for standing up and applauding Polanski's win back then. I can see it making people uncomfortable, but I look at it as standing up for Polanski's work only. Same for the people standing up to applaud Elia Kazan. Just call me Ed Harris and Amy Madigan, then. But in all seriousness, I don't mind applauding the work. But in the case of Polanski, the fact that they stood up and applauded a man who wasn't even there doesn't simply feel like they're applauding the work. The award itself is the recognition; any applause or ovations are for the artist. I see it as clapping for the artist based on his/her work, not their personal life. But I see both sides to it. I'm not mad at someone who doesn't applaud because I don't expect everyone to have the same views as me in terms of separating the art from the artist's private life. Sometimes that's hard to do. If someone feels uncomfortable with applauding, that's understandable too.
|
|