This article only quotes District Attorney spokeswoman saying that he still fugitive. It doesn’t mention anyone actually opposing the award. According to the article even the victim didn’t oppose it. Saying that this placed Hollywood under microscope and lead to MeToo a decade later is pure fabrication on your part.
There’s really nothing to discuss here further. You’re convinced that Polanski could have been one of the greatest directors in Hollywood but because of the rape he’s only a great director. In you’re opinion that means he was punished.
I believe that the fact that he had a very successful career at all shows that he was mostly forgiven by the industry and the public.
It’s a matter of perspective, we’re not going to agree here.
The only QUOTE in the article was the DA, but I will REPEAT the passage I quoted in my previous post:
Polanski’s nomination had triggered a spirited debate over whether it was appropriate to separate a person’s misdeeds from his art and award Hollywood’s highest filmmaking honor to someone facing a still-unresolved criminal case.
That is pre-MAGA CBS News making that claim that there was a “spirited debate,” and you are simply dismissing that because they don’t quote or name every person involved in that debate? Are you claiming that CBS News just made that up?
Because my recollection, which includes multiple conversations about this with my son who is a cinephile, with one degree in film, and getting another, is very different. I’m not an expert, but he definitely is, and he will tell you that Polanski’s career definitely suffered, and his legacy will definitely be badly compromised.
I’ve offered sources that support my position, but you haven’t offered any evidence of your position, other than he was given a very controversial Oscar. You haven’t offered a single source that reinforced your claim that Polanski’s career has been untouched by his sexually criminal past.
You haven’t offered a single source that reinforced your claim that Polanski’s career has been untouched by his sexually criminal past.
Because I didn’t claim it was “untouched”. Of course it was. He had to hide in Europe and was somehow controversial. As I explained in the previous comment, you think that what happened to him was adequate punishment for raping a child and I don’t. This is were we disagree. I think that a different person, even different celebrity, would end in prison and have trouble working in the industry at all. You think that… I don’t really know. That Polanski wasn’t protected by his fame? That any other person would also face similar troubles and continue their careers, get awards, be rich? Because…
No to mention Me Too that completely ended careers of many people. Yes, Polanski raped that girl in the 80s but to this day he’s well respected and defended by many people. In my opinion he got away with it. That was my whole point. Some people do get away with terrible crimes, other get cancelled over minor things. Winona Ryder had serious issues working because of shoplifting…
This article only quotes District Attorney spokeswoman saying that he still fugitive. It doesn’t mention anyone actually opposing the award. According to the article even the victim didn’t oppose it. Saying that this placed Hollywood under microscope and lead to MeToo a decade later is pure fabrication on your part.
There’s really nothing to discuss here further. You’re convinced that Polanski could have been one of the greatest directors in Hollywood but because of the rape he’s only a great director. In you’re opinion that means he was punished.
I believe that the fact that he had a very successful career at all shows that he was mostly forgiven by the industry and the public.
It’s a matter of perspective, we’re not going to agree here.
The only QUOTE in the article was the DA, but I will REPEAT the passage I quoted in my previous post:
That is pre-MAGA CBS News making that claim that there was a “spirited debate,” and you are simply dismissing that because they don’t quote or name every person involved in that debate? Are you claiming that CBS News just made that up?
Because my recollection, which includes multiple conversations about this with my son who is a cinephile, with one degree in film, and getting another, is very different. I’m not an expert, but he definitely is, and he will tell you that Polanski’s career definitely suffered, and his legacy will definitely be badly compromised.
I’ve offered sources that support my position, but you haven’t offered any evidence of your position, other than he was given a very controversial Oscar. You haven’t offered a single source that reinforced your claim that Polanski’s career has been untouched by his sexually criminal past.
Because I didn’t claim it was “untouched”. Of course it was. He had to hide in Europe and was somehow controversial. As I explained in the previous comment, you think that what happened to him was adequate punishment for raping a child and I don’t. This is were we disagree. I think that a different person, even different celebrity, would end in prison and have trouble working in the industry at all. You think that… I don’t really know. That Polanski wasn’t protected by his fame? That any other person would also face similar troubles and continue their careers, get awards, be rich? Because…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Glitter - prison
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Collins - In 2014, his career came to an end after he confessed to sexual abuse against multiple minors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Salva - Coppola’s protégé. Prison, hiatus and protests over his later movies
No to mention Me Too that completely ended careers of many people. Yes, Polanski raped that girl in the 80s but to this day he’s well respected and defended by many people. In my opinion he got away with it. That was my whole point. Some people do get away with terrible crimes, other get cancelled over minor things. Winona Ryder had serious issues working because of shoplifting…