criterionforum.org

Oedipax wrote:Jonathan Rosenbaum posted a short statement re: Polanski's arrest on his blog:

American lynch mobs never die; they only become more self-righteous about their savagery. [9/28/09]

Comparing Polanski's plight to lynching (by a Southerner, no less!) is a disgusting, historically ignorant bourgeoisie art fantasy.

GringoTex wrote:

Oedipax wrote:Jonathan Rosenbaum posted a short statement re: Polanski's arrest on his blog:

American lynch mobs never die; they only become more self-righteous about their savagery. [9/28/09]

Comparing Polanski's plight to lynching (by a Southerner, no less!) is a disgusting, historically ignorant bourgeoisie art fantasy.

I like the advertising banner under the picture of Polanski - a tad tasteless, perhaps (as I write this it is an add for EVONY - The webs hottest online game! Cute girl.).

Erikht wrote: I like the advertising banner under the picture of Polanski - a tad tasteless, perhaps (as I write this it is an add for EVONY - The webs hottest online game! Cute girl.).

I'm seeing one that claims fat ass women can lose 47 lbs. with one secret. What's Rosenbaum up to? =P~

Can they charge him with the crime called Pirates?

Oedipax wrote:Jonathan Rosenbaum posted a short statement re: Polanski's arrest on his blog:

American lynch mobs never die; they only become more self-righteous about their savagery. [9/28/09]

That single sentence has almost entirely changed my opinion of Rosenbaum.
Who knew you could convey pretentiousness, snobbery, screaming exaggeration and art wankery prose all in 13 words..?

GringoTex wrote:

Oedipax wrote:Jonathan Rosenbaum posted a short statement re: Polanski's arrest on his blog:

American lynch mobs never die; they only become more self-righteous about their savagery. [9/28/09]

Comparing Polanski's plight to lynching (by a Southerner, no less!) is a disgusting, historically ignorant bourgeoisie art fantasy.

I imagined that quote more reflective of the salivating American media...

Is it time to invoke the Family Guy reference....

"What's going on down there?"
"We're playing House"
"But that kid's all tied up"
"Roman Polanski's House".

Directors call for Polanski's release.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/ ... ss_showbiz" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Woody Allen's probably the last guy who should be weighing in on this.

Sorry, but Polanski committed a crime and was found guilty. He should serve some sort of punishment outside of a monetary settlement.
This petition is great primer for Fox and the Teabaggers.
I bet if JLG signed the petition everything would be forgiven.

American lynch mobs never die; they only become more self-righteous about their savagery. [9/28/09]

Didn't he do something similar to calling the Coen brothers fascists and equating them with holocaust perpetrators for No Country for Old Men?

American lynch mobs never die; they only become more self-righteous about their savagery. [9/28/09]

Rosenbaum has expanded those thoughts a bit in this NYTimes debate, in which he doesn't come off nearly as dismissive, although I still fail to be persuaded by his argument.

tartarlamb wrote:She said no to Polanski's advances.

MichaelB wrote:[removed]

Such bald statements of fact should be avoided, surely. This is not what Polanski pleaded guilty to, regardless of what was said in the grand jury testimony.

Nothing wrote:

tartarlamb wrote:She said no to Polanski's advances.

MichaelB wrote:it's pretty clear-cut here... Victim said no (repeatedly) = actual rape.

Such bald statements of fact should be avoided, surely. This is not what Polanski pleaded guilty to, regardless of what was said in the grand jury testimony.

If they're statements of fact, why should they be avoided?

gubbelsj wrote:

American lynch mobs never die; they only become more self-righteous about their savagery. [9/28/09]

Rosenbaum has expanded those thoughts a bit in this NYTimes debate, in which he doesn't come off nearly as dismissive, although I still fail to be persuaded by his argument.

Pretty thin gruel offered up by Rosenbaum.
He seems to think this is some right wing conspiracy/prosecution.
He says nothing of substance.
Sure the media loves this intertwining of scandal and fame, but that has nothing to do with the underlying legal issues.

Fiery Angel wrote:

Nothing wrote:

tartarlamb wrote:She said no to Polanski's advances.

MichaelB wrote:it's pretty clear-cut here... Victim said no (repeatedly) = actual rape.

Such bald statements of fact should be avoided, surely. This is not what Polanski pleaded guilty to, regardless of what was said in the grand jury testimony.

If they're statements of fact, why should they be avoided?

They shouldn't be "avoided," but most American criminal lawyers would view them with a healthy dose of skepticism because they were never subjected to cross examination. In fact, under current US Supreme Court decisions, testimonial evidence that was not subjected to cross is inadmissable in an actual trial. This is not to say the victim in this case lied to a grand jury, or that her testimony at an actual trial would have necessarily differed. The point is that we simply don't know. The Constitution protects the right of the defendant to confront their accusers, which cannot be done if testimony is given without the opportunity for cross.

Fiery Angel wrote:If they're statements of fact, why should they be avoided?

Sorry, make that "statements of fact". And they should be avoided because, I would presume, they are libelous.

GringoTex wrote:

Oedipax wrote:Jonathan Rosenbaum posted a short statement re: Polanski's arrest on his blog:

American lynch mobs never die; they only become more self-righteous about their savagery. [9/28/09]

Comparing Polanski's plight to lynching (by a Southerner, no less!) is a disgusting, historically ignorant bourgeoisie art fantasy.

Um, lynch mobs weren't just a Southern or racial act of violence. Geez, talk about "ignorant." [-(

Maybe we should put a moratorium on discussing this issue before all of us start lynching eachother. We should all talk about films and keep crimes and scandals to other outlets.

bearcuborg wrote: Um, lynch mobs weren't just a Southern or racial act of violence. Geez, talk about "ignorant." [-(

But that's what loads the term with import, and what Rosenbaum purposely evoked. Don't be stupid about the way language works.

Nothing wrote:Such bald statements of fact should be avoided, surely. This is not what Polanski pleaded guilty to, regardless of what was said in the grand jury testimony.

A fair point, but since you've reproduced my alleged libel, I can't expunge it myself. But I'll happily go along with whatever the mods decide - personally, I think the risk of a lawsuit over a claim like this must be pretty slim, not least because far worse has been said about him both here and elsewhere.

I don't think, for instance, that there's any real evidence that he's a paedophile in the sense that I understand the term, and yet Googling "Polanski paedophile" nets nearly 50,000 citations, rising to nearly 70,000 if you use the alternative spelling 'pedophile'. (You get a similar result for "Polanski rapist", incidentally).

GringoTex wrote:

bearcuborg wrote: Um, lynch mobs weren't just a Southern or racial act of violence. Geez, talk about "ignorant." [-(

But that's what loads the term with import, and what Rosenbaum purposely evoked. Don't be stupid about the way language works.

What's stupid is your reactionary response.

bearcuborg wrote: What's stupid is your reactionary response.

You're...you're...you're such a nazi!

You just knew some celebs were going to make jackasses out of themselves on this one:

"I know it wasn't rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was rape-rape." - Whoopie

GringoTex wrote:You just knew some celebs were going to make jackasses out of themselves on this one:

"I know it wasn't rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was rape-rape." - Oprah

Actually it was Whoopie.