Films/DVD Asylum

• "...it's only AuPH." - Audiophilander 07:45:47 04/01/03 (0)
  In Reply to: Re: Er, I'm sorry... posted by SR on March 26, 2003 at 13:28:58:

  Well, I guess one could always say "it's only SR" but I'd rather not follow suit with such trivial invective.

  I wasn't trying to make this *personal*; besides, YOU brought up politics in an apolitical forum and then tried to denigrate the art of a Director on grounds other than the quality of his artistry! I have no particular opinion on Pete Rose, but perhaps he should be forgiven; some sports enthusiasts feel that it's way past time for him too! Nevertheless, your sports/Hollywood analogy is rather strained from my perspective because gambling on pictures isn't illegal and wagering on the success of a film doesn't jeopardize the credibility of the production. As a matter of fact, "fixing a picture" can make it better while "fixing a game" can ruin competition in a sport! So, there is a distinct difference, IMO.

  My point is that the gambling addiction of Pete Rose, arguably, can be demonstrated to have potentially endangered his sport, but nothing about Roman Polanski's personal life can be demonstrated to have had a negative impact on his value as a creative artist; no offense, but IMHO, it seems ridiculous and petty to contemplate otherwise!

  FTR, many artists have been mistreated by the Legislative & Judicial systems in this country from the blacklisted artists of the McCarthy era who wouldn't name names, prefering to serve jail sentences and forfeit their careers rather than ruining their colleagues lives, to Charlie Chaplin, who couldn't get back into the country on a temporary visa after leaving on vacation because small minded folks in Washington disliked his Liberal politics.

  Please excuse the digression; we were discusiing Roman Polanski. Perhaps you, as an industry insider, have forgotten how much Mr. Polanski suffered even as he reached the pinnacle of success (i.e., losing his pregnant wife & future child to Manson's evil cult). Why not cut him a little slack or at least benefit of the doubt for his purported indiscretion 20 odd years ago with a girl he may not have been aware was under the age of consent? But before you get carried away accusing me of pandering to the evils of pedophilia please read the rest of this post.

  It's interesting how we've reached a point where someone who poses as being of legal age and looks the part can permanently scar anyone of legal age, causing them to be labeled a pedophile and a pervert. Because there is such a B&W line that shall not be crossed it creates an opportunity for blackmail and other abuses, especially since there are obvious gray areas which no one wants to acknowledge. I am in no way saying theat pedophilia should be ignored or even tolerated, but common sense has a role to play in balancing the scales of justice, in my estimation. It seems to me that an overzealous prosecution may have been at work in Polanski's case, being that he was a high profile Hollywood success story who was never accepted or fully understood because of his foreign extraction.

  Anyway, that's how I see it; YMMV. BTW, you DESERVED the chastisement, IMO! ;^)

  Regards,
  AuPh
  
  

  ---

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

VH Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---