|Plate Sin With Gold.....
||[May. 20th, 2010|12:17 pm]
an article rubbishing Charlotte Lewis- who recently came forward to say that Polanski assaulted her too. One of the weirdest things about the whole Polanski affair is how this guy who'd been convicted of drugging and raping a thirteen year old girl (then ran away) got welcomed by the European glitterati like a returning prodigal. You'd think his crime would have made him untouchable, but it didn't- and for thirty years his career flourished- in all which time- so far as I'm aware- no-one famous ever said, "Ugh, I don't want to be in the same room as that creep". When he finally got overconfident and put himself in a position where the police could swoop, a huge number of his dear friends rallied round and protested his arrest- and Whoopi Goldberg- of all people- said on a talk show that it wasn't as if his crime was "rape-rape"- by which I suppose she meant he didn't use a knife. Now Robert Harris, author of the book on which Polanski based his most recent movie, has written |
Where were Harris and Goldberg and all those other dwellers above the clouds when Gary Glitter and Chris Langham came a cropper?
Clearly culpability in matters relating to the sexual abuse of children depends on how cool you are. If you're only slightly well known- like Langham- or actually a bit naff- like Glitter- you're paedo-scum. If you're wonderfully famous and powerful- like Polanski, Bill Wyman, Michael Jackson or Pete Townsend- you're an artist with a troubled soul. I was going to say that at least the entertainment industry- unlike the Catholic Church- doesn't preach at us while sheltering kiddy-fiddlers, but then I thought about it some more and realised that, of course, in it's own way, it does.
Not surprisingly, The Ninth Gate, was pretty good.
Without a doubt, and speaking as an occultist, it was probably the finest portrayal of the occult that I've encountered. Of course, much of the credit should go to author Perez-Reverte, obviously, but Polanski did a good job of teasing out the occult side of the novel and bringing it to the screen.
Decent art is seldom produced by ordinarily decent men. That is a seperate issue.
I'm a great fan of Johnny Depp, but I didn't think much of this film. I thought it was badly paced (ponderously self-important) and that some of the depictions of libraries and dealers had some serious errors. It *was* interesting to see a plot hinge on a book's collation, though.
I wonder if Depp would work with a pederast now that he has children of his own (of whom he is fiercely protective).
Bad pacing has as much to do with the attention span of the viewer as much as it does the director. His pacing was fine for me.
The movie was based on a work of fiction, so the idea of "serious" errors is somewhat humorous. A friend of mine remarked that Polanski captured the vibe of the Warburg's collection rather well. For myself, I might observe that the chances of a fully physical demonic manifestation, as portrayed in the movie, are practically nonexistent---but like yourself, I would just be nit-diddling.
[comment deleted by lblanchard. Reason: snark inappropriate for a comment on someone else's journal]
Edited at 2010-05-22 02:00 pm (UTC)
What an odd little duck you are, I must say.
Not little. Not a duck. But odd, yes.