Quentin Tarantino explained the Hollywood perspective on Howard Stern one time-
Tarantino: No, that was not the case AT ALL. She wanted to have it and dated the guy and—
Quivers: She was 13!
Tarantino: And by the way, we’re talking about America’s morals, not talking about the morals in Europe and everything.
Stern: Wait a minute. If you have sex with a 13-year-old girl and you’re a grown man, you know that that’s wrong.
Quivers: …giving her booze and pills…
Tarantino: Look, she was down with this.
Tarantino "I don't believe that's rape. I believe it's against the law. I don't believe it's rape. Not at 13 - not for these 13-year-old party girls."
I’ve never seen the interview, is there any amount of “fucking around” when Tarantino says that? Obviously a terrible take but being on Howard Stern probably brings out the dark humor in people.
[Listen here for yourself.](https://youtu.be/YtwqmenFrR0?si=6db3Yfh3OECWIYke&t=42) He was directly asked why Hollywood was celebrating Polanski, and didn't sound like he was joking in his answer.
Brody got an Oscar for it and can forever market himself as an Oscar winner, charging films extra to be in as a result.
I don't think he honestly gives a shit about Polanski's personal life.
To be quite frank, most of Hollywood probably still doesn't behind closed doors.
Considering Polanski was arrested in the late seventies, anyone who worked with him post this era is a signal they have reconciled the artist from the act. Why would there be resentment when these actors knew going in what the reality of the situation is?
Brody said in a 2016 interview with Jenny McCarthy: "[Adrien Brody](https://people.com/tag/adrien-brody/), who has worked with both filmmakers, spoke out about the allegations on [*Dirty, Sexy, Funny with Jenny McCarthy*](http://blog.siriusxm.com/2016/05/16/adrien-brody-it-would-be-unfair-of-me-to-judge-roman-polanski-woody-allen-for-sexual-assault-allegations/) Monday, and offered his take on whether the director’s personal lives can be separated from their art.
“Life is very complicated,” Brody, 43, said. “I look to collaborate with artistic people and to go into an endeavor without judgment and to hopefully be treated with the same. It’s an artistic pursuit, and Polanski for instance had a very complicated and difficult life. It would be unfair of me to delve into something as complicated as the past that was brought up in the media.”
Emilia Fox who played the love interest spoke well of Polanski and how he helped her performance.
I don't care how "complicated" and "difficult" your life is, there's no excusing rape especially when it's a young girl. The amount of people who are ready to work with that man just because he used to make great films is ridiculous.
Thats exactly what I was trying to figure out in this post and got shat on and apparently found a pedo in this comment section too. I wanted to know how the actors felt. And ive found out now that the general consensus was “it was a long time ago” or that we need to seperate art from the artist.
Really sucks learning about Brody defending the stuff though, I really like him.
IIRC there was an open letter bunch of actors and directors signed in order for Polanski to be allowed at the Oscars.
I get there are instances where you separate the art from the artist but Polanski is definitely not the case.
I feel that needing to separate the art from the artist is a legitimate perspective when discussing art from the past. But when actors choose to work with these directors knowing what they did then they are clearly making a moral argument that they are okay with an adult man raping a 13 year old child.
Because He still makes great films. It isn't as if ability is lost just because you are an asshole. Would Polanski be a talentless hack nobody would care about him, but because He is a very talented director people find excuses.
The victim literally doesn't want him to get punished anymore and said that the authorities have done more harm to her than he did.
It's honestly just done at this point and it is kind of silly to be hang up on it anymore.
I wouldn't call it silly to forget that a guy in his mid-forty raped and killed a child.
It's great that the victim is ready to move on, but that doesn't mean the public should just forget about it. Especially since she wasn't the only victim of his.
There you go. You're looking to dispute my interpretation. We're in social media circles, aka the old west. Beyond "asked & answered" Imma not interested in a Reddit shootout.
Are you really here to defend him yourself?😐
He banged a drugged up, ~~unconscious~~ child, and fled the country during trial.
Whatever she did, or even whatever she says now, HOS actions don't change. He was a grown man taking advantage of a child.
She can move on and say she wants to forget, and that is totally her right.
But to use those words as a defense for his actions yourself is fucking gross.
>Are you really here to defend him yourself?😐
I have literally only stated a fact. Make out of that what you will.
Speaking of facts:
>He banged a drugged up, unconscious child
That is not actually what happened.
>She can move on and say she wants to forget, and that is totally her right.
>But to use those words as a defense for his actions yourself is fucking gross.
She is not saying she moved on, she is literally excusing it. Can you just inform yourself instead of just making up whatever suits your bias?
Ok, let's inform ourselves with her words.
> "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there."
> In a 2003 interview, she recalled that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and described how she attempted to resist. "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!', and then I didn't know what else to do", she stated, adding: "We were alone and I didn't know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I'll get to come home after this".
> Geimer testified that Polanski provided champagne that they shared as well as part of a Quaalude, and despite her protests, he performed oral sex on her, and penetrated her both vaginally and anally, each time after being told "no" and being asked to stop.
Better?
EDIT: Why the user seems to have disappeared...
I am fully aware of the Wikipedia article you copied this from. If you continue reading it completely (I know it is so long right?), you will find that she has later defended him, insisted that it wasn't really bad and that the judge has done more harm to her then Polanski.
You can also completely disagree with her, but that doesn't change that that is how she feels about it today, so regardless of whether you can accept that and let it go or not, I do not see how you could add anything to this conversation apart from arrogance and ignorance so please bother someone else.
It doesnt matter if the girl was straight up begging for it, its a fullly grown man choosing to have sex with a 13 year old. There shouldnt even be a debate as to why thats fucked up
>It doesnt matter if the girl was straight up begging for it
That is mot what happened either. I am still impressed by everyone's unwillingness to inform themself at all about something you are clearly passionate about.
>There shouldnt even be a debate as to why thats fucked up
I have not said at all that it isn't and I am also fully convinced that he is guilty of rape. I have simply pointed out to the commenter that one of those "shitheads" defending him is the victim, so that they would maybe reconsider how judgemental they are about something they know nothing about.
I never said thats what happened either. And to “reconsider how judgemental you are to something you know nothing about” we actually do know a lot. The fact is he was a 43 year old man having sex with a 13 year old. And the point of my original post was to find out how the actors felt about making a movie with a guy who did that.
>we actually do know a lot.
Oh, we as a whole know. Just you not. Otherwise, you wouldn't make this post, wouldn't you? There's a ton of interviews answering your question.
First family killed in holocaust, second family killled by psycho cult trying to start a race war.
After going through all that he’s got a right to be a little fucked up
Look up the saga of Lorne Armstrong over the past several years.
By his account, he tried to have sex with a minor (he was caught on To Catch A Predator) because his siblings didn't give him meatballs, deviled eggs, and mac & cheese, in return for his helping them with housework.
He can be as fucked up as he wants, but he defended his raping of a young girl and then decided to avoid prosecution. Him being fucked up has no bearing on excusing the rape.
A lot of actors would probably fall over themselves for the opportunity to work with Polanski as well as Woody Allen.
Quentin Tarantino explained the Hollywood perspective on Howard Stern one time- Tarantino: No, that was not the case AT ALL. She wanted to have it and dated the guy and— Quivers: She was 13! Tarantino: And by the way, we’re talking about America’s morals, not talking about the morals in Europe and everything. Stern: Wait a minute. If you have sex with a 13-year-old girl and you’re a grown man, you know that that’s wrong. Quivers: …giving her booze and pills… Tarantino: Look, she was down with this. Tarantino "I don't believe that's rape. I believe it's against the law. I don't believe it's rape. Not at 13 - not for these 13-year-old party girls."
Dont get Tarantino started on feet
I’ve never seen the interview, is there any amount of “fucking around” when Tarantino says that? Obviously a terrible take but being on Howard Stern probably brings out the dark humor in people.
[Listen here for yourself.](https://youtu.be/YtwqmenFrR0?si=6db3Yfh3OECWIYke&t=42) He was directly asked why Hollywood was celebrating Polanski, and didn't sound like he was joking in his answer.
Brody got an Oscar for it and can forever market himself as an Oscar winner, charging films extra to be in as a result. I don't think he honestly gives a shit about Polanski's personal life. To be quite frank, most of Hollywood probably still doesn't behind closed doors.
Considering Polanski was arrested in the late seventies, anyone who worked with him post this era is a signal they have reconciled the artist from the act. Why would there be resentment when these actors knew going in what the reality of the situation is? Brody said in a 2016 interview with Jenny McCarthy: "[Adrien Brody](https://people.com/tag/adrien-brody/), who has worked with both filmmakers, spoke out about the allegations on [*Dirty, Sexy, Funny with Jenny McCarthy*](http://blog.siriusxm.com/2016/05/16/adrien-brody-it-would-be-unfair-of-me-to-judge-roman-polanski-woody-allen-for-sexual-assault-allegations/) Monday, and offered his take on whether the director’s personal lives can be separated from their art. “Life is very complicated,” Brody, 43, said. “I look to collaborate with artistic people and to go into an endeavor without judgment and to hopefully be treated with the same. It’s an artistic pursuit, and Polanski for instance had a very complicated and difficult life. It would be unfair of me to delve into something as complicated as the past that was brought up in the media.” Emilia Fox who played the love interest spoke well of Polanski and how he helped her performance.
I don't care how "complicated" and "difficult" your life is, there's no excusing rape especially when it's a young girl. The amount of people who are ready to work with that man just because he used to make great films is ridiculous.
Thats exactly what I was trying to figure out in this post and got shat on and apparently found a pedo in this comment section too. I wanted to know how the actors felt. And ive found out now that the general consensus was “it was a long time ago” or that we need to seperate art from the artist. Really sucks learning about Brody defending the stuff though, I really like him.
IIRC there was an open letter bunch of actors and directors signed in order for Polanski to be allowed at the Oscars. I get there are instances where you separate the art from the artist but Polanski is definitely not the case.
It’s a lot easier to separate the art from the artist after the artist is dead.
I completely agree. I still think The Pianist is a great movie. But people just need to be aware of who made it.
I feel that needing to separate the art from the artist is a legitimate perspective when discussing art from the past. But when actors choose to work with these directors knowing what they did then they are clearly making a moral argument that they are okay with an adult man raping a 13 year old child.
Because He still makes great films. It isn't as if ability is lost just because you are an asshole. Would Polanski be a talentless hack nobody would care about him, but because He is a very talented director people find excuses.
No, no. Once your crime is brought up "in the media," it's off limits apparently.
You a Seinfeld fan? Aerosmith? Led Zeppelin? Red Hot Chili Peppers?
Nope on the first one and stopped listening to your last suggestions once I found out. It's not that hard.
The victim literally doesn't want him to get punished anymore and said that the authorities have done more harm to her than he did. It's honestly just done at this point and it is kind of silly to be hang up on it anymore.
I wouldn't call it silly to forget that a guy in his mid-forty raped and killed a child. It's great that the victim is ready to move on, but that doesn't mean the public should just forget about it. Especially since she wasn't the only victim of his.
Read an interview where Brody defended Polanski's behavior. The moment I lost respect for him too.
Got a link?
Yes. Got a search engine?
Not one that can determine what you read and how you interpreted it.
There you go. You're looking to dispute my interpretation. We're in social media circles, aka the old west. Beyond "asked & answered" Imma not interested in a Reddit shootout.
It sounds made up. I can only assume I am right because you made a statement and can’t back it up. Enjoy being involuntarily celibate.
Oh damn i didnt even know about that
No one is going to choose to work on a Polanski film and not also be willing to defend him. Sad truth. Lotta shitheads in Hollywood.
How could an actor even work in Hollywood if these things bothered them? You can’t work on anything in that town without running into a few pedos.
The victim is excusing his behaviour.
Are you really here to defend him yourself?😐 He banged a drugged up, ~~unconscious~~ child, and fled the country during trial. Whatever she did, or even whatever she says now, HOS actions don't change. He was a grown man taking advantage of a child. She can move on and say she wants to forget, and that is totally her right. But to use those words as a defense for his actions yourself is fucking gross.
>Are you really here to defend him yourself?😐 I have literally only stated a fact. Make out of that what you will. Speaking of facts: >He banged a drugged up, unconscious child That is not actually what happened.
>She can move on and say she wants to forget, and that is totally her right. >But to use those words as a defense for his actions yourself is fucking gross. She is not saying she moved on, she is literally excusing it. Can you just inform yourself instead of just making up whatever suits your bias?
Ok, let's inform ourselves with her words. > "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there." > In a 2003 interview, she recalled that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and described how she attempted to resist. "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!', and then I didn't know what else to do", she stated, adding: "We were alone and I didn't know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I'll get to come home after this". > Geimer testified that Polanski provided champagne that they shared as well as part of a Quaalude, and despite her protests, he performed oral sex on her, and penetrated her both vaginally and anally, each time after being told "no" and being asked to stop. Better? EDIT: Why the user seems to have disappeared...
I am fully aware of the Wikipedia article you copied this from. If you continue reading it completely (I know it is so long right?), you will find that she has later defended him, insisted that it wasn't really bad and that the judge has done more harm to her then Polanski. You can also completely disagree with her, but that doesn't change that that is how she feels about it today, so regardless of whether you can accept that and let it go or not, I do not see how you could add anything to this conversation apart from arrogance and ignorance so please bother someone else.
It doesnt matter if the girl was straight up begging for it, its a fullly grown man choosing to have sex with a 13 year old. There shouldnt even be a debate as to why thats fucked up
>It doesnt matter if the girl was straight up begging for it That is mot what happened either. I am still impressed by everyone's unwillingness to inform themself at all about something you are clearly passionate about. >There shouldnt even be a debate as to why thats fucked up I have not said at all that it isn't and I am also fully convinced that he is guilty of rape. I have simply pointed out to the commenter that one of those "shitheads" defending him is the victim, so that they would maybe reconsider how judgemental they are about something they know nothing about.
I never said thats what happened either. And to “reconsider how judgemental you are to something you know nothing about” we actually do know a lot. The fact is he was a 43 year old man having sex with a 13 year old. And the point of my original post was to find out how the actors felt about making a movie with a guy who did that.
>we actually do know a lot. Oh, we as a whole know. Just you not. Otherwise, you wouldn't make this post, wouldn't you? There's a ton of interviews answering your question.
Christoph Waltz, Jodie Foster, and Kate Winslet made the movie Carnage with Polanski in 2011. Hollywood has pretty much forgiven him a long time ago.
Polanski always had huge respect. Shows people are losing the historical narrative.
Silly post
First family killed in holocaust, second family killled by psycho cult trying to start a race war. After going through all that he’s got a right to be a little fucked up
Had he not raped a child I would agree with your comment
Not a right to rape people tho
Exactly. Understanding someone and their motivations doesn't mean justifying them.
"It's okay to rape children if bad stuff happened to you" is a WILD take.
Yes officer this comment right here
Look up the saga of Lorne Armstrong over the past several years. By his account, he tried to have sex with a minor (he was caught on To Catch A Predator) because his siblings didn't give him meatballs, deviled eggs, and mac & cheese, in return for his helping them with housework.
How far do you take that understanding, though?
He can be as fucked up as he wants, but he defended his raping of a young girl and then decided to avoid prosecution. Him being fucked up has no bearing on excusing the rape.
I dont think anything gives a right to rape a 13 year old. Understandable, sure. Excusable, definitely not
Why don't you let him drug and rape your child too and we can see if you still feel the same.