| On Feb 24, 10:40 pm, Jared wrote: Quote:On Feb 23, 5:02 am, moviePig wrote: Afaics, nobody's arguing that Polanski didn't break the law. What's being questioned is whether we should *automatically* regard him as vile, perverted, repugnant, and all the other immoderate adjectives we use to comfortably distance ourselves from Evil. I wonder if film fans feel any differently about Polanski than, say, Michael Jackson who was accused (and acquitted) of a similar crime, because of, well, "art". (How old was Natalie Portman when *you* first saw her as hot?) I sometimes get the urge to kick cute puppies. Thinking and doing are two pretty different things. ...unless the cute puppy is an 8-month-old 100-lb. Rottweiler going for your jugular. The question here isn't whether Polanski used bad or unacceptable judgment, but whether his actions were *necessarily* sick, twisted, perverted, etc. In that regard, btw, the argument against Michael Jackson seems considerably stronger, for obvious reasons (none of them homosexuality). -- - - - - - - - - YOUR taste at work... http://www.moviepig.com |