Stanley Kubrick : Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

Franz, you are completely beyond the pale, a paranoid crackpot immersed in a haze of booze-induced psychosis. We now witness you boasting on another thread about being a violent alcoholic with your equally deranged "derider" buddy***. You are a sick basket case. Why don't you go for counselling before you turn into another Jack Torrance, and stop polluting these forums with your pathologically unhinged ravings?

***See, for instance, this thread at the IMDB forum for "Chopper":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2

Examples:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Franzkabuki: There was a peculiar period between 1998 and 2004 when I got to visit the place some 4-5 times. Mostly for a goo 238 d reason of drunken misbehaviour (one time I started to drink beer from the shelf in a mall and proceeded to punch the security guard... fortunately, I have no personal memory of it), once for a funny reason (in short, cops suspected we were trying to break into a bank, from the basement, at night... while in reality we were just stuck in that bloody basement, trying to get out. Then suddenly electricity was switched off and in burst the police with flashlights and guns drawn) and once as an instance of gross injustice (I was attacked, for no apparent reason, by b68 some Rooskie... then it developed into a fight in the middle of a crowded street during the rush hour... and then cops found 'I' was the main culprit, probably because I was sitting on top of the guy when they arrived and he lied that I'd assaulted him). Wasn't much fun. And unfortunately, there were occasions when I did get aggressive when drunk... although very, very drunk.
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2&d=2 33938389#233938389

Derider84: I'm back with a... hangover. Nasty. It was an eventful night at least! We got in a scuffle with some bouncers and everything. Two of the gorilla *beep* tackled me to the ground. The fat one kneed me in the back (probably by accident), and now I got like a continuous pins and needles sensation in my left hand. And I didn't even do anything! We were only trying to sneak into a bar over the back fence (or considering it - we were loitering by the back fence at any rate). They denied us entry through the front door and were very rude about it, so what were we to do? It was the only bar open in that part of town, and we were pretty damn determined to have those last couple of drinks...
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2&d=2 33734364#233734364
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Yes, of course I completely agree, but aren't you actually completely wrong?

Yes, of course I completely agree, but aren't you actually completely wrong?

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

"Are they or aren't they? Are Polanski and Allen (past) child abusers or aren't they?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"They are. My point about the signatures is that Franz is using "stupid facts" to downpla 2000 y exploitation,"

The problem is that he's been deliberately ignoring all of the important facts to unconsciously justify the 'right' of celebrity filmmakers that he identifies with to abuse children. Worse, his response to the truth is to become vicious and hysterical, hurling verbal abuse and personal insult at any poster who questions his psychopathic ravings. Now, his libidinal stupidity having been exposed, he's reconsidering his defense of these child abusers, suddenly changing his stance, while then ESCALATING his verbal abuse of the same posters (scapegoating and demonizing the whistleblower), as this tread overwhelmingly proves. It's a pathological ideological condition, further fuelled by his self-confessed (on public forums) alcoholism.

"In a similar way, the comment section of that Thandie Newton article is filled with people using "facts" to blame Thandie. And they are correct, but also missing the point."

It is the basis of such hysterical delirium that is of most significance, that reveals the falsity of their stance. It isn't the case that "deep in their hearts" such unknowing defenders of child abuse, demonizers of its victims and their defenders, are dirty sexist creeps, although <i>performatively</I> that is what they are demonstrating: rather, it is that they have internalised the priorities of a certain 'reality', a certain fantasy of reality, a certain power structure, and therefore have come to believe that well-known brandname filmmakers like Allen and Polanski are being unfairly maligned by others, including their victims. In other words, as soon as anyone accepts their very framework, their ideological coordinates, they are already lost, have already bought into their social-symbolic pathology.

It is a crucial point that Zizek has often made, in particular in relation to the Nazi prejudice toward and treatment of Jews: to undertake, to examine, to conduct an empirical survey, investigation or analysis in order to determine if there was any actual 'factual' basis for the Nazis' hysterical, paranoiac claims about Jewish conspiracies would be totally grotesque, precisely because "even if rich Jews in early 1930s Germany “really” had exploited German workers, seduced their daughters and dominated the popular press, the Nazis’ anti-Semitism would still have been an emphatically “untrue,” pathological condition. Why? Because the causes of all social antagonisms were projected onto the “Jew” — an object of perverted love-hatred, a spectral figure of mixed fascination and disgust."

Like the unfortunate shark in Jaws, it becomes the ultimate scapegoat, the figure of everyone's fantasmatic projection, the conspiratorial entity that is reconfigured as the cause of all the world's problems, all fears, all anxieties, all conflicts, deflected from and compressed, concentrated onto a damn shark. Political corruption? "It's the shark, it's behind it all!". Home foreclosures, unemployment, poverty? "It's the shark, stupid!"

Here, the shark is no longer just an ordinary, empirical common-or-garden shark, but is elevated into a 'spectral figure', is redoubled as a sublime-evil persecutory agency, an imaginary Real, a conspiratorial devilish agency secretly behind all hardships, that is a material manifestation of everything denied by the 'community', an embodiment of all the real problems and antagonisms and their causes that have been disavowed, the embodiment of a Lie ...

And eliminating the (empirical) shark does not solve these problems, alleviate these fears; on the contrary, all of these problems and conflicts and antagonisms now reassert themselves even more powerfully, more overwhelmingly, because all the time they were being ignored and denied and excluded, they just grew worse, more Real. Another 'spectral figure' will have to be found, another scapegoat selected, a bigger one ("Folks, there's another shark, a much bigger one! It might even be a whale, a killer whale!"). Interesting how the spectral monsters in Spielberg's films kept getting bigger in each successive film: an evil truck (Duel), a shark (Jaws), carnivorous dinosaurs (Jurassic Park), Nazis (Schindler's List), Martians (War of the Worlds) ...


Here, of course, we have an ironic reversal, where it is two Jewish (but who self-identify as atheists) filmmakers whose unsavoury past behaviour is being defended by recourse to a pathologized demonization of their victims and defenders.

"And you see a similiar kind of thing wherever someone is rationalizing an abuse of power ("well he shouldn't have resisted arrest!", "well she shouldn't have worn those clothes!", "well they shouldn't have fired rockets!", "well dont post messages if you dont want them deleted" etc)."

LOL.


Yes, of course I completely agree, but aren't you actually completely wrong?

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?


he's reconsidering his defense of these child abusers, suddenly changing his stance,


Where did he change his stance? I wish he would, since it feels particularly unpleasant to have to fall on your side in this argument, but so far he's unfortunately been fairly consistent in his excuses for Polanski and Allen.


while then ESCALATING his verbal abuse of the same posters (scapegoating and demonizing the whistleblower), as this tread overwhelmingly proves. It's a pathological ideological condition, further fuelled by his


This is total bullsh!t. Franz isn't generally an unreasonable guy. As always, it was you who started and then escalated the verbal abuse. You actually had a strong point in this case, but instead of explaining it in a calm manner and giving him something to think about, you immediately started in on him with your predictable gibberis 7ec h and ultra-malicious bully-boy tactics. Then you drew me into it for some reason.

Honestly, you just scare me. You exhibit no sign of even the most basic human warmth or decency. You're just straight-up evil. There's no other word for it. Winning an argument is a secondary concern for you. You mainly seem to get off on hurting people. It's actually kind of creepy. Why are you like this? Are you really such a singular scumbag or just pretending to be one?


self-confessed (on public forums) alcoholism


And seriously, what the hell is so wrong about my pleasant conversation with franz on an unrelated board? We weren't bothering anyone. The fact that we compared some of our worst drinking war stories doesn't necessarily indicate alcoholism. I'm sure you'd have a few such stories as well. Ireland isn't exactly a country of teetotallers, as I found out first hand a few years ago. So yeah, shame on you for latching onto that so forcefully. Just another example of your relentless malice.






Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Fil
b68
mmakers?

Note: the troll called "derider84" has a long and documented history of abusing the 'report abuse' function on IMDB forums to delete any posts that might expose his psychosis; it would not be at all surprising if he is the lunatic who has been deleting my posts, as we will shortly ascertain, as indeed we have ascertained ...]

Franzkabuki/derider84, you are both completely beyond the pale, paranoid crackpots immersed in a haze of booze-induced psychosis. We now witness you boasting on another thread about being violent alcoholics appropriating a public forum as if it were a private living space, becoming aggressive toward anyone questioning such odious displays, oblivious to how you have now publicly exposed yourselves. You are sick basket cases. Why don't you go for counselling before you turn into yet more Jack Torrances, and stop polluting these forums with your pathologically unhinged ravings?

***See, for instance, this thread at the IMDB forum for "Chopper":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2

Examples:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Franzkabuki: There was a peculiar period between 1998 and 2004 when I got to visit the place some 4-5 times. Mostly for a good reason of drunken misbehaviour (one time I started to drink beer from the shelf in a mall and proceeded to punch the security guard... fortunately, I have no personal memory of it), once for a funny reason (in short, cops suspected we were trying to break into a bank, from the basement, at night... while in reality we were just stuck in that bloody basement, tryi 2000 ng to get out. Then suddenly electricity was switched off and in burst the police with flashlights and guns drawn) and once as an instance of gross injustice (I was attacked, for no apparent reason, by some Rooskie... then it developed into a fight in the middle of a crowded street during the rush hour... and then cops found 'I' was the main culprit, probably because I was sitting on top of the guy when they arrived and he lied that I'd assaulted him). Wasn't much fun. And unfortunately, there were occasions when I did get aggressive when drunk... although very, very drunk.
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2&d=233938389#233938389

Derider84: I'm back with a... hangover. Nasty. It was an eventful night at least! We got in a scuffle with some bouncers and everything. Two of the gorilla *beep* tackled me to the ground. The fat one kneed me in the back (probably by accident), and now I got like a continuous pins and needles sensation in my left hand. And I didn't even do anything! We were only trying to sneak into a bar over the back fence (or considering it - we were loitering by the back fence at any rate). They denied us entry through the front door and were very rude about it, so what were we to do? It was the only bar open in that part of town, and we were pretty damn determined to have those last couple of drinks...
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2&d=233734364#233734364
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes, of course I completely agree, but aren't you actually completely wrong?

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?


Note: the troll called "derider84" has a long and documented history of abusing the 'report abuse' function on IMDB forums to delete any posts that might expose his psychosis; it would not be at all surprising if he is the lunatic who has been deleting my posts, as we will shortly ascertain, as indeed we have ascertained ...]

Like I said, reporting things is not my style, though I would certainly encourage anyone so inclined to report the *beep* out of this moron. Not only would it annoy him, but it might lead to eventual posting restrictions on his account, so that we all may be spared his unrelentingly vicious spamming. Then again, his incessant re-posting and personal attacks only serve to expose him as the mean-spirited psycho bully that he is, so maybe he should just be left alone to dig his own grave.

Anyway, since he makes it a point to ignore and bury any posts questioning his psychosis (which is the exact thing he accuses others of doing - projection much?), it only seems fair that I repost an earlier comment of my own:


while then ESCALATING his verbal abuse of the same posters (scapegoating and demonizing the whistleblower), as this tread overwhelmingly proves. It's a pathological ideological condition, further fuelled by his


This is bullsh!t. Franz isn't generally an unreasonable guy. As always, it was you who started and then escalated the verbal abuse. You actually had a strong point in this case, but instead of explaining it in a calm manner and giving him something to think about, you immediately started in on him with your predictable gibberish and ultra-malicious bully-boy tactics. Then you drew me into it for some reason.

Honestly, you just scare me. You exhibit no sign of even the most basic human warmth or decency. You're just straight-up evil. There's no other word for it. Winning an argument is a secondary concern for you. You mainly seem to get off on hurting people. It's actually kind of creepy. Why are you like this? Are you really such a singular scumbag or just pretending to be one?


self-confessed (on public forums) alcoholism


And seriously, what the hell is so wrong about my pleasant conversation with franz on an unrelated board? We weren't bothering anyone. The fact that we compared some of our worst drinking war stories doesn't necessarily indicate alcoholism. I'm sure you'd have a few such stories as well. Ireland isn't exactly a country of teetotallers, as I found out first hand a few years ago. So yeah, shame on you for latching onto that so forcefully. Just another example of your relentless malice.





Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

derider, you are a lying evil scumbag, who has invaded this thread to maliciously delete my posts (the very same psychopathic practice you engae in elsewhere), to defend child abuse by gobshíte celebrities, and to deny your violent alcoholism. You are the very form of human parasite that Kubrick's films exposed. We are having you investigated ...

[Note: the troll called "derider84" has a long and documented history of abusing the 'report abuse' function on IMDB forums to delete any posts that might expose his psychosis; it would not be at all surprising if he is the lunatic who has been deleting my posts, as we will shortly ascertain, as indeed we have ascertained ...]

Franzkabuki/derider84, you are both completely beyond the pale, paranoid crackpots immersed in a haze of booze-induced psychosis. We now witness you boasting on another thread about being violent alcoholics appropriating a public forum as if it were a private living space, becoming aggressive toward anyone questioning such odious displays, oblivious to how you have now publicly exposed yourselves. You are sick basket cases. Why don't you go for counselling before you turn into yet more Jack Torrances, and stop polluting these forums with your pathologically unhinged ravings?

***See, for instance, this thread at the IMDB forum for "Chopper":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2

Examples:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Franzkabuki: There was a peculiar period between 1998 and 2004 when I got to visit the place some 4-5 times. Mostly for a good reason of drunken misbehaviour (one time I started to drink beer from the shelf in a mall and proceeded to punch the security guard... fortunately, I have no personal memory of it), once for a funny reason (in short, cops suspected we were trying to break into a bank, from the basement, at night... while in reality we were just stuck in that bloody basement, trying to get out. Then suddenly electricity was switched off and in burst the police with flashlights and guns drawn) and once as an instance of gross injustice (I was attacked, for no apparent reason, by some Rooskie... then it developed into a fight in the middle of a crowded street during the rush hour... and then cops found 'I' was the main culprit, probably because I was sitting on top of the guy when they arrived and he lied that I'd assaulted him). Wasn't much fun. And unfortunately, there were occasions when I did get aggressive when drunk... although very, very drunk.
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2&d=233938389#233938389

Derider84: I'm back with a... hangover. Nasty. It was an eventful night at least! We got in a scuffle with some bouncers and everything. Two of the gorilla *beep* tackled me to the ground. The fat one kneed me in the back (probably by accident), and now I got like a continuous pins and needles sensation in my left hand. And I didn't even do anything! We were only trying to sneak into a bar over the back fence (or considering it - we were loitering by the back fence at any rate). They denied us entry through the front door and were very rude about it, so what were we to do? It was the only bar open in that part of town, and we were pretty damn determined to have those last couple of drinks...
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2&d=233734364#233734364
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes, of course I completely agree, but aren't you actually completely wrong?

Yes, of course I completely agree, but aren't you 2000 actually completely wrong?

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

Wow. So maybe he's joking after all? It's preferable to the only alternative, which is that he's a dangerously unhinged lunatic lost in his delusions.

Regardless, whether troll or not, the fact remains that he's still carrying on some kind of malicious tabloid-style personal smear campaign against franz and myself. It boggles the mind how this hysterical imbecile could consider such behaviour appropriate. Like I said, it's just pure evil. Despite his unbearably pretentious quasi-socialist gibberish (essentially his alibi), he's really a pure fascist at heart. A psychopathic, murderous far right-winger through and through. A leering concentration camp guard. The opportunistic rapist. A genocidal Nazi executioner. The Zionist fundamentalist. A pure, unadulterated fascist. Certainly behaves like one. Effectively censoring any opinions other than his own, crushing dissent with an iron fist, and now seemingly rounding up the town drunks for extermination. Rotten to his very core, as his attitude towards alcoholism readily proves. I mean, even if I were an alcoholic, would it really be worthy of such murderous scorn and unmitigated spite?

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

derider, you are a lying evil scumbag, who has invaded this thread to maliciously delete my posts (the very same psychopathic practice you engage in elsewhere), to defend child abuse by gobshíte celebrities, and to deny your violent alcoholism. You are the very form of human parasite that Kubrick's films exposed. We are having you investigated ...

[Note: the troll called "derider84" has a long and documented history of abusing the 'report abuse' function on IMDB forums to delete any posts that might expose his psychosis; it would not be at all surprising if he is the lunatic who has been deleting my posts, as we will shortly ascertain, as indeed we have ascertained ...]

Franzkabuki/derider84, you are both completely beyond the pale, paranoid crackpots immersed in a haze of booze-induced psychosis. We now witness you boasting on another thread about being violent alcoholics appropriating a public forum as if it were a private living space, becoming aggressive toward anyone questioning such odious displays, oblivious to how you have now publicly exposed yourselves. You are sick basket cases. Why don't you go for counselling before you turn into yet more Jack Torrances, and stop polluting these forums with your pathologically unhinged ravings?

***See, for instance, this thread at the IMDB forum for "Chopper":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2

Examples:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Franzkabuki: There was a peculiar period between 1998 and 2004 when I got to visit the place some 4-5 times. Mostly for a good reason of drunken misbehaviour (one time I started to drink beer from the shelf in a mall and proceeded to punch the security guard... fortunately, I have no personal memory of it), once for a funny reason (in short, cops suspected we were trying to break into a bank, from the basement, at night... while in reality we were just stuck in that bloody basement, trying to get out. Then suddenly electricity was switched off and in burst the police with flashlights and guns drawn) and once as an instance of gross injustice (I was attacked, for no apparent reason, by some Rooskie... then it developed into a fight in the middle of a crowded street during the rush hour... and then cops found 'I' was the main culprit, probably because I was sitting on top of the guy when they arrived and he lied that I'd assaulted him). Wasn't much fun. And unfortunately, there were occasions when I d 1ebc id get aggressive when drunk... although very, very drunk.
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2&d=233938389#233938389

Derider84: I'm back with a... hangover. Nasty. It was an eventful night at least! We got in a scuffle with some bouncers and everything. Two of the gorilla *beep* tackled me to the ground. The fat one kneed me in the back (probably by accident), and now I got like a continuous pins and needles sensation in my left hand. And I didn't even do anything! We were only trying to sneak into a bar over the back fence (or considering it - we were loitering by the back fence at any rate). They denied us entry through the front door and were very rude about it, so what were we to do? It was the only bar open in that part of town, and we were pretty damn determined to have those last couple of drinks...
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2&d=233734364#233734364
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes, of course I completely agree, but aren't you actually completely wrong?

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

Now listen here, you Harry Mata Hari, I can match your spite but not your stamina, so I'll just bow out at this point. Internet grudges are so boring anyway. I would however ask you in the most respectful way possible to please refrain from spreading slanderous rumours about me. I realise it's inconsequential, but it's still not very nice. Why do you hate me again, you indubitable, inveterate Englishman?

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

"Are they or aren't they? Are Polanski and Allen (past) child abusers or aren't they?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"They are. My point about the signatures is that Franz is using "stupid facts" to downplay exploitation,"

The problem is that he's been deliberately ignoring all of the important facts to <i>unconsciously</I> justify the 'right' of celebrity filmmakers that he identifies with to abuse children. Worse, his response to the truth is to become vicious and hysterical, hurling verbal abuse and personal insult at any poster who questions his psychopathic ravings. Now, his libidinal stupidity having been exposed, he's reconsidering his defense of these child abusers, suddenly changing his stance, while then ESCALATING his verbal abuse of the same posters (scapegoating and demonizing the whistleblower), as this tread overwhelmingly proves. It's a pathological ideological condition, further fuelled by his self-confessed (on public forums) alcoholism.

"In a similar way, the comment section of that Thandie Newton article is filled with people using "facts" to blame Thandie. And they are correct, but also missing the point."

It is the basis of such hysterical delirium that is of most significance, that reveals the falsity of their stance. It isn't the case that "deep in their hearts" such unknowing defenders of child abuse, demonizers of its victims and their defenders, are dirty sexist creeps, although <i>performatively</I> that is what they are demonstrating: rather, it is that they have internalised the priorities of a certain 'reality', a certain fantasy of reality, a certain power structure, and therefore have come to believe that well-known brandname filmmakers like Allen and Polanski are being unfairly maligned by others, including their victims. In other words, as soon as anyone accepts their very framework, their ideological coordinates, they are already lost, have already bought into their social-symbolic pathology.

It is a crucial point that Zizek has often made, in particular in relation to the Nazi prejudice toward and treatment of Jews: to undertake, to examine, to conduct an empirical survey, investigation or analysis in order to determine if there was any actual 'factual' basis for the Nazis' hysterical, paranoiac claims about Jewish conspiracies would be totally grotesque, precisely because "<i>even if rich Jews in early 1930s Germany “really” had exploited German workers, seduced their daughters and dominated the popular press, the Nazis’ anti-Semitism would still have been an emphatically “untrue,” pathological condition. Why? Because the causes of all social antagonisms were projected onto the “Jew” — an object of perverted love-hatred, a spectral figure of mixed fascination and disgust."</I>

Like the unfortunate shark in <i>Jaws</I>, it becomes the ultimate scapegoat, the figure of everyone's fantasmatic projection, the conspiratorial entity that is reconfigured as the cause of all the world's problems, all fears, all anxieties, all conflicts, deflected from and compressed, concentrated onto a damn shark. Political corruption? "It's the shark, it's behind it all!". Home foreclosures, unemployment, poverty? "It's the shark, stupid!"

Here, the shark is no longer just an ordinary, empirical common-or-garden shark, but is elevated into a 'spectral figure', is redoubled as a sublime-evil persecutory agency, an imaginary Real, a conspiratorial devilish agency secretly behind all hardships, that is a material manifestation of everything denied by the 'community', an embodiment of all the real problems and antagonisms and their causes that have been disavowed, the embodiment of a Lie ...

And eliminating the (empirical) shark does not solve these problems, alleviate these fears; on the contrary, all of these problems and conflicts and antagonisms now reassert themselves even more powerfully, more overwhelmingly, because all the time they were being ignored and denied and excluded, they just grew worse, more Real. Another 'spectral figure' will have to be found, another scapegoat selected, a bigger one ("Folks, there's another shark, a much bigger one! It might even be a whale, a killer whale!"). Interesting how the spectral monsters in Spielberg's films kept getting bigger in each successive film: an evil truck (Duel), a shark (Jaws), carnivorous dinosaurs (Jurassic Park), Nazis (Schindler's List), Martians (War of the Worlds) ...


Here, of course, we have an ironic reversal, whe 5b4 re it is two Jewish (but who self-identify as atheists) filmmakers whose unsavoury past behaviour is being defended by recourse to a pathologized demonization of their victims and defenders.

"And you see a similiar kind of thing wherever someone is rationalizing an abuse of power ("well he shouldn't have resisted arrest!", "well she shouldn't have worn those clothes!", "well they shouldn't have fired rockets!", "well dont post messages if you dont want them deleted" etc)."

LOL.


Yes, of course I completely agree, but aren't you actually completely wrong?

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

My 2c on the topic. I'm gonna sit on the fence so disgustingly that maybe harry and franz can find some common ground by ganging up on me!

I think we're witnessing a bit of a culture clash. Franz reflects the continental European attitude, where they're ever so slightly more blasé about the exact age of consent. They generally allow some wiggle room. There seems to prevail a certain cultural permissiveness, with some contention about the age a girl is old enough to have sex (and no wonder with countries like Portugal, where the AoC is 12!). So they tend to make excuses for people like Polanski. You'll rarely hear a French or Italian person calling him a filthy rapist, though they will talk up the 'extenuating' circumstances of the case 'til they're blue in the face. Rape culture is obviously alive and kicking in those parts.

In the English-speaking cultures, it's a lot more absolute. There are no grey areas. You have sex with anyone under 16 under any circumstances, and you're a filthy pedo rapist fit for post-birth abortion, which is an attitude our resident Irish loon conveyed quite effectively here.

I probably prefer the latter way when all is said and done. By removing any potential grey areas ('she told me she was 18', 'she wasn't a virgin', 'she came onto me' etc.), it eliminates a lot of the excuses sexual predators like to use to rationalise their behaviour.

In this particular case, I must admit I was glad Polanski got away from that activist judge who would have locked him up for 15 or more years, but I certainly don't like the guy. Whatever the arguments for or against may be, he did *beep* a 13-year-old girl in the arse, after plying her with hallucinogens. That is absolutely unacceptable by any standard. If he did that to my 13 year old daughter, I'd wanna kill the bastard.

Allen's a creep too. I have no opinion on this Dylan Farrow stuff, but the dirty old man married his young step-daughter, which was already a bit unpalatable, legal or not. M b68 aybe that maxim 'where there's smoke, there's fire' applies here...



Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

I don't really have much issue with anything you say concerning Polanski, but coupla small points. 1) 13 is obviously a bit on the young'ish side LOL, even though physically, Samantha could have passed for an 18-year old (Anjelica Huston saw them after the act that night and later described her as "one of those chicks who could be any age up to 20"). It don't matter though as Polanski knew her age. 2) I think I've seen Polanski trying to deny the anal transgressions, but I ain't sure and, at any rate, why would Samantha lie about 'that'? Not only is it in all likel 16d0 ihood kinda embarrassing to tell, it also doesn't change anything legally. 3)Is quaalude really a hallucinogen? Never tried it myself. 4) I don't know about Judge Rittenband's "activism", but he was a celebrity of sorts and saw himself as some kinda showman, presiding over the court with press always present and taking notes. Funnily though, there were persisting rumours that this Rittenband himself had privately a taste for underage girls.

You go majorly wrong about Stiffy though. Once and for all - Soon-Yi Previn was Mia Farrow's stepdaughter, not Stiffy's. Stiffy also wasn't married to Farrow nor did they ever live together as both retained their residences someplace around the Central Park. Additionally, Stiffy and Moon-Yi had rarely ever even spoken to each other as Stiffy only had interest in his own biological children, so there was no emotional connection of any kind between the two of them until Mia Farrow one day suggested Stiffy should spend more time with Soon-Yi and take her to movies or ballgames etc; her "symbolic" father figure that Hyperdork keeps crowing about, was Andre Previn. Period. And the other thing... how on earth would Stiffy's affair with his former girlfriend's grownup stepdaughter make it (more) likely that he might be an incestuous pedophile? There is precisely zero connection there; two COMPLETELY different things.



facts are stupid things - Ronald Reagan

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?


Is quaalude really a hallucinogen?


I dunno. Isn't it? Didn't Leo's character in The Wolf of Wall Street hallucinate on them at some points (that film is already just one big messy blur in my head)? Honestly, I just didn't really know how to spell Quaalude, so I figured 'hallucinogen' would do in a pinch.


You go majorly wrong about Stiffy though.


Well OK, I admit I'm not really up on the details of Allen's family connections and whatnot. I'm pretty sure some sections of the media painted it as him marrying his former stepdaughter, so I guess I just accepted that as fact. Honestly though, he's always struck me as a little bit slimy. A bit disgustingly leery. A pretentious, egocentric, condescending dork who pathetically wears his slightly above-average intelligence as some badge of honour. Kind of like this harry clown. I never thought much of him as a filmmaker either. Too much quasi-intellectual yapping, with Allen often inserting himself as some geeky sexual hero. Always left me with a slightly unpleasant taste, even in his better-regarded works.

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

Interesting - I never was a fan of Allen's, even though I probably more or less like about 2/3 of his filmography that I've seen, which is about 35 movies (there isn't really much to latch onto emotionally or whatever, as his preferred stage tends to be one populated by the New York cultural elite - the wealthy and the sophis 5b4 ticated moaning about the meaninglessness of life etc. In my estimation, he's made two masterpieces - Crimes & Misdemeanors and Radio Days), but all the same I don't really get that creepy vibe from him the way I do from Polanski, for instance. And in interviews at least (just watched one from 1999), Stiffy generally comes across rather relaxed and unassuming, certainly not pretentious or condescending... but that's me.

Btw in a sense it's sort of unfortunate even Harry's pathetic post is gone since the only person it made look bad, was the poor, hopelessly confused Harry himself.



facts are stupid things - Ronald Reagan

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

[Note: the troll called "derider84" has a long and documented history of abusing the 'rep 1c84 ort abuse' function on IMDB forums to delete any posts that might expose his psychosis; it would not be at all surprising if he is the lunatic who has been deleting my posts, as we will shortly ascertain ...]

Franzkabuki/derider84, you are both completely beyond the pale, paranoid crackpots immersed in a haze of booze-induced psychosis. We now witness you boasting on another thread about being violent alcoholics appropriating a public forum as if it were a private living space, becoming aggressive toward anyone questioning such odious displays, oblivious to how you have now publicly exposed yourselves. You are sick basket cases. Why don't you go for counselling before you turn into yet more Jack Torrances, and stop polluting these forums with your pathologically unhinged ravings?

***See, for instance, this thread at the IMDB forum for "Chopper":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2

Examples:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Franzkabuki: There was a peculiar period between 1998 and 2004 when I got to visit the place some 4-5 times. Mostly for a good reason of drunken misbehaviour (one time I started to drink beer from the shelf in a mall and proceeded to punch the security guard... fortunately, I have no personal memory of it), once for a funny reason (in short, cops suspected we were trying to break into a bank, from the basement, at night... while in reality we were just stuck in that bloody basement, trying to get out. Then suddenly electricity was switched off and in burst the police with flashlights and guns drawn) and once as an instance of gross injustice (I was attacked, for no apparent reason, by some Rooskie... then it developed into a fight in the middle of a crowded street during the rush hour... and then cops found 'I' was the main culprit, probably because I was sitting on top of the guy when they arrived and he lied that I'd assaulted him). Wasn't much fun. And unfortunately, there were occasions when I did get aggressive when drunk... although very, very drunk.
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2&d=2 33938389#233938389

Derider84: I'm back with a... hangover. Nasty. It was an eventful night at least! We got in a scuffle with some bouncers and everything. Two of the gorilla *beep* tackled me to the ground. The fat one kneed me in the back (probably by accident), and now I got like a continuous pins and needles sensation in my left hand. And I didn't even do anything! We were only trying to sneak into a bar over the back fence (or considering it - we were loitering by the back fence at any rate). They denied us entry through the front door and were very rude about it, so what were we to do? It was the only bar open in that part of town, and we were pretty damn determined to have those last couple of drinks...
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2&d=2 33734364#233734364
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Yes, of course I completely agree, but aren't you actually completely wrong?

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

Eh, my next post in that thread explains that I'm really a pussycat who's never even been in a slammer! Besides, who doesn't love an occasional bouncer scuffle? I'd like to scuffle you at the moment. I reckon I could take you.

And for the record, I haven't been reporting you, despite my earlier threat. As much as I'd like to annoy you, it's simply not my style. I did report the first version of that post because I found it unaccountably malicious and personally insulting, but I really don't care enough to keep doing it. You're a *beep* idiot. Not even worth reporting.

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On
5b4
These Filmmakers?

Yes, I would also like to fight Harry lol. And I'm afraid the day isn't long enough to acommodate e 16d0 veryone that would like to conduct a duel with this dork who's been cowering behind his computer screen and shamelessly frothing at the mouth for years.

It's hilarious though that this prissy pansy thinks that youthful - or less than youthful - exaggerations with drink & an occasional physical alteraction are such "exposing" anecdotes that heads will be hanged in damning shame and all IMDb, no - the whole wide world!, thinks of me poorly now. Lemme tellya though, 'arry-garry - stalking, trolling, smear campaigning, obfuscating and lying are considerably more despicable actions... and they're all part of your usual repertoir as means to distract people from the fact that you were hardly capable of offering a clearly articulated argument... or indeed had even anything of relevance to say before resorting to personal insults and typically bizarre ramblings. You're just about the sorest loser, and the biggest hypocrite, I've ever encountered. Qualities that no doubt stem from your overpowering inferiority complex that does not allow you to peacefully tolerate the slightest difference of opinion, no matter how trivial or inconsequential the disagreement.



facts are stupid things - Ronald Reagan

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

Note: the troll called "derider84" has a long and documented history of abusing the 'report abuse' function on IMDB forums to delete any posts that might expose his psychosis; it would not be at all surprising if he is the lunatic who has been deleting my posts, as we will shortly ascertain, as indeed we have ascertained ...]

Franzkabuki/derider84, you are both completely beyond the pale, paranoid crackpots immersed in a haze of booze-induced psychosis. We now witness you boasting on another thread about being violent alcoholics appropriating a public forum as if it were a private living space, becoming aggressive toward anyone questioning such odious displays, oblivious to how you have now publicly exposed yourselves. You are sick basket cases. Why don't you go for counselling before you turn into yet more Jack Torrances, and stop polluting these forums with your pathologically unhinged ravings?

***See, for instance, this thread at the IMDB forum for "Chopper":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2

Examples:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Franzkabuki: There was a peculiar period between 1998 and 2004 when I got to visit the place some 4-5 times. Mostly for a good reason of drunken misbehaviour (one time I started to drink beer from the shelf in a mall and proceeded to punch the security guard... fortunately, I have no personal memory of it), once for a funny reason (in short, cops suspected we were trying to break into a bank, from the basement, at night... while in reality we were just stuck in that bloody basement, trying to get out. Then suddenly electricity was switched off and in burst the police with flashlights and guns drawn) and once as an instance of gross injustice (I was attacked, for no apparent reason, by some Rooskie... then it developed into a fight in the middle of a crowded street during the rush hour... and then cops found 'I' was the main culprit, probably because I was sitting on top of the guy when they arrived and he lied that I'd assaulted him). Wasn't much fun. And unfortunately, there were occasions when I did get aggressive when drunk... although very, very drunk.
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2&d=233938389#233938389

Derider84: I'm back with a... hangover. Nasty. It was an eventful night at least! We got in a scuffle with some bouncers and everything. Two of the gorilla *beep* tackled me to the ground. The fat one kneed me in the back (probably by accident), and now I got like a continuous pins and needles sensation in my left hand. And I didn't even do anything! We were only trying to sneak into a bar over the back fence (or considering it - we were loitering by the back fence at any rate). They denied us entry through the front door and were very rude about it, so what were we to do? It was the only bar open in that part of town, and we were pretty damn determined to have those last couple of drinks...
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2&d=233734364#233734364
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes, of course I completely agree, but aren't you actually completely wrong?

Yes, of course I completely agree, but aren't you actually completely wrong?

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

derider, you are a lying evil scumbag, who has invaded this thread to maliciously delete my posts (the very same psychopathic practice you engae in elsewhere), to defend child abuse by gobshíte celebrities, and to deny your violent alcoholism. You are the very form of human parasite that Kubrick's films exposed. We are having you investigated ...

[Note: the troll called "derider84" has a long and documented history of abusing the 'report abuse' function on IMDB forums to delete any posts that might expose his psychosis; it would not be at all surprising if he is the lunatic who has been deleting my posts, as we will shortly ascertain, as indeed we have ascertained ...]

Franzkabuki/derider84, you are both completely beyond the pale, paranoid crackpots immersed in a haze of booze-induced psychosis. We now witness you boasting on another thread about being violent alcoholics appropriating a public forum as if it were a private living space, becoming aggressive toward anyone questioning such odious displays, oblivious to how you have now publicly exposed yourselves. You are sick basket cases. Why don't you go for counselling before you turn into yet more Jack Torrances, and stop polluting these forums with your pathologically unhinged ravings?

***See, for instance, this thread at the IMDB forum for "Chopper":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2

Examples:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Franzkabuki: There was a peculiar period between 1998 and 2004 when I got to visit the place some 4-5 times. Mostly for a good reason of drunken misbehaviour (one time I started to drink beer from the shelf in a mall and proceeded to punch the security guard... fortunately, I have no personal memory of it), once for a funny reason (in short, cops suspected we were trying to break into a bank, from the basement, at night... while in reality we were just stuck in that bloody basement, trying to get out. Then suddenly electricity was switched off and in burst the police with flashlights and guns drawn) and once as an instance of gross injustice (I was attacked, for no apparent reason, by some Rooskie... then it developed into a fight in the middle of a crowded street during the rush hour... and then cops found 'I' was the main culprit, probably because I was sitting on top of the guy when they arrived and he lied that I'd assaulted him). Wasn't much fun. And unfortunately, there were occasions when I did get aggressive when drunk... although very, very drunk.
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2&d=233938389#233938389

Derider84: I'm back with a... hangover. Nasty. It was an eventful night at least! We got in a scuffle with some bouncers and everything. Two of the gorilla *beep* tackled me to the ground. The fat one kneed me in the back (probably by accident), and now I got like a continuous pins and needles sensation in my left hand. And I didn't even do anything! We were only trying to sneak into a bar over the back fence (or considering it - we were 16d0 loitering by the back fence at any rate). They denied us entry through the front door and were very rude about it, so what were we to do? It was the only bar open in that part of town, and we were pretty damn determined to have those last couple of drinks...
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2&d=233734364#233734364
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes, of course I completely agree, but aren't you actually completely wrong?

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

derider, you are a lying evil scumbag, who has invaded this thread to maliciously delete my posts (the very same psychopathic practice you engage in elsewhere), to defend child abuse by gobshíte celebrities, and to deny your violent alcoholism. You are the very form of human parasite that Kubrick's films exposed. We are having you investigated ...

[Note: the troll called "derider84" has a long and documented history of abusing the 'report abuse' function on IMDB forums to delete any posts that might expose his psychosis; it would not be at all surprising if he is the lunatic who has been deleting my posts, as we will shortly ascertain, as indeed we have ascertained ...]

Franzkabuki/derider84, you are both completely beyond the pale, paranoid crackpots immersed in a haze of booze-induced psychosis. We now witness you boasting on another thread about being violent alcoholics appropriating a public forum as if it were a private living space, becoming aggressive toward anyone questioning such odious displays, oblivious to how you have now publicly exposed yourselves. You are sick basket cases. Why don't you go for counselling before you turn into yet more Jack Torrances, and stop polluting these forums with your pathologically unhinged ravings?

***See, for instance, this thread at the IMDB forum for "Chopper":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2

Examples:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Franzkabuki: There was a peculiar period between 1998 and 2004 when I got to visit the place some 4-5 times. Mostly for a good reason of drunken misbehaviour (one time I started to drink beer from the shelf in a mall and proceeded to punch the security guard... fortunately, I have no personal memory of it), once for a funny reason (in short, cops suspected we were trying to break into a bank, from the basement, at night... while in reality we were just stuck in that bloody basement, trying to get out. Then suddenly electricity was switched off and in burst the police with flashlights and guns drawn) and once as an instance of gross injustice (I was attacked, for no apparent reason, by some Rooskie... then it developed into a fight in the middle of a crowded street during the rush hour... and then cops found 'I' was the main culprit, probably because I was sitting on top of the guy when they arrived and he lied that I'd assaulted him). Wasn't much fun. And unfortunately, there were occasions when I did get aggressive when drunk... although very, very drunk.
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2&d=233938389#233938389

Derider84: I'm back with a... hangover. Nasty. It was an eventful night at least! We got in a scuffle with some bouncers and everything. Two of the gorilla *beep* tackled me to the ground. The fat one kneed me in the back (probably by accident), and now I got like a continuous pins and needles sensation in my left hand. And I didn't even do anything! We were only trying to sneak into 111c a bar over the back fence (or considering it - we were loitering by the back fence at any rate). They denied us entry through the front door and were very rude about it, so what were we to do? It was the only bar open in that part of town, and we were pretty damn determined to have those last couple of drinks...
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2&d=233734364#233734364
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes, of course I completely agree, but aren't you actually completely wrong?

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

he copes by smoking large amounts of garbage

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

""I'm referring to its actual meaning in the context in which you articulated it".

"No, you deliberately took it out of context, changed its place in the sentence structure, so you could completely misrepresent what I said and engage in some moaning for moaning's sake."

That is what you are now doing: misrepresenting what you actually said. And it is YOU (and some other posters here, especially the psychopath continually deleting my posts in order to legitimize the 'right' of corrupt celebrities they identify with to abuse children).


"Honesty is what I'm DEFENDING here".

"Yup - by constantly lying and distorting the issues at hand. Right on, man."

It is YOU who is distorting everything, seeking to legitimize rape and child abuse by obnoxious film celebrities.


"Seeking to deny Polanski did what he actually did".

"Where did I deny he f-cked Samantha Geimer? Don't forget to be real particular about pointing out that instance."

He DRUGGED, RAPED, and SODOMIZED A 13-TEAR-OLD CHILD. The real question you need to now ask yourself is: why are YOU defending such obscene behaviour, why are YOU denying all of this? What is the pathology, the twisted ideological condition, that you are suffering from that has you foolishly condoning such behaviour?


"[/I]It is rape irrespective of some imagined and manipulated will[/I]".

"So anal sex is an act of rape irrespective of the circumstance? Interesting."

Irrespective of IMAGINED circumstances, the ones YOU are so eager to imagine and fantasize about.


"Seeking to claim that because a filmmaker makes good films that therefore he is incapable of doing no wrong in his private life".

"Arguing with yourself and your precious strawmen again there, I see. Do you have to do it on IMDb though?"

But it is YOU (and other delusional buffoons here) who are doing precisely this, while OVER-IDENTIFYING with a FANTASY of a celebrity-other (particular filmmakers), a fantasy that now has you defending the 'right' of such celebrities to engage in obnoxious child abuse in their empirical, 'private' lives ...


"The child was not in a position of choice".

"That's debateable and would require knowledge of what kind of dynamic and atmosphere had developed between the two of them at that point."

It ISN'T 'debatable'. It is child abuse and YOU are utterly fúcked up to be defending such atrocious behaviour.



Yes, of course I completely agree, but aren't you actually completely wrong?

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

Since you have never met either of these directors b68 it is obvious that you have never witnessed any of these alleged acts. ergo, you are , as usual, writing gibberish.

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

The purpose of this thread was to find out if there was any continuity of opinion on these filmmakers amongst fans of Stanley Kubrick not to start a flame war over Roman Polanski and Woody Allen.

From on now there is a moratorium on discussing Roman Polanski's personal history. If you don't want to discuss your thoughts on these directors as FILMMAKERS , then go elsewhere.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

Harry my boy, why do you keep reposting the same thing over and over again? It only serves to annoy everyone, and makes you seem like a lunatic. Keep it up and you'll force me to start reporting you myself...

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

"why do you keep reposting the same thing over and over again?"

Because a lunatic is repeatedly deleting it, as already clearly pointed out in the post.

Yes, of course I completely agree, but aren't you actually completely wrong?

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

Yeah, I get that. What I don't understand is why you let it get to you so much, or what it is you think your flooding tactics will achieve. It's counter-productive in every way, since you keep giving your reporters endless satisfaction, as well as turning the neutrals against you. It really is very annoying to keep seeing the same post every time I click on the thread.

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

Why I Worked With Roman Polanski

I was sexually molested as an 8-year-old, I wrote a movie for Polanski, and I choose to believe Dylan Farrow.

By Rafael Yglesias (novelist and screenwriter; wrote the film script for Polanski's Death and the Maiden)

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2014/02/dylan_farrow_woo dy_allen_and_roman_polanski_why_i_chose_to_work_with_polanski.html

I worked for a man who raped a 13-year-old girl. I knew he had raped her, everyone knew he had raped her, and I was eager to get the job. I did not hesitate even though I had been sexually molested when I was 8 years old. I did not pause although I was still struggling from ongoing complications 30 years after an adult seducer had permanently interfered with my sexual development.

Roman Polanski was, and is, one of a handful of directors who have made movies that deserve to be called great works of art. In 1992, Warner Brothers asked me to adapt Ariel Dorfman’s play, Death and the Maiden, for Polanski to direct. The play is about a woman who has been raped and tortured. Paulina, the heroine, takes a man captive whom she believes was her rapist and torturer. The kidnapped man denies it vehemently and the drama, at least on the surface, is about whether she is right and whether she will kill him. I took less money than other jobs on offer to write this adaptation for Polanski. It was an opportunity that was too rewarding to my artistic aspirations as a writer, and a righteous refusal too vague in its benefits to society, for me to choose otherwise.


Working with a rapist is not the same as condoning rape.

Sexual assault, statutory rape, sexual abuse, and sexual molestation are clinical and legal terms that irritate me as a writer because they are vague and mislead the hearer. I used to say, when some part of me was still ashamed of what had been done to me, that I was “molested” because the man who played skillfully with my 8-year-old penis, who put it in his mouth, who put his lips on mine and tried to push his tongue in as deep as it would go, did not anally rape me. I assumed that if I said he had sexually a 111c ssaulted, raped, or abused me, my listeners would conclude that he had sodomized me, deepening my feelings of humiliation that at 8 years of age I had failed to crush every bone in his molesting hand in a Superman grip. Instead of delineating what he had done, I chose “molestation” hoping that would convey what had happened to me.

Of course it doesn’t. For listeners to appreciate and understand what I had endured, I needed to risk that they will gag or rush out of the room. I needed to be particular and clear as to the details so that when I say I was raped people will understand what I truly mean. I wasn’t physically forced or brutally violated. In fact—and this was what I was most profoundly ashamed of—my penis had reacted with pleasure when artfully stroked by an adult, the first time I was made conscious of the alert response the nerve endings there were capable of. It was 20 years after I was sexually misused before I understood what my molester had actually done to me: He had permanently associated my first experience of sexual pleasure with my having no say in the matter. That, I believe, is the true, human meaning of rape.

Naturally enough, when I first read Dylan Farrow’s letter alleging Woody Allen had sexually assaulted her, I thought she was making a mistake in not writing exactly what he had done. A practical mistake because detractors could—and did—point out that investigators had found no physical evidence of sexual abuse. I was sexually assaulted but there was no physical evidence.

I also thought she was making a mistake of credibility. Woody Allen is one of the world’s greatest directors. He is especially beloved by my generation, a generation that is sentimental about the importance of movies and is justly proud of Woody Allen’s films as the finest America has produced. For people who have been lucky enough not to have been sexually misused when they were children, there is a world of difference between summoning an image of a beloved artist yanking apart the legs of a 7-year-old girl and shoving his penis in her anus or vagina as compared to visualizing a charming, seductive man fondling a child’s buttocks or vagina. Either way, Dylan Farrow would have been sexually assaulted, but focusing on what she experienced clearly and in detail would affect how her allegations are perceived and would be fairer to the accused. Only those who have experienced it can readily understand how a man in a position of authority whom a child wants to please—I hope everyone can agree that an adopted father qualifies—could progress over a period of time from a child’s desire for hugs to snuggling in bed, to rubbing her nipples, buttocks, genitalia without the demarcation being as clear to a 7-year-old as it would be to a psychiatrist, a police investigator, or a movie critic. Under the almost absolute sway adults have over children, even penetration does not require the physical violence implied by the word assault.

A nanny allegedly testified that Dylan at age 7 had to be coaxed over a period of days to talk about being abused. I was one year older when I was molested. I never told anyone what had happened. I would have been mortified if anyone attempted to get me to say what had been done—I didn’t even have the vocabulary to do so—and would have done my best to deny it. A few weeks after I was molested the first time, the same man, using his seductive, insinuating technique, molested a friend of mine while I was present and then molested me as well in front of him. We never discussed what had happened with each other. The man who molested me was not a relative, not a stepparent, not an adopted father, not a priest, not a teacher. He had no position of authority over me. I had a friend who presumably would have backed me up. Yet I never considered telling anyone, most of all my parents. If they had somehow gotten wind of it and confronted me I would have reacted like a guilty party and tried to hide it. I barely knew this man, but he was an adult, and I believed him when he told me I liked what he was doing and I had somehow invited it.

Some have made much of the fact that investigators and psychiatrists at the time declared Dylan to be disturbed. A few months after I was sexually misused at age 8, I burned my room down. 2000 My parents’ apartment was trashed by firefighters containing the fire. Two years after my friend and I were molested, we stopped speaking. At 14 I was drinking, smoking grass and hash, and cut half a year of eighth grade. By 15 I had dropped out of high school and run away from home. If you had asked me at the time whether my behavior had anything to do with being molested—which you couldn’t have known to ask since I had told no one—I would have been infuriated. Anyone observing me would have said I was disturbed. I was disturbed. I had been robbed of the ability to know my own desires, to trust that someone who showed me affection wasn’t going to lead me somewhere I did not want to go. I was burdened with a secret that I denied was important and that I dreaded anyone knowing.


Do I think it’s possible, as Woody Allen claims, that a vengeful Mia Farrow coaxed and seduced a child who wanted to please her into making false accusations? Yes. It is also easy for me to believe that a self-involved genius might decide his love for a child should be expressed sexually. Both could be true at once. Do I think it’s possible that over the years Dylan Farrow has conflated false memories into believing them since the alternative, admitting to herself it was a lie, is too devastating to confess? Yes, but less so than the other alternatives. Today Dylan is volunteering, as an adult, to be attacked and humiliated by a famous beloved man and his millions of fans. For Dylan to be lying now she would have to be much more than a child of divorce eager to please her vengeful mother. For her to be lying as an adult she would have to have lost contact with reality.


Twenty years after I was molested, I was 28, the same age as Dylan is now. My life had, through considerable effort, stabilized. I had a thriving career, I was married, and I was a father. I had every reason to be happy. I wasn’t. I had told my wife what had happened to me. I had told a few of my closest friends. I had no idea what the man who molested me was up to and I made no effort to find out — I am ashamed of my passivity in this regard to this day. The man who molested me was not famous. I did not have to regularly read of his success. I did not have to endure that every talented person I admired was eager to work with him. There were no laudatory documentaries that ignored my fate at his hands. I did not have to watch him being honored on national television. And yet, 20 years after I was molested the memories of what had happened, my resentment and grief over what it had cost me, came flooding back. In my case, it is impossible that these memories were implanted.

When I finally went to a therapist and told her, she didn’t linger over the details or attempt to discover if there were any memories I couldn’t consciously recall. She concentrated on encouraging me to understand that no 8-year-old is responsible for the actions of an adult. In my 40s, when I told my parents what had happened, neither wanted to coax details from me or linger on its effects. Neither did my wife or my friends. People felt sad for me, wanted me to feel better, but no one cared to discuss it at any length other than to loudly express revulsion and pity—and profound incomprehension that any adult could behave like this. They liked to use words like "monster" to describe him. I can’t help but wonder if they would have believed me so readily and condemned him so ferociously if he had also made some of their favorite movies. Ah. There’s a lie from me. I don’t wonder. I know some doubt would creep in.

I am not an expert in child sexual misuse. I am not a prosecutor. I am not a trier of fact. I have not heard all the evidence I would need to in order to feel legally confident of this judgment: I believe that Woody Allen, at the very least, behaved in a way that was manipulative and seductive toward Dylan Farrow and touched her in a way that I consider to be a sexual assault. Who cares what I think? No one. And that is the way it should be. Woody Allen is under no legal or financial threat. The statute of limitations has run out. His movies will continue to be made, watched, and honored. My choosing between the likelihood of whether 28-year-old Dylan Farrow is a deeply disturbed victim of false memories implanted by a vengeful woman, or a victim of an entitled, narcissistic man who was unable to control his desire to seduce and bully a child has no real consequence. I choose to believe Dylan Farrow.

I do not, however, share Dylan’s extension of the responsibility for punishing Woody Allen to filmmakers. Actors, writers, and producers are not cops, judges, or jurors. In the work they choose to do, writers, actors, producers, and directors can be held accountable solely for its quality and its ideas.

When I first spoke to Roman Polanski about writing an adaptation for him of Death and the Maiden, I told him I would only write it if we could make two significant alterations. In the play, Paulina never says exactly what was done to her and she is never able to prove to her husband, the one person in the play who doesn’t know whether she is right, that she has correctly identified her rapist. I told Polanski that Paulina would want to tell her husband precisely what had happened to her and now would be the occasion for her to be detailed about her rape. “Of course,” Polanski said. “She should say what he did to her.” The second change I wanted to make was to write a final, truthful confession by the rapist, confirming that Paulina had correctly identified him. The play had been praised for its “ambiguity” in this regard. I told Polanski I thought that given the heroine’s final act, letting her rapist go, ambiguity made her mercy meaningless. Also, I said, it was a cheat. The rapist and the heroine know the truth—why are we deprived of it? “Of course,” Polanski said. “Not telling the audience whether or not he is guilty is *beep* Working with a rapist is not the same as condoning rape.

I do, however, wholeheartedly agree with Dylan Farrow that I should not honor a man’s so-called life achievement because I enjoy his movies. By his own account of himself, Woody Allen is not an example of an admirable life, including when it comes to the thematic content of his films. “The heart wants what it wants,” he is fond of stating. As all who have been raped, sexually assaulted, abused, and molested know, the heart’s desire is not always admirable


Yes, of course I completely agree, but aren't you actually completely wrong?

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

derider, you are a lying evil scumbag, who has invaded this thread to maliciously delete my posts (the very same psychopathic practice you engae in elsewhere), to defend child abuse by gobshíte celebrities, and to deny your violent alcoholism. You are the very form of human parasite that Kubrick's films exposed. We are having you investigated ...

[Note: the troll called "derider84" has a long and documented history of abusing the 'report abuse' function on IMDB forums to delete any posts that might expose his psychosis; it would not be at all surprising if he is the lunatic who has been deleting my posts, as we will shortly ascertain, as indeed we have ascertained ...]

Franzkabuki/derider84, you are both completely beyond the pale, paranoid crackpots immersed in a haze of booze-induced psychosis. We now witness you boasting on another thread about being violent alcoholics appropriating a public forum as if it were a private living space, becoming aggressive toward anyone questioning such odious displays, oblivious to how you have now publicly exposed yourselves. You are sick basket cases. Why don't you go for counselling before you turn into yet more Jack Torrances, and stop polluting these forums with your pathologically unhinged ravings?

***See, for instance, this thread at the IMDB forum for "Chopper":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2

Examples:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Franzkabuki: There was a peculiar period between 1998 and 2004 when I got to visit the place some 4-5 times. Mostly for a good reason of drunken misbehaviour (one time I started to drink beer from the shelf in a mall and proceeded to punch the security guard... fortunately, I have no personal memory of it), once for a funny reason (in short, cops suspected we were trying to break into a bank, from the basement, at night... while in reality we were just stuck in that bloody basement, trying to get out. Then suddenly electricity was switched off and in burst the police with flashlights and guns drawn) and once as an instance of gross injustice (I was attacked, for no apparent reason, by some Rooskie... then it developed into a fight in the middle of a crowded street during the rush hour... and then cops found 'I' was the main culprit, probably because I was sitting on top of the guy when they arrived and he lied that I'd assaulted him). Wasn't much fun. And unfortunately, there were occasions when I did get aggressive when drunk... although very, very drunk.
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2&d=233938389#233938389

Derider84: I'm back with a... hangover. Nasty. It was an eventful night at least! We 1c84 got in a scuffle with some bouncers and everything. Two of the gorilla *beep* tackled me to the ground. The fat one kneed me in the back (probably by accident), and now I got like a continuous pins and needles sensation in my left hand. And I didn't even do anything! We were only trying to sneak into a bar over the back fence (or considering it - we were loitering by the back fence at any rate). They denied us entry through the front door and were very rude about it, so what were we to do? It was the only bar open in that part of town, and we were pretty damn determined to have those last couple of drinks...
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2&d=233734364#233734364
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes, of course I completely agree, but aren't you actually completely wrong?

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

derider, you are a lying evil scumbag, who has invaded this thread to maliciously delete my posts (the very same psychopathic practice you engae in elsewhere), to defend child abuse by gobshíte celebrities, and to deny your violent alcoholism. You are the very form of human parasite that Kubrick's films exposed. We are having you investigated ...

[Note: the troll called "derider84" has a long and documented history of abusing the 'report abuse' function on IMDB forums to delete any posts that might expose his psychosis; it would not be at all surprising if he is the lunatic who has been deleting my posts, as we will shortly ascertain, as indeed we have ascertained ...]

Franzkabuki/derider84, you are both completely beyond the pale, paranoid crackpots immersed in a haze of booze-induced psychosis. We now witness you boasting on another thread about being violent alcoholics appropriating a public forum as if it were a private living space, becoming aggressive toward anyone questioning such odious displays, oblivious to how you have now publicly exposed yourselves. You are sick basket cases. Why don't you go for counselling before you turn into yet more Jack Torrances, and stop polluting these forums with your pathologically unhinged ravings?

***See, for instance, this thread at the IMDB forum for "Chopper":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2

Examples:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Franzkabuki: There was a peculiar period between 1998 and 2004 when I got to visit the place some 4-5 times. Mostly for a good reason of drunken misbehaviour (one time I started to drink beer from the shelf in a mall and proceeded to punch the security guard... fortunately, I have no personal memory of it), once for a funny reason (in short, cops suspected we were trying to break into a bank, from the basement, at night... while in reality we were just stuck in that bloody basement, trying to get out. Then suddenly electricity was switched off and in burst the police with flashlights and guns drawn) and once as an instance of gross injustice (I was attacked, for no apparent reason, by some Rooskie... then it developed into a fight in the middle of a crowded street during the rush hour... and then cops found 'I' was the main culprit, probably because I was sitting on top of the guy when they arrived and he lied that I'd assaulted him). Wasn't much fun. And unfortunately, there were occasions when I did get aggressive when drunk... although very, very drunk.
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2&d=233938389#233938389

Derider84: I'm back with a... hangover. Nasty. It was an eventful night at least! We got in a scuffle with some bouncers and everything. Two of the gorilla *beep* tackled me to the ground. The fat one kneed me in the back (probably by accident), and now I got like a continuous pins and needles sensation in my left hand. And I didn't even do anything! We were only trying to sneak into a bar over the back fence (or considering it - we were loitering by the back fence at any rate). They denied us entry through the front door and were very rude about it, so what were we to do? It was the only bar open in that part of town, and we were pretty damn determined to have those last couple of drinks...
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221073/board/thread/138375851?p=2&d=233734364#233734364
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes, of course I completely agree, but aren't you actually completely wrong?

Re: Kubrick Fans, What Are Your Thoughts On These Filmmakers?

"The purpose of this thread was to find out if there was any continuity of opinion on these filmmakers amongst fans of Stanley Kubrick not to start a flame war over Roman Polanski and Woody Allen."

There is no 'flame war'; you are being neurotic. A poster made claims about these two filmmakers which were quite startling and disturbing. It is perfectly reasonable and more to challenge such remarks, which were completely beyond the pale (I note that some troll is now attempting to have my previous post maliciously deleted by abusing the "report abuse" function, and that equally devious attempts have just been made to delete this post. No deal).

"From on now there is a moratorium on discussing Roman Polanski's personal history."

It ISN'T a 'personal' matter, but a PUBLIC matter. Trying to censor such discussion is obscene, is tantamount to a passive endorsement of such behaviour.

"If you don't want to discuss your thoughts on these directors as FILMMAKERS , then go elsewhere."

If you are here purely to censor legitimate discussion on important topics, then I strongly suggest you need to desist and go elsewhere. You started an OFF-TOPIC thread purely to parade your fave filmmakers, and now are demanding that those who question any aspect of these people to "go elsewhere"? You are now a troll demanding that long-standing posters here who have had numerous on-topic posts to go elsewhere?

PÍSS OFF.

The responses on this thread are truly bizarre, obscene, and deeply disturbing, and indicate a chronic ignorance of the world.

[ADDENDUM: it should now be quite obvious who is abusing IMDB by using assorted fake IDs to falsely 'report' to a blind computer programme in order to delete posts. In the context of this thread, it is very disturbing, and reveals just how screwed up these looney trolls actually are].



Yes, of course I completely agree, but aren't you actually completely wrong?

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.
Top