Roman Polanski, Lolita, Humbert, life and art
There is literature. There are films. There are other artistic forms and creations.
There is life and there are real life events. Life may not be fair or unfair but human world is always filled with hypocrisy. There is one thing that remains unchanged in any era and that is hypocrisy.
Events happen in real life and people react almost in a certain way defined, described and decided by their respective conditionings. Writers and artists devote time and energy in analyzing the things and bring out different aspects of an event or of an entire era or a particular person and then some people get to see the things with a different perspective also.
Real life events are often seen with specs of morality on the eyes of mind but literature and other art forms give an opportunity to look something deeper in an event. A proper reasoning and a logical analysis help in looking beyond the surface of the happening.
Thousand of people will shout unanimously that accused of killing many people and especially children should be hanged or killed immediately. But if a certain John Ajvide Lindqvist writes a novel where a 12 year old kid develops a relationship with a vampire and a certain Alfredson makes a film on the book then people clap that what a film he has made!
If a newspaper publishes a report that when policemen entered the room, they found killer/s licking the blood of killed people from their bodies or from the floor or two of the killers were kissing each other while blood of the murdered people was still dripping out of their mouths then readers will throw out whatever they have eaten before starting the reading but writers, filmmakers and artists have this special talent that their creations come before the audience in such a way that they digest the depiction of most brutal happenings of the human history.
If a certain Eli is living in one’s neighbor and she is making people of that area her victims because she needs human blood to survive then people will shout for her killing. What we human do with the animals, started eating human beings? We kill them.
Audience will simply say wow, watching Oskar carrying Eli in a carton in a train and communicating by tapping the carton from outside and inside.
But other reality is hidden behind this act, wherever they go, Eli needs human blood to survive. Will Oskar become what Håkan had become for the sake of survival of Eli? Will he also kill people to bring blood for Eli?
What about the families of the people who are killed by Eli or by Håkan for the sake of survival of Eli?
At one place Eli says to Oskar that he may kill others for the sake of revenge or some other reasons and she has to kill the people because it is her need.
What societies everywhere in the world will do with cannibals?
An aghori may love another human being and can die for him/her but normally people will not approve of the existence of an aghori in their vicinity.
People will react differently to a case like Nithari case. If it is established that one person did all those killings for the love towards other person who needed human blood, for any reason, then what people will do? They still will demand capital punishment for the killers.
But if a book is based on the event or a film is made on the happening then creators may try to bring some different perspectives in to the light and they may present the things in such a way that people may not hate the killers in a way as they do in real life.
Art creates a gap, a kind of neutral space through which events come to the receiver in a way that is different than the way in which real life events come to the people. Artistic expressions don’t carry events directly to the minds of the receivers and some transparent filters create a time gap and then it becomes easy to see a thing from all possible angles.
Artists go beyond the pure and spontaneous condemnation. If they don’t analyze the things and they don’t meditate upon the events and happenings in a micro manner then great creations can not be created.
Since 5 decades or so, different people have been having different takes on Vladimir Nabokov’s masterpiece novel Lolita. It is a book but still different people have different understanding about the same plot, same characters and same happenings described in the book. For some it is a straight case of a pedophile Humbert. For some deeper meanings come into the existence when they go with the author’s description of relationship between young boy Humbert and his first love Annabel, sexual relationship between Lolita and Charlie at summer camp before Humbert enters her or her mother’s life, relationship between Lolita and Quilty, a defined pedophile and maker of porno films.
Nobakov’s novel has explored the complex behaviour of human beings and things can not simply be taken at the face value there. Layers have to be removed to understand a character in a complete manner.
Neither great director Stanley Kubrick (Lolita- 1962) nor Adrian Lyne (Lolita- 1997) could catch the right spirit of the book in their respective cinematic adaptations of the book. There are moments in both the films which may look like justified adaptations of a classic book but overall films are way too lower in quality and rather they can be said as unsuccessful attempts to incarnate the book on the screen.
To read about the relationship between a girl of 12-14 and an adult man is different than watching the relationship on the screen.
This is one case where cinema like medium is lagging behind the real life’s events. Reading about these things may give imagination a fuel but watching does not seem justified.
Images make a direct impact on the viewer which is not the case with the readers of a book.
On psychological level, there is some similarity between the case of famous director Roman Polanski and case of Humbert of Nobakov’s book Lolita. If life allows him then perhaps Roman Polanski may make a suitable film on Lolita. Constantly living with the fear of arrest for the last 32 years he is not in different situations in which Humbert was living in prison where he created the book.
Different people may have different take on this event also.
Different societies have been defining different age limits after which it is legal to be involved in sex. And this definition has been changing from an era to era.
There have been existing people and they still are good in numbers, who think that having sex with 12-15 years old virgins will improve their sexual power.
Law is blind but often it has been seen that law of a land is not completely impartial. It is always partial and often its judgments don’t throw proper light on the events.
Whatever praises Michael Jackson’s name has been collecting Posthumously but he was isolated by his friends in his last years and he was collectively condemned by the people and law authorities. We don’t know if he was really guilty of charges imposed on him but now many celebrities have been regretting in public that they left him and he was such a nice soul etc etc. Perhaps this is just a selfish attempt to earn some place in the minds of millions of fans of Michael Jackson living everywhere in the world. His fans have regained the faith in him after his sudden death.
Now when somebody will write a book on him by doing a deep analysis of his life, he may try to bring in logical reasoning that it was not such a difficult thing to prove whether he was a pedophile or not and whether he exploited others of he was a victim of greedy people’s greed or it was a mixture of both? But truth of the present time is this only that his case was not solved with clarity and allegations against him made things worse for him and his career.
Roman Polanski may be treated by US law in any manner. Maybe he gets an acquittal or maybe he is punished.
Only later authors will try to look at his life with a different reasoning. Law will see that he had sex with a minor and most of the people will follow this thinking only. It is real life but literature will try to cover every aspect associated with the case of Roman Polanski and the concerned girl (Now an adult woman of 45).
Law will consider that girl was a minor in 1977 but it may not consider that Roman Polanski is a 76 years old man in 2009.
He was charged and arrested in 1977 and was given a 40-45 days psychiatric treatment in the prison. Upon release he fled to France. He might have consulted his legal counsel before doing so because he was not a defined criminal like Charles Shobhraj who was going to operate his activities (Crimes in CS’s case) by hiding his identity from the people.
He lives in France and it looks unlikely that two important members of power group of United Nations don’t share an extradition treaty. An arrest warrant was issued in 2005 but he was not arrested for 4 good years.
Like Humbert of Lolita, Roman Polanski also has been saying that the concerned girl already had sexual experience/s.
Roman Polanski has been maintaining that girl had given her consent for their physical intimacy. Technically their physical intercourse has been termed as a rape because girl was a minor then. Even if the girl says that she had given the consent, law will punish Roman Polanski.
If Roman Polanski’s life becomes a subject for authors then many questions can be handled by them while writing on this particular case.
Media is helping Roman Polanski because he is a famous artist? Or it is other way round that his case has been earning more ill fame for him because he is a celebrity?
As per the media reports girl had admitted that she already had sex twice before that night when Roman Polanski had sex with her. Will other guys who had sex with this minor girl be searched and punished?
How it can be proved that she did not have any prior experience of using drugs and Roman Polanski forced her to take drugs?
What has been the impact of that one sexual encounter with Roman Polanski on the life of the girl?
And what impact will fall upon her when case has been reopened again?
What was the minimum age for a girl to have sex in France and Poland in 1977?
Other countries allowed sex at relatively lesser age or not in 1977?
Has Roman Polanski repeated such mistake again after 1977? Other than this single incident, has he been a pedophile ever in his life before and after 1977?
This incident had happened at the house of Jack Nicholson. Was he grilled by the law authorities that how drugs were used at his house? How a rape occurred at his house?
If Roman Polanski has been a criminal (at least an accused of a crime) for the law of USA for last 32 years why he was not arrested before all these years? His address was well known to the authorities.
Why authorities did not stop American actors like Harrison Ford and Johnny Depp etc to work in his films?
How Oscar committee approved the nomination of his films?
How he won an oscar for his film?
Funny incidences appear in the life. Many of the hollywood female stars and models and celebrities (showbiz) have been revealing that they lost virginity while they were still minors. Will they be punished now? Will the men, who were their partners in this game of losing their virginities, be searched and punished now?
After all if law of the land has to be maintained then such cases should also be opened. Only difference is this only that these celebrities lost their virginities on their own and law could not know it at a proper time.
Today a large number of people may see things from a single point of view only and that is the legal point of view but when Roman Polanski will not be here anymore then same crowd will start searching different meanings in his life story.
Writers will start analyzing his life history in a different way and people will have more sympathy towards him.
That is the difference between present and the past.
People may react in a certain way towards Roman Polanski’s real life incident but they may react totally in a different manner if his story is described by an artist.
That is the difference between life and art.
Tags: Adrian Lyne, Alfredson, Bill Clinton, Charles Shobhraj, Humbert, Jack Nicholson, James Mason, John Ajvide Lindqvist, Johnny Depp. Harrison Ford, Let the right one in, Lolita, Michael jackson, Oscar, roman polanski, Stanley Kubrick, Vladimir Nabokov
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Verma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
Polanski lives…he dies…but some truths will never be known…n not all are ignorant @ this fact….writers changing stance is only natural – in death this is what they presume works…..not all but still…MJ died…world sympathized, but was he a child abuser….we’ll never kno….
@Arthi,
Artists may not change the stance but when they go deeper into any event they are bound to be liberal as various other aspects come into the light which they had not considered before.
…
Was not so difficult either in this era to know for certain whether MJ was a pedophile or not as charged by few people.
What about parents sending their kids to Neverland, after coming across such a news very first time. Who will send their kids at such a dubious place?
Oscar Wilde missed it when he said, “Life imitates art far more than art imitates life.”
It should be opposite.
@Jahanpanah,
There should be a context and Oscar Wilde’s saying would fit within the boundaries of that context. Events just happen in their purity and there could be a human preparation behind the occurance of any event but event itself is a pure phenomenon, after happening an event is just there. Art may start with a lie to interpret that event but it may help in bringing out a touching truth about that event.
ART and LIFE may play the game of Tu Daal Daal mein paat paat.
There can be found few thousands quotations regarding the relationship between art and life and within their context most of them may appeal but none can be there which represents this relationship in the most truthful manner.
Afterall Art is just a medium and it exists within the boundaries while life is very vast and unpredictable.
I guess in other way, nothing is absolute, everything is relative, dependent upon situations etc.
.
Art has boundaries? How come? You can explore vast possibilities, situations or create those things in art which are not possible in real life.
I see it this way that life provides raw material to the art to develop a product. The type of raw material changes in every era and time and hence art also changes.
yea, life is vast and unpredictable and hence the availability of raw material is in abundance but art can definitely transcend them.
Correct me if I’m wrong. :-/
Art is dependent on imagination, observation and understanding and hence it acts within the boundaries. A painting exists inside a frame. a story is having a structure. Life is beyond this framing. Few predictions can be made but it can not be defined entirely.
If a painter has to imagine and paint all possible kinds of stones then he will be tired after a certain stage but after all the painters of whole world are tired and have depicted all possible shapes, sizes, forms of the stones on paper, entirely different looking stones can be found in the river because flow of water is not bothered about what kind of shape and friction it is giving to the stone and stone is also not bothered what it is getting from water and it may change its position millions of times.
Observation and imagination can help an artist to go deeper into anything but it still is not beyond the reach of life. It is still part of the life. Life is allowing something hence this imagination. That is why many things are dependent on the collective growth of an era. Because beyond that it is not possible for a contemporary person. Next generation may go for higher side of imagination and it is also true that if a certain knowledge has become obsolete in an era then contemporary people have to be satisfied with lower degree of imagination in that particular area and in that era as they have to start afresh.
Okay. I guess it proves the very point that is vice versa of OW’s quote.
Art is stuck in the boundaries because of the limitations of the creators or other physical things and these boundaries and limitations come from life.
I guess, when people say that the epics like Mahabharatha and Ramayana are not written by human, they mean it because they transcend the boundaries of the art, i.e. the limitation of human imagination.
We can not say that only vice versa is true and OW’s saying is not. As mentioned in some earlier comment, his quotation might have belonged to some context.
First inspiration for any art form may come from life itself but after this art form attains a stage which is above the average understanding and taste of people then it starts refining the taste and thus way of living the life. Their understanding is enriched and improved by the art.
…
First world war, second world war and difficult time in Europe between these two wars might have affected Picasso’s understanding and instinct and hence many of his paintings are depiction of some of darkest shades possible for human mind. Real life affected his artistic ways in this manner also.
Now watchers of present era may or may not get affected by his paintings describing disgusting things associated with humanbeing, it depends on their receptive power and understanding of painting like art form. But words of an artist may affect easily.
Manto and his writing, both were affected by partition and riots and it is reflected in his stories.
Now a reader may be affected by reading bitter truth in his writings and his life may be enriched. Here it becomes a cycle and framneted part of life and art revolve in a circle but overall everything is happening in the life and things are not beyond the life.
and It is also such a vast field that almost every saying will present some part of truth but none will be able to present everything.
If life is a forest where all kind of diversity is happening on its own then Art can create a decorated garden which may look far beautiful than naturally created forest because things are following a defined pattern but still man has to do efforts to craete this decorated garden. That unpredicatble diversity can not be developed here or can not exist here.
Moreover art is heavily dependent on the language and not all expressions can be defined and described by using words present in a language. Even in practical things of daily life Few languages are more or less developed than other languages.
Aunt of English gets proper division and a defined expression in Bua, Mausi etc in Hindi same is true with Uncle (Chacha, Mama Phupha etc), Grandfather (Dada nana etc).
So it can be said that artistic creations done through a language were limited by the language itself. Hence boundary came in the very begining.
We are amazed by some natural happening and we say wah or wow or whatever but in reality our degree of amazement is different everytime but we dont have words to describe that feeling. We know the limitation.
feelings can not be measured (like temperature by a therometer) and art is about human feelings and emotions.
Ramayana and Mahabharata: Since they are understood as tales of two incarnations of Lord Vishnu in two different eras so they are taken with divine aura.
In ordinary sense also, because authors have not been able to create anything which may compete with Ramayana and Mahabharata and which could transcend the boundaries of centuries so these things have to be mentioned.
More than Ramayana Mahabharata tale presents the psychological possibilities of human mind. Everything is there and humanbeing has not been able to break the tilism of Mahabharata and it has not been able to claim that he has surpassed the feelings described there through its characters.
People may not read them anymore but they are familiar with the tales. and authors take help of these epics time and again to create something of their own.
There are many things which are not created by man by doing efforts but they have occured to his mind. Poetry is one such example that there are moments when poet does not write by doing efforts but he gets up in the morning and words start falling on the nucleus of the mind and in a true rhytmic manner. Now call it specialization of subconscious or something like that but it happens and it should happen to artists of every field.
As they say for Holy Koran that it simply descended on Prophet Mohd. and he did not write it.
Now something in such cases is valid for humanbeing existing in any era because everybody has to pass through same kind of emotions and feelings in any and every era and something may be related with the people of that era only.
When people were very god fearing then it was valid for knowlegeable people to invent ideas that God exists in trees and everything becuase that was sufficient for people of that era not to destroy the bio diversity but today’s generation will not fall for such ideas as they dont have this idea of God controlling their life. We in present era know that life exists in tree also and we know the importance of bio diversity also but we are unable to stop the destruction. We need some great artists (they can be scientists also) to develop something which may make us mending our ways all over the world.
May be present time creates its own Mahabharata, Upanishad etc.
Okay. It didn’t give me enough food for thought to continue this discussion here because I too had the likewise ideas floating. It did help them to crystallize though.
Also, one thing
I recall when I was commenting, I had JRR Tolkien and some science fiction stuffs in mind so I had that state of mind that art is beyond limitations.
.
Isn’t this again makes everything relative to the context of art.
Tu daal daal main paat paat waali baat
R.K., I am strong mind that paedophile is criminal, how strongly you protect him under the veil of art or life. Events happen in real life and society is always responsible for petty thefy to hedonious crime. Your point of ‘Lolita’ is interesting, because it was more case of consent than dissent in it. Regarding — How it can be proved that she did not have any prior experience of using drugs and Roman Polanski forced her to take drugs?. May begirl having prior experince of using drigs, but Roman Polanski was full grown adult understanding the situtaion. I don’t have enough reasons and you can outwit me easily but its necessary for each of us to voice what they believe. You can read Grand Jury Testimony in this case:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib1.html
Who is defending whom? Like always this post too has neutral POV.
@Yayavar,
You are missing the point as far as Art and life perspective is concerned.
..
Your reaction is rather proving that thing only. Lolita angle is interesting for you as it is a distant thing, happened in the book, while RP’s case is associated with real life for you hence it has to be seen with different eyes and here flexibilities can not be given to the attitude or judgment.
…
It is immaterial as far as this post is concerned but if you are interested in this particular case then there can be many other aspects. Following the case may bring some change in your today’s somewhat rigid stand.
Without arguing the fact that Polanski is an unparalleled filmmaker there is no solid reason not to judge him for what he has done to a 13 year old kid. Whether or not the girl had prior sexual experience is immaterial. It is indeed shameful to even raise these issues. The fact still stands that Polanski inflicted multiple sexual advances to a 13 year old girl/kid and administered a drug to her while doing so, under the pretense of doing a photo shoot and getting the girl’s chaperon out of their way.
And that should not be condoned, Polanski or no Polanski. To view this incident from the perspective of the kinds of films he has produced, takes away the basic rights of any individual, and this standpoint could be used in arguing and giving limitless sexual liberties to any person who contributes to the society in the fields of art/cinema/justice at al.
Any sexual interaction without the consent of the person is called rape. Whether the girl takes drugs, and who is the person doing them are completely irrelevant issues. If this happened to any person we knew, to our family folks and if the perpetrator has been Shakti Kapoor (for example, NOM) or any other person then probably we wouldn’t be writing blogs about them, arguing against the victim.
But the fact remains the same, while our viewpoint gets different.
@idle-labour,
“RP commited a crime, but Law of USA could not punish him at that time. That is one legal fact.”
But like many other complicated matters this is also not a simple matter which can be defined in such a black and white manner.
Your firebrand reaction is worth appreciation. You are very right that (Any sexual interaction without the consent of the person is called rape) even if woman is a sex worker, if she is forced to make physical relationship it is a rape.
…
What do you think, why Girl’s mother and lawyer did not charge Roman Polanski for a rape on the girl but they charged him for “Unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor”?
…
Being a woman, would you allow a minor girl/model to go alone with an adult man/director where he is going to shoot a photo session with the girl and there is no guardian with her?
…
You seem to be unaware of any kind of book covering legal matters specially rape cases, that is why you can think that rasing questions can be shameful.
Defence lawyer of RP is bound to ask her many difficult questions. Her prior experience (Drug use and sexual experience) would act as a base for the lawyer.
…
Even law gives a chance to the accused to present his defense. accused’s motive and background etc, everything is considered.
Court differentiates between murder and murder. A person commits a crime under the heat of some moments or situations provoke him to do something wrong and this case is seen differently than the crimes done by professional and habitual criminals.
When you are covering the topic 32 years after then you may have a chance to consider the case from all sides. No discussion is going to affect RP or that girl.
As per the court’s orders RP was evaluated by psychologists.
If you are so interested then you should study all the things associated with this case.
You may be interested in watching a documentary also devoted to this case
“Roman Polanski: Wanted and desired” screened first time at Sundance festival in 2008. It has been screened at HBO also.
“But like many other complicated matters this is also not simply matter which can be defined in such a black and white manner.”
Please do let me know why. Was it not rape?
You have provided the example of murder. That each murder is different and that circumstances are taken into account when judging them. I reckon that. But you see, you’ve tweaked the analogy. The circumstances are taken into account to see the “intent of murder” and how much of it was based on cold-blooded murder and how much of it was done in self-defence (if at all) and how far was it on spur-of-the-moment. Only in case of extensive pre-planned murder, the “intent to murder” makes a bit of a difference in IPC (and in RP case we are talking about American law which is a different ballgame, pun not intended), as far as punishment is concerned. I have been a student of criminology and this argument is indeed interesting.
So you are saying this is not black or white, and we should think about the circumstance, which has a bearing on the “rape” or “intent to rape”. If we consider for the sake of the argument that Polanski did not want to rape that minor, then we have two possibilities:
1. The minor seduced him.
2. Polanski was pushed by ghosts and told by God to rape her.
In the first case, as much as seduction by a 13 year old girl could be tempting to any male, the onus of responsibility is always on the person with the penis whether or not to penetrate the girl. Especially so, when the girl is a minor. Sex with a minor, consensual or not is a crime, both in the US and IPC. I hope you are aware of that.
In the second case, God knows better.
Now, what else circumstantial evidence do we have? And mind you, these have been provided and placed in court so please don’t come up with your doubtful sentences like “who knows?” The media knows and the court knows and you and me should know better than this.
So about the circumstantial evidence; It has been evidenced that:
a) Polanski actually did away with the chaperone, the girl’s friend who was supposed to come with her. So Girl’s Mom actually had no idea that the girl was alone with Mr Roman Polanski.
b) Polanski gave Quaalude to the girl.
c) Polanski continued to make sexual advances like cunnilingus, intercourse and sodomy on her in spite of her protests, and also asked the girl when did she have her periods, so as not to leave any possible troubles in future.
d) Polanski did not tell the girlfriend (who was dating him at the moment and was present in Jack Nicholson’s house) anything about this act. The girlfriend had interrupted the rape once. This at least proves that he wanted to keep this under wraps, consent of the minor notwithstanding.
d) Polanski drove the minor home and told her to keep this secret; If Polanski did this thing being seduced and what not, then his taking an active role in keeping this secret should not arise.
e) Polanski pleaded guilty. Can we consider this for God’s sake or for PFC’s sake or should we even say “how do we know?”
I’m coming to rest of your concerns one by one. Stay put.
Hmph! Can’t post replies as they say I’m spamming
Idle-labour,
Since you have been a student of criminology, you may throw some light on few things.
In this and similar cases-
Minors are legally minors by their age and it is understood that they will not be engaged in sexual activities before they cross the legally defined age for having sex.
But in practicality it does not happen and many minors do fall for sexual relationships. Many of them do it by following their own desires. So they do sex with full consent of theirs.
Should Law act in such cases also because normally it is understood that Minors can not decide on such matters and their consent does not matter?
Your whole emphasis seems to be on this point only that girl was a defined minor.
That means her consent should not matter in the court?
I have no idea and you may throw more light if witness of minors have much weighatge in US court or not? How much of the statements given by the girl in the court were her own and how much of it was having shadow of her lawyer’s suggestions?
If Roman Polanski did not think it against the law to have sex with a 13 year old girl then how would you handle the situation?
He will be treated as a psychological case? He had spent 42 days under psychological evalaution.
Case in the court faced many situations and it was divided in to two parts. Roman Polanski’s act and court’s conduct after he was arrested. His possible punishment or rehabilitation etc were considered.
Will law consider that since girl as a minor had been involved in the sexual actitivities at least twice before this event happened, so she was able to decide whether or not to have sex?
If it is not wrong then N kinski was also a girl friend of RP and she was not more than 15 at that time. It can be guessed that they had sexual relationship also. So by definition Roman Poalnski should be charged for having sex with another minor also? N kinski charged him for this?
And this also can be guessed that this relationship with N Kinski might have started before he met this girl in USA.
Different cultural understanding?
Different Laws?
…
MINOR- this point is deciding thinking.
and everything is seen against RP. Whatever the judgment comes, but can things be considered from other side also?
Or needle has to be stuck at one point that girl was a minor.
Case in court may or may not consider but later reseracher will consider the behaviour of the girl also.
Their act is interrupted by the lady present in the house, RP opens the door a a little but Girl does not take this opportunity to get freedom from trap of RP.
Her alibi, she was afraid of him.
Perhaps impact of alcohol and drug. Or perhaps greed of becoming a model. Here it can be said who knows.
She has senses to put on undergarments. To go to bathroom to put on clothes and even not having a bath etc or a proper cleaning?
In the atmosphere of 911, She has all the patience in the world to wait in side the car for 10 or more minutes and she does not say anything to the lady who asks her what is the matter?
Perhaps she was too afraid or was unable to decide anything.
Possibility is there but there is no such thing that such points will not be addressed by researchers. They might have been discussed by lawyer of RP also. Otherwise why to settle down for a private settlement.
If law has to work, it has to work.
…
There are confusions hence it is not a black and white case. It is more than the single minded thought that RP is a rapist. Case has a background.
Okay, now I’ll have to repeat the points again, it seems, as you are not paying attention to whatever I’m saying! Your emphasis was on what the victim could have done to avoid the rape. Or statutory rape. So much for patriarchy and victimology!
In 1978, do you think mobile phones were as prevalent to call 911? The house was on a hill and the girl actually had to depend on Polanski to get home. He was an older adult, acting on a 13 year old, under the influence of alcohol and drugs.
Ever heard of date rape? Do you know how it happens? Do you even understand the dynamics of rape?
@idle-labour,
You are charging RP for a rape and you are talking about evidences in the court, he has been maintaining a stance that he made a sexual contact with the consent of the girl. US law defines it as “Unlawful Sexual intercourse with a Minor”.
-Neither Girl’s mother and her lawyer imposed allegations of rape on RP nor US Law.
You are a student of criminology and you are charging for something which is not followed by US law.
In such a condition you have to prove that it was a RAPE.
…
Newspapers 2-3 days ago had published following.
- Polanksi, then 43, had been introduced to the teenager by her mother. He claimed that he wanted to feature the girl in an edition of French Vogue which he had been asked to guest edit.
During their first photoshoot at her home in February 1977 Polanski shocked Geimer by asking to take pictures while she undressed.
Despite her daughter’s discomfort at the request, the girl’s mother let her accompany the director to a private photo shoot two weeks later……(What is the significance of girl’s mother’s conduct? Ignorance? Hypnotism?)
Geimer, who is now 45, subsequently sued the film director and won an undisclosed settlement.
…
Why a private settlement when it is a defined crime and a criminal should be punished?
….
You are interested in the case from legal point of view and you have to establish your thoughts against the facts of the case.
RK, did you do something to the settings mere bhai?
I can’t post replies….all of them are stated as “spamming”!! 
I hope you didn’t get too excited to change the settings so that I can’t post replies?
Haha. If I have to “prove it is a rape”, then do I get Polanski to write or make movie on the issue? What do I get?
FYI: The phrase statutory rape is a term used in some legal jurisdictions to describe consensual sexual relations that occur when one participant is below the age required to legally consent to the behavior. Although it usually refers to adults engaging in sex with minors under the age of consent, the age at which individuals are considered competent to give consent to sexual conduct varies.
Ya perhaps Roman Polanski is too afraid of your reasoning and he is controlling the server of PFC.
CONT’D:
It is a generic term, and very few jurisdictions use the actual term “statutory rape” in the language of statutes. Different jurisdictions use many different statutory terms for the crime, such as “sexual assault,” “rape of a child,” “corruption of a minor,” “carnal knowledge of a minor,” “unlawful carnal knowledge”, or simply “carnal knowledge.” Statutory rape differs from forcible rape in that overt force or threat need not be present. The laws presume coercion, because it involves a minor and/or a mentally challenged person.
As for the mom, why she arranged to send her second time and what kind of discomfort was expressed by the minor at that point of time are open to multiple interpretation. It could be like “Mom…I don’t want to go”, and “Honey, it’s good for your career”, and anything else.
But because the mom did not go with the girl, and arranged a friend to go for the girl, and that is why all hell broke loose—this reasoning is not solid, you see.
It was a fine February day in 1977 when Polanski drove up to their California home in his rented Mercedes. Samantha’s mother showed him into the living room.
Then 13-year-old Sam walked in with her pet bird and her dog. Polanski suggested they walk into the hills for a few photos.
“It was just him and me. He took some standard pictures but when I I changed clothes he continued to take photos,” Samantha says. “He took top-less pictures of me but it all seemed very professional and I did as I was told.”
Two weeks later Polanski turned up at the house again. He told Samantha he was taking her to see a friend and they drove to his friend Jack Nicholson’s house. “It was exciting,” says Samantha. “My girlfriend was supposed to come along as my chaperone but at the last minute Polanski said it would be better if she didn’t come. She went home and Mom didn’t realise I was on the shoot alone.”
Link: http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2005/07/25/exclusive-polanski-raped-me-when-i-was-13-he-is-a-creep-115875-15775812/
RK this part from a CNN Show transcript exactly deals with the concern you’re most interested in: THE role of the MOTHER!!
CALLER: Yes. I was wondering what — how a mother rationalizes sending a daughter off in a car with someone that may or may not like to have sex with young girls? She herself is an actress. He’s a director. It looked like maybe there was an agenda there.
How do you feel about that?
GEIMER: That’s just totally untrue. We trusted him. We had no reason not to. He was a celebrity. No one had any idea that anything like this would happen and there is no reason we would have thought that.
SILVER: I think also, Samantha’s mom thought that a girlfriend was going to go with them.
GEIMER: That’s true.
SILVER: And until later that evening, she really didn’t know.
KING: She thought a girlfriend went with her.
SILVER: That’s correct.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/24/lkl.00.html
@idle-labour,
(Haha. If I have to “prove it is a rape”, then do I get Polanski to write or make movie on the issue? What do I get?)
…
You get to sit at your claim of having been a student of criminology.
And since you are not an appointed lawyer from either side so you can have objectivity applied and not a subjectivity since you are a woman so you have to think in a set pattern.
Etc etc.
I read somewhere that the woman has forgiven Polanski but probably law won’t.
(haven’t watched the movie so don’t know whether it’s right in that context or not)
France has some law of protecting its citizens, that’s why he was not arrested and recently when he was going to receive a prize, he was arrested. Harrison Ford, Depp etc. worked with him perhaps because he was there as a director only and job of getting the actors etc. for the film was not his, it was the job of casting director of the production house.
.
Some random thoughts after reading this post:
.
*The law for the vampires is different, they are not human
This whole thing is again related to the food chain. Human eat animals but they dont punish themselves for killing them. If other species could have been at the level of human they would have demanded justice. No one has the right of taking anybody’s life but then, a lion cannot go vegetarian. If there exist species drinking human blood because it’s their need then they are a level higher on the food chain and nature will take care of it.
.
*The characters of Lolita may be fascinating with deep exploration of human psyche, an interesting read no doubt. But in the end the question remains would you like to behave like Humbert in real life or like someone you know to be Lolita? The answer comes no. Why? Is this a hypocrisy? May be. But there are examples of better human beings to follow for. It again may be the repression of human psyche in real life but then if everything is allowed wouldn’t it give a way to anarchy and nihilism? The whole concept of society will be crumbling down. And, therefore one may be fascinated by the character in a literature or movie but s/he may not allow him/her in one’s domain.
.
*Law is blind indeed but sometimes it is good because if we start taking the psychological factors and the state of mind of the criminals, more than 80% of the perpetrators would get away.
.
* There are two things that prevent people from committing an offence-fear from the God, and fear from the law. i.e. morality and the law which again can be termed as the devices to suppress human psyche. In a broader sense, an offence itself becomes a relative term (It’s not fair to kill someone but it suddenly becomes fair in war?)
One may not kill because of the fear of law as the chances of being caught will be good in a society because it is, say a inter-offence type of thing but if two people knowingly committing an offence among themselves ( e.g. sex while they are still minor), there is no way to find out as it is say an intra-offence thing. The only thing in that case that can prevent it is the God-fear.
Law cannot catch everyone but then people who are caught should not be acquitted in order that law should prevail. Certain celebrities in India are roaming free despite some serious offences. Why?
@Jahanpanah,
There is a limitless dark side of human mind. pay little more attention to mythological tales and you will find things which you may find disgusting.
…
Boundaries are must to justify or define a thing. Justifications can be given.
If we consider Lolita specifically. Humbert as a 12 years old boy falls in love with a 12 years old girl Annabel but she dies before their love could grow. One part of Humbert’s mind is stuck at that stage only. He searches Annabel only in females and for that matter his deep interest gets satisfaction with very young girls only. If you recall his visit to a young prostitute who lies to him about her age and tells him that she is younger but he gets to know the reality by watching her minutely.
He is interested in young girls but nobody fulfils his desire. Only Lolita’s presence helps him overcoming the memories of Anna. His search is finished at Lolita.
One portion of his mind was sick?
May be yes.
But is it a love story also? Yes a different one but which exposes lots of dark shades of the human being.
Reader can not support a character completely.
Lolita leaves Humbert to go with another adult man who is a certified pedophile and who wants to use Lolita in his porn films. Later she marries another man.
…
RP, that girl, this event, that case, these all are mediums to bring some broad understanding. One side judgmens dont help others who are not directly related with the case.
He is a rapist, he should be punished, such slogan and rhetoric type reactions dont help a person. S/he may look like following a defined morality for time being (and which may not be the case in reality if real life is scanned properly).
Mostly my exposure to mythological tales (Indian) was through TV only. Though, I’ve read some things here and there. Would like to read them in detail someday.
Yes, they do have many things in them which one may find repulsive but I think they are not glorifying them, rather a deep look of the response or behaviour of characters and finally establishing that how these things may not help the society, kingdom or a nation on a whole.
I’ve read Dr. Harimohan Jha’s Khattar Kaka and his satirical take on the mythological tales. A good read indeed.
Morality itself isn’t rigid thing, it keeps changing (Hypocritical? May be) If we take the examples from mythology only, even Rama and Krishna didn’t follow it thoroughly.
On an additional note. Haven’t read Lolita but have watched the Adrian Lyne movie.
Had missed to reply on your take on Lolita yesterday.
You get to know Humbert and Lolita in a deeper manner after reading Lolita of Nobakov. If you witness such people in real life then immediate reactions may be different and there can be condemnation but it can also be a superficial reaction because it is based on the act seen and a thought has not been given. Background is not known. Book, when it thoroughly explores the subject, helps in creating many questions and situations before the reader. There is a connection with real life but an imaginary world is also created around the plot. Many things are accepted and many charateristics dont get approval of a reader when he compares with real world and many things are approved and disapproved in that imaginary world also.
But understanding becomes broad. That is one of the purposes of any art.
…
As you have not read the book and have directly seen the film so there are chances that if you read the book, then views are changed a bit about characters and impression about the film also may change.
when you have full fursat from films these days Why not to read it?.
Never been an avid reader of books and Lolita was somewhat a controversial book so I never gave much though about reading it.
In fursat, when not watching films, the time is taken up by PFC and some long pending fiction books.
@Jahanpanah,
(Lolita was somewhat a controversial book so I never gave much though about reading it).
And the movie based on the controversial book?
Controversial bit is a nice excuse!
PPS : On world mythological stories, I’ve some books on Norse, Celtic mythology on my wishlist. May be I’ll read them someday.
Once as a kid I got some book containing Biblical stories and it was pretty repulsive containing various things like rape etc. in abundance.
Re: Let the right one in. Watch it whenever get an opportunity.
Eli is a vampire but Håkan is a human being and he kills other people to quench the thirst (of human blood) of Eli.
Point is even if fiction is covered but while writing on such a film, different shades of characters have to be discussed.
…
And Eli is 12 years old for the last 200 years, so roughly we can say her one year = 200+ years of human life.
That is a sufficient age for one to die while living on the Planet Earth. Oskar should have told Eli this that now she could strive for attaining the Nirvana by following euthanasia.
Haven’t watched any other language film other than Hindi since a long time. Aaj Kal mood he nahi hota.
Think Global eat local (Not food at Nain Singh Ka Dhaba specifically but anything that suits your body).
These days Some people have started saying this.
There is no dearth of good Hindi films. and then there are films in other Indian languages for which you may have best of the times now as you are not in to foreign language films these days.
And when there is no extra desire to watch new and old (but not seen before) films then it is a good time to repeat a good film and deeper meanings, better understanding will come out of that watching.
In all the conditions you are in benefit.
Well, definitely there is no loss but then I’ve watched all the Hindi movies released recently that I would have missed earlier.
Phases like these come and go in life, these are transient.
@Jahanpanah,
Voting system on your comment
( Rating: +2 (from 4 votes) )
About Nastassja Kinski being he girlfriend…at that time? No it was Angelica Huston. And even if N Kinski has been the girlfriend, N Kinski didn’t file a lawsuit against Polanski. And how is that important to this case?
Do you concur that Polanski did whatever he did? Or should we look away because it is Polanski?
That means if Samantha Geimer had not registered a case against RP, you would not have bothered if he raped the girl or not?
So focus is the point that girl and her mom registered the case hence it was a rape. So not by definition but by legal point of view?
It is strange that you are unable to get N kinski point to get Roman Polanski’s mind set.
“That means if Samantha Geimer had not registered a case against RP, you would not have bothered if he raped the girl or not?”
How would you, me and the media know if the rape happened or not if there were no lawsuit?
Rape is always from a legal point of view, my brother, like murder is. It is a crime. What else do you think it is? Of course, the legal definition varies. Even 5 years back, in IPC, you had to prove penetration by the penis in the vagina to prove rape. Which could be proved only by the presence of semen. So if you don’t find semen, then it is not rape.
Many rape victims wouldn’t go to the police after the crime, for fear of shame and the taboo it places on the victim. So in those cases the evidence was lost. Then, anal rape was not even recognized as rape! and in case of child rapes (3-9 years) it was very difficult to prove it as well.
So in these cases, rape did not happened according to IPC. Now, the rules are thankfully changed to suit the changing times, but do you see the conflict between the act, the definition, and the evidence to establish it?
You are unable to go beyond the things defined in law books, are not you?
If you think, lawyers, lawmakers and policy makers can solve the eternal questions of morality, justice, life and immoral conduct then it is a different basis for you and I have a different basis.
You came to discussion to prove already set things and not to discuss the other possibilities that was the purpose behind the post.
We are not running a court or controlling the legal system. But your thinking is limited to legaly correct things only.
Society can not function without the enforcement of law but Art is not created inside the court rooms.
With all your efforts you are proving very accurately that human being behaves differently in real life and only art gives him/her the opportunity to look beyond the surface.
Thanks for all this discussion. All the best for your legal career if you are pursuing one
@Idle-labour,
N Kinski, Angelica Huston,
You dont read properly what is written. Do you?
Do you read properly what is written?
Didn’t you write N Kinski? Who wrote this?–:
“If it is not wrong then N kinski was also a girl friend of RP and she was not more than 15 at that time. It can be guessed that they had sexual relationship also. So by definition Roman Poalnski should be charged for having sex with another minor also? N kinski charged him for this?
And this also can be guessed that this relationship with N Kinski might have started before he met this girl in USA.”
Yes I wrote N Kinski, I guess Google may help you on Kinski and RP.
I meant to mention that Kinski, german actress was his Girl friend prior to this case and you are stuck upon the point that at the time when case had happened Huston was his GF.
N Kinski is Nastassja Kinski!!Both of us are referring to the same person! My God…what’s wrong with you??
Yes, you are also referring to the same actress but you have not been able to get the point why her name was dropped in.
…
Any new perspective? Any new angle?
Hehe….no new angle. What new angle can we possibly come up right now? Your angles are rather amusing, Ayurveda and all. But I did say long ago that both of us are getting repetitive.
And I really don’t think Nastassja Kinski is relevant here. Come up with your take on this thing. I’ve provided many points since the beginning as to “circumstance” and “intent” and all that, so do come up with new answers apart from “art form”.
Anyway, I think both of us got to be quite repetitive and I would rather not get that and waste any of us time. As far as the media tells us, the girl has actually said that she wants this thing to end forever.
I am a big, big fan of the director’s movies, and it would be an understatement to call them classics or masterpieces. They are simply flawless. But that doesn’t make the person flawless.
Everybody is flawed. This is not the point that since RP has made classics and therefore he should be given freedom.
You jumped into the discussion from a set POV that I was defending RP’s act, hence this discussion.
You are unable to consider few loop holes and is dependent on set definitions and you are thinking inside the boundaries set by Law of a land only.
That is legal area. It has less to do with the freedom of literature and maybe you will see in your lifetime only what happens with this case also.
You are unable to settle issues of minors and their sex related issues.
You are searching a vaccine type solution for this which can be given to all and sundry but in the same world principles of Ayurveda also exist where medicinal solution in many cases may differ from person to person.
And laws are also changed from time to time to make them more suitable for contemporary times.
An average is taken there and average things may not define everything.
I “jumped” into the discussion from the POV not that you were defending the act but you were questioning the intentions of the victim. And I expressed my doubts whether we would be doing so if Roman Polanski was named Ramcharan Das or Shakti Kapoor or Abdul Karim, and was in incognito person.
Not the intention of the girl. Her case was defined by the lawyer and US law and there is little scope to discuss. In US court they are the doers.
…
Maybe names may matter or mabe not. This may be ambigous that if a person other than Bill Clinton had commited the things and this person was not originally a white American and his ancestors had not lived in USA for 100+ years then he might have got the same treatment what BC had got? Perhaps same people could have demanded head of that person.
And this is also true that there are many cases in Indian courts where accussed are not celebrities but they are accused for terroristic activities but still discussions are done on various aspects of the cases and not all the people unanimously shouting for their death.
There is no idealism followed else many societies might call a certain Bush in the court to face the law for his actions taken in Iraq, where his plans and orders have killed thousands of ordinary people also by now. Law of a land does not take care of such things but literature does take care. Literature will not leave his name without mentioning these things.
…
There is a hypothetical situation but it is entirely possible if a terrorist group sets up a kind of sting operation where an officer of armed forces is somehow forced to have sex with a minor and soon after this organized event, case is registered, girl is medically examined and every evidence goes against the officer. But he says about this framing.
It has nothing to do with RPs or Shakti Kapoors or ramchandrans or abdul karims, but a hypothetical situation to see if there comes a flexibility in your legal attitude or not?
How would you go with this situation?
You know what? I get what you are trying to say and the point you are trying to establish: that there could be several things to a case than appears to the eye. And I do concur wholeheartedly with that.
What I don’t concur with, and since I do have the right to expressing my opinion, is the examples you have been using to establish with your argument. I just felt that probably using the examples of Lolita and Roman Polanski case was not a good idea.
If you had cited “The life of David Gale”, probably it could have gone more with the “framing” philosophy you are trying to establish. Having said that, it’s your own discretion to use whatever examples you’d like, to strengthen your argument, but I guess you could reach a more comprehensive consensus on a point by being careful in what you choose.
And we can all agree to disagree, isn’t it?
No,
imo, “The life of David Gale” has nothing to do with this case. That is a film based on capital punishment.
Kanoon in Hindi had done this.
Lolita explores the dark side of human mind and this case also has that premise.
Humbert’s case was the case of a single person Vs people or society or set norms.
Same is the case of Roman Polanski.
The moment you get the analogy in right perspective then there is a possibility you get discussion in right manner.
Freedom and scope of art is a matter.
Atleast in India things can be seen from different perspective as people have a tradition to follow since ancient time.
All the stories described in Puranas have more than the message coming through surface. Brahma Earth, Yam Yati etc etc.
There is nothing that we have to start shivering that a mere discussion will start propagating immoral things among people and everybody will turn a rapist or a killer or a criminal.
We have tradition to read stories of Balmiki and Angulimal.
Emphasis here has been on the transformation.
Anybody must be a foolish to discuss proceddings of US court or any other court as they have set patterns. If we have to do that then its better to be lawyers and fight the cases inside the court rooms. Here on cinema related platform we can consider artistic scopes.
I have tried to make you see reason but you fail me so it’s futile. I’ve tried to provide examples as to what is rape, what is statutory rape, and how sex is not equal to rape.
Rape is a sexual crime. But not all sexual acts are rapes. And when the legal system calls this statutory rape, then I can’t understand what is your problem in doing so.
And vaccine type solution is actually good to keep bacteria, virus and termites away from a healthy body. If there is a legal system, then it should be applicable to all.
You can not prove that Roman Polanski has proved to be a bacetria or a virus etc etc or a sick part of a healthy body of society.
Certain cases are there to shake belief of legal people like you who are unable to see things beyond the limits defined by text books.
This is such a case.
If you are an author and working on a case only then you can try to define what is rape and what is not rape through a thorough discussion on the pages of the book. Otherwise if you go by fixed law books then there is a thread like difference between the things and many situations may elude you and your definitions. Many situations may bring you across difficult questions. As for now you have opinion based on things taught to you.
You have a public opinion. Nothing is wrong in that. But present it that way only and dont present them as opinions of a social researcher because you are not following that mind set.
If your opinions are followed then Ms Geimer had no right to go for a settlement outside the court because RP committed a crime and he should be punished. This is not moral to absolve a criminal.
Once case is registered in the court, people are expected to obey the procedures and decisions. No?
And she has been on right side and every evidence goes against RP so there was never a risk for her to lose in the court. ?
“Certain cases are there to shake belief of legal people like you who are unable to see things beyond the limits defined by text books.”
And who will do this divine task of opening up my eyes and bring me beyond? A blogger in PFC?
I don’t have a public opinion. I have a personal opinion and I’m presenting them to the public
just as you are doing yours, through this blog in PFC. And I have never asked anybody to go to the court with my opinions. I have only clarified certain definitions. You raised some concern as to what could have been what, “dialing 911 and mom accompanying kid etc”, AND I have only responded to that! Nor Samantha, neither Roman are going to be affected by these. And you don’t know anything beyond what the media is telling you. Conjecture would not lead you anywhere.
And stop making personal comments as to I have opinions based on the text books taught to me or that I’m inflexible in my perspective. Just bear in mind that PFC is supposed to be a decent website and I could reciprocate if I wanted to.
Patterns in discussion dont fall from sky they are interdependent.
Thanks for making a presence.
“We are not running a court or controlling the legal system. But your thinking is limited to legaly correct things only.
If it is a crime, then it’s only justified (pun not intended) that one should think in legal terms. If one doesn’t, then it is his or her problem. Especially when it doesn’t deal with “mercy killing” or such other morally grey areas.
“Society can not function without the enforcement of law but Art is not created inside the court rooms.”"
I really wonder whether a minor being raped by a 40 year old could be made into a movie and called into an “art form”. Certain pornographic pictures do exist where such “art form” is high revered.
Oh wait, you say it was not rape. So it was consensual sex in your opinion. So it would be pedophilic porn. Art form? Probably. How would lesser mortals like us could probably decipher this art form?
“The moment you get the analogy in right perspective then there is a possibility you get discussion in right manner.”
And who will tell us what is the “right perspective?” You? and I suppose the “right manner” will also be decided upon by YOU?
“Here on cinema related platform we can consider artistic scopes.”
Artistic scope of WHAT? The Roman Polanski VS Samantha Geimar case? Having sex with a 13 year old case?
Nice inclusion of puranas and yamyati
right, wrong, odd, even,
Who will decide ?
I will decide for me.
It can be a guess but you may be deciding for you what to follow, what to think and what to imagine etc etc.
Now I have decided not to respond to you on this very topic unless you come up with something feasible
)
(and I will decide it is feasible point or not for me, to discuss further
Bye for now
Yeah, I was thinking the same. It’s really futile to carry on a discussion with you.
All the best on blogging!
On a side note
I have a query. It seems to me as law favours the fairer sex. What about the law if the role is reversed i.e. minor male and adult female?
Law of many countries may be gender (female) specific only but Rape of a minor boy/male by an adult woman/a woman, can be acknowledged by some countries.
But in the case of rape of male by a female things may be debatable and some special conditions may be needed in such an act and it may be more difficult to prove.
@Rk
Oh! You got me there but I watched the movie only a few months ago and that too without any effort on my side. I watched it at a friends.
Okay. Here you said that understanding became broad by reading and understanding these characters but to tell you that from the starting I’ve been a bit reluctant about the dark side and dark characters as I do have problem relating to them, I’ve always preferred role model type of characters. I would have read Lolita had someone lent me but buying it myself and reading was something I couldn’t do.
Additionally, I’d say that perhaps that’s why I didn’t like the movies like Pulp Fiction, didn’t watch Kubrick’s Lolita, had watched Clockwork Orange but probably will never watch it again. Still reluctant to watch Eyes Wide Shut.
That is true. Things happen in stages and they should come in a natural way. Your clear approach is admirable.
One always can attend a film at a suitable stage.
Out of SK’s heritage perhaps at present you may like Paths of Glory, Dr Strangelove and Barry Lyndon.
True.
I liked 2001: A Space Odyssey and Spartacus too. Yet to watch Full Metal Jacket.
I too liked them.
His earlier two films, Killer’s kiss and The Killing are also good. I have to see Rest of his early work done before Killer’s kiss.
Why he took Tom Cruise in such a complex film Eyes Wide Shut is an intriguing thought. Why directors do this and they do it all over the world. They sometimes try to carry their films dealing with very complex subjects on the shoulders of quite ordinary actors who may be big stars but who dont have reputation of handling difficult characters and their psychology.
Me too haven’t watched his 50s movies
.
Well, I guess not everybody has the patience to wait and work with Daniel Day Lewis.
I remember reading or listening somewhere that he had taken Harvey Keitel and later Tom Cruise replaced HK.
I think Harvey Keitel was doing something similar movie ‘Holy Smoke’ then.
perhaps their making clashed. Holy Smoke was shot in India, specifically in Pushkar, Rajsthan.
And Madame Winslet came to see Ganga in my city of that time. Only time saw (accidently) her in real life. After watching her on big screen in Titanic it seemed a good coincidence at that time.
At least you managed to see her.
Somebody once told me it was shot in Haridwar too. So I guess you mean either Haridwar or Rishikesh.
I read your couple of posts on Rajshri about a year ago. It gave me enough hope and confidence. Prior to that I used to think that I was the only one who enjoyed their movies.
In case of books, people settle down relatively early with the genres which appeal to them and books are not accepted as hobbies opted by all or majority of people.
Films have been a different case in India. Here they were thought to be shared by all the people. Now people know that they like films of a certain genre or few genres only but because they are conditioned to opine on every kind of films and they think that every film should appeal to all, they object to the films whose genres dont match their liking.
Many a times they have objection on the subject/s and they complain about the film/s.
Subjects of HAHK and Vivah are clear, if one does not want to see these subjects then he should not go to watch these films. Sooraj Badjatya clearly says he cant make films which RGV makes.
After accepting the subject, it has to be seen if film could present the subject in a good manner or not.
Sometimes Sooraj Badjatya has been successful in his attempts since his debut film MPK and sometimes he has failed. Some factors of his good films are very good and some look bogus and over the top.
Presence of TV and its importance in the lives of Indian People forced SB to change the looks of RajShri Productions as production values of its earlier films could not have attracted audiences in the cinema halls. As he has changed the looks and treatments of his production house’s films, he has to search viable subjects also to keep a pace with changing and changed times.
TV has definitely taken up the subject matter with which rajsree dealt. The production value was better in Vivah but again not so good in EVAB. Some moments were cliched and over the top but then it is the overall feel good and faith in humanity etc. are the factors, which appeal me.
I guess in future they’ll be remaking more of their classics for newer audience.
EVAB is not directed by SB. is not it true?
They can recycle their old films but subjects have to be given new touch because all of the RajShri production’s films have been social drama and they are not period films. They have to have make a connection with contemporary society.
For example, In this new millenium Sooraj Cant show the scenes with servants as he had shown in HAHK etc. That will look ancient now.
Moreover Sooraj has to regain the faith of people in his brandname which he had lost by making utterly artificial MPKDH. There was a time after the bumper success of HAHK when actors, and majority of audiences were interested in Sooraj Badjatya’s films but he lost this wide acceptance by making HSSH and MPKDH. Later harmed him most. While HAHK looked different than MPK, HSSH looked repetitive while comparing with HAHK. His profile started declining and artificiality of MPKDH turned a debacle for him and his brandname.
His MPK and HAHK raised high expectations among audiences but he could not maintain this in his HSSH and MPKDH. People take things in continuity especailly when someone earnsa bumper success.
Yup. EVAB is not directed by SB but I meant the production values which could have been as good as Vivah since it was under Rajshree Banner.
With success comes expectations and not everybody can live up to it always. MPKDH was made when allurement for NRI market was at its peak. It became a popular pithy for SB then- “kauva chala hans ki chaal”
and how any director who thinks he is good and who has gained reputation of being a good director, can utilize THE PANKAJ KAPOOR in such a way. That is one single most heinous crime/mistake SB has committed in his directorial life.
Good director who sometimes loses his way. Even in his good movies he sometimes brings some elements which look cheesy and affect the movie in a bad way.
To atone for his Sin, Sooraj must make a big budget good film centralized on the character played by Pankaj Kapoor. That is the only way to compensate for the mistake he had done in the past
And this is certain that if he ever does it in near future then that film will become his most significant film as any good director can make a very good film only if his film is based on the character played by Pankaj Kapoor. There is no other possibility considering the FORM of PK in present time.
RK. brilliant piece but in my opinion you are wrong. Sometimes the inside of our little well can be as large as the cosmos that contains everything. The question is where are you?
@Shantanu,
Always remains a possibility to be wrong.
(Sometimes the inside of our little well can be as large as the cosmos that contains everything. The question is where are you?)
You have written such beautiful lines. Thanks for sharing them. Though I am not able to find their association here, but loving them and I dont want to break their impression by forced search for a connection here.
Taking your lines way above the topic covered in the post, I may try to use following lines.
……………………..
Naasdaseenno sadaseeptdanee naaseedvajo no vyomaparoyat!
kimavareevah kuhkasyasharmanah kimseegdahanam gabheeram!!
…………………….
Your so good name which has ancient touch prompted me and allowed me to use a saying of a Ved.