Top 40 living directors

You know what, you're probably right. I just LOVE him, everything about him. I want to marry him (if I can't have Grohl).

But, I also feel he has helmed a type of rebelious indie comedies that had been wanting – irreverant and laugh out loud funny, but smart. 'Cuz most other comedies that are supposed to be that funny are usually way to stupid for me to even sit through. I appreciate the ability to go to a screwball comedy and not be embarrassed.

Originally posted by nkotbie:
What is the allure of Kevin Smith? I'm not criticizing here; I just genuinely don't understand why he's regarded so highly in film circles. Don't get me wrong here; Clerks was laugh-out-loud funny, and the absurdity of Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back and Dogma made them enjoyable films, but I don't see where the reverance comes from. And this is from someone who gets and chuckles at every geeky comic book and movie joke he throws into his movies. Case in point, nothing cracks me up more than Bob saying "No Ticket" after tossing the angels from the train in Dogma. I just don't see where he's anywhere near deserving of being considered a great director. Any help, Bags?

Originally posted by Bagster:
Where the f*ck is Kevin Smith.

posted by ggw

Can't you name even one artist that was convicted (or even charged) with forcibly sodomizing a minor and then fled to escape prosecution?

Michael Jackson… R Kelly.

How about Jerry Lee Lewis.. who married his 14 year old cousin?

Wasn't Chuck Berry convicted once of 'taking a minor over state lines'… something which sounds like an euphemism for sex with a minor?

ggw, my ultimate point is this. You are acting all incensed over Polanski when the whole issue of sex with minors and the criminality of it can be applied to a wide variety of artists. Your self-righteous anger seems misdirected. If you're going to crusade against one artist for his indiscretion, you need to apply that policy to others also. :cool:

Originally posted by Bagster:
You know what, you're probably right. I just LOVE him, everything about him. I want to marry him (if I can't have Grohl).

I wonder if he puts the toilet seat down, rinses his whiskers out of the sink and gives good head? Find these things out before you commit, Bags.

Originally posted by PR_GMR:
Michael Jackson… R Kelly.

Where have they fled?

I wouldn't own any of their work either.

How about Jerry Lee Lewis.. who married his 14 year old cousin?

Legal. Sick, but legal. He's not a fugitive.

Wasn't Chuck Berry convicted once of 'taking a minor over state lines'… something which sounds like an euphemism for sex with a minor?

Convicted and went to jail. Did his time and moved on. Rape wasn't involved.

ggw, my ultimate point is this. You are acting all incensed over Polanski when the whole issue of sex with minors and the criminality of it can be applied to a wide variety of artists. Your self-righteous anger seems misdirected. If you're going to crusade against one artist for his indiscretion, you need to apply that policy to others also. :cool:

"sex with minors and the criminality of it"

"his indiscretion"

LOL
You can't even bring yourself to say it.

Polanski was convicted of drugging and raping a 13-year old and then fled the country. Your spirited defense of his actions makes me wonder if you haven't committed similar "indiscretions."

It's not self-righteous anger, it's intellectual curiosity at the way people exonerate somebody because of some abstract notion of the "artiste."

Really, if Polanski was a plumber, a car mechanic, a politician, or a CEO, you wouldn't be acting as though he were innocent.

I can live with all/any/none of it. ;)

Originally posted by Celeste:

Originally posted by Bagster:
You know what, you're probably right. I just LOVE him, everything about him. I want to marry him (if I can't have Grohl).

I wonder if he puts the toilet seat down, rinses his whiskers out of the sink and gives good head? Find these things out before you commit, Bags.

John Waters

John Boorman

Polanski was convicted of drugging and raping a 13-year old and then fled the country. Your spirited defense of his actions makes me wonder if you haven't committed similar "indiscretions."

Wonderful. So in order to discredit me, you vaguely point a finger at me trying to cast me as a child rapist. Such great intellectual debater your are, ggw! (/sarcasm)

I never said that child rape (yeah, I said it, happy now, wanker?) wasn't a heinous crime.. I was simply reaction to your over-moralistic reaction to the mentioning of Polanski on this thread. And No, I'm not a rabid Polanski fan. :cool:

Originally posted by PR_GMR:
Wonderful. So in order to discredit me, you vaguely point a finger at me trying to cast me as a child rapist. Such great intellectual debater your are, ggw! (/sarcasm)

Not trying to discredit you (your fallacious arguments did that on their own), I'm just searching for the reason why you defend him so.

Originally posted by PR_GMR:
I never said that child rape (yeah, I said it, happy now, wanker?) wasn't a heinous crime.. I was simply reaction to your over-moralistic reaction to the mentioning of Polanski on this thread. And No, I'm not a rabid Polanski fan. :cool:

"over-moralistic"

I love that defense – portray anyone who would criticize Polanski as "Puritanical" or "self-righteous" or "overly-moralistic." I guess the "moral" part is fair. But then again, sodomizing a child is as "immoral" as one can get.

If you agree that his crime is heinous, and you admit that he actively avoids owning up to it and paying the price for it, how can you happily contribute to making him a wealthy man by patronizing his work?

Do you worry that people might think you're being "moral"?

Live with no head? You are a brave soul, Bags ;)

As for your post about Smith above, I guess I can see your point. I just have heard too many film kids gush over his "great" works, which, to me, just amount to funny comedies. I don't really see anything great about them, except that some are humorous.

I guess I've also met too many Kevin Smith types, being that I'm a comic geek at heart. I always just cast him as a real-life Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons: bitingly sarcastic, obsessive references to comics and sci-fi, annoying, total fanboy. But again, that's just me.

Originally posted by Bagster:
I can live with all/any/none of it. ;)

I'm a giver, what can I say.

I hear you on the Smith types, I went to college with a bunch (we probably all did, but I think it was especially prevalent at a small, NE liberal arts school – we got more of the fringe smarties, not the ivy smarties…). Plus, I think Smith is really handsome…go ahead, mock me. He has a wonderful face and a wonderful voice.

I'm a geek, no doubt!

Originally posted by nkotbie:
Live with no head? You are a brave soul, Bags ;)

I guess I've also met too many Kevin Smith types, being that I'm a comic geek at heart. I always just cast him as a real-life Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons: bitingly sarcastic, obsessive references to comics and sci-fi, annoying, total fanboy. But again, that's just me.

Originally posted by Bagster:
I can live with all/any/none of it. ;)

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
He fled to escape prosecution, so I'm not going to line his pockets so he can continue to avoid paying his dues.

If any artist in my record collection is a fugitive child molester, I'll happily burn their discs.

Line his pockets???? Making this list (or really, not even making the list, but rather somebody's obscure-message-board list of omissions from the list) comes with a stipend???? Huh????

Players don't get paid bonuses for being drafted in fantasy leagues. The context of this discussion contains absolutely no economic incentives or disincentives for any of the directors on or off the list.

You're perfectly free to boycott Polanski's movies on account of his confessed criminal behavior. You're equally free to argue against his inclusion on the list for the same reason. But get off your high horse about other peoples' choice to stick with the explicit topic of discussion, which is "TOP DIRECTORS." Not top role models.

And by the way, you'll need to get back to sorting your record collection if you're determined to be such a purist. I have yet to read about the elimination of drugs from pre- and post-concert celebrations by musicians, or the institution of carding for groupies wishing to join said celebrations. I will garan-friggin-tee that if you own more than 100 rock CDs, you've donated money to someone who Polanskied a young one and just didn't get caught.

Originally posted by Liberte:
Line his pockets???? Making this list (or really, not even making the list, but rather somebody's obscure-message-board list of omissions from the list) comes with a stipend???? Huh????

Players don't get paid bonuses for being drafted in fantasy leagues. The context of this discussion contains absolutely no economic incentives or disincentives for any of the directors on or off the list.

You're perfectly free to boycott Polanski's movies on account of his confessed criminal behavior. You're equally free to argue against his inclusion on the list for the same reason. But get off your high horse about other peoples' choice to stick with the explicit topic of discussion, which is "TOP DIRECTORS." Not top role models.

Oh, sorry. Was I "off-topic?"

If a thread is about a band's upcoming concert, is it okay to mention their album? Or who the band members are dating? Or must we strictly stick to the concert – and only the upcoming one – not any previous ones – or concert's on the same tour but in a different city?

And by the way, you'll need to get back to sorting your record collection if you're determined to be such a purist. I have yet to read about the elimination of drugs from pre- and post-concert celebrations by musicians, or the institution of carding for groupies wishing to join said celebrations. I will garan-friggin-tee that if you own more than 100 rock CDs, you've donated money to someone who Polanskied a young one and just didn't get caught.

Since some people do it and don't get caught, we should exonerate those who do get caught and convicted? Wonderful logic……

posted by Liberte

And by the way, you'll need to get back to sorting your record collection if you're determined to be such a purist. I have yet to read about the elimination of drugs from pre- and post-concert celebrations by musicians, or the institution of carding for groupies wishing to join said celebrations. I will garan-friggin-tee that if you own more than 100 rock CDs, you've donated money to someone who Polanskied a young one and just didn't get caught.

YES. YES. YES. THAT IS MY FREAKING POINT! Well put, Liberte. :cool:

Don't want to get too involved in your argument..but if Polanski had done that to my daughter and did a legger to France I would've hunted the bastard down and cut his balls off with a blunt Swiss army knife then force fed them to him.

Where's Jack Nicholson in all of this heated debate?

Yeah but most pollocks are ball lovers anyway. He probably would have found them tasty.

Originally posted by mankie:
Don't want to get too involved in your argument..but if Polanski had done that to my daughter and did a legger to France I would've hunted the bastard down and cut his balls off with a blunt Swiss army knife then force fed them to him.

I do not remember the specifics of the case, but where were the girls parents? Did Polanski have reason to believe the girl was of legal age? I always got the impression she was consenting, I mean if not what was she doing there in the first place and she didnt put up a fight. Furthermore he wasnt a sicko with some pre-pubescent girl.

Thirsties point is a good one as well, where was Jack?

But does making a terrible, heinous, stupid mistake, negate anything positive you do in your life? Can you really not judge an artist by his art and not his life.

What about art that touches on child abuse. Did you never enjoy, or empathise with humbert-humbert?

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:Oh, sorry. Was I "off-topic?"

….Since some people do it and don't get caught, we should exonerate those who do get caught and convicted? Wonderful logic……

What the %$#! are you on about?

Find where I said you were off topic, or that "off topic" was the issue.

Find where I said anything about exonerating anybody.

You can't because, as any idiot with a passing knowledge of reading English prose could tell, I said no such things.

What I object to is your attempt to inflict upon everyone else your view of the proper response to Polanski's art. I took considerable pains to point out that you are entitled both to make and to advocate that response. If you try to cram it down my throat as the only possible morally acceptable position, plan on getting it spat right back in your face.

Polanski's inexcusable behavior isn't the only example of heinous in this thread. (Oh, and by the way, the former 13-year-old in question seems to take a somewhat more forgiving stance about the offense in question: http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html "Samantha Geimer, who lives in Hawaii with her husband and three sons, went public in March to say she forgave Polanski for drugging her and raping her when she was a starstruck kid. She told London's Mail on Sunday that he should be pardoned. ") Twisting someone's words to deflect attention from an insupportable moral absolutism is heinous. Accusing someone who disagrees with you of being a child molester himself is heinous. According to your logic, none of us should ever forgive you for those crimes of Talibanistic mendaciousness and slander, right?

posted by markie

I do not remember the specifics of the case, but where were the girls parents? Did Polanski have reason to believe the girl was of legal age? I always got the impression she was consenting, I mean if not what was she doing there in the first place and she didnt put up a fight. Furthermore he wasnt a sicko with some pre-pubescent girl.

Yep, unless someone cares to dig out the actual facts of the case, I too remember the specifics of the case as Markie posted and as such Polanski's crime was that of 'statutory rape'. It doesn't make him a 'neat-o' guy.. but doesn't put him in the same league as so many serial murderers, serial rapists, and pedophiles. I think 'heinous' is too strong a word for what Polanski did.

posted by Liberte

Polanski's inexcusable behavior isn't the only example of heinous in this thread. (Oh, and by the way, the former 13-year-old in question seems to take a somewhat more forgiving stance about the offense in question: http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html "Samantha Geimer, who lives in Hawaii with her husband and three sons, went public in March to say she forgave Polanski for drugging her and raping her when she was a starstruck kid. She told London's Mail on Sunday that he should be pardoned. ") Twisting someone's words to deflect attention from an insupportable moral absolutism is heinous. Accusing someone who disagrees with you of being a child molester himself is heinous. According to your logic, none of us should ever forgive you for those crimes of Talibanistic mendaciousness and slander, right?

Word. Liberte. word. :cool:

I wonder if GGW believes that all practicing Catholics are just as bad as the priests that molest children during the week then hold mass on Sunday?

Is it the mass or the priest?…is it the director or the movie?

Don't get me wrong, I'd kill the fucker after he's enjoyed having his nuts served to him…but if the movie is good, it's good. I'm not taking sides and I don't see or rent any Spike Lee movies because he's a racist little twat that gets away with it because of his color