J'accuse [An Officer and a Spy] (Roman Polanski, 2019)

[MichaelB]

I'd be curious to know if Albucat has actually seen the film, because it seems that it's the hype under discussion here, not the onscreen content.

This is admittedly based on a single viewing five years ago, but I don't recall anything in the film itself that implied that it was any kind of allegory, and there's certainly nothing on screen that anyone could reasonably find "politically abhorrent" unless they were a bona fide anti-Semite (by which I mean the old-fashioned, straightforwardly racist kind).

Pretty much the only problematic element is Polanski's involvement as director - had he made it under a pseudonym (and this had somehow managed to be kept quiet), there's very little doubt in my mind that it would be regarded as one of the stronger French films of the last few years. Not least because its core themes are so disturbingly relevant today - by which I don't mean the alleged persecution of Roman Polanski, I mean the whole notion of official witch-hunts and scapegoating, which could hardly be more topical right now.

[tenia]

While it most likely isn't without its effects, I doubt looking at the "you haven't seen the on-screen result" prism is a good one, as I recall several French critics writing at the time of the movie's release (after, well, having seen it) about the movie and the parallel Polanski makes in it with his personal life (being Alexandre Janoviak for EcranLarge, though the article doesn't give that much details, or more thoroughly, Camille Nevers for Libération).

Moreover, and again, it's a bit tough overlooking a sub-text the director has talked on-record in the movie's own pressbook. In such a case, sure, a pseudo would have changed things, but on the other hand, especially for a movie from the country of the théorie des auteurs, isn't it quite hypothetical to try and imagine what a movie whose director's filmography is filled with the topic of persecution, and who's on record to have talked about making the movie personal, it looks to me an extremely hypothetical "what if".

(as for the posterity a pseudo would have brought thanks to shielding the movie from negative publicity, I'm not as sure as you are, as the movie, at least in here, doesn't particularly seem to have left a trace, and is often perceived as a well made prestige drama but nothing more)

[JSC]

I'm sure everyone here is aware that these arguments will simply go round and round in circles without ever reaching a satisfactory answer.
If you admire Polanski's work, go and see the film. If you can't separate Polanski from his work and feel that seeing this work is somehow
being complicit with the actions in his life, then you have the choice to not see the film.

To a certain degree one must learn to live with moral ambiguity.

[Black Hat]

While it most likely isn't without its effects, I doubt looking at the "you haven't seen the on-screen result" prism is a good one, as I recall several French critics writing at the time of the movie's release (after, well, having seen it) about the movie and the parallel Polanski makes in it with his personal life (being Alexandre Janoviak for EcranLarge, though the article doesn't give that much details, or more thoroughly, Camille Nevers for Libération).

Moreover, and again, it's a bit tough overlooking a sub-text the director has talked on-record in the movie's own pressbook. In such a case, sure, a pseudo would have changed things, but on the other hand, especially for a movie from the country of the théorie des auteurs, isn't it quite hypothetical to try and imagine what a movie whose director's filmography is filled with the topic of persecution, and who's on record to have talked about making the movie personal, it looks to me an extremely hypothetical "what if".

(as for the posterity a pseudo would have brought thanks to shielding the movie from negative publicity, I'm not as sure as you are, as the movie, at least in here, doesn't particularly seem to have left a trace, and is often perceived as a well made prestige drama but nothing more)

Very well said. I was planning on going to see this, but now I'm not so sure. To me, if a director made a film where their intent is to draw parallels between their experience being punished for abhorrent, illegal behavior, to a tale of clear injustice, it's deeply disturbing. The better argument to see such a work is out of curiosity to understand how a deeply disturbed mind operates.

[Mr Sausage]

I haven’t seen the movie and can’t comment either way, but there is a big difference between a filmmaker making an allegory about his own situation, and a filmmaker merely identifying with his main character. And it does sound to me like some people believe the latter is de facto the former, when to me they’re different things.

There’s also a difference between romanticizing age-gap relationships, ie. taking a side in a contentious social issue, and making a film about how persecuting the innocent is bad, which is a truism. Agreed that context can make Polanski’s movie uncomfortable, and any critical appraisal will have to deal with that context, but it doesn’t sound like the movie in and of itself is trying to convince the audience of anything unethical, let alone dangerous. Dreyfuss was accused of being a spy, not a rapist. So the choice isn’t pointed, unlike with Besson.

I don’t have anything I want to say about the politics of a public shunning. I just want the discussion to have some precision.

[swo17]

As I recall, there may have been a line or two in the film that felt intended to make us sympathize with how Polanski has been shunned in real life, a form of punishment for his crimes that you may or may not find to have been excessive. I don't take this as an apology for rape but rather a question of how far you can go in opposition to one evil thing before becoming another evil thing yourself. Like, there's a line of decency somewhere between easy absolution and "punish every crime with the death penalty," but where does society draw that line? You might also draw parallels to Israel. And now that I've mentioned the two most contentious topics imaginable, I'm going to go hide in a closet somewhere

[hearthesilence]

...how far you can go in opposition to one evil thing before becoming another evil thing yourself. Like, there's a line of decency somewhere between easy absolution and "punish every crime with the death penalty," but where does society draw that line?

I can't remember which film this was related to, but there was a discussion about this somewhere else in the forum, and unfortunately the conclusion for me was there is no line, vengeance is a core part of society, particularly American society (though others argued it’s equal around the world). It doesn't make it right, but it's a base impulse that has been dubiously and hypocritically rationalized into law or in practice. And it's a topic that's been thoughtfully explored across many great films from Fritz Lang's You Only Live Once to the Dardennes' The Son and likely many before and after, but it's often acknowledged that for most people, there is no point where the offender has done their time or sufficient penance.

[tenia]

There’s also a difference between romanticizing age-gap relationships, ie. taking a side in a contentious social issue, and making a film about how persecuting the innocent is bad, which is a truism.

But it's the same thing if you believe whatever you're romanticizing is not bad, including because that's what you've done in your own life. The matter isn't what's the accusation about, but that it's perceived as wrong and thus being a witch hunt.

The other point was that sub-texts being a matter of the eye of the beholder : I don't believe so. If someone overlooks known willful parallels between what's in a movie and whoever made it, it doesn't change what's in the movie (which is why I find Michael B's re-imagining of J'accuse directed by a pseudo extremely theoretical - "what if this movie about a recurring theme in this director's filmo for 50 years was directed under pseudo ?"). I've read people overlooking the sub-texts of Besson's Dracula just like they overlooked the sub-texts of his Dogman, hence my remark. It wasn't so much a remark about some kind of hierarchy of accusations, but that sub-texts do exist, that they're sometimes explicitly told by the filmmakers, and overlooking those is a personal choice.

Now however, I get what you're saying about making an allegory vs identifying with the main character, which is in line what Michael B wrote about the on-screen content and that it might not really reflect the movie being actively used by Polanski as a "hey look, this guy was wrongly accused just like I was". The question I might ask however is whether this isn't requesting sub-texts not to be just sub-texts anymore. I'm fairly certain one can watch On The Waterfront without understanding what Kazan is doing with it, at least simply for people unaware of the backstory. Do we need a character to be called Elia just to be sure ?

[Lowry_Sam]

It's so good that the films of a man who admitted to the rape of one girl 50 uears ago have been kept from American screens since 2017. It's really helped improve the climate for taking sexual assault seriously as is evidenced by the re-election of a serial rapist (and if the rumor's true, at least one of his victims was as young as 13) and BFF of a child sex trafficker getting re-elected to the most powerful position in the world (in spite of his crimes), not to mention that said rapist has never ceased attacking his victims publicly or using fellow mobsters to intimidate his victims from making public statements & pursuing legal redress. To me the union statement smacks of a moral Puritanism that is not only completely divorced from the reality of the world we live in, but also serves more to protect the speaker's own opinion of him/themselves than it does attempt to accomplish anything that would actually make the world a better place.

All the arguments/cancelling/etc. over Polanski, Allen, et. al. while Donald Trump is occupying the White House again. ](*,)

[tenia]

Would NOT discussing this be better ? What if instead of pointing what might NOT be useful, suggest what might be useful to do ?

Not that I have anything to do with Trump having been elected twice anyway, since I'm French and live there (and have never voted for anyone remotely close to these kind of sociopolitical alignment), but what's the idea ? That because it's been kinda pointless, then better not to do it at all ? This heavily looks like a perfect solution fallacy.

[MichaelB]

It's so good that the films of a man who admitted to the rape of one girl 50 uears ago have been kept from American screens since 2017.

I suspect you know as well as I do that there have been a number of other credible accusations made against Polanski from around the same time as the incident over which he finally got caught.

And the fact that the current US President is a sleazebag himself is hardly a convincing argument in his favour.

It's also very obvious from the reaction to even this very small-scale outing for An Officer and a Spy that distributors were probably wise to pass on it back in 2019. Whether you like it or not, the cultural climate has changed post-#metoo.

And it's not as if the film's impossible to see - you just have to work a bit harder to get hold of it. But it's still arguably easier to get hold of than it is to get hold of the vast majority of films by Polanski's direct Polish successors - people like Jan Komasa, Wojciech Smarzowski, et al.

[Mr Sausage]

There’s also a difference between romanticizing age-gap relationships, ie. taking a side in a contentious social issue, and making a film about how persecuting the innocent is bad, which is a truism.

But it's the same thing if you believe whatever you're romanticizing is not bad, including because that's what you've done in your own life. The matter isn't what's the accusation about, but that it's perceived as wrong and thus being a witch hunt.

I disagree. There is a very real distinction here. Both men may very well be using their films to persuade the public of their innocence, but only Besson's movie is doing that by trying to change the audience's ethics.

The other point was that sub-texts being a matter of the eye of the beholder : I don't believe so. If someone overlooks known willful parallels between what's in a movie and whoever made it, it doesn't change what's in the movie (which is why I find Michael B's re-imagining of J'accuse directed by a pseudo extremely theoretical - "what if this movie about a recurring theme in this director's filmo for 50 years was directed under pseudo ?"). I've read people overlooking the sub-texts of Besson's Dracula just like they overlooked the sub-texts of his Dogman, hence my remark. It wasn't so much a remark about some kind of hierarchy of accusations, but that sub-texts do exist, that they're sometimes explicitly told by the filmmakers, and overlooking those is a personal choice.

Now however, I get what you're saying about making an allegory vs identifying with the main character, which is in line what Michael B wrote about the on-screen content and that it might not really reflect the movie being actively used by Polanski as a "hey look, this guy was wrongly accused just like I was". The question I might ask however is whether this isn't requesting sub-texts not to be just sub-texts anymore. I'm fairly certain one can watch On The Waterfront without understanding what Kazan is doing with it, at least simply for people unaware of the backstory. Do we need a character to be called Elia just to be sure ?

Yeah, I agree with you here, the context of their making unavoidably becomes part of the films' subtexts. While this may or may not mean anything to the average viewer, a critic or programmer is obligated to deal with it I feel (and you seem to agree). With both Besson and Polanksi's movies, it's hard for me to say how much the directors' personal lives become subtext of the movies themselves. I really can't comment. But 'not at all' seems unlikely. (In fairness to MichaelB, tho', I think his comment about switching directors was not to hand wave away the subtext but to explain how the film is not explicit about Polanski's life, such that if you didn't know the situation already you couldn't infer it from the movie itself. That touches on whether or not the film is an allegory).

My own post was more about how the films are functioning as rhetoric. If Polanski's film is an allegory, that's a much different rhetorical position than if the director finds emotional parallels between himself and the story he's depicting, however uncomfortable the latter may be to a knowledgeable viewer,

[Zot!]

And it's not as if the film's impossible to see - you just have to work a bit harder to get hold of it. But it's still arguably easier to get hold of than it is to get hold of the vast majority of films by Polanski's direct Polish successors - people like Jan Komasa, Wojciech Smarzowski, et al.

Thanks Michael for bringing this back to something relevant to this forum...I would think that nobody needs to feel sorry for Polanski or his fans. We're talking about a guy who has won an Oscar and a Palm D'Or while being a fugitive from justice. He has been able to continue to make movies and live what appears to be a very privileged life. Sure he's no longer going to parties at the Playboy Mansion, but his films continue to be celebrated, exhibited and widely available. Now if he had committed the crime of being commercially unviable, that would be an unforgivable trespass.

[Lowry_Sam]

My late night post was more to question the need for a union to devote time/resources on an issue where people have most likely already drawn lines. I understand need to state a position publicly for its members, however Polanski can't enter the US & such a limited engagement in NYC isn't going to change that. Meanwhile there are bigger, more problematic fish to fry. One thing I haven't seen discussed is what happens to the money raised from this screening and whether Polanski's crimes should override anything else with respect to the other people who worked on the film.

[tolbs1010]

Any love for Ken Russell's Prisoner of Honor? Richard Dreyfuss' performance is too stiff by half, but it marks the last collaboration between Russell and Oliver Reed, and has a terrific supporting cast including Brian Blessed, Peter Vaughan, and Lindsay Anderson. It's the last time that Russell was able to do his thing on a real budget, and was made in a window of time when HBO Pictures rescued directors like Russell and John Frankenheimer from Movie Jail.

The primary reason I want to see Polanski's version is to compare it to Prisoner Of Honor, which is such an unsatisfying telling of this important true story. Russell's direction is fine, but the script for Prisoner Of Honor focuses an inordinate amount of attention on Picquart. It's unbalanced, and Richard Drefyuss is terrible in the role. "Too stiff by half" is charitable. That is a shame because it was clearly a labor of love for Dreyfuss, a direct descendant of Dreyfus, as producer and star. Kenneth Colley as Dreyfus is quite good but isn't given enough screen time.

I imagine the French cast would give the story more authenticity and feeling, and it seems like this version gives Dreyfus' point of view more screen time. I hope it becomes more easily accessible in the States eventually....not paying a ridiculous price for a DVD.