Roman Polanski's Based On A True Story (2017)

Frank O. Pinion

Plot wrote:

A writer goes through a tough period after the release of her latest book, as she gets involved with an obsessive admirer.

When is this film going to get an Irish, British, or North American release? I've been waiting for this for a while, and as it's now 2019, I thought I'd start a thread to see if anyone knew and/or has seen the film. Screenplay by Olivier Assayas, too. If you look at the release date list on IMDB, you'll see it's been released many places, most recently Russia (October 2018), but no Ireland, UK, or USA release date.

Big fan of Polanski's films, I loved his last, Venus In Fur (2013).

Sad Professor

The Spanish Blu-ray is out and has English subtitles.

If you want to wait it might eventually get a limited release in the IFI. God knows when.

Frank O. Pinion

I don't have anything that can play DVDs/Blu-rays anymore, besides my computer. I'm all digital/streaming for watching films.

How on earth do you release a Roman Polanski film in the current climate and make money?
Its simple not possible for anyone in any sort of public position to support him now whether they privately are on his side or not. Or am I wrong?

Venom

Deleted User wrote: »

How on earth do you release a Roman Polanski film in the current climate and make money?
Its simple not possible for anyone in any sort of public position to support him now whether they privately are on his side or not. Or am I wrong?

The vast majority of Hollywood completely supported and defended this scumbag for years, not only giving him awards and standing ovations but also signing their names to petitions to have him pardoned for his crime. It was only due to being called out as metoo hypocrites that a fair amount of them publicly change opinion about the guy.

Ipso

Aside from being a rapist, his ideas don’t scream wokeness.
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/05/roman-polanski-thinks-birth-control-pill-masculinized-women/314878/

Frank O. Pinion

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How on earth do you release a Roman Polanski film in the current climate and make money?

Some films are made to make art, not money.

The last few posts are wildy off topic and have nothing to do with the film the thread is about. I thought about putting a disclaimer that I didn't want this thread to descend into a PC circlejerk about his private life, but thought maybe people are tried of repeating the same BS repetitive opinions about Polanski, but I guess not. Many of his films are masterpieces, true art, and I love his work. Hey, Woody Allen is pretty damn fantastic, too.

dar100

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Some films are made to make art, not money.

The last few posts are wildy off topic and have nothing to do with the film the thread is about. I thought about putting a disclaimer that I didn't want this thread to descend into a PC circlejerk about his private life, but thought maybe people are tried of repeating the same BS repetitive opinions about Polanski, but I guess not. Many of his films are masterpieces, true art, and I love his work. Hey, Woody Allen is pretty damn fantastic, too.

As are jimmy saville and ted bundy

Frank O. Pinion

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Some films are made to make art, not money.

The last few posts are wildy off topic and have nothing to do with the film the thread is about. I thought about putting a disclaimer that I didn't want this thread to descend into a PC circlejerk about his private life, but thought maybe people are tried of repeating the same BS repetitive opinions about Polanski, but I guess not. Many of his films are masterpieces, true art, and I love his work. Hey, Woody Allen is pretty damn fantastic, too.

They are (usually they still have to break even though) but when the director of said movie is a paedophile it’s hardly ‘off topic’. In this day and age is not possible to separate the two given we know the complete destruction of life sexually abusing minors causes. It’s kind of irresponsible almost to hold the two completely separate

Sad Professor

Polanski has another film in production at the moment so his financiers must think there's still an audience for his films.

Anyway the reviews for this aren't great to say the least. Certainly not as good a reception as Venus in Fur received, which I still haven't got around to watching despite really liking Carnage.

johnny_ultimate

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

The last few posts are wildy off topic and have nothing to do with the film the thread is about.

Honestly I'd suggest your opening question of "when is this film going to get an Irish, British, or North American release?" probably can't be answered without reference to his private life. The last 18 months or so have discernibly changed perceptions - and while there's fair questions to be considered about why only now is Roman Polanski (or Woody Allen) considered persona non grata, the reality is that the rules have shifted. Distributing a Roman Polanski film is now a more fraught affair, and that's not a solitary case - look at how Woody Allen, Louis CK or Kevin Spacey films have been buried (the likes of France tend to have rather different perceptions when it comes to these sort of things, incidentally, especially when it comes to the Polanski case). Since Based on a True Story screened to fairly indifferent reviews anyway, that probably didn't help its chances for distribution. UK box office performance for Venus in Fur wasn't much to write home about either.

Not going to get into any arguments about the rights or wrongs of any of this, but if I was to hazard a guess about why Roman Polanski's 2017 film has yet to get any sort of release beyond a few European territories... the notable shift in perceptions against him (best symbolised by his belated ejection from the Academy) would be the most obvious answer.

The Crowman

A vile excuse for a human being but that wouldn't stop me from watching his films.

Frank O. Pinion

Deleted User wrote: »

when the director of said movie is a paedophile it’s hardly ‘off topic’.

Polanski had sex with a 13 year old girl. That does not make him a paedophile.

Sad Professor wrote:

Polanski has another film in production at the moment so his financiers must think there's still an audience for his films.

There will always be an audience for pure art.

Sad Professor wrote:

Anyway the reviews for this aren't great to say the least. Certainly not as good a reception as Venus in Fur received, which I still haven't got around to watching despite really liking Carnage.

I pay very little attention to reviews before I watch a film, especially for writers/directors I enjoy, for fear of said reviews effecting my opinion of the film, or giving away the mystery, feel, tone, or vibe of the film. I don't care if every reviewer and critic says the new Polanski/Woody Allen/David Lynch/Coen brothers/etc. film is crap, I'll still want to see it and look forward to doing so. There's many films that are considered weak or terrible that I've enjoyed, it would be a disservice to my appreciation of film to ignore some films based on some bad reviews. Venus In Fur was an erotic masterpiece.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Honestly I'd suggest your opening question of "when is this film going to get an Irish, British, or North American release?" probably can't be answered without reference to his private life. The last 18 months or so have discernibly changed perceptions - and while there's fair questions to be considered about why only now is Roman Polanski (or Woody Allen) considered persona non grata, the reality is that the rules have shifted. Distributing a Roman Polanski film is now a more fraught affair, and that's not a solitary case - look at how Woody Allen, Louis CK or Kevin Spacey films have been buried (the likes of France tend to have rather different perceptions when it comes to these sort of things, incidentally, especially when it comes to the Polanski case). Since Based on a True Story screened to fairly indifferent reviews anyway, that probably didn't help its chances for distribution. UK box office performance for Venus in Fur wasn't much to write home about either.

Not going to get into any arguments about the rights or wrongs of any of this, but if I was to hazard a guess about why Roman Polanski's 2017 film has yet to get any sort of release beyond a few European territories... the notable shift in perceptions against him (best symbolised by his belated ejection from the Academy) would be the most obvious answer.

It has got released many places though, post-#MeToo, (Germany, May 2018, for example), and I haven't seen cinema chains in the UK or US saying they're refusing to show it, or streaming companies like Netflix or Amazon refusing to pick it up.

That's all I was looking for, somewhere I could stream or download it, with English subtitles.

Frank O. Pinion

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Polanski had sex with a 13 year old girl. That does not make him a paedophile.

.

I cannot believe you have written this. If you said that in public you would be doing well to escape the room without a severe beating.

Ipso

Deleted User wrote: »

I cannot believe you have written this. If you said that in public you would be doing well to escape the room without a severe beating.

But, Art. With a capital F.

Ipso

Ipso wrote: »

But, Art. With a capital F.

Ipso Facto!

Achasanai

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Polanski had sex with a 13 year old girl. That does not make him a paedophile.

I'm pretty sure that's the definition of a paedophile.

Frank O. Pinion

Deleted User wrote: »

I cannot believe you have written this. If you said that in public you would be doing well to escape the room without a severe beating.

Achasanai wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that's the definition of a paedophile.

Nope, you're both literally wrong. "severe beating"? Oh, how scary. I have had this discussion in public, usually with people that wouldn't just immediately jump to violence because of words, or people that are easily #triggered. He's absolutely not a paedophile, and you might want to learn the actual definitions of the words you use.

Infantophilia - attracted to children under 5 years old.
Paedophilia - attracted to prepubescent children, under 11 years old.
Hebephilia - attracted to 11-14 year olds.
Ephebophilia- attracted to 15-19 year olds.
Gerontophilia - attracted to the elderly.

So, Polanski is a hebephile, not a paedophile. To me, there is a big difference in being attracted to 5 year olds and 15 year olds. Many men (and women) are ephebophilies, legally too, depending on local law.

I'm not saying what Polanski did was okay, but words have meanings, and it's usually best to use them correctly.

Again, I had hoped for this thread to be just about his latest film, and not more "moral outrage".

Frank O. Pinion

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Nope, you're both literally wrong. "severe beating"? Oh, how scary. I have had this discussion in public, usually with people that wouldn't just immediately jump to violence because of words, or people that are easily #triggered. He's absolutely not a paedophile, and you might want to learn the actual definitions of the words you use.

Infantophilia - attracted to children under 5 years old.
Paedophilia - attracted to prepubescent children, under 11 years old.
Hebephilia - attracted to 11-14 year olds.
Ephebophilia- attracted to 15-19 year olds.
Gerontophilia - attracted to the elderly.

So, Polanski is a hebephile, not a paedophile. To me, there is a big difference in being attracted to 5 year olds and 15 year olds. Many men (and women) are ephebophilies, legally too, depending on local law.

I'm not saying what Polanski did was okay, but words have meanings, and it's usually best to use them correctly.

Again, I had hoped for this thread to be just about his latest film, and not more "moral outrage".

In my book if you have sex with a child you are a paedophile. Truly sorry for my moral outrage! Jesus Christ lol.
We are not talking about fat shaming someone here we are talking about destroying someone’s life permanently. I wonder how a 13 year old who’s gone through something like that would think about your ‘technicality’. I wonder if you had a daughter taken advantage of like that what you would think of the technicality. Have you not seen the result of this kind of action?

Frank O. Pinion

Deleted User wrote: »

In my book if you have sex with a child you are a paedophile.

Cool. Depending on the age though, you might be wrong, and using the wrong word. The age of consent in Ireland is 17, but 16 in the UK. Does the difference of a year and the land under one's feet make one a paedophile? Does having sex with teenagers make one a paedophile? No, because there is a defined difference in having sex with prepubescent children and teenagers.

Deleted User wrote: »

We are not talking about fat shaming someone here we are talking about destroying someone’s life permanently. I wonder how a 13 year old who’s gone through something like that would think about your ‘technicality’. I wonder if you had a daughter taken advantage of like that what you would think of the technicality. Have you not seen the result of this kind of action?

"Won't somebody think of the children!", again, your moral outrage is very heartfelt and worth discussing...on a film forum. I would use the word "hebephile", and not "paedophile", as it would be the correct word to use. Have I defended what Polanski did? I simply said he's not a paedophile, because he's literally not a paedophile. Also, I think his films are pretty good...which might be a more suitable discussion...on a film forum.

Frank O. Pinion

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Cool. Depending on the age though, you might be wrong, and using the wrong word. The age of consent in Ireland is 17, but 16 in the UK. Does the difference of a year and the land under one's feet make one a paedophile? Does having sex with teenagers make one a paedophile? No, because there is a defined difference in having sex with prepubescent children and teenagers.


"Won't somebody think of the children!", again, your moral outrage is very heartfelt and worth discussing...on a film forum. I would use the word "hebephile", and not "paedophile", as it would be the correct word to use. Have I defended what Polanski did? I simply said he's not a paedophile, because he's literally not a paedophile. Also, I think his films are pretty good...which might be a more suitable discussion...on a film forum.

Your moral compass is clearly much better then mine frank, my lack of understanding about the technicalities in child abuse just make my opinion worthless moral outrage. Of course having sex with a kid shouldn't affect anyones opinion on what wonderful art that person makes, I mean the two are completely separate. Lets talk about the wonderful community work priests who abused children have done, and forget about the abuse, its irrelevant to the community work. Lets forget the abused kids at the football clubs, because those coaches could teach a striker to be an amazing finisher, discussing what they did in the showers is a separate issue, whats important is their shooting ability not the fact they committed suicide years later as a result.

Anyway this discussion is about as unpleasant as discussions get. I have had my last word on the topic.

Sad Professor

This thread is going well.

vicwatson

Sad Professor wrote: »

This thread is going well.

Polanski, Statutory rape - was always gonna be a troublesome thread.

Technocentral

Over rated director imo, Chinatown and The Pianist his only great films. I'd still watch his films if they got got good reviews though.

Sad Professor

Technocentral wrote: »

Over rated director imo, Chinatown and The Pianist his only great films. I'd still watch his films if they got got good reviews though.

Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby are better films than The Pianist.

IMO of course. Overall I don't find him overrated at all. I think he's had a better, more consistent career than most of his contemporaries from the 70s.

Frank O. Pinion

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Nope, you're both literally wrong. "severe beating"? Oh, how scary. I have had this discussion in public, usually with people that wouldn't just immediately jump to violence because of words, or people that are easily #triggered. He's absolutely not a paedophile, and you might want to learn the actual definitions of the words you use.

Infantophilia - attracted to children under 5 years old.
Paedophilia - attracted to prepubescent children, under 11 years old.
Hebephilia - attracted to 11-14 year olds.
Ephebophilia- attracted to 15-19 year olds.
Gerontophilia - attracted to the elderly.

So, Polanski is a hebephile, not a paedophile. To me, there is a big difference in being attracted to 5 year olds and 15 year olds. Many men (and women) are ephebophilies, legally too, depending on local law.

I'm not saying what Polanski did was okay, but words have meanings, and it's usually best to use them correctly.

Again, I had hoped for this thread to be just about his latest film, and not more "moral outrage".

I was waiting for someone to post this nonsense knowing full well that public meaning puts what word where.

It's not PC to say that a child rapist should not have a career.
People tend to say "oh his art and the person are not interlinked" and then comment about how much of one's self an artist puts into their work.

Simply put is that the creep should not have had a career with which to make art. For a large portion of it he should have been in jail.


All of this is not "off topic" for your original question regarding a release, as to why wide releases are not happening. It's a bad time to be a child rapist (finally)

Frank O. Pinion

Deleted User wrote: »

Your moral compass is clearly much better then mine frank, my lack of understanding about the technicalities in child abuse just make my opinion worthless moral outrage. Of course having sex with a kid shouldn't affect anyones opinion on what wonderful art that person makes, I mean the two are completely separate. Lets talk about the wonderful community work priests who abused children have done, and forget about the abuse, its irrelevant to the community work. Lets forget the abused kids at the football clubs, because those coaches could teach a striker to be an amazing finisher, discussing what they did in the showers is a separate issue, whats important is their shooting ability not the fact they committed suicide years later as a result.

Anyway this discussion is about as unpleasant as discussions get. I have had my last word on the topic.

Good. I was wondering what you hoped to achieve by continuing to display your moral panic.

Deleted User wrote:

I was waiting for someone to post this nonsense

Nonsense? To use and know the definition of the right words, in context? Yeah, that is pure madness.

Deleted User wrote:

Simply put is that the creep should not have had a career with which to make art. For a large portion of it he should have been in jail.

Okay. What are you going to do about it? Continue to argue about it on message boards? What's the actual point? I'm going to continue to enjoy his art. Also, prisoners can, and do, make art.

Deleted User wrote:

All of this is not "off topic" for your original question regarding a release

Yes it is. The film has still been released in many countries, regardless of moral outrage and #MeToo.

Deleted User wrote:

It's a bad time to be a child rapist (finally)

Yes. I, for one, feel much safer and calmer in the world now. It was pretty dangerous there for a while, but things are just peachy now.

Frank O. Pinion

Technocentral wrote: »

Over rated director imo, Chinatown and The Pianist his only great films. I'd still watch his films if they got got good reviews though.

Sad Professor wrote: »

Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby are better films than The Pianist.

I also really enjoyed, The Tenant, Tess, Frantic, Bitter Moon, and Death and The Maiden. Great films, especially Bitter Moon, that was brilliant.

Pelvis

Technocentral wrote: »

Over rated director imo, Chinatown and The Pianist his only great films. I'd still watch his films if they got got good reviews though.

I thought The Ghost Writer was fantastic.

zapitastas

While I would have a particular affection for his version of mcbeth, he is particularly distasteful. Is hard to have much sympathy with a convicted rapist with a string of other allegations, including very young children.

branie2

When I was studying Macbeth for the Leaving Certificate, our class was shown his
film version of the play.

Frank O. Pinion

Found a version of this online, with English subs. Decent film, not near up to Polanski's best, but an above average film, which I enjoyed. At first you think it might be an

erotic lesbian

mystery-thriller, but it is just a mystery-thriller, and not the spoiler part. To some, the

twist

might seem

obvious

, but the journey getting there was fun.

is_that_so

Deleted User wrote: »

How on earth do you release a Roman Polanski film in the current climate and make money?
Its simple not possible for anyone in any sort of public position to support him now whether they privately are on his side or not. Or am I wrong?

Most in the entertainment business do, along with the French, Swiss and Polish legal systems.

enfant terrible

Eva Green doesn't seem to have much of a moral compass.

She’s also worked with Roman Polanski, on last year’s Based on a True Story. “It’s not a good film,” Green tuts. But did she have to think hard about accepting that job? “No,” she replies firmly. “In France he’s much better perceived than in America or England. He’s a god. In the [French] movie industry it’s always like, ‘you have to work with Polanski’.

“And he’s a nice man. I think it’s a bit different now that I know him, and I know his wife,” she says of the actress Emmanuelle Seigner, her co-star in the film, “and they have a different version [of the original story]… And it is a long thing and I don’t want to take sides. But people are complicated. You get the opportunity to work with a great artist... I don’t know, it’s a hard one. You sell your soul, I guess,” Green concedes.

https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/eva-green-speaks-for-the-first-time-about-surviving-in-sexist-industry-a3961121.html

Frank O. Pinion

enfant terrible wrote: »

Eva Green doesn't seem to have much of a moral compass.

That's the great thing about morals, they're completely made up and don't mean anything.

is_that_so

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

That's the great thing about morals, they're completely made up and don't mean anything.

Which allows some the notion that they can actually call out other people's "morals".

I'm sure Eva's Michael Jackson collection is going strong too. I mean who cares if he slept with little boys, it doesn't taint his music in the slightest, and the way Michael told it, he really did nothing wrong...