The hoards are out in full force today due to Venice selecting Roman Polanski, Woody Allen and Luc Besson’s new films. Their calls for cancellations have failed, they are now deep in meltdown mode. It’s wonderful to witness.
Speaking to THR Roma, Venice boss Alberto Barbera is defending his decision to include Polanski, Allen and Besson in Venice’s official lineup. His reasoning is sound and makes total sense.
Barbera is especially reinforcing the fact that both Allen and Besson were exonerated from their respective accusations:
From a formal and legal point of view Besson and Allen were acquitted, and Besson never even had to face a trial. Allen was acquitted twenty years ago, twice, by the charges. I do not see why we are here discussing it
As for Polanski, whose case is very different than Allen and Besson’s, well, Barbera’s reasoning is that, much like Polanski’s victim Samantha Geimer’s pleas, it’s time to just let it go and separate art from artist:
The Polanski case [has been] debated for 50 years. I don’t understand why one cannot distinguish between the responsibilities of the man and those of the artist. Polanski is 90 years old, he is one of the few working masters, he made an extraordinary film… It may be the last film of his career, although I hope he does like De Oliveira, who made films until he was 105. I stand firmly among those who in the debate distinguish [between] the responsibility of the man and that of the artist.
Polanski’s “The Palace” and Allen’s “Coup de Chance” are not in competition, but Besson’s “Dogman” is. All three are set to screen during the first seven days of the Venezia.
Allen has been confirmed to attend the world premiere of his new film. Polanski will, for obvious reasons, not be able to attend.
Barbera’s defense of Polanski and Allen is a far cry from Cannes boss Thierry Fremaux’s more diplomatically safe stance on the topic. He admitted in April that selecting Allen would have caused too much controversy and overshadowed other films in his lineup. He also claimed Polanski’s film wasn’t ready.
UPDATED: Here’s another statement from Barbera on the whole controversy (and another):
Luc Besson has been recently fully cleared of any accusations. Woody Allen went under legal scrutiny twice at the end of the ’90s and was absolved. With them, I don’t see where the issue is. In Polanski’s case, it’s paradoxical. It’s been 60 years. Polanski has admitted his responsibility. He’s asked to be forgiven. He’s been forgiven by the victim. The victim has asked for the issue to be put to rest. I think that to keep beating on Polanski means seeking a scapegoat for other situations that would deserve more attention. That aside, there is a cultural debate underway about Polanski with less rigid positions being taken. I am on the side of those who say you have to distinguish between the responsibilities of the individual and that of the artist. Also, I am a festival director, not a judge. I judge the artistic qualities of films. And from this perspective, I don’t see why I should not invite Polanski’s film to Venice.
Having an insurance director is not uncommon in Hollywood. Aging filmmakers, in case a health issue arises, sometimes need to have one. It seems like that’s what might have occurred on “What Happens at Night.”