Movie "The Pianist" -- worth seeing


Oleg Volk
January 19, 2003, 09:10 PM
Just came from that film. Well-directed, well-acted story. Brutal. Historic details and all weapons handling are flawless.

Germans have a mix of M98s and K98s, MP40 (with stocks actually deployed) and MP28s, Lugers in 9 and 7.65, P38s, early marks of Panzer IV and various armored cars, Polish 47mm field guns. Polish resistance has a mix of Mausers of various origins, Stens and hanguns.

Even explosives effects are done right -- with one exception , none of the "gas can and a wick" shortcuts, correct fuze delays for German and Russian hand grenades. Realistic reaction to small arms fire, reasonable street fighting tactics (people seek cover, ricochets count).

A movie best watched with a 45 on the hip. A small group of people armed with less than Tam's collection managed to murder hundreds. Nasty. Beats the sick snuff (Schindler's List) and celebrations of dying passively (Jacob the Liar) and much better done than Europa!Europa!

Highly recommended if you can catch it in a theater, DVD otherwise.

If you enjoyed reading about "Movie "The Pianist" -- worth seeing" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
Politically Incorrect
January 19, 2003, 09:19 PM
I think I might go see this where I saw Bowling for Columbine. They serve beer there at that small theater. :D

A small group of people armed with less than Tam's collection managed to murder hundreds.

If Tamara was around at the time of Operation Overlord, Eisenhower might have asked her to borrow a few guns to invade Normandy.

4v50 Gary
January 19, 2003, 11:11 PM
Tamara's aunt supplied the Marquis?

January 19, 2003, 11:19 PM
"Tamara's aunt supplied the Marquis?"

Perhaps the Marquis De Sade....:cool:

January 20, 2003, 03:17 AM
Might I point out, that even tho the movie might be outstanding, it's directed by Roman Polanski, who fled this country to avoid being prosecuted for having sex with a minor - a 13 year old girl.

I don't support pedophiles, or watch their movies. Had it been my daughter, Paris wouldn't have been far enough for said scumbag to run.:fire:

January 20, 2003, 04:01 AM

So you would probably call my grandfather a pedophile.

January 20, 2003, 05:29 AM
If your grandfather had sex with a child, you bet your butt I would.

January 20, 2003, 11:21 AM
Swingset, bear in mind that in days past, even in Europe and America, many women married in their early teens. They were engaging in sexual intercourse at an age that would bring automatic child-abuse charges in today's world. Times have changed...

This still happens in many Third World countries. I've met a married couple where the man was in his 60's, and he'd just "bought" (yes, I do mean BOUGHT - he paid a bride price to the girl's father, as per local custom) a 12-year-old wife. She was already 7 months pregnant (and still 12 years old) when I met them. Both seemed happy enough with the arrangement... It's a different world out there, my friend, and although we may not like it one little bit, there's not much we can do about it!

Chuck Perry
January 20, 2003, 11:40 AM
Polanski's case was not days past, and it was not Third World. It was modern day USA, where it was well known to be both unacceptable and illegal. Polanski played but has yet to pay.

January 20, 2003, 12:47 PM
swingset, just wait for the movie to wind up on a dvd-rip and download it.

January 20, 2003, 02:13 PM
Slavery once happened in this country - and was ok by most. It still happens in the world, and it's still wrong.

Rape happened as a matter of human reproduction long ago. It still happens, and it's still wrong.

Roman Polanski had sex with a child. If your grandfathers did too, then they were wrong.

Sue me, I have strange feelings about this subject when I picture my daughter. Apparently some of you have no children or imaginations.

January 20, 2003, 03:51 PM
I second Oleg's recommendation. An excellent reminder of why free people have firearms. I felt really good when that cabinet was slid aside to reveal a stash of K-98's and potato masher's.
The Panzer IV ausf C or E that appeared was a surprise as well. The simulation of post shot deafness was EXCELLENT, surpassing even the attempt in Saving Private Ryan

January 20, 2003, 04:02 PM
On the same theme (I think; I haven't seen The Pianist yet) I'd also recommend seeing The Grey Zone, which is about a Sonderkommando revolt at Auschwitz. Not too much gunplay, but a very powerful movie.

January 20, 2003, 04:31 PM
Polanski- Sick dude,

13 year old in question?
Nastassja Kinski,

Place where this alledgely happend?
Jack Nicholson's condo.

January 20, 2003, 07:59 PM
Uhh...he said 'pianist' :)

What's the movie about anyway?

Oleg Volk
February 3, 2003, 11:13 AM
A friend just saw it and sent me this comment:
It was clear from the very first second that it was
going to be a masterpiece.
The point of view was rather unusual: one ignorant
person's journey of survival, without any knowledge or
understanding of the overall situation. But this was
exctly how it was in the USSR for me and most everyone
else, so one can't blame him (or other Jews.) It is
their tragic fate that had taught us to be vigilant
The Germans' casual brutality and murderousness was
expertly shown, without wailing, in a matter-of-fact
way - to much greater effect.
The extermination story was proceeding on with an
eerie inevitability about it. I'm not sure if there
was ever any practical chance of resisiting it; the
book on Warsaw Ghetto uprising I had read (finished
just before 9/11/2001) made it clear that it was not
in the cards. That the uprising did happen, against
hopeless odds, just for the sake of human dignity and
spirit, is to an eternal glory of the Jews. All
gunowners in the US are direct beneficiaries of that
experience, showing that under no circumstances -
including death threatened - should one give up one's
arms if one is not prepared for the enslavement of
one's family and compatriots.
The showing of Jewish police, the carriers of
orders, was rare and disturbing, but in no way
exaggerated. Scum is scum, doesn't matter if it's
Jewish or not. (Look around us _today_.)
A minor point I thought gave the movie a perfect
authenticity: the sound of gunfire was utterly
realistic, with rifle sounds making real-life loud
"crack"s; I can't recall any other movie where this
could be observed. (Which admiteddly doesn't measn
much since I hardly ever go to movies.)

My grandmother (who lost most of her family in Belorus) watched it in Germany, of all places, and found it accurate and well-made. If it is still showing where you live, go see it...otherwise, get a DVD.

February 3, 2003, 12:22 PM

Lookin' forward to seeing it. Art should be judged by it's merits, not by the politics or sins of it's creator. Clint Eastwood doesn't like pistols in real life, but has made a living shooting folks in movies. While I dislike his attitude, I like watching his movies.

PS: Btw, I find it funny that folks would yelp about the sins of others, but encourage theft of their property by DLing illegal copies of their work. It seems to say "Heck, they're scum in my eyes, so stealing from them don't matter." Of course it does.

Joe Demko
February 3, 2003, 12:43 PM
Many great artists (and Polanski isn't one) were pretty reprehensible in their private lives. One of my favorite painters, Caravaggio, was rather a dirtbag. He killed another man in an argument over a game of tennis, for example. Even though he was such an unsavory character, he still produced some truly great paintings.
Polanski, whose work has never impressed me, is just following a Hollywood tradition of sex with young girls. Charlie Chaplin was notorious in that respect, so was Errol Flynn.
This is why I always counsel people to ignore everything about artists and entertainers except their work. The less you know about their personal lives and politics, generally, the better off you will be.

Oleg Volk
February 3, 2003, 12:54 PM
How big is the director's role, anyhow? Seems to me that focusing on Polanski (whose other movies were not to my liking) ignores the actors, the prop-makers, the musicians and the rest of the film crew.

February 3, 2003, 01:07 PM
I saw the "Pianist" several weeks ago in a theater. It is excellent. Based on a small book which I believe was originally published in 1945. I saw a soft copy of the book at Borders recently.

It is about a famous Jewish Polish concert pianist who plays quite a bit on Polish radio before and at the beginning during WWII, and afterwards.

The authored recently died around the age of 88. I am assuming his story is true.

The "pianist" story is incredible. He survives the Warsaw Jewish ghetto including labor camp, he escapes the deportations to the death camps, survives the Jewish Warsaw ghetto uprising, the general Polish Warsaw upgrising, and just living day-to-day in a ravaged urban environment scrounging around for food and shelter. Something like Robinson Crusoe in hell.

It is interesting at the end when the "pianist" is saved by a German officer, who recognized him for his great talent.

Later on, according to the story, the "pianist" tries to find and free the German officer who as captured by Soviet troops and died in captivity
around 1957.

Interesting ending. The "pianist" (Szpilman by name I think) was freezing, and the German officer gave the pianist his great coat. When Polish troops finally liberated Warsaw, he is almost shot by them when they see him in his German coat.

The movie won best picture at the Cannes film festival, and I would not be surprised if it will up for an Oscar nomination.

Don't know too much about Polanski. He was convicted of child molesting about 25 years ago. If I remember correctly, apparently there was some kind of dispute over the sentence to be imposed (I think the judge changed his mind and welched on the deal) and Polanski then fled to Europe.

The 13 year old girl who was raped by Polanski was recently on television interview (she is about 40 now) has pretty much forgiven Polanski, and thinks he should come back to America.

I am not trying to defend Polanski, but it is helpful to know what is going on so you can make your own judgements.

February 3, 2003, 01:12 PM
By the way, I think Polanski was a survivor of the WWII Krakow, Poland, Jewish Ghetto.

February 3, 2003, 02:20 PM
Each to his own opinion, but Polanski's career, though roiled by personal tragedy, is that of an exceptional filmmaker. Several of his films are unquestionably classics: Repulsion, Cul-de-Sac, Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby. And maybe this latest, which I haven't yet seen. His version of Macbeth is brilliant (and great war and battle sequences). The man is not your run of the mill movie director, nor has he had your run of the mill life. I don't condone sex with minors but that should have no bearing on judging Polanski's artistry.

Travis McGee
February 4, 2003, 02:24 AM
Longeyes, Oleg

Here's an interesting side note: one of Polanski's old running buddies was novelist Jersi Kosinski, another child of the Nazi eastern europe, another brilliant and in many ways twisted mind.

Read "The Painted BIrd" for his child's eye view life in hiding and as a refugee gypsy boy in Nazi Poland....

And check this out: Kosinski was supposed to be at Polanski's house, but missed a flight, the night the Manson gang murdered Polanski wife Sharon Tate and the others.

Very strange lives, much touched by tragedy, giving much, including beauty, truth, ugliness and pain.

But consider their childhoods. Not to excuse! Just to consider.

February 4, 2003, 04:42 AM
Hey all, I don't care if you're accepting the merits of an artist over his personal politics, that's your business. More power to ya if you can enjoy his movies and forget his crime.

You can give him your money by seeing his picture and making him richer. It wasn't your daughter, afterall.

You can release him from feeling like Americans demand justice from a child molestor who flees the country before he can be tried.

You can look past it and enjoy his movies. It's america, after all. You can support any scumbag you wish.

Why not send OJ a personal check? After all, he probably entertained a few of you in his football career or in the movies.

Why not send Rosie a steak? She was kinda funny in Another Stakeout and that goofy bondage flick!

More power to ya.:fire:

February 4, 2003, 09:18 AM
If your grandfathers did too, then they were wrong.

My Grandparents: Mamaw and Pappaw...I believe she was 14 when they wed. They're going on their 67th year of marriage. Had six kids, three girl and three boys. Tons of great-grandchildren now.

Pappaw's got the Big C now, but Mamaw sits by him all day, every day.

Slavery, huh? :rolleyes:

February 4, 2003, 06:46 PM
My inlaws married when she was 16 and he was 27. He went off to the navy after helping conceive his first daughter (my wife), then returned to produce four more children.

Not the same thing as having sex outside marriage with a child, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't something going on prior to marriage.

Remember Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his 13 year-old cousin?

I don't know where I'm going with all this, just thought I'd bring it up.

February 4, 2003, 06:58 PM
Well, heck, I guess if everyone's grandfathers married 13 year olds, that makes it ok for this middle-aged ******bag to seduce a kid.:rolleyes:

Let's just hope when your daughter is 13, your best buddy comes over to your house while you not home and sleeps with her.

Then we'll see how soft and fuzzy you feel about Roman Polanski.


February 4, 2003, 07:12 PM

Morons, huh?

You said:
Let's just hope when your daughter is 13, your best buddy comes over to your house while you not home and sleeps with her.

Reread my post, bud. If you can't tell the difference between what I wrote and the situation you describe, you don't have a lot of room to be questioning anybody's intelligence.

All we were doing was pointing out that the statement you made (If your grandfathers did too, then they were wrong.) was a little strong. If you think there's something wrong with 67 years of marriage, well...that's on you.

I don't think anyone here was advocating rape.

You might want to be a little more careful about how you refer to people.

February 4, 2003, 08:17 PM
hey braz?
theres a huge difference between downloading a "pirated" film instead of paying the $2. to rent the film, and committing statuatory rape.

a thief is not in the same league as a pedophile.
and those who wish to NOT support pedophiles shouldnt be ostracized for stating their opinions.

granted, there are many cultures that to this day practice giving their children away in marriage. countries that have no laws regarding how old a person must be to legally marry or have sexual relations.

are those cultures wrong? immoral? according to our standards, YES. but to theres, its the norm. its always been done. the only thing we can govern is our own actions.

self-righteousness should have no place in anybodys life. we all do things we regret.

February 4, 2003, 09:14 PM
Well Thumper,

I stick by my words - choose them carefully and use them as I see fit.

No 13 year old is mature enough to handle the mental and emotional impact of grown up sex. They're not biologically built to be, they're not devoloped. Their brains and bodies are still children. They were children 2000 years ago, and they're children now.

I don't care if it offends you, or your grandparents. I don't like child molestors, I don't like people who justify wrongs by tradition, and I don't think 13 year olds should have sex with grown men.

February 4, 2003, 09:52 PM
First of all, I don't believe anyone around in 1936 would classify two married teens as any sort of "child molestation."

Societies change. Deal.

Second, I realize that you have a teenage daughter. I also realize, after noting the vehemence of your posts, you have some "issues" with that. Your problem. Might want to see somebody about it though.

That's from my Doc gal'friend, BTW...and yeah, she's a real shrink.

Either way, I'm outta this thread. Namecalling isn't fun for me unless it's face to face. Physical repercussions and all that.

Good luck.

February 4, 2003, 10:56 PM
Thumper, it may surprise you to find that I agree with you. Certainly I'm not the aribiter of when at what age sex is ok, but somewhere pre-18 is a little troubling.

I was just pointing out a couple of unusual circumstances, as well as re-examining my own history.

February 4, 2003, 11:18 PM
Ok, so Thumper wants to beat me up over it. Whatever. There lies his character. Disagreement? Start a throw down. No wonder I don't see things his way.

Personally, I don't understand everyone's speed to overlook a child molestor, or trying to convince me that a 13 year old is of marrying age. :banghead:

February 4, 2003, 11:19 PM
Nah, Monkeyleg...we agree more often than not.

Let me be plain, though. I'm certainly not advocating child sex here! (jeez...)

If you follow the thread, you'll see that all I'm doing is defending my Grandparents.

Farm folk...they married early. Still married. 67 years. I'm sure ol' swingset knows more about what's good for 'em than they do, though.

BTW...I don't give a rat's furry patoot about Roman Polanski.

February 4, 2003, 11:22 PM
Now you're threatened? Come on.

Doncha love people that call others names, then cry 'cause they might get punched?

Personal responsibility involves dealing with the ramifications of one's missbehavior. Least that's the way I understand it.

Differences in societies are fascinating. Where do you live, swingset, that you would call someone a moron during a discussion and expect NOT to get punched?

Just to be plain, I am NOT threatening you in any way...just mentioning how things are in my part of the planet.

I know, man...these neanderthals are just beastly...:rolleyes:

February 4, 2003, 11:55 PM
Thumper, we don't disagree it seems. My inlaws were of the "old school," which meant that hitchin' up early was alright.

For many decades I've looked at the sex/age/consensual issue from what I regard as the responsibility of a "man." A "man" may be presented some pretty attractive opportunities, but he doesn't try to gain advantage by booze, drugs, empty promises, money, flashy cars, or just the mere weight of the age advantage.

A "man" knows when he's preying on the vulnerable. Women/girls can be vulnerable due to a number of reasons. (Women make for lousy drunks; that's not my opinion, it's a reasonably established medical theory). The "feelings" factor weighs in heavy.

Guys who go after married or distraught women, women who are somehow out of control (booze, chemicals, mindset), or otherwise try to take unfair advantage are pond scum.

To quote a Godfather cliche': "Women and children can be careless, but not men."

As for Roman Polanski, next time I see him I'll ask him which category he abused.

February 5, 2003, 12:09 AM
Agreed on all counts, 'leg.

I think my ol' Pappaw did right by my Grandma, though, don't you?

BTW, swingset, if my 81 year old Mammaw heard you refer to Pappaw as a "child molester," she'd throw a whuppin' on you, too.

February 5, 2003, 05:38 AM
Thumper, I'm not threatened by you. I resort to violence when I'm threatened, my family or loved ones are threatened and for no other reason. Where I come from it's called being a grown man. Takes more than a disagreement for me to start a fight, kiddo.

That said, when I say that people are wrong for having sex with 13 year old girls, I mean it, period. Even if your grandma lives a wonderful, regret free life, it doesn't diminish that she had sex at a time when her body and mind were still developing and not ready for the consequences of adult sex. Sure, she made a good thing of her circumstances, but that's not the point. I lived through poverty and chronic illness as a kid, but it's not an endorsement of either.

If you were 12 years old in Rome in 95bc, you might have been forced to be a concubine for a general or high ranking official - many small boys were. After a while, you'd have grown up and they'd have let you go on your way. It was just the way things were, perfectly natural and legal. You might have led a decent life after the fact (tho with a sore butt). Doesn't mean it's right. Social acceptance of a practice doesn't make ANYTHING right.

YEAH, i have a 13 year old, and the thought of someone stealing her innocence, even if consentual, is abhorrent to me. If it's not to you, and you can't understand why 13 is too young (and it was too young for your grandma), then it's your disfunction. Don't psychoanalyze me or try to tell me I'm obsessed. Any father who cares about his children feels like I do - but not everyone has a little girl or is a good person at heart.

Joe Demko
February 5, 2003, 06:39 AM
Social acceptance of a practice doesn't make ANYTHING right.

What does, then, pray tell?

February 5, 2003, 07:37 AM
Takes more than a disagreement for me to start a fight, kiddo. in Ohio it's a "disagreement" when someone calls someone else a moron. I understand that this is acceptable to you in common discourse and that you believe such namecalling is part of what you consider being a "grown man."

Got it.


Perhaps I look young to you in my pictures, but by our birthdates, I believe I have about a year on you. But thanks anyway.

Back to the crux of the argument:

I'm defending one particular began by saying that my Grandfather was a child molester for marrying my grandmother at age 14. You further state that:
If it's not to you, and you can't understand why 13 is too young (and it was too young for your grandma), then it's your disfunction.

Well. I can understand that at 33, you might not quite be able to grasp 67 years of marriage. I know I can't.

But I will put forth the idea that your saying that they are somehow "wrong" is the height of arrogance.

Doing the math, it looks like you got hitched freshly out of high school (I'm assuming the two of you were married.). Interesting. How old was she? How's that going?

67 years is beautiful, pard. I understand you don't want your little girl to grow up, but you need to grasp it: It won't be long now. Not my fault.

February 5, 2003, 08:26 AM
Thumper, once again:

I call people moron when they deserve it. I felt you (and others) did. Doesn't mean I want to fight you with fists, but if that's how you were raised - then you do as your moral compass points you. A grown man can argue, even call names or hear them without needing to punch someone. Doesn't mean I'd let you hit me, btw.

When I called you kiddo it's because I assumed your willingness to scrap over my comments meant you were still full of testosterone and youthful ignorance. Was I wrong?

As for me? I was married at 22, my wife was 25. I've been married for 11 good years, not that it's any of your business.

And for your grandparents - it's great they've been married for 67 years, I don't begrudge them their happiness in their golden years. More power to them.

Still doesn't mean it's okeedokee to have sex with 13 year old girls, I don't care how their lives turned out (what part of this isn't penetrating your skull?). It's not about you and your grandparents' love in adulthood, it's about right and wrong. And having sex with children is wrong - even if in the time they did it it was considered normal or ok.

As for right and wrong being dictated by social standards? That's easy. Humans survive - it's all we're designed and built to do. Anything that impedes our survival is wrong. Social standards have been ever changing, yet our needs haven't. There were societies which practiced and lived with human sacrifice - which is fundamentally wrong as it impedes survival even if they thought it was fine. It even goes down to 13 year old's having sex or getting married. Why is it an impedement to survival? Well, emotional health, when damaged leads to self-destructive behavior and thus apathy - ultimately death. And, just because some people are ok after having sex too young, there are plenty of people to whom it has a drastic and negative outcome - you all are conveniently forgetting these people. I've met a few.

Right and wrong is not a custom or a tradition. When you shed your hee-haw ignorance of "that's the way things are", you'll see this. Nature explains it better than religion or your pappy does.

But, again, if you all want to justify underage sex and support Roman Polanski, just go right ahead. Obviously since I'm the lone dissenting voice here, I'm wrong. (Isn't this how social standards work, afterall?)

February 5, 2003, 08:34 AM
Regarding thick skulls:

You still don't get that I'm not advocating sex with children. I'm simply arguing against the pretty outlandish assertion that my grandfather is a "child molester."

I call people moron when they deserve it. I felt you (and others) did. Doesn't mean I want to fight you with fists, but if that's how you were raised - then you do as your moral compass points you.

Separate issue...but yeah, at least around here, if you go around calling folks morons, you can expect to get popped. Don't whine about it.

Speaking of "testosterone and youthfull ignorance":
Doesn't mean I'd let you hit me, btw.
Now why did you feel compelled to add that little bit?


Joe Demko
February 5, 2003, 08:35 AM
That's easy. Humans survive blah blah blah

You didn't answer the question at all, Skippy. Also, as one who has worked with both sex offenders and their victims, I agree with Thumper's gf. You do seem to have issues.

February 5, 2003, 12:21 PM
swingset, you arent the only voice of dissention. however, i think the point of the argument has fallen out of sight.

it may be inaccurate for you to say that thumpers grandfather was a child molester for marrying a young teenage girl. have you taken into consideration how old his grandfather was at the time? or perhaps that maybe the marriage was arranged way ahead of time by their families?

and while pedophiles are in the top 3 of mouthbreathers that deserve nothing less than, well, it does no good to say what they deserve, we live in a culture where youths are still put on pedastals and encouraged to pretend to be sexual creatures. parents put their kids in beauty pagents and dress them up to look like miniature adults. they watch tv shows that advocate promiscuity. they listen to music and songs that celebrate carefree lifestyles. hell, most guys that post here likely are counting down the days until mary kate and ashley become legal. i'm not, partly because i dont dig blondes, but also because i am filling in as a father figure to my twwin nieces for the time being and dont want them to be objectified by a bunch of pervs.

now, can we start making our arguments without the personal insults?

February 5, 2003, 12:37 PM
Uh ... is it just me or has this thread drifted a tad?

February 22, 2003, 11:11 PM
I just got done seeing it. First time I've seen a Luger being loaded. Albeit it was for a horrible purpose but it was still pretty cool. Shame on whoever ruined the German Coat part for me. :fire: :fire: :fire: Probably a Glock enthusiast.

February 24, 2003, 05:29 AM
One last drift. Roman Polanski used drugs and champagne on the 13 year old before raping her in a hot tub. Any questions?:fire:

Oh, BTW, he was convicted of that rape. And he fled to La Belle France to avoid prison.:fire: :cuss: :fire:

February 24, 2003, 05:51 AM
I personally think you 2 gentlemen should of taken this conversation to Private Message format a while ago.

If you enjoyed reading about "Movie "The Pianist" -- worth seeing" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!