Ask the victim.

OR… instead of "reading his other posts", you could take the same amount of time and look up the things he's talking about. Polanski made a mistake. It wasn't a 50-years-in-prison mistake. He was unfairly persecuted. These things aren't in dispute (except by those who can't be bothered to do the research and really…

How about a 19 year old sleeping with a 17 year old? Sometimes when we get specific, it helps us to delineate how we feel. Or how we write laws.

Sure, why watch a documentary and trust your own good sense and brain to parse facts and details presented to you? That sounds like a lot of WORK. Easier to grab a pitchfork!

Read up a little bit on it, because most of the things you're talking about re: that night at Jack nicholsons are not accurate.

I don't understand. Are you defending witch hunts? Of course we're dealing with much larger cultural issues, but Roman Polanski is one man living a real life. He's not a cultural issue, nor should he be subjected to one. The hive mind can be wrong almost as often as it is right.

Yikes. No shades of gray in this one for you, huh, Sam?
Might want to check out HBO's doc "Polanski: Wanted and Desired"

No. As a straight white dude not at all being "spoken" to by that movie or whatever you're saying, Moonlight was far and away the best movie of the year. Pure cinema.

You're getting a lot of flack, but I too found Horowitz's behavior pretty off-putting. He was seriously aggro, and snatching the card from Beatty was uncalled for and weird. That's Warren fucking Beatty, dude. You're so vain.

Wait… we all know the failed connection on the mic toss was a bit, right?

Yes, thank you. Understated can obviously be lovely. Any of the Moonlight actors, for instance. But Casey Affleck isn't doing anything that, say, CAA's list of top-50 male actors couldn't do in a heartbeat, most of them probably more effectively. That's why he had a weakness with the SAG voters.

The alternative point-of-view is that while Affleck has gotten a lot of love from critics, actors look at the performance and say, "what was so hard about that?" The writing and the direction do the bulk of the heavy lifting for him in that movie. Since actors make up the largest voting block of the academy, there…

Differing opinion: the ending was beautiful.

"and it becomes easy to imagine his heavily internal performance"

No, there is. The scene on the couch, when he admits how much he's hurting. That's the catharsis, when he finally lets down his guard. That's how the scene's written. Mind you, that doesn't mean he changes in the traditional sense; the movie is clearly making the point that some things are too big to get over.

Let me up the ante on the blowback here. I think Manchester is weighed down by a spectacularly boring lead performance. And when the script gives him his "big" scene at the end, his moment of emotional catharsis, Affleck doesn't have it. He turns away from the camera.

That's ok. That slog of a movie can use a laugh anywhere it can find one.

He is. Paying everyone scale, using non-union actors where he can (free), and paying non-union wages to his film school crew.

Most of the crew are straight out of his UCLA/USC production classes. So there's a reason for that…

Franco bought the rights.