I keep thinking about the whole Roman Polanski thing. And I totally get where his supporters are coming from. If the judge, supposedly hungry for publicity, had accepted the plea deal instead of tossing it, then this would long be over. And his victim says that she has long ago moved on and seems to have more of a grudge with the media than her assailant. And I get that because of his advanced age, any jail time is basically a life sentence.
I get all that.
But what I keep coming back around to is this: If it had been one of my thirteen year old daughters who’d been drugged and raped, I’d be sitting in the front row in the courtroom waiting to see the bášŧárd sentenced. And I wouldn’t give a rip about his Oscar or his advanced age or anything except what he did to my little girl.
But that could just be me.
PAD
• 
No, it’s not just you.
What Tim said.
Guess some people think that time does heal all wounds
I don’t have sympathy for him. First, what he did was a crime; the fact that the victim forgave him doesn’t obviate the crime. Second, he compounded that crime by fleeing the country to avoid prosecution, which is *another* crime. Even if you think the judge is biased against you, that doesn’t give you the right to leave the country.
As one commentator said, if he had stayed in the U.S. and served his time, he probably would have done 1-3 years and then gone on with his life. Instead he decided he was above the law and fled — and now it’s time to face the music. He gets no sympathy from me.
I agree with James.
.
The criminal doesn’t get to decide if the punishment is correct. If the judge overstepped some bounds by rejecting it, or was biased, there are ways to deal with those within the system. The accused doesn’t get to say “I don’t like the way this looks like it’s going. I’m outta here.” and then flee with impunity.
Actually, it’s within a judge’s right to reject any part of a plea deal right up until sentencing. Which is what happened. And the only reason Polanski knew the judge was going to do so was because his lawyers informed him that the judge wanted more jail time.
A judge is not bound by any pre-arranged deal. If he believes that the plea bargain does not serve the interest of justice, he can throw it out and sentence the convicted based on the statute.
+1 to what JamesLynch said.
.
I have no sympathy whatsoever for Polanski. They can drag him back in chains for all I care.
I seem to recall that the girl’s mother basically rented her out. Which doesn’t excuse Polanski in the slightest, and if anything it just makes the girl’s situation more appalling. Perhaps if she’d had a loving father (or a decent mother) to stand up for her in the news media at the time, all these people wouldn’t be so eager to stand behind Polanski now.
Then again, if the victim had had a loving father or a decent mother at the time, then the situation would have been different and Polanski wouldn’t have been able to do to her what he did. (In which case he would have put his çøçk in some other drugged and protesting child.)
As you note, Alyson, what her mother also victimized her, what would have happened if she had a nicer home life are all irrelevant. They don’t in the slightest excuse what Polanski did.
.
He drugged and forcibly raped a child.
He fled the country to avoid prosecution.
.
Her situation doesn’t change any of that. That he’s a creative director doesn’t change any of that.
.
Drag him back here and make him face his penalty in court.
No pity at all for him. None whatsoever.
That’s exactly how everyone should feel Mr. David, well said.
I have pity for him, but that pity has no bearing upon how I think the situation ought to be handled. He was a man who had a horrible life, in many regards, and plainly snapped under the pressure of it.
But you know what? A lot of people don’t snap, even under the pressure of similarly-horrible lives. They show some strength, some integrity and some character. If they see themselves going down dark roads like Polanski plainly was, they do what they have to to stop it; seek help, or whatever is going to work for them.
The thing is – and here I find myself somewhat conflicted – I see imprisonment-as-revenge as morally primitive. Even as a deterrent, it’s of questionable value. It’s main value is in isolating dangerous members of society from the rest of society as a means of protecting that society. And do we really think that he’s a threat to any member of society today? Do we really think that having him sit behind bars will be of benefit to anyone? I find myself having some difficulty in imagining a scenario in which anyone’s life will be better because some old man is in a cage somewhere.
But on the other hand, allowing him to walk free does erode the rule of law which is essential to propping up the polite fiction which we call “society” that we all need in order to thrive and coexist peacefully. And perhaps that’s the greater concern here.
But it’s a complex issue.
He was a man who had a horrible life.
.
Agreed, he’s had hardships. Major ones that the word “major” doesn’t adequately describe.
.
But is it too much to ask that, despite being a holocaust survivor and having had a wife brutally murdered, that you not drug and rape a child?
Well considered.
I agree with almost everything you say here. I also agree that there is nothing so horrible that can be done to you that ethically excuses you from committing horrible acts, and the “better to suffer evil than to do it” argument that goes all the way back to Plato.
However, and I say this as a nonreligious person, I also think forgiveness is one of the most noble acts a person can undertake, particularly toward those who are undeserving.
I won’t presume to say that the victim should forgive him. I doubt I could. But a lot the commentary seems twinged with the opposite of forgiveness, a grim satisfaction or even near-glee at the prospect of another person suffering, deservedly or otherwise.
In short, I do think he needs to serve jail time, because to do otherwise sends the message that money and celebrity put one above the law in even the most horrific of circumstances. But in the same sense that nothing morally excuses the rape of a child, I don’t think that anything morally justifies excitement at the prospect of an elderly man dying in prison.
Personally, have no feelings of excitement at some one high and mighty (so to speak) being brought low. I have no particular feelings of sadness about the prospect either.
.
He committed a crime and fled punishment. You don’t get to do that.
Dave, man, I’m with you. I don’t excuse what he did, which was rape, and wrong, but I also don’t think locking him up at this point is going to make any real differance in the world. So Polanski does interviews with Film Comment from a prison library instead of an apartment in Paris. Is that going to really change anything?
The whole world knows he’s guilty, he’s been guilty in the eyes of the public for 30 years, that stigma will follow him everywhere forever, and he’s never denied his guilt. He’s not gonna rape anybody else, I at least assume. And I don’t think any other potential rapists are going, “Hey, man, Polanski fled to Austria, that means I can get away with it too!” So what is the point?
No arguments here.
I feel for the guy, but the crime he committed (and it’s “committed”, not “is accused of” — he copped to doing it and pled guilty) is about as deliberate and non-trivial as it gets. It’s not of a type that anyone should be to walk away from without some level of consequence.
I don’t feel for the guy at all. For what he confessed to doing, the 20 year upper limit of the “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor” that he bargained down to with the prosecutor is very lenient. I know he won’t get anything close to the maximum sentence, but he certainly deserves to. The premeditation, cruelty and perversion of his actions are unforgivable.
Totally agree. And those people signing petitions to free him, do they not have children or something?
Apparently one of the biggest names on the petition is Woody Allen. My respect for him as a creator is boundless, but his hands aren’t exactly spotless when it comes to questions of dubious conduct with young women. Granted, there was no question of statutory rape there, but the circumstances of that association were less than ideal, to put it mildly. So he’s probably not the ideal person to be a spearhead for this.
.
PAD
You’re not only not the only one, it seems to me that the only people who are on Polanski’s side are living in Hollywood and have no idea how incredibly bizarre that position seems to about 9/10 normal people. It’s almost as though they wanted to confirm every right wing cliche about how out of touch Hollywood is with traditional values, although I would suggest that being against drugging and raping 13 year olds is a value that pretty much everyone should agree with, regardless of politics. And sure enough, most of the liberal blogs are not exactly running to his defense and those that did are getting an earful from their readers (The Huffington Post comes to mind). I think that some of the folks who were quick to defend him are regretting it now (and Whoopie Goldberg should be ashamed. “It wasn’t rape-rape.” Jesus.)
.
(But through it all, America kept its sense of humor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIZ_wEXiAoc)
.
He’s a scumbag. A talented scumbag but there is nothing particularly unique about that.
I’m not going to pile on Whoopi because (a) I like her and (b) I watched the whole segment and the problem with saying that she didn’t know what she was talking about was that she herself said she didn’t know what she was talking about. Which of course prompts one to wonder why she was then talking about it at all. What she was trying to determine is what Polanski was charged with: First degree rape, statutory rape, etc. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know what distinguishes the different levels of assault. Then again, I’m also not on a morning talk show and speaking with three other people as ignorant as I am of the specifics. I understood what she meant; it’s just the way that she phrased it that was cringe-worthy.
.
PAD
Fair enough. God knows we all say stupid things and most of us are lucky enough not to have to worry about seeing them on youtube. Whoopi is hardly the worst offender in that regard, hëll, not even just the worst on The View.
.
I think what has made this whole thing stick in the craw so badly is the fact that the Hollywood community has just been so oblivious to how they were coming off. The excuses for Polanski range from the appalling (A blame the victim sensibility that would have seemed antiquated in the 1940s much less now) to the disingenuous. There are men out there for whom a genuine plea for sympathy could be made; guys who were 17 and caught having sex with their 16 year old girlfriend and now will be labeled as sex offenders for all time. Don’t see anyone signing petitions for them, but then again, none of them are in a position to potentially help our Hollywood friends snag a juicy role.
.
It all brings back memories of Chris Rock’s riff on OJ Simpson; “That šhìŧ wasn’t about race … that šhìŧ was about fame. If O.J. wasn’t famous, he’d be in jail right now. If O.J. drove a bus, he wouldn’t even be O.J. He’d be Orenthal the Bus Driving Murderer.”
(And Rock made a good point about Polanski on Leno: “People are defending Roman Polanski because he made good movies 30 years ago? Are you kidding me? Even Johnny Cochran didn’t have the nerve to go, ‘Well did you see OJ play against New England?'”
I’ve watched the whole thing, too. And while I appreciate Goldberg’s acknowledging that she wasn’t completely versed in the facts of the case (by noting that corrections would be whispered in her ear if she was wrong in anything she says, for example) I don’t find that her search for clarification was simply badly phrased.
.
The “rape-rape” part may be, but she followed it up with making excuses because Polanski is European and has different standards. That’s not clarifying what actually happened. That’s saying that whatever the details and specifics, not everyone thinks 13 year olds are too young for sex.
.
Which, while no doubt true in various cultures, is not the standard in the US. And Goldberg knows that and dismissed it. Which doesn’t even begin to get into that it was forced.
.
Yeah, she stated some things badly. I’m glad my gaffes aren’t broadcast to millions. But he comments also suggest an underlying belief that 13 year olds having sex is OK and, given the particular incident being discussed, a callous disregard for the fact that the sex was forced.
.
Yes, it easily leads one to wonder to what extend she just “doesn’t get it”.
…and Whoopie Goldberg should be ashamed. “It wasn’t rape-rape.” Jesus.
Luigi Novi: As Peter indicated, she didn’t defend him or say that he didn’t rape her; she was clarifying what he was charged with. What I don’t get is, why are so many people piling on Whoopi, when the friggin’ clips are right there on YouTube for everyone to see. Yesterday, I found copies of the clip in two different YT channels, and she says right there in the opening, quite explicitly, that she was making a distinction between what he was charged with and what he did. When she said “it wasn’t rape-rape”, the “it” referred to the charge to which he copped a plea.
No, when she says that it wasn’t rape-rape, she is saying that this was not what he was charged with. And she’s wrong. Later in the clip she seems to be getting a message from someone that he was indeed charged with rape. So,as PAD points out, she was not in the best position to be making a plea for knowing what one is talking about before one talks about it.
.
two more points and I don’t want to pick on Whoopi but I think it needs to be said. I think it’s probably a good idea not to talk about rape-rape as something different from rape. Especially–especially!-when any reading of the crime would support the contention that this was indeed “rape-rape”. He knew she was 13. He admitted that. Game over. Add in the use of drugs and it doesn’t matter if you choose to believe that she protested. Which I do, one does not usually have to drug compliant sexual partners, I would think.
.
At best, her comment was about a minor point and it was clumsily presented. Watching the figgin’ clip does not make me think any better of it.
.
Second, if Whoopie was not trying to defend Polanski to some degree, she sure managed to seem like she was. She made the incorrect statement that he was not charged with rape (later amended). She claimed that the American view of 13 year olds was not necessarily shared by Europeans. (which is irrelevent–the crime was committed here–and probably not entirely accurate. I haven’t seen much evidence that the average European thinks drugging and raping a 13 year old is any less reprehensible than the average American does. Some Europena filmmakers may be pro-Polanski but that is in no way the same thing as the European opinion.
.
But the worst part was before the rape-rape comment that gets all the press. Whoopi said the following: “What I’m saying is he did not rape her because she was aware and the family apparently was aware.” “Was it consentual?” one of the other women asks. “Well, I don’t know if it was consensual.”
.
Yeah, I can’t figure it out either. Then she kind of gets flustered and says that if they are going to bìŧçh about what he did they have to talk about what it was he did but she is actually talking about what he was charged with…look, Peter likes Whoopi and actually I like Whoopi and I don’t think she should be crucified for rambling on but it’s pretty hard to look at this and not wince. http://jezebel.com/5369395/
.
And that’s as much as I want to say about it here–I’d rather not be slamming PAD’s friends on his own blog.
It would have been easy enough for her to determine of what Roman Polanski had been convicted. It’s a matter of public record and has been in about every fourth news report: Felony Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a minor. This is not a matter of debate: He confessed, pleaded guilty, confirmed each element of the crime and was convicted in 1978. What it “was” was a felony presenting the possibility of incarceration up to and including twenty years. What it was bargained down from was a series of felonies presenting the real possibility of incarceration for more than fifty years.
I have long since learned not to expect the artists behind any of my favorite movies/books/fine art/music to be decent people, and have no shame for my liking their art if it turns out they’re creepy weirdos. A lot of artists are weirdos, and plenty weirdos are creepy. That doesn’t negate the power of their work, it’s just who they are.
.
That being said, of course I feel no sympathy for Polanski. Rape, and especially child rape, is one of the most obviously wrong crimes a person can commit. And since Polanski admitted to it… well, he should serve the time. That’s about as clear cut as it gets.
.
The only thing that I see coming out of this that might be a little strange is that (I’m not sure of this even), his sentencing for the rape crime should be based on the laws at the time he was accused of it. However, his sentencing of the fugitive crime should be based on the laws in place today. Not sure if any of them have really changed, but I suspect that there are harsher penalties for rape charges today. If he was arrested for the crime in 1978 and plead guilty, the sentencing for it should end the same as it would have 30 years ago.
.
And really, why should I lament over a man who fled the country when he realized that 42 days already served would be adequate sentencing for the rape of a 13 year old? That’s just absurd.
Here’s the kicker. He was never actually sentenced. He served 40+ days in a psych ward and was set to receive the final part of his sentencing (which the judge originally agreed would be 90 days minus his time served in the psych ward for a total of 45+ days). But the judge changed his mind before final sentencing(which he has the authority to do) and Polanski’s lawyers told their client. The judge wanted more jail time and Polanski didn’t want to comply, so he fled.
Since the sentence was not fully carried out and it was the judge’s (now dead) intention to tack on more jail time, Polanski could be sentenced by a new judge to additional time for the original crime + time for fleeing prosecution. Polanski isn’t fighting extradition to avoid a month long stay in jail. He knows if he comes back to the U.S., he is facing hard time.
A thread my wife posted on her FB page went on to be the longest FB thread I’ve seen to date. I’m amazed that there are still people who will defend him.
They seem to all pile on the noted legal irregularities. Me, I suspect I’m like you. The bottom line is he raped a girl. That’s it.
If someone did this to my child I would have to be restrained in court, or I’d probably kill the guy.
I want the people who do defend him to imagine a thirteen year old in their lives. I want them to imagine that child having their innocence robbed from them, having unspeakable acts inflicted on that child, having that kid hate themselves and be damaged for life. And then watch people defend the horrible pervert who did it to that kid you so love and cherish.
Kudos for Peter for speaking up!
It is not just you Peter, I like Chris Rock and Dennis Millers positions on this case.
Which were?
.
PAD
Chris Rock’s hilarious response on Leno is here: http://www.thejaylenoshow.com/video/clips/chris-rock/1162633?dst=nbc|widget|NBC%20Video&__source=nbc|widget|NBC%20Video
.
I wasn’t aware Miller weighed in on it, but I found his discussion with O’Reilly here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr5Zg41q5l8 They talk briefly about Polanski, then the Obama in Copenhagen thing, and then around 2:24 begin talking about Polanski again, in earnest. Miller makes a valid point. But then again, he wouldn’t have to if there weren’t so many people trying to give Polanski a free pass.
.
Thanks for this blog entry, Peter, and thank God for this thread. It’s a breath of fresh air compared to what I’m hearing in the media, and at places like Nitcentral.com
I try not to have a strong feeling about this in either direction because it just doesn’t impact me.
The one thing I wonder, though, is how you grade Polanski as “punished enough”. While he has taken a massive hit to his career and reputation over the intervening years, he hasn’t served jail time or had other court-imposed punishment, so it’s arguable that he hasn’t been punished enough. But just about anything that would be imposed on him now goes beyond the level of “enough”.
So can closure even really be achieved here?
Has Polanski even really taken a hit to his reputation? Sure, in the sense that he will always have the fact that he raped a girl mentioned whenever he is interviewed or has an article written about him. That’s the sad price one pays for being a rapist.
.
But his professional reputation seems ok. he got a far far better reception at the Academy Awards than Elia Kazan did.
Yeah, sure, he’s been punished enough. He lives in France with a beautiful wife and two kids, continuing to work as an acclaimed director of Oscar-winning films with actors who are all too-willing to work with him, from Johnny Depp to Sigourney Weaver to John Travolta to Adrien Brody, etc. What a horrible life.
.
“Hey, Pierre, get me anozer croissant and an order of frogs legs over here! Can’t you see I am suffering here in France with zis beautiful wife and so many in Hollywood vanting to work with me? Zis is the worst restaurant on the Champs Elysses I’ve ever been to!”
One of the arguments that infuriates me is the “well, she’s forgiven him by now” argument. These are clearly people who have no grasp of what forgiveness really is and what purpose it serves.
Forgiveness does not mean that what he did was perfectly acceptable. Forgiveness means that the victim decided it was better to drop the burden of what was done to her than to carry it on her back for over thirty years.
To echo a couple of things said here; first, it was most definitely “rape rape”; this young girl pleaded with him to stop while he assaulted her orally, vaginally, and anally. Sorry to be explicit about it, but that seems about the only way to cut through the BS “no big deal, it was 30 years ago” line Hollywood is spewing.
.
Second, also as pointed out, of course the victim wants to put this trauma behind her and not be harassed by the media anymore. I wish there were some better way to protect her from this, and I can’t imagine how many times she’s had to relive this because of our insatiable celebrity culture. But we can’t allow the mantle of celebrity to become a shield that protects a rapist from facing justice. Prosecute him as quickly as possible, toss him in jail for the rest of his miserable life (he’s had a good run sipping cocoa in Swiss chalets), and then we can “let this drop” as Hollywood seems so anxious to do.
.
Lastly, just as the birthers make conservatives look bad, as someone who is left of center, this kind of šhìŧ is one of the biggest clubs the right uses to whack us; how out of touch with mainstream values Hollywood is. Well, I’ll say right here, minimizing the crime of rape and supporting a rapist is not at all a liberal or enlightened position. It’s simply nauseating, and those who advocate it are worthy of nothing more than contempt. There’s an awards show for you.
Woody Allen,of all people,should refrain from commenting.
He’s guilty. He should be treated as such. I’m glad they got him. He deserves the worst. I’m very sorry he’s a Holocaust survivor, and it is horrendous what happened to his wife. But it is also horrendous what happened to that little girl.
Justice.
It’s not just you.
I was a court clerk for over 12 years (10 years ago), and some of the cases that still give me nightmares are child molests.
I still get irritated thinking about the smug grin Harrison Ford had when he called Polanski’s name for winning the Oscar for “The Piano.” Polanski’s cameo in “Rush Hour 3” lowered my opinion of that movie too (not that it was that high to begin with).
I’m all for forgiveness, but as others have said, that doesn’t mean you don’t suffer the consequences of your action. But even more disturbing to me than Polanski’s actions are all these people jumping to his defense. There is no moral gray area here. The judge may have been wrong, too, but how many wrongs were perpetrated trying to make a right here?
The Pianist, not The Piano. The Piano was the Jane Campion movie with Holly Hunter and Harvey Keitel for which a little Anna Paquin won an Oscar.
And then there’s The Pëņìš, which is what you get when you ask Colin Farrell to read the Oscar nominations at 8am in the morning. 🙂
I’m with you, PAD. If I had a daughter and she’d been used like this girl, I’d definitely be in a courtroom waiting for sentencing. But it wouldn’t be the rapist’s, it would be mine.
I would hope, if it were my daughter, that he’d be sentenced to half an hour.
.
In a cell.
.
With me, holding a taser in one hand and a broomstick in the other.
.
I’m reasonably sure that I could give him a first-hand understanding of what it’s like to be lying helpless while someone shoves things into you that you don’t want. Thirty years worth of punishment in thirty minutes.
.
PAD
I am so glad you brought this up, PAD. This has been a week, between the Hollywood reaction to this and the beating death of an honor student in Chicago captured on tape that many are actually making excuses for as well, that I have truly worried about where we as a society are going. However, the response to Hollywood’s response to Polanski’s plight has been heartening. Anyway, here’s my two cents:
RE: THE “HE HAD A HARD LIFE” EXCUSE – This drives me insane. It is the same sort of thinking that leads to someone who does a radio show I do a segment on here in Philly to proclaim he is absolving the thugs in the Chicago incident because “it’s caused by poverty”. Bûllšhìŧ. Guess what? My dad grew up poor, the son of a coal miner. My grandparents were so broke, they weren’t able to afford a thermos for him to drink from for school lunches, so he had to make do with a whiskey flask to drink his mild, juice, whatever from; so broke that when in high school everyone was excited about the cool class trip they were all going on he didn’t even tell my grandparents about it because he knew they did not have the money and would either feel bad or deprive themselves of necessities so he could go . He then took ill and was so severely sick he almost died. After all of that, he went to Vietnam where he said he saw some horrible things and actually slept with a gun under his bed for months so he would feel safe. My father overcame all of that to be a wonderful, caring, husband and father, a pillar of the community who does things for his family and community to this day. All of his trials and tribulations actually made him stronger and more appreciative of people and what he has – and he’s never committed a felony.
So, really, with someone with as much fame, money. talent and power as Polanski, what should excuse HIM when others who have suffered just as much or more without harming anyone or anything else?
RE: “HE’S A UNIQUE TALENT” So is Carrot Top. Seriously, this “defense” – which basically says, “this charge should go away because he’s such an artist – is the HEIGHT OF ELITISM. It’s this Hollywood mentality in which some of them obviously do believe that their talent and “impact on the culture” should mean that the laws are inconveniences and that they should only apply to the “little people”. How arrogant. I am wondering if someone like Debra Winger feel there should be a sliding scale of punishment in ratio to perceived artistic ability. So let’s see, if Polanski can get away with the rape of a child based on his body of work, then that means Peter Jackson can get away with serial rape; Martin Scorsese can get away with murder; and Steven Spielberg can be a serial murderer – Ratner only has to make “X4” good enough to make up for “X3”.
In all seriousness, this is more disturbing to me than someone supposedly “buying justice” by having the means to represent themselves well while others have to make due with a public defender. Because this Hollywood attitude seems to explicitly state that “accomplished artists” should be immune from the laws that govern our society because – dammit – they’re simply more important than everyday people. That really, really, really rubs me the wrong way.
RE:THE JUDGE WAS GOING TO GIVE HIM TIME SERVED AND THEN BACKED OUT ON HIS PLEA DEAL! – That’s what appeals are for. And as someone noted, if he had done his time originally, he likely would have been out in 1-3 years and gone back to his work, the incident behind him. Those who are defending him now would likely have made him a martyr upon his release. Instead, he has spent over three decades in exile, running from the law and it finally caught up with him.
RE: IN OTHER COUNTRIES THE LAWS ARE “MORE ENLIGHTENED” _Sorry, the crime happened here. Next!
RE: “IT WAS CONSENSUAL” – You don’t have to drug somebody who WANTS to have sex with you.
Really, I think the question that people should be asking isn’t “Why was he arrested NOW”? His crime has not been made any less repugnant by the passage of time. The question should be, “Why are governments and fellow artists rallying around him? Have they forgotten that he drugged and raped a 13-year-old? And SODOMIZED her? Another sign that he didn’t just snap. It was very premeditated.
As for Whoopi, if people as different as Imus, Bill maher and Rush Limbaugh can lose jobs for saying some things people took offense to, she is getting off relatively easy.
So, on a sliding scale based on talent, that means Michael Bay gets the death penalty for a parking violation…
.
More seriously, I don’t understand what the thought process is supposed to be either. (Completely aside from the fact that I’m unimpressed by Polanski’s entire body of work.) I mean, really – he’s a Great Artist, so he gets to drug and repeatedly rape a little girl? I’m not buying it.
First and foremost, let me state that my sympathy in this case is for the victim, for even if she has “moved on”, what she went through is something no child should ever have to deal with, let alone have in their history.
But while I will also be the first to admit that I am not a legal expert, there are a couple of points surrounding this case that I am uncertain of.
1. Even though Polanski is facing all these charges now, is there some kind of “statute of limitations” risk on any of the charges that could reneder a trial today null and void?
2. Or, as I have heard done in some extreme cases, will any trial today be conducted under the legal rules in existence at the time of the crimes?
3. And if the mother does have some culpability in this situation, did she ever face charges herself?
I think there are no statute of limitations for being a fugitive from justice.
.
As for the mother…the argument would have to be that she knew Polanski was a rapist when she let her daughter go to see him, which is not a great argument for Polanski supporters to make.Or that she was pimping out her kid, which makes Polanski merely a guy who likes drugging underage prostitutes so that he can live out his raping 13 year old girls fantasies. Honestly, I don’t see exactly what she would be charged with. If being an atrocious parent were a crime the jails would be full. And having known of some of the children of Hollywood folks and the poor upbringing they had I don’t think our friends in the entertainment biz really would want to go there.
There is no statute of limitations: He was convicted in a very timely manner in 1978, less than one year after the offense. His making himself a fugitive pretty much freezes the clock on imposition of a prison sentence(Being good at hiding from authorities is not something which is rewarded). The offense of flight from the jurisdiction of the California Department of Justice is an ongoing one which has yet to end. He should be sentenced on the initial conviction, and then charged and presumably convicted of Flight, which promises additional years of prison time.
Miller mentioned that if you doubt that Polanski must face justice, read the account of the rape. This wasn’t Polanski being a good friend of the family and having a great time with the girl and then having a wonderful time on a bed of roses. No, he took a thirteen year old girl, got her drunk, put a quaalude in her and then had sex with her.
.
Polanski is a genius. As one who works in film, I admire his artistry. However, artistic genius does not excuse being a rapist.
.
Regarding the girl not wanting to have this horrible ordeal brought forward – imagine a world where rapists can stare down women, already ashamed, to the point that they do not go to trial and walk away without an repercussions (actually, that world already exists). Letting Polanski go would not help things.
.
This might be rambling. I’ve been up for a VERY long time.
By no means do I want Polanski to get away with what he did.
But if there are any “statute of limitations” on any of the charges against him, he might, which would be a gross miscarriage of justice.
He was already convicted (pled guilty, actually). There’s no statute of limitations on skipping out on a sentence that’s already been handed down.
Lee,
My understanding is that the statute of limitations is the limit placed on when a person can be indicted for a crime after it is initially committed. In this case Polanski had already been indicted, found guilty, and while out on bail, fled the country. What he did is legally the equivalent of breaking out of a jail cell and fleeing the country.
A “statute of limitations” applies only to the period before being charged with a crime. If this woman was just now coming forward and saying, “Roman Polanski raped me thirty years ago,” then the courts would have no recourse (assuming the statute of limitations for rape is less than thirty years; some crimes have longer statutes than others. Murder, for example, has no limitations.)
.
But once they’ve charged you, you can run forever, but it’ll always be there waiting for you when you come back. (And as people have pointed out, his crime of fleeing from conviction isn’t thirty years old; he only stopped doing that a week or so ago.)
Lee,
I believe the statute of limitations is frozen from when Polanski went AWOL. It would apply if he were never charged. But he was. This interpretation is necessary, otherwise you are really just inviting thousands of people to go into exile like Polaski did and simply wait out their sentencing period.
And again, the idea that a 45 year-old man would have hot, consensual sex with a 13-year-old is disturbing enough. But if she was smitten, star struck and more than willing, it would not have normal people holding Polanski in nearly as much contempt. It would still be a bit sick, but someone could argue he was lonely, caught up in the moment, she didn’t look or act her age, etc.
You don’t drug someone who WANTS to have sex with you. And you definitely don’t use them as a warm, breathing blowup doll. He not only had sex with her, he put it in every orifice she had. Sorry to be so blunt. But talking politely is what gets us comments like “it wasn’t rape-rape”. There are many of the most sexual women I know who refuse to do or make them vulnerable to at least one of the acts Polaski did to this girl against her will. Some have tried it and found they hated doing it. Some just never wanted to try those things. But it was their choice as growing and fully grown women. These are choices Polanski took from a 13-year-old. We’re supposed to overlook this because he made a few films that entertained us for a few hours?
When we were having the discussions about gays and gay marriage, the opponents of gay marriage kept describing it as something that will erodeother social norms concerning sexual behavior. The answer always was that the kind of (liberal?) society that tolerates homosexuality has only two rules concerning sexual behavior, but that those rules are ironclad. These rules are that he people involved are consenting and they are adults. Polanski violated both principles. It is unnecessary to go into the details of the acts he did. What people like or don’t like to do is subjective, so long as they are consenting adults.
So I agree with PAD completely.
I am troubled by certain things.
1) The people defending Polanski are trying to cast the crime as statutory rape. There is a kind of feeling that consentual sex with someone underage is more forgiveable. I understand why that is so, but I do find it troubling. I’m talking about rock stars having sex with underage groupies or the case of Jerry Lee Lewis. In this specific case it is supposedly clear that there was no consent, but what about other cases, and how much should it matter?
2) I find it troubling that Polanski had a pretty successful career for so long, making movies, getting awards. I saw at least two of his movies made after he fled the US. Should I feel guilty about it?
I say no. If we had to avoid all the art made by people who were terrible awful human beings or held opinions that are unacceptable today, we would lose a lot of good talent. I mean, probably most of the great artists of a few hundred years ago or older were racist anti-semites, even the ones who were by the standards of their day considered enlightened. Similarly, one must ponder the probability that even those of us who think ourselves pure of heart and on the correct side of every question will one day be considered out of step with the accepted norm of some future society.
.
So play your Wagner, hang up your Picasso print and enjoy some Micheal Jackson music. Marvel at how even the most twisted soul can somehow distill beauty into a form we can all enjoy.
When I was in Klaus Janson’s class at SVA, I was trying to develop my character for the class assignment, who’s a detective, but didn’t know how to write that type of story. He recommended that I watch Chinatown, so I did, but I don’t recall if I knew about Polanski’s flight, or even if he was the director of the film.
Btw, what’s wrong with Picasso? What did he do?
The answer always was that the kind of (liberal?) society that tolerates homosexuality has only two rules concerning sexual behavior, but that those rules are ironclad. These rules are that he people involved are consenting and they are adults.
.
That isn’t strictly true. Those are the ironclad rules concerning sexual behavior in the United States and most modern liberal democracies, and that’s true for both heterosexual and homosexual behavior. However, the concept of an age of consent is a relatively new concept– traditionally societies that permitted (or encouraged) homosexual relationships were accepting of relationships that we would consider statutory rape today. Pederasty was fairly common in pre-Christian Greece and sometimes Rome, to the extent that Socrates’ relationship with Alcibiades was well-known enough that it was used in Socrates’ treason trial decades later, and 4th Century BC Athenian dramatists tended to read that kind of relationship back into Patroclus and Achilles in the Iliad. It really doesn’t have anything to do with the gay marriage debate, except that gay marriage opponents keep bringing out pedophilia and polygamy as sort of a slippery slope argument, that if gay marriage restrictions are lifted, other restrictions might be next. It’s more of a non sequitur than an answer.
.
With regard to your questions, 1) consent isn’t an element of the offense of statutory rape. The children “consent” in a large number of statutory rape cases, but that doesn’t matter. The whole point of an age of consent is that children who can give an informed consent to important decisions are few and far between, so society makes a legal rule that minors can’t legally make that decision. Children can’t even form legally binding contracts, let alone decide whether to have sex.
.
2) I don’t think you should feel guilty about watching his movies. Frankly, lots of brilliant artists are áššhølëš, just like the rest of the population. I don’t think you should boycott Ender’s Game because Orson Scott Card is so stridently anti-gay-marriage, either. The fact that a thing– work of art, scientific discovery, whatever– comes from a bad place doesn’t make it a bad thing. (I don’t necessarily believe that OSC’s mind is a bad place either; it just seemed like an appropriate example.) The people who should feel guilty are the French governments of the last few decades, who have been harboring a fugitive sex offender. (France refuses to extradite its citizens. Period. Until they start getting the kind of flak we do, I don’t want to hear anyone whining because the US refuses to grant ICC jurisdiction over its citizens and/or soldiers.)
Speaking as a (liberal) who supports gay marriage, I think the consenting adults “rule” is quite good (though I’dd add in incest as a taboo not to be broken). What a few people have alluded to is the “legal line,” the point before which any behavior becomes illegal. The case with statutory rape is a couple only a few months apart, or who have been have a perfectly legal sexual relationship when one is 16 and the other 15, then when one is 17 and the other 16, but illegal when one becomes 18 and the other is 17. (In NY you have to be 21 to buy alcohol legally, so the person who’s 20 years and 364 days old can’t be sevrved booze.) I think there’s been some progress made when it comes to statutory rape — the case, discussed here, of a high school student whose ccharge was reduced drastically because they were only a few months apart — but there still has to be a line that separates legal vs. illegal, or keep pushing the line back a little more, a little more, until it all but vanishes.
That said, there’s nothing in Polanski’s crime that’s even remotely close to, well, close: He was far older, he drugged her, he had nonconsentual sex with her (don’t know if he was charged with sodomy, but I hope that’s not a crime: It’s normally only used against gay men, and if it’s illegal a *lot* of guys will be disappointed), and he then committed another crime by fleeing. It’s hard to create a case of someone *more* guilty!
Mulligan beat me to the Wagner example, but it’s pretty much right. The only problem that I have with seeing his movies on anything other than free TV is that every ticket sale, DVD sale or VOD order made for new works has at least a portion of its profits go to him.
.
Wagner is dead. Supporting his work in this day and age does nothing for the man himself. Roman Polanski made and still makes a living off of films made while he was, essentially, on the run from the law.
On a moral basis, I’m a strong believer in the work being the work and that it should always be judged separately from the artist, whether the artist is living or dead.
.
On a practical basis, if that’s your only concern, I wouldn’t worry. Hollywood accounting being what it is, I doubt a single film Polanski has made has ever turned a profit.
.
PAD
Jerry is right. The Polanski case is different from Wagner or from Orson Scot Card or even Michael Jackson. In Wagner’s case you can say that enjoying his work now has nothing to do with his antisemitism, which is a thing in the distant past. In Card’s case w can say that we dislike his opinions, but he didn’t commit a crime. Michael Jackson was not convicted. But even beyond that, you can seperate his music from his aleged actions because he’s dead and most of his popular music came out before the rumors about him. You can also enjoy the creation of someone who committed a crime and payed for it. But in Polanski’s case we have an escaped criminal who despite the crime and the escape was able to work and enjoy both financial and critical success, while at large. The problem is les with the movies he made before his crime. But what about those made after?
—————
By the way, in Wagner’s case we can say that antisemitism was more acceptable than now. Can we say that in the 70’s when Polanski committed his crime, sexual attitudes were different than they are now? In this case I don’t think so.
——————
David: “That isn’t strictly true. Those are the ironclad rules concerning sexual behavior in the United States and most modern liberal democracies, and that’s true for both heterosexual and homosexual behavior. However, the concept of an age of consent is a relatively new concept– traditionally societies that permitted (or encouraged) homosexual relationships were accepting of relationships that we would consider statutory rape today.”
I am aware of that. From a historical/sociological point of view the rules governing sexual behavior were quite different in different times and places, and are subject to change. They are not fixed. However, if we want to reject social norms about sexual behavior (i.e. the sexual revolution) that in the past were considerd ironclad, and we want to do it without becoming complete moral relativists (thus confirming the worst fears about social changes), then we should present another set of rules based on a different set of principles than tradition or religion. The rule of consenting adult is supposed to serve that purpose.
———————
David: “It really doesn’t have anything to do with the gay marriage debate, except that gay marriage opponents keep bringing out pedophilia and polygamy as sort of a slippery slope argument, that if gay marriage restrictions are lifted, other restrictions might be next. It’s more of a non sequitur than an answer.”
That’s not exactly true. If you are look at society today and sees how in the last decades to attitudes toward divorce, premarital sex, single parenthood, pornography, homosexuality, adultary have changed from the way they were in that past, it is difficult to deny that the effect of social change on our society. That the fact that society became more tolerant made these phenomena more common (or just more visible, we might counter). If you were the kind of person that felt this change was for the worst you would have had reason to feel that a more liberal attitude toward sexual behavior is a negative thing.
There are good answers to these understandable concerns. In the case of homosexuality we would argue that (a) social acceptance does not create more homosexuals, and (b) there is no good reason to think of hoosexuality as a bad thing.
In the case of adultary we might argue that it is a bad thing today as it was in the past, but it is not up to the law to control it — no scarlet letters.
In the case of pornography some would argue that the older norms were hypocritical and needlessly repressive.
We would also argue that although some social norms were rejected, other rules were created to replace them, namely ‘consenting adult’
———————
“consent isn’t an element of the offense of statutory rape. The children “consent” in a large number of statutory rape cases, but that doesn’t matter. The whole point of an age of consent is that children who can give an informed consent to important decisions are few and far between, so society makes a legal rule that minors can’t legally make that decision.”
I am aware of that. But it seems to me that we as a society consider the principle of consent to be more important than the age limit. We placed the age limit to protect minors from making sexual decisions we fear they are not ready to make. But we can imagine situations where that limit might not fit, so statutory rape is a lesser crime than rape, and involves more judgement call, as in the case of a 19 year old person in relation with a 17 year old. Yet this does present a problem because it makes that part of the consenting adult principle weaker than we would like in a moral principle.
—————-
“I don’t necessarily believe that OSC’s mind is a bad place either; it just seemed like an appropriate example”
Card presents himself as a guy who doesn’t hate gays but is against gay marriage. However, what he says is much more troubling. He basically says that gays are threatening the very fabric of civilization.
I believe that, in addition to the consideration of whether it was consensual or not (and I think that largely only gets brought up in cases where the two fornicators in question are only a year or two apart), when the child who was raped is under another age line (which might be 13) the punishment becomes even harsher. I may be wrong about this, but I’ve definitely heard that information somewhere.
V FOR VENDETTA said it all.
V: “What was done to me was monstrous.”
Evey: “Then they created a monster.”
Substitute Polanski for V and, well, no sympathies.
In some odd way, the thing that bugs me the most about this (not so much on an ethical level as a logical one) is the defense that “he’s too old” to serve time. Well, of course he’s old! It’s because he’s been evading the law for thirty years! If he’d just done the time back when he was convicted, he’d be a lot fitter to serve the sentence, now wouldn’t he?
.
Honestly, it’s like killing your parents, then asking the judge for leniency because you’re an orphan. 🙂
If this situation unfolded with someones creepy uncle Bob instead of someone famous how would the media react? Granted everyone was significantly more harsh on Michael Jackson except now it’s all forgiven.
I personally don’t understand the sympathy for Roman Polanski because if anyone imagined this happened to their daughter or their little sister – you’d be pìššëd and angry. You’d want justice no matter what. Will it serve a purpose to punish an elderly man? Sure it does – it says that no one is above the law despite their creativity and Oscar. What should that punishment be? Don’t know something more significant than a scarlet letter?
I have no problem with the Pianist winning an Oscar. It’s a great film. I just wish he could have served his time before making that film (I have it in my collection but I bought it secondhand, so Polanski made no money off my purchase).
Having said that, if I was a professional actor or crew member I wouldn’t agree to be in a Polanski film until after he’s served his sentence. I wonder how many actors or crew members have in fact taken that position.
I had a similar thought, though it’s kind of turned on it’s ear: Would an American movie studio that hired Polanski be guilty of aiding and abetting? If so should charges be brought against said studio?
As far as what should be done with him after all this time, I say screw Polanski. Throw the book at him. Failing that beat him unrecognizable with a pillowcase filled with kitchen knives. That’s just my dark sense of humor at play in case it wasn’t obvious. Better to just drag him screaming to jail behind a souped-up Mustang.
Mitch
While I am honestly not surprised by your stance, PAD, I am relieved to see you are not alone. As one person said, the girl was neither consenting nor an adult.
.
When you hear conservatives say Hollywood is out of touch, this is why. It should not have taken him being arrested. I don’t care if someone is Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, or the greatest film director who ever lived. If you rape a child and then flee the consequences of your crime, you should be shunned.
.
However, I can’t get too worked up about it. You see, some of the harshest words Jesus had to say were to people like this guy who harmed children. There will be no escaping final justice.
.
Iowa Jim
You know…upon consideration, I think it’s kind of ridiculous to say “Hollywood is out of touch.” Why are people comfortable with these generalizations? Hollywood doesn’t speak with one voice any more than any other group. There are certainly high profile people taking Polanski’s side, and they were the first ones out of the box and were the loudest at the microphone. But that’s not to say that there aren’t plenty of people who aren’t the least bit upset about Polanski being brought to justice. It’s really unfair to insinuate that everyone in Hollywood is OK with a teenage girl being raped.
.
PAD
Unfortunately people do tend to paint with broad brushes. But if there is a segment of Hollywood that is not “out of touch” in that they do think Polanski should pay for his crimes then they should step up and say so.
.
I haven’t been following this that closely that I monitor each latest press release, but has anyone of Woody Allen stature started a petition saying Polanski should go to jail? Has any prominent Hollywood studio or producer or A-list actor said they will not work with him because he’s a fugitive?
.
It’s not enough for some to just say “We’re not like that. Don’t lump us in with them.” Unfair, perhaps, but fact of life. you’re going to be lumped with them unless you make it clear, very clear, that you are voicing an opposing opinion as loudly as “they” are voicing theirs.
I think this is an accurate generalization. Being well-to-do, not having a traditional 9-to-5, having assistants, managers, agents, fans, etc. constantly lauding you, not having the same level of contacting with people not in that line of work, etc., can insulate one, I’d imagine, from notions of what is considered right and wrong. I would imagine that this is true of both Hollywood celebrities and Washington politicians, because those lifestyle traits can apply to both. Does everyone in those spheres speak with one voice? No, but that’s why it’s called a generalization. The fact that there are so many in Hollywood signing a petition to argue against his extradition justifies the comment. It doesn’t mean, though, that it has to be intended as an absolute condemnation of every single person in that industry.
Well, actress Kirstie Alley has spoken out against him, as has director Luc Besson and former child star Paul Peterson. Bill Maher certainly had nothing positive to say about him. So that’s a start.
.
I think it’s easy to get a lot of attention when people are circulating petitions because journalists understand petitions. They can report on a list of names. People who are in favor of what’s happening can’t really grab news attention because they can’t exactly circulate a petition demanding he be prosecuted; he IS being prosecuted. Or a petition that says they’d never work with him, because it’s unlikely he’s going to be directing any films in the immediate…well, ever. I mean, yeah, they could take out an ad saying, “We, the undersigned, are glad–GLAD, we say–that he’s being made to pay for his crime,” but then it begs the question: Why the hëll haven’t you been saying anything about it for the past thirty years? What took you so long? So I could easily see hesitation to go down that road.
.
People who have an opposing opinion, when asked, are voicing it. It’s unreasonable to expect them to grab microphones, get up on a soap box, and shout, “Yea! He’s been arrested! I just want America to know I’m happy about that!”
.
PAD
The fact that there are so many in Hollywood signing a petition to argue against his extradition justifies the comment.
.
So many, Luigi? Seriously? At last report, the number was not only a little over one hundred names–less than a drop in the bucket–but also most of the signatures were from directors in France and Europe, and not Hollywood at all. Furthermore the DGA alone has 14,000 members, so how this tiny sampling can be transformed into the will of “Hollywood”…I mean, c’mon. A little proportion here, please.
.
PAD
Or a petition that says they’d never work with him, because it’s unlikely he’s going to be directing any films in the immediate…well, ever. …
So I could easily see hesitation to go down that road.
Yeah, I suppose you’re right. There are always reasons for not speaking out against something you find offensive.
Yeah, I suppose you’re right. There are always reasons for not speaking out against something you find offensive.
.
Don’t get snide, Sean. It’s not called for and I don’t deserve it. A handful of people in Los Angeles signed a petition and you want to condemn the 99.99% in the industry who didn’t because they haven’t provided an organized counter response. Go ahead. But I think it’s a ridiculous stand to take.
.
PAD
Peter David: So many, Luigi? Seriously? At last report, the number was not only a little over one hundred names–less than a drop in the bucket–but also most of the signatures were from directors in France and Europe, and not Hollywood at all. Furthermore the DGA alone has 14,000 members, so how this tiny sampling can be transformed into the will of “Hollywood”…I mean, c’mon. A little proportion here, please.
First of all, looking at the list now shows it to be close to 700.
.
Second, in terms of the number of high-profile celebrities who have voiced support him, yes, it is indeed “so many”. It’s certainly more than I would’ve hoped would’ve gotten behind such an outrageous cause. I would expect one or two random nuts to voice stuff like this. I didn’t single out directors, nor Americans, since those restrictions are completely irrelevant to this discussion. I did not weigh my reaction against the total DGA membership, or any of those unions, for the same reason: I never felt this reaction as a question of proportion. I don’t know that the total membership of those unions are of such high-profile stars who are given attention when they speak. I confine my reaction to those powerful players in the enterainment industry who do get such attention, and who therefore should be more careful and consistent when they form such conclusions and lend their names to such causes because people listen to them when they talk: Harrison Ford, Harvey Weinstein, Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, Darren Aronofsky, Jonatham Demme, Stephen Frears, David Lynch Pedro Almodovar, Wes Anderson, Jean-Jaques Annaud, Asia Argento, Luc Besson, Monica Bellucci, Gael Garcia Bernal, Bernardo Bertolucci, Adrien Brody, Penelope Cruz, Alfonso Cuaron, Guillermo del Toro, Terry Gilliam, David Heyman, John Landis, Michael Mann, Brett Ratner, Tilda Swinton, Terry Zwigoff, etc.
.
And this is to say nothing of the other stars who have not spoken out in favor of him, but are or have been all too willing to work with him, like Johnny Depp, John Travolta, Sigourney Weaver, Jackie Chan, and Chris Tucker.
.
The fact that these people are part of a larger group whose other members mostly lack to the clout needed to get the media to listen to them when they speak does not invalidate my reaction that the number who do have that clout, and have used it to let everyone know what shallow little hypocrites they likely are, is a lot more than I would’ve thought.
Don’t get snide, Sean. It’s not called for and I don’t deserve it.
.
Apologies if it came across overly that way, Peter. Snide isn’t really what I intended. But on first reading your comment what struck me was several reasons being given for not speaking out in favor of Polanski’s arrest which sounded like excuses. Perhaps your comments came across in a way not intended either.
.
handful of people in Los Angeles signed a petition and you want to condemn the 99.99% in the industry who didn’t because they haven’t provided an organized counter response. Go ahead. But I think it’s a ridiculous stand to take.
.
Then it’s a good thing it’s not a stand I took. I didn’t say the vast majority of of the industry should take a unified stand. I said that people do paint with broad brushes and, lacking some notables voicing an opposing opinion, “Hollywood” is going to get lumped in with those who are signing petitions in favor of Polanski because that’s the view seen being expressed.
I said that people do paint with broad brushes and, lacking some notables voicing an opposing opinion, “Hollywood” is going to get lumped in with those who are signing petitions in favor of Polanski because that’s the view seen being expressed.
.
I know people paint with broad brushes. And if I make sweeping statements about, say, conservatives, then conservatives on this board pop up and declare that it’s not fair because THEY don’t feel that way and they shouldn’t be lumped in. Yet now suddenly conservative pundits around the blogosphere claim that a handful of signatures represents “Hollywood” as a whole? (I stress I’m not referring to anyone here.)
.
I’m saying the onus is upon reasonable people to realize that Hollywood doesn’t speak with one voice and that the petition represents a minuscule minority of individuals. Your contention seems to be that the onus is upon the others in Hollywood to go out of their way to condemn Polanski, because if they don’t then the masses will just assume that they’re on his side. Not only do I think that’s an unfair attitude for people to have, but the fact that the petition has gotten such a pathetically small response from Hollywood (again, the vast majority of the signers are in Europe, not Hollywood) should itself speak volumes.
.
The fact is that you don’t really know how many people, notable or otherwise, are speaking out against him. You just know the ones who got the news coverage. That’s not remotely the same.
.
And by the way, the governor of California who has a bit of a Hollywood history himself has said that Polanski deserves no special treatment, so…
.
PAD
I know people paint with broad brushes. …
.
Your contention seems to be that the onus is upon the others in Hollywood to go out of their way to condemn Polanski, because if they don’t then the masses will just assume that they’re on his side. Not only do I think that’s an unfair attitude for people to have, but the fact that the petition has gotten such a pathetically small response from Hollywood (again, the vast majority of the signers are in Europe, not Hollywood) should itself speak volumes.
.
Yes, my contention is that the masses may well assume that they’re on his side. As you’ve agreed, people paint with broad brushes, so why wouldn’t one assume that?
And I’ll agree that’s unfair, but not that it’s un-realistic. And just because something should speak volumes doesn’t mean that it does. Again, unfair, but not un-true.
.
The fact is that you don’t really know how many people, notable or otherwise, are speaking out against him. You just know the ones who got the news coverage. That’s not remotely the same.
.
Well, yes, that’s kind of the point. Not being privy to any general Hollywood scuttlebutt or private conversations I only know what’s being reported. And one side is getting more heavily covered in the news.
.
But if notable folks were speaking out against him I would think it would get news coverage, similar to notable people speaking in favor of him has. Do you think if folks like Woody Allen, Harrison Ford, Martin Scorsese et al spoke out against him it wouldn’t be covered? I suspect it would actually get more, given the nature of the press and “Hollywood opposes one of their own” being a juicier story.
.
And, as Luigi noted, it doesn’t matter if there are vastly more people opposing Polanski. If 100 recognizable names support him and 10,000 production accountants, prop managers, best boys and key grips oppose him it is the 100 prominent folks who will get news coverage.
That child molestation is bad and an escaped fugitive being caught is good are the *default positions of society*. No one’s signing a petition against Polanski because actions are already being taken against him. He can’t be any more arrested than he already is. The pro-Polanski people are the ones speaking out because *they’re* the ones who want things to change, they’re the ones with views that go against societal norms.
You shouldn’t have to openly condemn every single criminal just to prove you don’t support them.
No, you shouldn’t. But if folks are perceiving a particular group, thanks to a comments from notables, as having a default position of support for the crook, and you could be considered part of that group, perhaps you might need to speak up in support of the “default position of society”. To show that that IS your default.
PAD is correct that it’s way too broad a generalization to just say “Hollywood” is out of touch–but I think the fault for doing so must lie at least a bit on the shoulders of the entertainment community, which has shown no shyness in pretending to think with one mind when the cause is just. Harvey Weinstein, in his defense of the indefensible, put it this way: “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion. We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe.”
.
When George Clooney defended Hollywood at the Academy Awards he said “And finally, I would say that, you know, we are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while, I think. It’s probably a good thing. Uhm, we’re the ones who talk about AIDS when it was just being whispered. And we talked about civil rights when it wasn’t really popular. And we, uh, you know, we bring up subjects…we are the ones…this Academy, this group of people gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters. I’m proud to be a part of this Academy. I’m proud to be part of this community. I’m proud to be out of touch. And I thank you so much for this.”
.
It got a lot of applause and as I recall any criticism of the ideas expressed came from outside the industry. This does not change the fact that generalizations are, um, generally unwise and best avoided but when an industry pats itself on the back with broad generalizations it has to expect the occasional dislocated shoulder when it gets hoisted by its own petard. Which is an amusing image to contemplate.
.
(An aside–why on Earth would anyone bring up Hattie McDaniel as an example of Hollywood largess? Yes, they gave her an award and then for the rest of her career they cast her as maids. When she died the Hollywood cemetery refused to bury her there. The treatment of blacks in Hollywood films not only reflected the racism of the time it helped perpetuate it. And in a final indignity, now that we live in more enlightened times, we’ve swept so many of those performers under the rug. Stepin Fetchit was a comedy genius. Ditto Willie Best and Mantan Moreland but half the time it seems when their movies get shown, which is hardly ever, their scenes are cut for being politically incorrect. Yeah, Hollywood really has something to crow about there.)
And, as Luigi noted, it doesn’t matter if there are vastly more people opposing Polanski. If 100 recognizable names support him and 10,000 production accountants, prop managers, best boys and key grips oppose him it is the 100 prominent folks who will get news coverage.
.
Fellow directors aren’t accounts, managers and grips. Again, out of 14,000 members of the Directors Guild of America, about .003% of them signed off on the document. How is that supposed to be representative of even directors, much less Hollywood?
.
Did you know before I told you that Schwarzenegger had spoken out against him? Bill Maher? Luc Besson? Kirstie Alley? For every ten reports on Whoopi Goldberg’s comments about “rape-rape” which was seen as a defense of Polanski, maybe one of those ten happened to mention in passing that others on “The View” panel instantly came down on Polanski like a ton of bricks.
.
Saying that what Polanski did was wrong and evil and criminal simply isn’t news because, well, it WAS wrong and evil and criminal. Which is why anyone saying that receives way less coverage no matter who they are.
.
PAD
Peter, we’re at an impasse. You keep saying a small sample shouldn’t be considered representative of the whole. I won’t disagree. It shouldn’t. And yet, it is.
.
As you note, it’s Goldberg’s “rape-rape” comment the gets reported, not the reaction of her fellow panelists. It’s also the notables coming to Polanski’s defense who get reported. Fair? I’ve already agreed it isn’t. But it is what happens.
.
You can continue to insist .003% shouldn’t be considered representative but the sad fact is that it can be taken to be so. It’s the one obnoxious fan who earns a reputation for all Yankee fans. It’s the .003% (who, again, carry far more weight than a much larger number of never-heard-of-’em “directors”) whose opinion will be taken to be representative of Hollywood.
.
Especially if, as you again note, that is what is getting reported.
I have a few thoughts.
First, let me make my stance on this issue perfectly clear: what Polanski did was wrong, wrong wrong, and he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law for it.
That said, why the frak did it take this long for him to be taken into custody? 30 years??!! If someone who wasn’t a celebrity skipped out on their trial after admitting guilt, they would not be allowed to live free for so long. So I was just wondering if anyone knew what changed that he would be arrested now.
Secondly, as much as the most vocal (celebrity) supporters are calling for Polanski’s freedom, the petition that has been signed by so many Hollywood A-Listers does not specifically refer to the crime, but specifically outrage over his being taken into custody at a film festival.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jWI9GqqulHiqBO67eRlg42F0RjEg
That, I think, is even more outrageous: that you criticize the timing of an arrest that has been overdue by 30 years. And that a film festival should be a sanctuary where you are untouchable. That’s like saying that if a musician had committed a crime, that they should not be taken into custody during a concert. On the other hand, back to my first point, arresting him now is really late. There would not be such a brouhaha if he’d just been arrested back when he first skipped town. So I think it’s clearly wrong what Polanski did, but the arrest coming at this time feels like ineptitude on the part of the prosecution. What is this, the keystone cops?
~Chris
The treatment of blacks in Hollywood films not only reflected the racism of the time it helped perpetuate it.
.
Interesting: you say Hollywood is out of touch and yet it reflects and reinforces societal attitudes.
.
…but when an industry pats itself on the back with broad generalizations it has to expect the occasional dislocated shoulder when it gets hoisted by its own petard.
.
Which is tantamount to saying that the onus is on Hollywood to disprove your view of them. I guess that’s one way of looking at it, but I’ve always it’s better to look at the known facts first and then form a viewpoint rather than the reverse. Your mileage may vary.
.
Patrick Goldstein wrote an op-ed piece for the LA Times in which he notes that of the 700 names on the petition, only thirty-six could be deemed to be recongizable members of Hollywood, which he defines as anyone who has done any “substantive and recognizable work for a Hollywood studio in the last four decades.” The overwhelming majority of Hollywood’s “A-list” didn’t sign the infamous petition, and to the best of my knowledge haven’t lined up behind Polansky. How could that possibly be representative of an industry as big as the Hollywood entertainment machine?
.
As for those Hollywood luminaries who haven’t publicly condemned Polansky, perhaps they don’t have time to run around holding rallies and press conferences every time the justice system works the way it’s intended to. Besides, as PAD has pointed out, those prominent people in Hollywood who have spoken out aren’t getting a sliver of the coverage that Whoopi Goldberg has for her comments.
Good Lord, my father’s side of the family is nearly 100 percent Polish and yet I misspelled “Polanski.” I bow my head in shame. I deserve no kielbasa at Christmas dinner this year.
FOR SEAN MARTIN —
.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2009/10/is-hollywood-really-a-hotbed-of-support-for-roman-polanski.html
.
Read this. Then check the signed petitions. There are fewer than 50 “Hollywood” people who have signed the 2 petitions.
.
I urge you to open your mind to the facts, Sean, not pre-conceived stereotypical propaganda.
Interesting: you say Hollywood is out of touch and yet it reflects and reinforces societal attitudes.
.
The Hollywood of the 1940s need not have much relationship to the Hollywood of today. Apples and oranges.
Which is tantamount to saying that the onus is on Hollywood to disprove your view of them. I guess that’s one way of looking at it, but I’ve always it’s better to look at the known facts first and then form a viewpoint rather than the reverse. Your mileage may vary.
.
I think it is pretty self evident that Hollywood has been guilty of too much perfidy for people in it to brag too carelessly about how much better they are than other aspects of society (which is how I took Clooney’s words).
.
I’m glad that most of the folks in Hollywood are not jumping on the Roman Polanski bandwagon. I could even accept the great response given to him when he won the Academy Award, if I thought that it was part of Hollywood’s greater philosophy of separating the sinner from the art. But that’s not the case. Eli Kazan getting an award was controversial. Polanski getting one was not, as far as I remember. If anyone did protest Polanski winning I’d like to hear about it.
.
(though I think the whole thing may have less to do with politics than with plane old “what can you do for me?” Kazan was in no position to help anyone out so it was easy to put the hate on him. Polanski and say, Mel Gibson, could be a future paycheck. So let’s not rock the boat too much.)
FOR ALAN COIL
.
Facts, Alan? Please point out to me where I have said anything that doesn’t match with reality.
.
Do people will make generalizations about groups? Yes. Even our host admits folks paint with a broad brush.
.
Has movie notables supporting Polanski been getting more publicity than notables opposing him? Yes. From the link you yourself provide, right in the very first paragraph: “For days on end, I’ve been reading stories everywhere about how the Hollywood elite has rushed to Polanski’s defense, saying he should be released from custody in Switzerland”.
.
That Weinstein et all “live far, far away from Hollywood and, with occasional exceptions, make their movies outside of Hollywood” is irrelevant to the general public. They make movies. And as far as the general public is concerned, movies are made in Hollywood. (And to the extent they aren’t actually made within the physical confines of Hollywood’s geography, “Hollywood” is still used as short hand for “the movie industry”. As “Wall Street” is for the financial industry.)
.
My original point was, and has consistently remained, when prominent names in “Hollywood” are seen actively supporting Polanski that is the view that will be ascribes to all of “Hollywood”. And if the industry doesn’t want folks saying “Hollywood supports a fugitive” they would have to make a distinct effort to make that position clear.
And if the industry doesn’t want folks saying “Hollywood supports a fugitive” they would have to make a distinct effort to make that position clear.
.
Like, say, writing an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times. Or doesn’t Josh Olson count?
.
Olson’s column basically answers every argument of yours, point by point. The only impasse is that you’ve staked out a position–people are dumb–and that it’s the job of people in Hollywood to dogpile on Polanski in order to stop the talking heads from claiming that Hollywood is lining up behind him–which it isn’t. I’m not sure what else there is to say, although I could always ask Olson to swing by here and explain it some more.
.
PAD
OK, looking forward to someone making the case that people, as a group, and especially where celebrity news is concerned, aren’t dumb.
.
Or that the talking heads haven’t been claiming that Hollywood is lining up behind him, or that (as Josh Olsen himself notes) “there isn’t a great hue and cry from Hollywood demanding that Polanski be brought to justice.”
.
I said that people do paint with broad brushes (as did you). And that, lacking some notables clearly voicing an opposing opinion, “Hollywood” is going to get lumped in with those who are signing petitions in favor of Polanski because that’s the view seen being expressed (as you yourself noted (“The fact is that you don’t really know how many people, notable or otherwise, are speaking out against him. You just know the ones who got the news coverage.“))
.
I agreed it isn’t fair. I agreed it isn’t right. I agreed .003% doesn’t really represent the whole.
.
But, yes, I do also believe (as you said you did) that people generalize. Is that a point Olsen refuted? Because I must have missed that one.
To be clear, here’s the point I do see Olson making (and by and large it’s the same one you seem to be making):
Hollywood isn’t a hotbed of support for Polanski. The folks who signed the infamous petition aren’t representative of Hollywood and shouldn’t be taken to be so.
.
None of which I’ve disagreed with.
.
I’ve also agreed with the other point he makes: point that the perception folks are getting is at odds with that.
“Nonetheless, the Times describes the signers as “More than 100 industry leaders and prominent authors.”
“this deceptive statement has been picked up and is spreading. At least one internet “news” source mangled it into “Over 100 Hollywood Celebs Sign Petition for Roman Polanski Release,” which isn’t even deceptive. It’s a ridiculous and bald-faced lie.”
.
So, should Hollywood have to make an effort to show they don’t all support Polanski? No. It would be nice if everyone in the world was reasonable and recognized “ridiculous” statements. All I said was that, if they don’t, the perception will be based on what people are hearing, and what people are hearing is that “Over 100 Hollywood Celebs Sign Petition for Roman Polanski Release” and take that to mean Hollywood as a whole.
.
If anyone wants to continue to complain that it shouldn’t be that way I (again) won’t disagree with them. But if anyone want’s to argue that it isn’t actually that way, I’ll just point them to Olson’s Op-Ed.
The Hollywood of the 1940s need not have much relationship to the Hollywood of today. Apples and oranges.
.
I don’t think as much has changed in Hollywood as you believe. Hollywood has always been both a leading and a lagging indicator of social progress, influenced by and influencing society. Heck, you accused today’s Hollywood of ignoring certain works due to political correctness, which is a condition that is reflective of general society. You’re actually making a good case for the opposite of your stated view, because it sounds to me like Hollywood is very much in touch with the pulse of society in many ways. Which only makes sense: Hollywood’s agenda is to put fannies in the seats and make money, not to advance a political ideology.
.
I think it is pretty self evident that Hollywood has been guilty of too much perfidy for people in it to brag too carelessly about how much better they are than other aspects of society (which is how I took Clooney’s words).
.
So, in other words, if Clooney gives himself and his colleagues undue props, it’s OK to stereotype them? Or if some members of Hollywood have acted badly, it’s OK to tar them all with the same brush?
.
I’m glad that most of the folks in Hollywood are not jumping on the Roman Polanski bandwagon.
.
There doesn’t appear to *be* much of a bandwagon. 700 signatures from multiple countries, with only a small number coming from Hollywood, doesn’t strike me as a very big parade in the larger scheme of things.
Hollywood has always been both a leading and a lagging indicator of social progress, influenced by and influencing society.
.
Fir enough. Well, they can toot their own horn when they are leading. Someone ought to remind them when they are lagging, lest they think themselves immune to such things.
.
Heck, you accused today’s Hollywood of ignoring certain works due to political correctness, which is a condition that is reflective of general society. You’re actually making a good case for the opposite of your stated view, because it sounds to me like Hollywood is very much in touch with the pulse of society in many ways.
.
I probably did say that but off the top of my head I can’t recall where. I’m not sure what works have been ignored by Hollywood, so much as just not made at all. And I would not call political correctness reflective of society at large–it’s something I think, without any empirical proof mind you, that most people find laughable (until it bites them on the ášš). Except on college campuses, political correctness is not a dominant line of thought.
.
Which only makes sense: Hollywood’s agenda is to put fannies in the seats and make money, not to advance a political ideology.
.
Considering that Gallup recently found that the largest group in the country are those who self identify as conservatives (by about 2 to 1 over self identified liberals) one would expect many more films with a conservative POV than a liberal one, were putting áššëš in seats the main objective. Does anyone think that’s the case?
I think it is pretty self evident that
.
So, in other words, if Clooney gives himself and his colleagues undue props, it’s OK to stereotype them? Or if some members of Hollywood have acted badly, it’s OK to tar them all with the same brush?
.
No, but I think it’s perfectly legit when someone paints their industry in an overly flattering light to point out the harsh realities.
.
Can I point out what it was that I actually said? You’re not only not the only one, it seems to me that the only people who are on Polanski’s side are living in Hollywood and have no idea how incredibly bizarre that position seems to about 9/10 normal people. It’s almost as though they wanted to confirm every right wing cliche about how out of touch Hollywood is with traditional values, although I would suggest that being against drugging and raping 13 year olds is a value that pretty much everyone should agree with, regardless of politics. And sure enough, most of the liberal blogs are not exactly running to his defense and those that did are getting an earful from their readers (The Huffington Post comes to mind).
.
I did not say that everyone in Hollywood was a Polanski supporter, I said that the Polanski supporters were in Hollywood. there is a difference (and by that i did not necessarily mean they actually own land in California, just that they were in the entertainment business.)
.
I also pointed out that this was NOT the default view of liberals, as witnessed by the comments on liberal blogs. And I called the idea that Hollywood in general is out of touch a “right wing cliche” not an objective truth. I feel like I’m defending myself from things I did not say.
.
I’ll take the rap for using the term “Hollywood community” far too loosely. Mea culpa.
Bill Mulligan: <i.I feel like I’m defending myself from things I did not say.
I hear ya.
Bill Mulligan: I feel like I’m defending myself from things I did not say.
I hear ya.
“There will be no escaping final justice.”
And that’s another reason I hate religion, the whole, “Oh, we don’t have to do anything, God will take care of it.” spin…
I don’t think it comes so much from “we don’t have to do anything, God will take care of it” as we can’t.
.
When there is, for whatever reason, nothing we can do to see someone pay for an injustice there is some satisfaction to be gotten from believing that they will get punished at some point.
Having seen the episode of The View in question when it aired, I would like to support Whoopi by saying that she was trying to make sure that the panel was using the “correct” legal terms. Although sex with a minor is statuatory rape, it apparently hasn’t always been that way because the info over Whoopi’s earpiece was that the official charge at the time was “sex with a minor” and not rape of any sort. Based solely on what I saw on The View, I don’t think that Whoopi supports Polanski, she just wants everyone to be using the correct terminology.
Bill,
“I say no. If we had to avoid all the art made by people who were terrible awful human beings or held opinions that are unacceptable today, we would lose a lot of good talent.”
I totally disagree with this statement. First, I believe the premise is faulty. I don’t believe that THAT many of the pool of talented people are degenerate scumbags like Polanski is. This belief that “everyone does it”, like I’m hearing about Letterman now, is really distressing. It’s like ‘why have standards at all since none of us are perfect”. And there is a big difference toward punishing someone for “opinions that are unacceptable” and ACTIONS that hurt people. I can let the former slide much more easy than I can the latter.
“I mean, probably most of the great artists of a few hundred years ago or older were racist anti-semites, even the ones who were by the standards of their day considered enlightened.”
Again, there is no hard evidence to support the thesis you are putting forth. I am a bit more optimistic than that. and there is still a big difference between thoughts and actions.
“Similarly, one must ponder the probability that even those of us who think ourselves pure of heart and on the correct side of every question will one day be considered out of step with the accepted norm of some future society.”
Possibly. But I would rather deal with the present and base my actions and thoughts on what I believe to be right and wrong today. I would go so far as to say if we continue dow the path of glorifying people like Polanski, we won’t really evolve as a species anyway.
.
“So play your Wagner, hang up your Picasso print and enjoy some Micheal Jackson music. Marvel at how even the most twisted soul can somehow distill beauty into a form we can all enjoy.”
I have another idea. Let’s not. Let’s not marvel at twisted souls. Let’s not support them, especially if the pleasure we are deriving is from someone who has intentionally and unquestionably caused others pain. This idea that we should ignore someone’s heinous acts because what they do give us joy is narcissistic and hedonistic. it’s the kind of thinking that had people cheering for a man who killed his wife and her friend because, dámņ it, he entertained them on Sunday afternoons playing professional football.
I have not seen “The Pianist” because I refuse to support someone who raped, drugged and sodomized a 13 year-old girl. is it a good film? Maybe. But there are plenty of fine films I have yet to watch, TV shows I have yet to catch and books I have yet to read by creators I don’t find morally repugnant. There are only so many hours in the day and I only have two eyeballs. So maybe I’ll pick up “Chocolat” or some other work and enjoy it and support those creators instead.
i see where you’re coming from Jerome, but I disagree.
.
I don’t believe that THAT many of the pool of talented people are degenerate scumbags like Polanski is. This belief that “everyone does it”, like I’m hearing about Letterman now, is really distressing.
.
I would never argue that Polanski is in any way typical of the artistic community. But I would argue that among the great writers, artists, actors, directors, etc. one would find a much much higher degree of alcoholism, drug addiction, cruelty toward family members and loved ones, and other negative attributes than, say, among street car conductors or chimney sweeps. None of which matter to me if I want to read a good book. Or have my chimney swept, for that matter.
.
And I am certainly not arguing that it’s ok. I want Polanski to go to jail. I would be happy to hear that before he died Papa John got beaten to a pulp by the daughter he molested, but I can still listen to California Dreaming. Kokomo, no so much.
.
Again, there is no hard evidence to support the thesis you are putting forth. I am a bit more optimistic than that. and there is still a big difference between thoughts and actions.
.
Racism and anti-semitism (or, more accurately, just hating Jews) was pretty much the default position. I don’t agree with those who instantly disregard anything Jefferson, Washington, etc had to say because they were slave holders. Would you?
.
I would go so far as to say if we continue dow the path of glorifying people like Polanski, we won’t really evolve as a species anyway.
.
Watching a Polanski picture does not glorify him. If it makes you feel any better about it, movies are such a collaborative effort that one can enjoy a picture even if a few of the people who worked on it were scum. Indeed it would be hard to find one where that isn’t the case, except for the Forever Dead and Fistful of Brains, as well as the upcoming A Few Brains More: Summer of Blood, none of which have EVER been compared to Polanski’s oeuvre.
.
This idea that we should ignore someone’s heinous acts because what they do give us joy is narcissistic and hedonistic. it’s the kind of thinking that had people cheering for a man who killed his wife and her friend because, dámņ it, he entertained them on Sunday afternoons playing professional football.
.
but that’s NOT what I’m arguing. I AM arguing though that you can continue to enjoy watching football, even if one or two members of the team have criminal records. How could the Cowboys have ANY fans otherwise? Should all the Phillies fans burn their season tickets because of Michael Vick? I say no–what they should do is bark and throw dog biscuits at him and cheer whenever he botches a play. My point is, you seem to be advocating an degree of entertainment purity that would be impossible to live up to and probably require that one stay ignorant of the lives of anyone whose work you enjoy, lest you find something about them that would trigger the gag reflex.
.
Anyway, there are lots of ways to watch a movie without directly paying for it and potentially putting shekels in the creator’s wallet–cable TV, the library, illegal downloads, borrow from a friend.
.
I respect your opinion not to do so but I myself would be denying myself far too much to follow suit. Triumph of the Will is an essential film if you are any kind of film lover. So it Birth of a Nation. Ditto Battleship Potemkin. (I’d add Cannibal Holocaust in there too but that is almost certainly just me). There are all kinds of things one could take issue with, to say the least, with the ideas in those films, and/or the people who made them or the people who backed them or the movements that used them. None of that matters to me as it pertains to what I get out of watching them. We have a difference in philosophy here, clearly. For me, it doesn’t matter if a fine wine is poured from an ugly bottle. It tastes as good. The bottle can still be sent to jail for child molesting. Ok, poor analogy. Sorry. Thought I was going somewhere good with that one but kind of lost it. These things happen.
I agree with everything you say. I even agree about Cannibal Holocaust (and by that I mean in that instance, yeah, it’s just you.)
.
PAD
I can offer no defense. I showed it at a “bring a classic horror movie” get together and they haven’t let me forget it since.
.
For those with weak stomachs and/or any sense of ethics, morality and human decency, they DO offer the option on the recent DVD release of the “cruelty free” version which cuts out all scene of real animal slaughter. All the human killings, disemboweling, castration and liver eating remain intact, for you viewing pleasure.
.
(And I still say it IS an essential film for a horror movie fan who wants to understand the genre…but that is probably also true of Passolini’s Salo, which I have never been able to get through.)
Don’t believe the lies they tell you, Mulligan. I like it and there’s a guy at work who does as well. That makes at least 13 people total who will admit to liking the thing.
Wel, the law is the law. I love many of his films (specially “Death and the maiden” and “The pianist”), but if he was sentenced and scaped, he must serve his time.
Otherwise, Spielberg (for example) could start raping teenagers (“i’m talented, so I can get away with it”) or Kobe Bryant. Or even OJ Simpson could think about murdering his wife (“I’m rich and talented, sure the trial won’t sentence me).
It’s not revenge or anything, it’s just that law must be the same for everyone. If Polansky turns a hero for scaping justice for 30 years, what kind os example is that? You can be an offender and run, and justice will just forgive you?
Well, Spielberg and Kobe could justify it becuase they are talented. That would not be of use for Ron Howard or Steven seagal.
Hey! I sure can’t defend Seagal, but Howard? He’s great! Don’t be dissing the director of “Apollo 13” and “Splash” and “Frost/Nixon.”
.
PAD
Personally, I think Polanski should be hung in the public square by his nut-sack until dead as a cautionary tale to other would-be pedophiles – but then again, I’m a white, middle-aged heterosexual male and therefore often been told I’m not allowed to have an opinion in such matters (but I digress).
.
I’ll admit I am amazed at the number of people willing to stand up for him. Then again I was always amazed at the people who were willing to work on movies with him. I don’t want to even be in the same room as him.
.
I wonder how long it’ll be before we get the reactionary list of “famous people” who support his extradition? (Can’t wait to cross-reference that on IMDB!)
.
Second digression: Go watch the movie “Hard Candy” some time. There’s a brilliant line in there in which the pedophile says going to the cops will ruin his life, to which the response was, “Well, didn’t Roman Polanski just win an Oscar?” Great stuff.
.
Dic H.
Hëll yeah, Peter. Glad to hear someone say it.
Haven’t really followed the Polanski thing much, but I think that if he were really wise/smart, he would have (re)hired some lawyers years ago while in exile and negotiated terms more to his liking on surrendering to American authorities and serving time in jail. Then it would have been all behind him today, and he wouldn’t have been arrested while going to an awards ceremony honoring him and his work.
On a totally unrelated topic, I was wondering, PAD, if you had any opinions on the possible ramifications of this particular free-speech case facing the high court right now. Admittedly it doesn’t involve comics or related media, but do you believe this law is too broad as currently written?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-10-04-dogfighting-videos_N.htm
Mind you, I’m only asking about your opinion on this law, not on the movies/videos involved here, since I kinda doubt you (or anyone here, really) have ever seen them. Though if you want to comment on those, you can, (like I could do anything to prevent that :), I’m just curious what you think about the law being discussed/challenged here.
Chris
SEAN MARTIN
.
Please read this post.
.
http://www.peterdavid.net/index.php/2009/10/02/roman-hands/comment-page-1/#comment-134666
ALAN COIL –
.
Please read my reply to it.
Sean,
“I haven’t been following this that closely that I monitor each latest press release, but has anyone of Woody Allen stature started a petition saying Polanski should go to jail? Has any prominent Hollywood studio or producer or A-list actor said they will not work with him because he’s a fugitive?”
Who knows? Who cares?
My views on the matter are my own, and I will not be pilloried if I choose not to go public with them. Christ, look at those words and think, for a minute, how absurd they are. That we live in a world where people think it’s reasonable to demand that citizens publicize their reactions to news stories is mind-boggling.
When I heard OJ was going to jail, it never occurred to me to alert the media that I thought it was just grand news, or to go out and start a petition of support for the police who arrested him. How insane would that have been?
That a tiny, statistically non-existent percentage of people who work in the same industry as I do take a position that no one else does has nothing to do with me, and is only of interest to me when I start reading in the idiot press that they speak for me.
The point of my article was to take that thinking to task, and to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the assertion is based on a willful misreading of what paltry evidence there is.
As to the stupidity of the general public, all I can say is this – After I made it explicitly clear that only 36 names out of the more than 650 on the petitions could be considered “Hollywood” by any stretch of the imagination, after explaining that over six hundred of the names were of foreigners who had nothing to do with the American film business in any way, shape or form, there are STILL dozens of comments on the Times page taking me to task for trying to weasel out of it on a technicality. People are lecturing me that you don’t have to live IN Hollywood itself to fall under the umbrella definition of “Hollywood.” I even provided a link to the dámņ petition. When faced with a wall of exotic, foreign names, they respond, “Well, Hollywood isn’t just a zipcode.”
Here’s the truth – facts don’t matter to some people. Many will read my piece, think, “Oh, that makes sense. I’m glad someone corrected the mistake.” But others, clearly, read it, and think, “Goddam Jew Liberal baby fûçkërš.”
The point of my piece, really, was to alert a handful of reporters that they need to take a little more responsibility for what they put out there, because there are morons out there so profoundly ignorant, so completely lost in their smug, self-satisfied babyraper-hating rage that there are no facts on Earth that can dissuade them from their idiocy.
The notion that “Hollywood” needs to start up a counter petition – as some have, actually – is just absurd. It’s the moral equivalent of answering the question “When did you stop beating your wife?”
Josh Olson: Who knows? Who cares?
My views on the matter are my own, and I will not be pilloried if I choose not to go public with them.
.
ALthough you have, at least to an extent, in your Op-Ed. But even if you had said nothing at all about this subject, where have I said anywhere that you had to do anything other than that?
.
What I did say: “I didn’t say the vast majority of of the industry should take a unified stand. I said that people do paint with broad brushes and, lacking some notables voicing an opposing opinion, “Hollywood” is going to get lumped in with those who are signing petitions in favor of Polanski because that’s the view seen being expressed.”
.
An observation on how things work. A prediction as to what would happen. And I was right. In your Op-Ed and your comment here you complain about people doing exactly that. Attributing to the entirety of the American movie industry (aka “Hollywood”) the view of a few.
.
So, can someone explain to me how I became the one to be attacked as if I was the one saying all Hollywood DOES support Polanski? I feel like I just pointed out that the volcano is about to explode and when it does I’m the one who gets blamed for it’s doing so.
.
That a tiny, statistically non-existent percentage of people who work in the same industry as I do take a position that no one else does has nothing to do with me, and is only of interest to me when I start reading in the idiot press that they speak for me.
.
Exactly. The press is reporting that they speak for you. This is what I said. And that people will believe what they are told. And that if folks in “Hollywood” don’t want to be perceived as Polanski supporters then they will have to make it clear that it isn’t a view they share.
.
Fair? Appropriate?
“Who knows? Who cares?”
But it is the way things are. Peter may “think that’s an unfair attitude for people to have” and you may find it mind-boggling “[t]hat we live in a world where people think it’s reasonable to demand that citizens publicize their reactions to news stories”. But people are unfair and that is the world we live in.
.
Your feeling it necessary to write the Op-Ed you did only goes to show that that is the case.
Sean,
I think the problem is that upon first reading, some of your earlier posts sounded as if the point you were making was “If the people in Hollywood don’t speak up, they deserve to be lumped in with the people signing the petitions”. You have clarified that that isn’t what was meant, and rereading your posts I see where I (and I guess quite a few others) read something into your posts which wasn’t intended.
Personally, I find the idea of thinking of the entertainment theory as a monolithic block rather baffling. to go to George Clooney’s point: Yes, there are movies talking about social problems before that conversation has reached mainstream society. There are also movies which use the most primitive gay jokes as if they were the height of wit. I agree that the makers of the former should be applauded, but I don’t see how the makers of the latter deserve to be given the same regard. So I agree with pretty much everyone here that the individuals who signed the petition deserve to be criticized for it, but that the vast majority who didn’t do not deserve to be included in this criticism (though, as Sean pointed out, they will be).
I have lost quite a bit of respect for the persons who signed the petition. I was especially shocked to read that Salman Rushdie had signed the petition by Lévy, someone who I definitely did not expect that of. Does that mean I will deprive myself of their work? No. I agree with the points Bill Mulligan made about that before. But when I see them commenting on something, they will now always have an asterisk next to their name in my head.
One final pointbafore i stop rambling on: As a German, I was offended by Whoopi’s comment about “European sensibilites”. Yes, it is true that we have a more open relationship to sexuality. You will see naked women on billboard advertising. Opposition to gay rights is far less vocal than in the United States. Prostitution is legal. Basically, as long as it is between two consenting adults, most people don’t care. But that is not what we are talking about here. The girl was below the age of consent everywhere but Spain, so even if it had been a star struck girl who looked mature for her age, it would not have been ok. But again, this is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is rape, pure and simple. Drugging a girl and having his way with her while she pleads for him to stop. And that is definitely not something we as a society take lightly.
I do have to criticize my own country, as well as France and every other country that allowed Polanski to stay and work there during the last 30 years. There is no excuse for him not being extradited immediately back to the US to face his punishment. (and honestly, the 90 days of the original plea bargain would have been a mockery of justice). I understand if people are not extradited if the case is very shaky, or if they face capital punishment… none of which applies. So here’s hoping that Roman Polanski will face an appropriate jail sentence, and if that means that he will spend the rest of his days there… well, he shouldn’t have run.
I wish you all a good day,
Benjamin
“If the people in Hollywood don’t speak up, they deserve to be lumped in with the people signing the petitions”.
.
Nope, don’t believe I’ve ever said that. It may have taken me a post or two to get the wording clearest, but the point I’ve been making since the very beginning was: If the people in Hollywood don’t speak up, they are going to end up being lumped in with the people signing the petitions”
.
Which Peter, Josh, etc. keep pointing out is happening. So I’m at a loss to understand why I’ve gotten dumped on.
I wouldn’t say you’re being “dumped on,” Sean, so much as that it comes across to me as this: I believe that blithely tarring the entirety of Hollywood with the same brush because of the stated opinions of a handful of people is not all right, particularly in such a hot-button issue as child rape…and you seem to think that it IS all right because those who are opposed to Polanski haven’t done enough to make their positions clear.
.
My belief that that is your position was further promoted by your saying, “Yeah, I suppose you’re right. There are always reasons for not speaking out against something you find offensive” which came across as reflecting your own judgment on the matter. The implication that the people of Hollywood were too timid or concerned about their own self-interest to grab the nearest microphone, and that therefore they deserved to be tarred with the pro-Polanski brush that many are wielding.
.
PAD
I believe that blithely tarring the entirety of Hollywood with the same brush because of the stated opinions of a handful of people is not all right,
.
A position which I consistently and repeatedly agreed with.
.
…and you seem to think that it IS all right because those who are opposed to Polanski haven’t done enough to make their positions clear.
.
No, I don’t seem that way. I never said it was all right for that to happen. I consistently said that was unfair. But I noted it was the way things would go, as it has.
.
I’ll acknowledge the one post I made that could be interpreted as snarky which I immediately apologized for. I wish you would acknowledge the many places where I said “I’ll agree that’s unfair”, “Again, unfair,” “No, you shouldn’t [have to openly condemn every single criminal just to prove you don’t support them]”, “I agreed it isn’t fair. I agreed it isn’t right. I agreed .003% doesn’t really represent the whole.” etc. Or at least an of the places where you attributed to me a stand which I did not take (“you want to condemn the 99.99% in the industry”) or something I simply didn’t say (“you’ve staked out a position … that it’s the job of people in Hollywood to dogpile on Polanski”).
Sean,
You are right, you never said that, and I did not want to imply that that was what you either said or wanted to say – only that it was perceived as such by reading more into some of the things you said than was warranted. Certainly that was the case for me. As I also said, you have since cleared that up.
–
Why are people still arguing with you? I’m not sure to be honest, maybe it is because the position you were perceived to be holding was the closest to a truly opposing position one could argue against. But I see the bright side in that this discussion led me to Mr. Olson’s op-ed, which I found to be a very interesting read.
–
I do apologize for misreading you initially, and also if I did not make it clear enough in my previous post that I do not believe that you ever intended to say the things I at first thought you were saying.
–
Benjamin
Benjamin –
.
No worries. You didn’t imply it. Quite the opposite as you made it quite clear that you realize it wasn’t what I meant.
.
I have been feeling rather taken to task for things I didn’t say, and accused of taking a stand for positions that I never took a stand for, so my apologies in return if my reply to you came over more harsh than intended.
.
‘Nuff said.
PAD instructs Sean Martin to avoid making snide remarks, stating “It’s not called for and I don’t deserve it.” The first part is fairly defensible, but it is very unbecoming to declare oneself much too fine to be criticized. Snide comments are far from unknown on this board – whether by posters or by PAD. I would imagine Mr. Martin felt PAD’s preceding comment had been dangerously naive or uninformed. Perhaps it was not, but posters are generally allowed to form their own opinions. I am much in agreement with his dismay at the large number of prominent directors and actors who have leaped to Roman Polanski’s defense and at the dearth of similarly prominent Hollywood personalities who dared to favor his extradition and sentencing. Obviously PAD sees it differently, but it is very clear to me that the outbreak of bewailing the misfortunes of a convicted sex criminal makes Hollywood look narcissistic, out of touch and unsympathetic toward children. I wonder what the press agents are saying.
PAD instructs Sean Martin to avoid making snide remarks, stating “It’s not called for and I don’t deserve it.” The first part is fairly defensible, but it is very unbecoming to declare oneself much too fine to be criticized.
.
I don’t believe that of myself, and I’m pretty sure you know that because otherwise I would have banned you from this site long ago. There are quite a few blogs out there where the owner routinely bans people who are perpetually critical.
.
PAD
True enough. It’s one of the reasons (other than being a big fan of your work) that I’ve enjoyed lurking here for so long.
.
With the exception of a few clearly defined lines (e.g., family), you’ve been open to the posting of opposing views, even when overly aggressive and challenging in their phrasing. And, with very few exceptions, open to considering changes to your own views and noting when you’re erred.
you’re–> you’ve (sigh()PAD, of course you don’t think that of yourself. I never would have thought you felt you were an arrogant bully. The point is that you believe your instances of tolerance are absolute proof that your every whim is unassailably wise, generous, tolerant and good.
Sean Martin took a position different from yours and expressed shock that your opinion was not identical to his own. You took a position different from his and warned him not to criticize you. I just don’t see wisdom and tolerance oozing out of your pores.
The point is that you believe your instances of tolerance are absolute proof that your every whim is unassailably wise, generous, tolerant and good.
.
That’s a bald-faced lie. That Peter David has readily admitted to personal flaws is a matter of record. You can find many such admissions in this blog, in his CBG column, in interviews he’s done, and even in Writing for Comics With Peter David.
.
You took a position different from his and warned him not to criticize you.
.
No, he warned Sean Martin not to be snide. Sean apologized, and the disagreement continued respectfully. Sean Martin himself has said as much. The only person who is making an issue of it is you.
.
I just don’t see wisdom and tolerance oozing out of your pores.
.
Neither do I. Neither, I suspect, does PAD. But it’s quite ironic that you continue to hammer on him after you’ve crossed the one solid boundary he’s set for posters here — that no one is to insult his family — and still he allows you to post here. He’s being more tolerant than I’d’ve been. If you’d insulted my girlfriend I’d’ve banned your sorry ášš.
.
You get off on picking fights, despite your past feeble protestations to the contrary. The only reason I’m even addressing you is because our host doesn’t deserve this kind of abuse.
.
He’s not perfect. He doesn’t have to be. But he’s a human being, and nothing he’s done warrants this kind of disrespect. I doubt that’s going to stop you, but I thought someone should at least call you out.
Sean Martin took a position different from yours and expressed shock that your opinion was not identical to his own.
.
Jeffrey-
I appreciate the support, but that is not what I did. Peter’s view is not that different than mine, as I’ve said many times here, so was never a source of “shock” for me. What did surprise me, given the actual similarity of our views, is the misrepresentations of my view and the hits I’ve taken because of them.
.
If anything Peter deserves criticism for anything in this thread, it’s that he still has not acknowledged that. Not that he views himself as unassailable.
Bill: Sean apologized, and the disagreement continued respectfully.
.
For the most part. I apologized, and then continued to get complaints about about positions I hadn’t taken for which no similar apology has been forthcoming.
.
So perhaps not so much “respectfully” as “civilly”.
I apologized, and then continued to get complaints about about positions I hadn’t taken for which no similar apology has been forthcoming.
.
I’m not sure that an apology is owed to you. In an earlier comment, you said, “But if there is a segment of Hollywood that is not ‘out of touch’ in that they do think Polanski should pay for his crimes then they should step up and say so.”
.
I think PAD’s interpretation of your remarks was reasonable. I, along with at least one other poster here, interpreted your words in a similar way. We can’t read your mind, only what you write.
Yes, and in that very same comment I proceeded that statement with “people do tend to paint with broad brushes” and followed it with “It’s not enough for some to just say “We’re not like that. Don’t lump us in with them.” Unfair, perhaps, but fact of life. you’re going to be lumped with them unless you make it clear, very clear, that you are voicing an opposing opinion as loudly as “they” are voicing theirs.”
.
I thought that pretty much would make it clear that I wasn’t saying those opposed to Polanski were obligated to speak up, but would need to do so if they didn’t want to get lumped in with those who were speaking up (in his defense). An unfortunate fact of human nature.
.
And even after I clarified this further in subsequent statements Peter continued to have a problem with my pointing out a truth that he was actually agreeing with: People are going to generalize and view all of Hollywood as having the same opinion as a few.
Chris wonders why Roman Polanski was not seized by the United States in 1978 or soon thereafter. The answer seems quite obvious: Sometimes he couldn’t be found, and most of the time his extradition was being denied by nations the U.S. did not choose to invade and pacify. If he’d been in Panama I suppose he’d now be in a cell next to Manuel Noriega. It’s been 65 years since the last amphibious invasion of France, and I would not anticipate another any time soon.
Mr. David did a great deal more than warn Sean Martin not to be snide on this board: He informed him that he – due to his obvious virtues – did not deserve snide comments. Rather than declaring a standard of conduct he insisted upon in his own blog, it was an edict based on his imperial satisfaction with his own personal rectitude – {Don’t screw with me, boy! I am truly great, am satisfied with that assessment, and am telling you now. Pay attention!} If, for example, Bill Myers had said “Hey, that was uncalled for. Peter is a great guy, and you ought to watch your mouth” I would think he was probably mistaken, but it would not seem like a command. Declaring one’s own virtues is not usually very convincing: The praise of one’s admirers is much more effective.
Jeffrey, it’s clear you’re here to pick fights with PAD for the sake of doing so. Talking to you is like talking to the north end of a south-bound donkey. Good day to you.
Bill Myers: It should be clear to you that I think PAD is entirely wrong about a number of things. Certainly his comments toward Sean Martin are not an isolated thing unrelated to anything else. I think they are entirely consistent with his approach to this board:
Allow critical opinions to be printed.
Trumpet how fine a fellow he is to do so.
Blast heresies while complimenting self for permitting them to be printed.
Explain that any criticism of himself is hurtful and uncalled for.
Repeat.
Repeat.
Repeat.
Sean Martin:
You are free to feel as you wish, of course, but your experience above with Bill Myers should tell you something. You disagreed with PAD’s take on Hollywood’s near silence on the Polanski extradition, told him you disagreed, were blasted as a miserable wretch, admitted that perhaps your two positions weren’t all that far apart, and were blasted again (by Bill Myers – let’s give PAD his due) for being a schismatic whether you wanted to admit it or not. This is fairly typical.
were blasted as a miserable wretch
.
Uh, no. I’m frustrated that Peter insists things shouldn’t be a particular way and when I agree with him but point out that they are, alas, that way then I get told I’m saying something I haven’t.
.
But I haven’t been blasted or called a miserable wretch. Clearly you see things regarding PAD in a very extreme black/white manner. Speaks more to you than him.
Wow, Jeffrey. You seem to have read far more into PAD’s comment and taken far more offense (and on my behalf, yet) than I ever did.
.
I really try to judge someone based only on my own experiences of them, so tend to ignore it when others say someone I’m not familiar with is a jerk. And I’m not familiar with any earlier posts you’ve made here so tend to discount references to them but, yeah, I’m starting to lean towards Bill Myers view.
.
Might you be using your own existing opinions color your view of this particular exchange?
Bill Myers: Let me offer a small confession. I have not read every word PAD has ever published, and do not feel compelled to do so. A lot of the fiction which I have read has been of high quality. A lot of the commentary which I have read is not. There’s quite a bit of both varieties that I will never read, but I can survive that. When I respond to one of his or your posts, it is that post to which I am responding. The whole of your lives is of more interest to you than it is to me.
Is somebody paying you to be like this?
.
I simply can’t see ANY other reason why you would continue to post here when it is so obvious you dislike Peter David, and have no respect for any of the other posters.
.
You have become merely another pitiable internet troll, and most of us would never notice you if you simply disappeared.
Alan Coil: Do you really think it is that unusual that someone should disagree with PAD? It’s happened before, I’m sure. If you know of some reason other posters deserve my respect, I would be glad to read it. At present that is quite a mystery. Actually, I did, for a moment, treat Sean Martin as someone worthy of respect – but that led nowhere. He is close to apologizing for briefly holding to his own opinions, and is unlikely to again stray in the near future.
yes, yes, you are a lonely voice of brave reason in the wilderness of lickspittle lockstep supplication. Blah blah blah…The nice thing about that position is that any disagreement with it is taken as prima facie evidence in support of the position. You can’t lose! (except that nobody takes those kinds of arguments very seriously, but, like pìššìņg in a dark suit, at least you get a warm feeling.)
.
As for whether or not any posters here deserve your respect, I think most would flee from it like a politicians getting an endorsement from NAMBLA. You’re a bright enough fellow, obviously, not like some of the stick stone stupid trolls who come and go but what you are getting out of this is a mystery to me. I may disagree with PAD’s politics about 40% of the time but it’s not my agenda to just lurk around for the occasional “Ah-HA!” moment.
Pish-tosh. Begone, vile smelly troll.
Jeffrey: He is close to apologizing for briefly holding to his own opinions, and is unlikely to again stray in the near future.
.
Jeffrey, you’re really insisting on seeing things are they are not. I’m hardly apologizing for having my own opinions when I’ve posted numerous comments here saying PAD owes me an acknowledgment that he misrepresented what I’ve been saying.
.
I’m disagreeing with your description of what has happened and, in turn, you’re insisting that I’m on the verge of a complete capitulation. Not because I am, but because that’s the way you want things to be to fit with your view of what PAD is. You’re making facts fit your theory rather than vice versa.
I was going to rebut Jeffrey’s nonsense one last time until I realize… what’s the point? He is the quintessential troll, with a mind unconstrained by logic or conscience. He’s already exposed himself for what he is; pointing it out is redundant. We can attempt to verbally punish him, but I think he *is* his own punishment.
.
Does Peter David have flaws? Yes. Yes, he does. But so do I. So does everyone who posts here. But PAD is not so flawed, nor are any of us here so virtuous, as to justify anyone attacking PAD so personally in such a vicious fashion.
.
Is one of PAD’s flaws thinking he is above criticism? No. His actions demonstrate quite the opposite. He allows people latitude to criticize him to the Nth degree, right here, in his very own blog. He simply doesn’t always agree with every criticism leveled at him. But who does?
.
I haven’t stated what I perceive to be PAD’s flaws because… what’s the point? I have mine, many of which have been laid bare here. I’d rather debate him in the realm of ideas, rather than make my glass house a target.
.
Jeffrey, among others, will turn a deaf ear to what I have to say. A shame, really. His verbal attacks say more about him than they do about those he attacks.
.
Shrouded.
“He allows people latitude to the Nth degree, right here, in his very own blog.”
It is rather obvious he does not allow it to the Nth degree. 1. One may not bring his family into the discussion. This is a fairly self-explanatory and appropriate rule, although one occasionally difficult when he brings them into the discussion himself. In general, it isn’t extremely hard to comply with this rule. 2. We have been informed that Sean Martin (and I don’t think it is a stretch to say others) may not make snide remarks (about himself. It isn’t entirely clear whether it is permitted against a different target), with the implication that PAD has examined his own soul and found it fragrant. He doesn’t like it when people tell him he’s completely wrong: Very few people do. So long as he imposes limits on what is permitted on this board, it is a lie to say he does not.
Go away, foul demon.
In general, it isn’t extremely hard to comply with this rule.
In general??? When is it ever not possible to comply with a “no insulting my family” rule?
That he brings them into the discussion himself does not in any way make this rule “occasionally difficult”. Only one who wants to be intentionally difficult would fail to see that.
We have been informed that Sean Martin (and I don’t think it is a stretch to say others) may not make snide remarks
No, I was told not to be snide. This is different than being told I couldn’t be snide.
Indeed, begone foul troll.
Jefferey,
You are acting a bit trollish. The sarcastic, above-it-all attitude undermines the valid points you do make. You are antagonizing Sean Martin, who you claim to speak for; you are turning off reasonable people like Bill Mulligan and Bill Myers, and you actually have me agreeing with Alan Coil, for crying out loud! On top of all that, it seems you are deliberately being rude to our host.
You do seem like a bright add with potentially a lot to add to the discussions here. But if I – who enjoys productive confrontation, vigorous debate and occasional verbal bomb-throwing as much as anyone – am joining those telling you to ease up, it might be time to change your approach.