Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In Film/TV
Editors' Picks
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
As far as the Coen Brothers...all their films stink...won't pass the test of history.
Were you lobotomized with a cursed mummy penis or something? You have serious brain problems if you don't like the Coens and further think that their movies won't be remembered.
David Lynch? What the fuck? So much for all that transcendental meditation.
From the petition:
"His arrest follows an American arrest warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals."
Morals? He drugged and raped her. It's not just about her being underage. Fuck.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opin…
You have 20 minutes.
Begin.
Are you F@#$ing kidding me...all these peeople signed this?
Here's something SLOG would like:
http://en.wikipedia.org
Ages_of_consent_in_Europe
#France
"Male homosexual acts were illegal until 1791, when the ancient sodomy laws were dropped from the Criminal Code of that year. This continued to be the case under the Napoleonic Code of 1810. In 1942, the age of consent for homosexual acts was set at 21, while that for heterosexual acts was 13. The latter was increased to 15 in 1945. In 1978, the age for homosexual acts was lowered to 18. In 1981, it was lowered to 15, in line with that for heterosexual acts."
(1) This makes a number of points. Near the time that Polanski was a child/teen, 13 was the age of consent in France.
(2) Being gay was ok in early France, as long as you were an adult (?)
Sad about Tilda Swinton, though. D:
However, this isn't about his rape. It is about the particular means of Polanski's arrest.
Polanski owns a house in Switzerland. He's been in and out of Switzerland hundreds of times over the last 30 years. There have been countless opportunities to arrest him in Switzerland over the last 30 years. So why now? Why arrest him on his way to an international film festival?
This particular film festival is in a neutral country. One reason for that is so that filmmakers can feel they can air their films without fear. We don't worry about that much here in the US. But there are filmmakers from all sorts of countries where they could get in all sorts of trouble for their films. Films from China that don't conform to their codes. Films from the middle east dealing with the subject of homosexuality. There are all sorts of countries all over the world that have a lot more restrictions on filmmakers than we are aware of here in the US.
Arresting one of the most famous directors in the world, on his way to a film festival in a neutral country, has the unintentional side effect of being a huge chilling message to controversial filmmakers.
THAT is what all these directors are complaining about.
Top of the list here http://tinyurl.com/ybez9ud
Woody Allen.
@15--Although I'm not sure why the age of consent in France is relevant, you should take another look at the post. The age of consent for heterosexual acts (which is what we're talking about here) was changed to 15 in 1945--34 years before Polanski's acts. Plus, age of consent is a non-issue if you drug someone.
"...asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm."
http://tinyurl.com/ybhq3mg
The difficult, dark and ambiguous situation Sean Nelson described so beautifully, with Polanski roaming around outside U.S. borders continuing to film and continuing to fuck, living both with the harm he'd been done and the harm he'd done others including that poor girl, seemed infinitely preferable to setting off another one of our justified-outrage binges.
Whether the extradition goes through or not, the arrest has set off an unstoppable vengeance-is-mine news blitz. Most media outlets, Fox News and Slog alike, will don their Captain Justice outfits to rouse us rabble day in and day out until the day of Polanski's glorious sentencing.
And that's just foul.
Unless I'm mistaken, the controversy here isn't about the content of his films.
So far that's the only way of looking at this mess that allows it to make any sense at all. It just seems so improbable that all these people would be so invested in protecting him from serving some jail time.
I would love to hear some of these people explain their reasoning. If this is really just about, Oh, Polanski's such a great artist, he should be free... that's just so fucking flaky. Surely they're not all that stupid.
own terms. I don't carry feelings of anger towards Polanski. I even have some sympathy for him, what with
his mother dying in a concentration camp and then his wife Sharon Tate being murdered by Charles
Manson's people and spending the last 20 years as a fugitive. Life was hard for him, just like it was for me.
He did something really gross to me, but it was the media that ruined my life." -- Samantha Geimer, the
victim in the Roman Polanski sex crime case from 1977, in a recent People magazine interview
If the victim can forgive him, why can't society? If Polanski had served time, he would be forgiven (at least by the law). The crime is no longer his actions of 30 years ago - which he could have attoned for - but the fact that he never faced the consequences.
So, yeah, lock him up. But not with all this self-righteously offensive vitriol about child rape and such.
I don't side with the directors in the petition, but I understand why they are so upset. It does open a can of worms for controversial directors. On the other hand, Polanski has eluded justice for a long time. He's a criminal that finally got caught. No reason to be so upset about that, I'm afraid.
http://thomashawk.com/
And if I can manage to watch one of Polanski's movies and enjoy it for its own merits, I can continue to watch movies to which all the petition signers have contributed in a similar fashion. Signing the petition doesn't reflect well upon them, but it's just a petition, quite possibly the least they could do to actually affect the situation.
I've seen it reported a few places that Ethan Coen signed the petition.
"Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us." Furthermore, "I'm sure if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it." In 2008, Geimer stated in an interview that she wishes Polanski would be forgiven, "I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever — besides me — and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it."
The amount of denial shown on the part of Polanski supporters in this case has been incredible. He's a self-admitted child-rapist, and skipped on the bail that he was granted by the justice system that his lawyers are now disparaging.
I think it's great that Switzerland doesn't arrest Arab filmmakers attending its film festivals for violations of Sharia law. I also think it's great that Switzerland cooperated with the US in finally bringing to justice an old, worthless fuckhead who raped a child and then fled judgment day amidst a flurry of lame excuses.
Roman Polanski: Fuck you.
The arguments that Switzerland is some sort of magic fairy land of neutrality are bullshit. Controversial films have been shown all over the world, with no risk to their creators (other than the ones who raped a kid). I think some of these directors and actors are mistaking the Swiss legal system for their banking system (which is no longer sacrosanct either).
He fucked a kid, maybe he's a better person now, who fucking cares...If a child molester who didn't make films fled the country and was captured 30 years later, do you think ANY of these people would give a shit? Other than maybe to throw a benefit concert in the VICTIM'S honor, rather than the rapist's?
Anyway, yes...I am very saddened by the amount of people I formerly respected who signed that petition. I understand separating the artist from the art, but I also think there comes a point where you draw a line.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/20…
That he was traveling to a highly publicized event to accept an award just proved to be a very fortuitous event.
...actually it turned out that was pretty much the right thing to do. Let's go get a beer.
Seriously, if you believe that film festivals are some sort of magical fairyland where laws against drugging and raping 13-year-olds must not be enforced lest Tinkerbell fall ill and die, you are a complete fucking...
Wait, no, equivocation like this is beneath us all. You're a complete fucking moron, an embarrassment to the parents who spawned you and the species that reluctantly claims you. Please throw yourself into the nearest burning building.
The age of consent in Canada, Italy, South Carolina, and Germany is 14. In Mexico it's 12.
People are ready to have sex at different ages. The choice of a magical legal age may be necessary, but it's not a size that fits all. Many of my female friends in high school illegally fucked 20 somethings because they considered us fellow 15 year olds too imature, and they had a point.
Sure, technically speaking, Polanski broke the law. I haven't seen the details of the case, but all this hysteria and outrage seems better suited for criminals who actually rape (in the non-statuatory sense), beat, and kill people.
Seandr: "I haven't seen the details of the case." No shit you haven't. Because if you had, you would have known that the 13-year-old in question was drugged and still repeatedly asked Polanski to stop as he was raping her vaginally and anally. (No need to take my word for it: her testimony is public record.)
Please queue up behind @19 for the burning building.
That the crime in question occurred decades ago doesn't make it any less heinous.
Same goes for David Lynch, et al.
And for @50: Polanski *admitted* forcing her to have sex against her will, and pounding her 13 year old bung hole when she said she wasn't on birth control. Go read the grand jury testimony: it's public record.
It's rape. It's not a choice, and there's nothing fucking technical about it.
It is not inclusive of those who anally rape a teenager.
My god, can you not make the distinction between the two?
It's extremely dismaying to see the outpouring of support for Polanski, as if his skill as an artist were so intrinsically linked to his behavior as a human being that the two cannot somehow be separated and judged accordingly. Yet that is precisely what has been done to other artists (Riefenstahl being the most obvious example) when it has suited society, and in Polanski's case, his artistic achievements cannot in any way be considered mitigating circumstances for the abhorrent actions he took against this young girl.
The simple fact is, he HASN'T suffered for his crime, rather he has lived a comfortable life, enjoyed all the fruits of his artistic success, and until now apparently, never been forced to take responsibility for his alleged crime.
Ms. Geimer's expression of mercy is admirable, but it is also understandable in the context of a woman, now middle-aged, who has had more than 30 years to come to terms with the likelihood that she would never see the man who raped her brought to justice. She has faced the choice of either moving beyond her violation and rebuilding her life, or wallowing in her own sense of victimization and allowing that to poison her entire existence. Wisely she has chosen the former, but that in and of itself does not grant her the power to pardon Polanski; for justice to be truly blind, it must be blind to all, to accuser and accused alike.
Polanski will get his day in court, as is his right. Ms. Geimer will finally see the man she has accused of raping her brought to the bar of justice. According to our laws he will be judged based on the evidence presented, and his guilt or innocence will be determined by a jury of his peers examining that evidence; that's the system we have, and for the most part with occasional lapses (as will be the case with any such institution created by us fallible humans) it works fairly well.
Mr. Polanski is still innocent until proven guilty, but he is most certainly NOT above the law. The Hollywood luminaries who have rushed to his defense would be well advised to keep in mind that he is not being judged for his artistic expression, but rather on his actions as a human being.
The US doesn't extradite people for violations of Sharia law either.
God these people are idiots. There is no special "I'm using my free speech" card to get out of criminal responsibility, much less a "I'm going to a big film festival" card.
I mean, seriously, I can commit any random crime and then if I'm going to give a speech I'm cool until I'm not actively participating in the creation of international film?
It's interesting to see how many people opine about this without apparently knowing much about the case. I've seen comments from Sloggers I generally agree with and respect write ignorant posts about why this shouldn't be a big deal. I'm not judging the lack of knowledge; although I've heard of the case, it was only after he was finally nabbed in Switzerland that I read the details of what he did and was reminded that he had in fact had his trial. But now that it's all out... People, people, read up before you chime in. Some of you look foolish for what you've said.
No, just the child rapist fugitive ones.
No-one's trying to arrest Roman for the films he's made (not even 'Pirates'), just for the crimes he's committed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8…
we, the noncriminals, have to have a higher standard than the criminals.
it's clear that commenter doesn't consider prison rape rape. i guess because men are the victims? or because if you're a criminal you deserve to be degraded, humiliated, violated and mentally and emotionally disturbed for the rest of your life?
pretty inhumane.
in fact, given that the commenter is speaking of a reality that all of us tolerate, we know about it and do nothing at all to change it, it makes me feel that polanski has good reason to avoid jail.
maybe once we have jails that are not rife with physical violence and crimes, we can get back some moral standing to condemn other nations and other people who wish to make distinctions we do not wish to make in our rage and anger with for some on this thread has gotten out of control.
it is not justice if it's not proportional, if it's not with dignity to the person and if it's cruel and wishing him to be raped repeatedly in prison is cruel.
If he did what she said that he did then we should nail him to the wall. And somehow the agreed upon 90 day psych evaluation doesn't seem a sufficient penalty for ephebophiling. But then I was too young to remember. Perhaps that was the going rate for that sort of crime back then.
Yeah, never mind that he drugged and raped someone. I'm too busy waxing poetic about him having no punishment for his actions to worry about what that can mean for future victims of this crime.
And for those who say that the victim has forgiven him so we should, well that incentives harassing a victim until they're willing to make public statements that charges should be dropped.
Did things happen exactly as the victim has testified? Maybe not. But the way to contest that testimony is in the Los Angeles court in which the charges were filed. These stupid equivocations about "waiting for the full story" and "he's suffered enough already" are just bulwarks against the encroaching cognitive dissonance his supporters are experiencing.
And the psych eval wasn't the punishment. In order for his guilty plea to be accepted, he had to be fit to stand trial. The sentencing for his plea bargain has yet to occur, and that's what he was wanted for.
Seriously, your definition of "lynch mob" is broken.
What's it like, living inside a coccoon?
@62,
I'm no fan of prison rape. I think prison officials should do everything they can to stop it. I believe that treating people like humans will reduce recidivism. However, I don't think that the fact that there is prison rape, and beatings and degradation, etc etc is any reason not to send criminals, especially heinous ones like Polanski, to jail.
And, frankly, if he does get raped in jail, I'm not going to feel terribly bad about it.
You are wrong, wrong, WRONG, this IS about justice (as opposed to vengeance), and the peculiarly American (and, IMO, correct) concept that no one is above the law.
Or we just accept on the face all accusations of rape.
And I'm the one living in a cocoon.
WHAT 13 WORRY?
On the one hand, you pedantically treat the outcome of the trial as though they were the only accurate description of what occured; on the other you bring up unproven allegations of judicial wrongdoing and give them equal weight. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
I, too am baffled by this petition and some of the defenses of Polanski (Whoopi Goldberg's idiotic "It wasn't a rape-rape" is absolute bullshit). I simply don't understand ANY defense of Polanski's actions (both the rape and his flight/exile to Europe where he hardly suffered all these years).
And, like any reasonable person, I separate the art from the behavior of the artist. There is nary a doubt that Polanski is a gifted filmaker. But, he like anyone else with a similar conviction must do his time. As for the petitioners and other defenders, one can quietly support him and allow justice to take its course but demanding his release openly is just plain hubris.
At least someone spoke truth to power! where are all of the women in hollywood whom are disgusted by this act? No Julia Roberts, no Kate Winslet, no Gwyneth Paltrow speaking out against child rape. I wish someone had some guts!
Fuck them all.
My entertainment money will go towards local live theater instead of these nitwits.
But you can't, without doing a great mis-justice claim that because he admitted to a lesser crime he is guilty of the greater crimes of which he was originally accused.
Now, unless I'm badly misinformed (and I don't believe that I am), judges have no legal obligation to follow prosecutor recommendations about sentencing. So if the prosecutor and defendant agree to a plea bargain in exchange for, say, time served, the judge can still impose a greater sentence if the crime to which the defendant pleads guilty allows it.
I asked on anther thread, and ask it here, what chicanery the judge was supposed to be up to? I know Polanski fled because he was facing more prison time, in spite of the plea bargain; but what wrongdoing is the judge supposed to have done?
He thought she was older, he shared his drugs with her, and it turned into a nightmare for both of them. This crime bears a lesser penalty, and lots of people think he's paid his due.
@79, speaking out against child rape doesn't really take a lot of guts unless you're a Catholic priest. You want to see what takes guts, try defending a convicted rapist from an angry mob.
Thank you for the clarification; it's been more than 30 years since Polanski's original trial, and I frankly haven't been as diligent in terms of reviewing the details as I probably should have been.
Notwithstanding this, however, I think my main point is still valid: the members of the film community who have been so eager to rush to Polanski's defense seem to have done so based on a flawed perception that it is his artistic expression that is somehow under attack here, and not his heinous act, which as you point out, he has already gone on record as admitting.
He fucked a kid, maybe he's a better person now, who fucking cares...If a child molester who didn't make films fled the country and was captured 30 years later, do you think ANY of these people would give a shit? Other than maybe to throw a benefit concert in the VICTIM'S honor, rather than the rapist's?
Right on Karla, my son was 22 when he dated a 15 year old. No one cared. It was O.K with her family too, even after she gave birth to a healthy little boy, everything was O.K. We all love that boy. They even got married. All was fine until the state got a complaint from the hospital when the child was taken to emergency about the child's mother being under aged and he was charged with statutory rape. He was facing up to twenty years so he panicked and fled the state. After a year and a half he returned to the state where he was charged and was subsequently and arrested. He ended up getting a sixteen year sentence even though they were married for four years by time of sentencing. Is anyone going to start signing a petition for my son? He didn't rape the girl; they were dating and it was consensual sex, unlike Polanski who drugged and raped a thirteen year old. And my son was 22 years old not 40 something like Polanski. I guess the laws are different for someone with celebrity status versus a poor kid whose family can't afford top notch lawyers a la Polanski. And since he is not black Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson are not interested in promoting his cause. Believe me I tried to get them involved! So now he sits in jail. Four years have gone by and for what reason? Antiquated state laws need to be changed. A family has been destroyed by the state. My grandson is being raised without his dad or his mom for that matter as the child's maternal grandparents are raising him as the mom is not capable. Will someone be willing to start a petition to release my son or raise some funds for a good lawyer? The sentence is more criminal than the act! How sad! To read the whole story read this link: www.whatpricejustice.com
- That he is merely guilty of ephebophilia.
- That the confession of ephebophilia means that he is also guilty of drugging and raping?
- The trial has nothing to do with it, he guilty because a woman says so.
It also wouldn't matter if she had consented unequivocally. She was still underage.
And of course in this case she did not consent. So he's wrong on both counts. The girl didn't consent. The girl was underage.
I was very disappointed in the names on this list. I've interviewed Wim Wenders, Jonathan Demme, David Lynch. I'm now around Polanski's age when he raped this girl. If I drug and rape a 13 year old, would any of them come to my defense? I doubt it.
@83 She said NO! More than once! According to her testimony. What don't you understand about that? He didn't "share" his drugs; he forced them on her! She went along because she said she was frightened of him. Again according to her testimony. There's no bloody "gamut" as far as rape is concerned. It's either rape, or it isn't. I shouldn't get off because I committed a "stupid drunk" rape as opposed to a "sociopathic" rape. It's still rape! My god, I'd be frightened to left alone in a room w/you. It's a good thing you posted under a pseudonym as I would never, ever allow my children to be near you.
And how the hell did he pay his due? He skipped out on his sentencing! As far as I know, he's never starved; he's been able to have homes in different countries; he can afford the the best health care; he has a family; he has been able to work at something he likes and get well paid for it. Boy, if that was my punishment for a crime, getting all that and just not being able to visit the US and some other places, sign me up.
I'm just sick to death of living in a country, in a world that thinks it's okay for women to be treated like shit. Which is what I feel you are doing. I think it's important to make a statement to say no, it's not okay to treat people like this. He has to come back and face the music. He's never paid his due; he never paid shit. At the sentencing, then would be the time for the lawyers to ask for a lesser sentence, to submit a statement from the victim, etc., which the judge would take into consideration.
If he came forward, didn't fight extradition, made a statement like "What I did was very wrong. And I was wrong to leave before sentencing. I want to make up for that and atone for my mistakes," and came back and got a suspended sentence, probation, paying a huge fine, I'd be okay w/that. I don't know what the average sentence was for sex w/a minor in those days, or what the average sentence was for leaving before sentencing. I don't think he should necessarily be thrown in prison for the rest of his life. But he hasn't paid for his crime. He thought he could treat women like dirt and get away with it. I don't think he should.
Ok, thanks for the link. Go ahead and burn him.
And me, too (in the figurative internet sense).
The Swiss government is so fearful that the UBS scandal will force them to change their banking rules and their credibility as a protected banking center. This is far more important to them than their position of neutrality in other areas—including law international law enforcement. As far as they are concerned, arresting Polanski is a show of good faith that will help ease the pressure to expose information about US account holders.
I am willing to bet that at least a handful of the signers have accounts in Switzerland. I am sure if they were to make this correlation, they would pipe down right quick.
Thanks for playing, Teredo. You nut.
I once got pulled over for running a red light while going nearly 49 mph in a 30 zone. I was 19 and decided to go to court for some dumb reason. By the time of my appearance I wasn't sure what I was going to say, but the judge just offered me a plea bargain on the spot: doing 33 in a 30 zone. I took it.
If I follow your logic, all I did was speed, and not excessively at that; but I did run that red light, and I was going faster than 33. Am I somehow wrong to say that?
Unless there's any reason to doubt the girl's testimony, I am accepting it as fact; so is any other reasonable person, and any reasonable person is going to take into account these other factors: That over 32 years no one has ever given any reason to cast doubt on the girl's testimony; that innocent people with vast legal resources seldom if ever accept plea bargains and plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit, or flee the country rather than fight if the case takes a turn like this. The fugitive part only makes sense if he is in fact guilty of the things the girl stated.
And why would he flee from rape charges that were just dropped?
You are left with this, a young woman has alleged rape. Unless you want to just accept all rape claims at face value, you don't have much to stand on.
Regardless, that list is pretty fucking heartbreaking.
polanski is a producer of value. just like a master surgeon. and my only hope is that in resolving a breach of social contract, all artisans be permitted to continue practicing their craft.
and in breaking news, the 13 year old girl no longer cares. so stop being offended on the behalf of other people! its pathetic.
http://tr.im/At8z
The criminal matter is separate from the civil one. It is not concerned with consoling or compensating the victim, but with discouraging through punishment those types of behavior that society deems criminal.