Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Recommended Posts

The petition signers motives were to free Roman. They decided for their own reasons that he should not face the bar of justice for whatever he may have done, that he may have already paid his due and since he was attending an industry event to honor his work it was downright sneaky to bring up such a pesky matter as an unsettled warrant for flight. What other motives could they possible have?

If he or they were interested in Justice they would ask for a speedy trial on the charge of fleeing and let the chips fall where they may, including pursuit of legal appeals.

You either show respect for the law or you spit on it, act like you are above and beyond its reach. Polanski seems to have no respect for the system of law in the USA and the petitioner signers show a similar disregard for it.

But then again, many celebrities and artists believe they breathe different air and inhabit a different place. Doors open, they don't wait on lines, or do what the little people do and that include play by the same set of rules.

If there was an error committed by the courts, Polanski should seek a correction in the appeals process, not flee to someplace where he would not be held accountable or have to prove that an injustice had been committed.

He was given the presumption of innocence, as every accused is. The burden of "proof" now rests on him and that proof needs to be delivered in a court of law, not in the court of public opinion.

Link to comment

Actually Sandy, that last post of mine wasn't clever, rather really snide, oops, I apologise, I sometimes can't help myself.

But listen Sandy, come on give it up, you're obviously highly intelligent and I agree that should Polanski come to trial a great deal of your arguments as written here could be used to make a case for the defense. And I do also agree that with such a highly emotive subject people's passions and arguments can run to the purple, and I know that many of your agruments had the intention of reining that in, but I also know that you don't condone Polanski's actions at all and are equally incensed by them.

The "brutal" thing annoys the hell out of me for more personal reasons, in 2003 a friend of mine, a woman was raped in a nightclub, she was a bit drunk and a bit high, and had been seen coming on to or rather dancing with several men and it was one of those men who raped her while she was coming back from the toilet. She reported it, the man was charged and he was acquitted - she was high, had been leading men on, was a slut, the rape wasn't "brutal" so it couldn't be rape, she had been seen dancing with him, what were her intentions etc etc etc all these very same reasons came out in the trial. In effect she wanted it, it wasn't "rape rape" as Whoopi would say.

In that horrible grey area between hard fact, conjecture and legalise a thousand crimes are committed and the perpetrators get away. I'm kind of glad for that reason Polanski is finally facing the music.

Link to comment
The only way to know her motives is from her words (as is true for any of us at any time). Do you have a quote of hers where she explains her motives? If so, I'd like to read that.

I don't know what Whoopi's explanation would be, but I would venture that she said what she did because she's a blithering idiot, and with allies like her Polanski doesn't need enemies. My two cents.

:)

Dirac, she wasn't a virgin at the time? I didn't know that, there's nothing like responsible parenting.

No, Simon, she wasn't, although it's a reasonable assumption given her age. Parents can't be held responsible for everything, of course, but a mom who sends her daughter off to meet with Roman Polanski at Jack Nicholson's house plainly needs her head examined. These circumstances seem to be part of the reason for the plea deal - back in the 70s the laws made it possible in effect to put the rape victim on trial, not the defendant, and all of that would have been hashed out in court. I trust it goes without saying that Mom's dereliction of duty and the fact that Polanski didn't force a virgin are not relevant to the charges. There are indeed cases of he said/she said, but in fact this really isn't one of them, although Polanski has noted helpfully that the girl was 'not unresponsive.'

Given what we know about this case, I would find it hard to say that Polanski's conduct falls into any kind of gray area. IMO, of course.

Link to comment
I don't know what Whoopi's explanation would be, but I would venture that she said what she did because she's a blithering idiot, and with allies like her Polanski doesn't need enemies. My two cents. :)

I was a bit surprised at this. I would have said that Whoopi certainly has a lot of common sense but her "RAPE, rape" thing gave me pause

In general , I think the film community is doing more harm than good . They seem to be actually generating bad will.

Link to comment

When I see petitions on whatever subject signed by people in the performing arts, if it's not about performing arts, I just remember that they have a right to opinions, too, but that when they get away from performing arts, their ideas are no better than anybody else's. Some of them are very bright, some are incredibly dumb, some have well-attuned sensibility on morals and ethics, some don't. When we get into matters of law, artists are no more right than any of the rest of us, and this is a matter of law. Justice is out there somewhere, but it's going to take at least one court to figure out where it is, and how to address it.

Link to comment
I don't know what Whoopi's explanation would be, but I would venture that she said what she did because she's a blithering idiot, and with allies like her Polanski doesn't need enemies. My two cents. :)

I was a bit surprised at this. I would have said that Whoopi certainly has a lot of common sense but her "RAPE, rape" thing gave me pause

In general , I think the film community is doing more harm than good . They seem to be actually generating bad will.

Richard,

The backlash has indeed begun:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/oct/04...x-case-backlash

Goldberg is now furiously backtracking, saying that what she meant was that the charges at the time weren't for "rape rape" and that now she doesn't condone nor ever did what Polanski did, which was what exactly? Rape or rape rape.... as Mel said blithering idiots.

Another of the petioners who I'm seriously surprised and disappointed at is Pedro Almoldovar, who has been extremely public with his own sexual abuse as a child at the hands of priests and whose Bad Education was a pretty damning indictment of institutionalised child abuse and the rape of children at the hands of powerful adults who will never be brought to justice, a culture of denial and the lifelong effects of sexual abuse on children.

Sandy brought up the issue of what the film bods were signing and what they were objecting to, one of the items they take umbrage with was that he only plead guilty to procurement, drugging and rape because he believed he was going to be given a non custodial sentence. The only thing one can say to that is who in their right mind would plead guilty to those crimes if they hadn't actually committed them?

That petition is truly going to be box office poison.

Link to comment

Reading all this debate I wonder if the majority of the people are mad because Samantha Geimer-(hate that "girl" term...sorry)- was 13 and hence LEGALLY CONSIDERED a minor, vs. how horrific is the factual act of a 43 y.o having sex with a 13 y.o. I wonder how this same people would have reacted if the consent age was suddenly-(hypothetical example, of course)- lowered down to 13, or even 12 like some countries...Also...was Geimer really a "child"...?-(the "virginless" status makes me... :) ).

Link to comment
Reading all this debate I wonder if the majority of the people are mad because Samantha Geimer-(hate that "girl" term...sorry)- was 13 and hence LEGALLY CONSIDERED a minor, vs. how horrific is the factual act of a 43 y.o having sex with a 13 y.o. I wonder how this same people would have reacted if the consent age was suddenly-(hypothetical example, of course)- lowered down to 13, or even 12 like some countries...Also...was Geimer really a "child"...?-(the "virginless" status makes me... :) ).

Cuban,

A little over a hundred years or so ago, girls younger than Geimer were sold into prostitution in the developed world, the countries where age of consent still persists at 12-13 are developing world countries where human rights are shall we say backward to say the least. It's one of the most pernicious and brutal facts of sex tourism that foreign paedophiles travel to several of the countries on the list of low or lax child sex protection laws for precisely that reason.

Oh gosh, was she really a child? Yes, how can you even ask that? A sexualised child is still a child, and whether or not someone is a virgin, adult or child, that's absolutely no ******** excuse for rape.

There was an interview with Polanski in 1978 in which he basically called her a little slut, said she was experienced, knew what she wanted, knew what to do - Geimer on the other hand said she knew she was in trouble, was alone and kept saying stop.

It wasn't "sex between" even had she been of legal age, it was not consenting, child protection laws are there for a reason and a 43 year old man has no place having sex with 13 year olds.

Link to comment

It absolutely stuns me that there are those who would still question that what Polanski did with Geimer was wrong. Stuns, stuns, stuns.

The flight thing is a little less certain in my mind, there is some question as to the way the plea deal was handled. But even there, Polanski thought he was going to get away with the 42 days he spent in a psychiatric facility as his jail time? Come on.

Link to comment

Somewhere in this long thread, someone noted that Geimer was paid $500,000 by Polanski. That WAS the original information spread by the news media when Polanski was taken into custody. But more recent articles muddy the waters quite a bit as this LA Times article states: Geimer's lawsuit

Also, I'd just like to note that the first person to sign that petition was Woody Allen. 'Nuff said.

Link to comment

vagansmom, you may be thinking of one of my posts. I had indeed read in news articles that her civil case was settled for an ‘undisclosed sum’, so your link is appreciated.

Also, I'd just like to note that the first person to sign that petition was Woody Allen. 'Nuff said.

As I said, with allies like these.......

Link to comment

G:

...the countries where age of consent still persists at 12-13 are developing world countries

Like Spain-(13)..or Japan-(13)...?

Oh gosh, was she really a child? Yes, how can you even ask that?

Uuh, just asking, if I may...

A sexualized child is still a child

Again, depending on how do we, individually, determine when and where does childhood ends.

and whether or not someone is a virgin, adult or child, that's absolutely no ******** excuse for rape.

Can't ******* agree more, but again, depending on how rape is defined by a jury-(or by us, individually).

.. a 43 year old man has no place having sex with 13 year olds.

What about a 48 with an 18...? -(you know...to get to the famous consent age...)

Link to comment

Woody Allen who had an affair or perhaps married his adopted daughter? I try not to pay attention to celebrity gossip, but it's pretty clear that many of these artists are rather normal and flawed human beings with oodles of cognitive dissonance racing around their craniums.

Link to comment
Woody Allen who had an affair or perhaps married his adopted daughter? I try not to pay attention to celebrity gossip, but it's pretty clear that many of these artists are rather normal and flawed human beings with oodles of cognitive dissonance racing around their craniums.

SanderO, there's a lot of information floating around out there regarding the Allen scandal. Books have been written, including Mia Farrow's and biographies of Allen that address the matter. I note this just to ensure the thread doesn't go off on a tangent. Artists are flawed human beings, indeed, just like....everyone else.

Link to comment
That petition is truly going to be box office poison.

I agree that what Whoopi Goldberg said was mindless and coarse, but her comments are a whole different thing than the support of the people signing the petition -- and who knows what they thought they were signing. If we stop going to see the movies they're associated with, we'll not be seeing much in the way of films.

Cristian, I agree with the spirit of what your comeback, agree with most of your points, and I could mischievously quote Karl Kraus, who said the age of consent is the border most tempting to smugglers, but I have to say the age difference was far too great, he took great disadvantage of her from a completely asymmetrical balance of power. Sometimes a young person does seduce a older person, but this was not the case (though just what sort of quid pro quo arrangement was mother thinking about for the magazine pictures?). Quaaludes were a powerful muscle relaxant, so he deliberately knocked her out. This case most certainly does not involve one person wooing another, no matter what age, and both having a mutually rewarding and meaningful or frivolous affair which is perfectly fair.

From another point of view it's interesting that it was Polanski who challenged the status quo, who didn't quietly go on on the lam (not lamb!) but almost challenged the system to arrest him. There are really no borders with him.

Link to comment

re: "In this country 13 is a child"...

let's see...

First of all, I'm not IN ANY WAY justifying Polanski's illegal actions, nor defending him. I'm just trying to visualize and understand this whole "child vs. adult" theory which has been crucial in the development of this thread.

Making that clear, let me say that we all probably agree on the fact that laws are made by human beings-(imperfect ones, as we all are)-, with absolute NO REAL CLUE of what the famous philosophical SUPREME TRUTH is, and who at certain point and degree may consider that what was legal today won't be tomorrow. History has demonstrated that what is-(or was, or was and then wasn't, or was, then wasn't and then was again)- "so and so in this country" is a CONCEPT that can be molded, and many items belonging to it have morphed quite a bit along the years, according to the mentality of MANY individuals, not necessarily the totality of the population of this country, this morphing process ending in what could potentially develop into a strong counterpart that may become the foundation of yet another future incarnation on the same item...the new "legal" thing, making the past form "illegal" automatically).

Besides that, I must confess I may be talking from a very personal point of view, coming from a country-(consent age 16)- where one, as a teen-(from 11 years old on, and for the next 6 years of high school)- are to be send 45 days of the year to the country side, where the famous work/study concept is to be applied. This little story is to illustrate the fact that the majority of the girls there really looked forward for that to happen so they could be, among other things, finally liberated from the house control and be able to start developing their sexuality as they wanted. Along the years stories of many of my female teen classmates having their first sexual encounters with peers AND/OR PROFESSORS, everybody consenting and very clear of what the implications were-(abortion being legal and permitted to teens without the need of parenting consent and STD's not being that much of a big issue back then...)-were the most natural thing to listen to. If we were barbaric in our way of accepting all this without that much of a fuss-(and with its high doses of laughing and whispering)-we really didn't know...

Link to comment

I understand what you're saying, Cristian, but we are talking here about a specific crime.

( Off topic - In this country, many scholastic institutions do have rules and guidelines in place about teachers sleeping with their students. It doesn't mean that it never happens or is always treated punitively when it does, but it is a recognition that such situations have the potential for harm. Young people may accept the attentions of an older person in a position of power as 'normal', even desirable, and may welcome them or even solicit them. But that doesn't mean it's a good thing in all cases.)

the adult is the one with the responsibility to act as an adult, i.e. to act in the interest of the child.

Yes. The adult with responsibility in the situation was Polanski, which responsibility would not be mitigated even if he hadn't resorted to alcohol and pills to soften the kid up.

Again, thanks to all for posting.

Link to comment
I understand what you're saying, Cristian, but we are talking here about a specific crime.

"Crime". Like abortion, alcohol consumption, segregation laws, polygamy, prostitution practice, death penalty, euthanasia, political opposition, gay marriage, end of life of brain dead patients, sodomy laws, marijuana use and many more, this are all items that at one point have been considered or not crimes depending on the historical/geographical context, the legal , political and moral/religious ruling systems where they have developed and the individuals that have been in charge of writing the law guidelines.

Young people may accept the attentions of an older person in a position of power as 'normal', even desirable, and may welcome them or even solicit them. But that doesn't mean it's a good thing in all cases.)

Or a bad one...in ALL cases...? (Of course, here the "all" item is what brings us to a general agreement. There's NOTHING definitive or rules without exceptions, as we all know...of course)

Again, thanks to all for posting.

:)

Link to comment

This is NOT a no-brainer.

Polanski made "Knife in the Water" -- which may have been nominated for an Oscar, but also was vilified when it opened -- "most critics vociferously demanded to know what the film was about."

if you haven'[t seen it, don't judge Polanski. The rhetoric of his opponents is invariably fundamentalist. I don't buy it.

That's me.

Link to comment
Like Spain-(13)..or Japan-(13)...?

Not totally right Christian, Spain, yes 13, however, if parental intervention deems that their child has been raped, abused, or manipulated into having sex then the act can be deemed illegal and will be treated as unlawful sex with a minor.

Japan, is subject to local jurisdictions so even though ostensibly the age of consent is 13 the age of consent can and does rise to 16 and often 18 depending on the governing body and laws of that jurisdiction.

Moreover, Japan is hardly to be taken as a shining beacon of right-thinking attitudes to children's sexuality, child pornography was widely used and legal in Japan until 1999, when it was finally made illegal due to pressure from the US.

Uuh, just asking, if I may...[/
i]

You weren't just asking, you were using your bitchy little smileys and questioning her right to be a child based on her sexual experience. Again, regardless of age rape renders considerations of age immaterial.

Again, depending on how do we, individually, determine when and where does childhood ends.

Yes, childhood is an ephemeral concept, but to anyone including you, who questions a child's right to be a child based on sexual experience, I would argue that kids experiment with each other, sure, if it was an adult who sexualised the child, then rather than question the victim look to the perpetrator.

The vileness of the Lolita myth is prevalent here, yes kids do test boundaries, but it's an adults place to ignore this, a child or adolescent testing out their sexuality is innocent in the fact that they don't know or fully understand where it leads - an adult who exploits this doesn't have a leg to stand on. Neither legally or morally.

and whether or not someone is a virgin, adult or child, that's absolutely no ******** excuse for rape.

Can't ******* agree more, but again, depending on how rape is defined by a jury-(or by us, individually).

How do you define rape?

.. a 43 year old man has no place having sex with 13 year olds.

What about a 48 with an 18...? -(you know...to get to the famous consent age...)

A 48 year old man and 18 year old, I think it's a somewhat large age disparity , but hey two consenting adults and an 18 year old is old enough to make informed choices, legally at least, if not always in practice.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...