Roman Polanski arrested in child sex case

[Pierre d'Achoppement]

Even stranger is that it was Polanski who spent a lot of time and money trying to prove that it was John Phillips who was ultimately responsible for getting Manson to get his minions to kill Tate. That was a big story at the time, Polanski was certain that Phillips was behind it all.

There's a saying in dutch that says that a host trusts his guest like he would trust himself to act, so it's telling maybe Polanski would think Phillips capable of doing something like that; reminds me of that story John Lennon was drunk at a party shouting Polanski was behind it all, the plot thickens I guess. Anyho, there's no link to be made even by the most fanciful mind between these two things now happening at the same time, which is good as it proves things really can be just a coincidence sometimes. Or maybe it has to do with reality unfolding as a kaleidoscope, idk.

[smallprint]

indeed. RP's movies are good but they aren't that good.

I'd trade the "richness" of all three of them plus Polanski, for one less person being raped, personally.

in fact, it would be an easy decision for me.

But since such a trade is impossible, it is an easy decision you cannot make.

Yeah, because if you confuse those things... you might develop a CONSCIENCE and have to choose between your values and watching a FUCKING MOVIE.

OH! The sacrifice!!

Fortunately I don't have to make that choice. If I had to base my appreciation of every work of art on the biographies of the the artist, what, I'd reserve judgement on quality until I'd fully researched their lives?

No one is innocent. In your false dichotomy, how do you put on a shirt without knowing about the lives of the people responsible for making it?

Don't worry about taking anything I say seriously, though. I've been to jail for being bad.

There is no need to do deep research! (Even though that's what we do on this board, isn't it?) This is front and center, in all the news media, in everyone's face. And watching a movie is not like going without clothing! You cannot choose not to wear clothing, at least in this country. And you can sure as hell choose clothing made by union members who work in humane conditions. Yeah, you got to PAY for it. A little sacrifice. But what you are saying is that you can (or even MUST) separate the filmmaker's crimes from his films. Nope! I don't agree in the slightest, and I think boycotting films is a necessary, and pretty damn easy step to take. Does a film boycott un-rape a child? No, it doesn't. But it is a good step.

And by the way, I've been to jail for being "bad" myself, tough guy. And did you really mean to equate your going to jail for some apparent trivial reason with Polanski pleading guilty for child rape? I would really like to hear your reasoning behind that.

[OP ED]

indeed. RP's movies are good but they aren't that good.

I'd trade the "richness" of all three of them plus Polanski, for one less person being raped, personally.

in fact, it would be an easy decision for me.

But since such a trade is impossible, it is an easy decision you cannot make.

perhaps not. but it does affect my level of appreciation for these artists, and their art, despite what you say. it gives it different context.

"bros before hos" is not an excuse to make apologetics for child rape.

Fortunately I don't have to make that choice. If I had to base my appreciation of every work of art on the biographies of the the artist, what, I'd reserve judgement on quality until I'd fully researched their lives?

oh no no. i'm just saying that things like apologetics for rapists leave a sour taste in my mouth and will inevitably affect how i see the art itself. of course, i was already of the opinion that Polanski was overrated and gets half of his acclaim BECAUSE he was already notorious.

No one is innocent. In your false dichotomy, how do you put on a shirt without knowing about the lives of the people responsible for making it?

i try not to, actually, whenever it is possible to know. which is why i rarely shop at retail outlets. because i do know.

Don't worry about taking anything I say seriously, though. I've been to jail for being bad.

you didn't go to jail for raping children though. i mean, c'mon fish, would you really expect me to take you as seriously if you were a child rapist?

[psynapz]

Don't worry about taking anything I say seriously, though. I've been to jail for being bad.

And by the way, I've been to jail for being "bad" myself, tough guy.

Hey, are either of you this guy:



Don't remember the screenname, but this was a self-identification photo linked-to by an articulate RI blog commenter "back in the day".

[Percival]

Don't worry about taking anything I say seriously, though. I've been to jail for being bad.

And by the way, I've been to jail for being "bad" myself, tough guy.

Hey, are either of you this guy:



Don't remember the screenname, but this was a self-identification photo linked-to by an articulate RI blog commenter "back in the day".

[IanEye]

That was a big story at the time, Polanski was certain that Phillips was behind it all.

"Forget it, Jake. lt's Vaginatown!"

[smallprint]

Letters From Hollywood: Roman Polanski's Rape Of Child No Big Thing


By Kate Harding, 3:00 PM on Tue Sep 29 2009, 15,686 views


"Does being an 'artist' trump being a rapist?" asks Melissa Silverstein of Women & Hollywood. According to 138 people in the film industry who signed a petition demanding the immediate release of Roman Polanski from Swiss custody, yep!

And they're joined by another group of writers and artists Bernard-Henri Lévy is rounding up! On his roster: Salman Rushdie, Milan Kundera, Neil Jordan, Isabelle Adjani, Isabelle Huppert, Mike Nichols, Diane von Furstenberg, and Paul Auster, among others. As for the other petition (launched by French film industry association SACD), in addition to the signatories posted at The Wrap last night (Pedro Almodovar, Wes Anderson, Darren Aronofsky, Monica Bellucci, Stephen Frears, Tilda Swinton?!?), new big-name rape apologists are signing on all the time! Today, we can add Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Terry Gilliam and — wait for it — Woody Allen to the list.

Woody Allen, people. It would be kind of funny, if it weren't a big fucking list of celebrities who support a child rapist.

Also, let us not forget Whoopi "rape-rape" Goldberg, and of course Debra Winger's statement as president of the Zurich Film Festival jury. As Variety reported:

Winger... on Monday demanded Polanski's release and criticized Swiss authorities for their "philistine collusion" in arresting Polanski as he entered the country.

"This fledgling festival has been unfairly exploited, and whenever this happens the whole art world suffers," Winger said in a statement on Monday, standing together with the other four international jury members who wore red badges reading "Free Polanski" as they announced plans to continue the fest.

That's apparently what this is about, in the minds of all these great artistes: Philistinism. A failure to appreciate A) Polanski's genius and B) the sanctity of international film festivals. No, I am not even kidding about the second part. From the SACD petition:

By their extraterritorial nature, film festivals the world over have always permitted works to be shown and for filmmakers to present them freely and safely, even when certain States opposed this.

The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects.

Yes I can totally see how arresting a fugitive child rapist is a slippery slope toward censorship. If I were a creative professional, I'd certainly be concerned about the authorities coming after me and my work! Except, I am a creative professional, and I'm not worried, because unlike Roman Polanski, I have neither raped a child nor jumped bail and evaded capture for three decades. See how that works? Don't rape a child and flee sentencing for it: Enjoy your personal and artistic freedom! Rape a child and flee: Get arrested! (Eventually.) Is there something I'm missing here? Like the part that explains how arresting a fugitive child rapist has fuck-all to do with festivals traditionally being a haven for controversial filmmakers? Is that really supposed to mean they should also be a haven for known felons?

I guess so. The petition continues:

Roman Polanski is a French citizen, a renown and international artist now facing extradition. This extradition, if it takes place, will be heavy in consequences and will take away his freedom.

How - HOW - are people writing and signing shit like that with a straight face? Might I remind you, film industry, that the extradition will be "heavy in consequences" and take away his freedom because he raped a child and fled the country over thirty years ago? We're really just supposed to skip over that detail? Really? And in fact, we should more properly be outraged that this happened in a country "where he assumed he could travel without hindrance" — an assumption made because he's been banging around Europe for three decades, making movies, winning awards, living as a free man, on account of how he skipped bail after pleading guilty to statutory rape? On what planet is, "But he didn't think he'd get caught!" a legitimate excuse for going easy on a fugitive child rapist?

Fugitive. Child. Rapist. Just keep saying it until it sinks in. I'll wait.

And I'll keep waiting while Lévy and company give the same exercise a shot. Perhaps when they're done, they'll appreciate the absurdity of a statement like, "Apprehended like a common terrorist Saturday evening, September 26, as he came to receive a prize for his entire body of work, Roman Polanski now sleeps in prison."

Correction: Polanski was not actually arrested like a "common terrorist." He was arrested like a common fugitive child rapist. Actually, he was arrested like a distinctly uncommon fugitive child rapist, what with being on his way to pick up a lifetime achievement award for a body of work largely completed while he was evading being sentenced for raping a child. That's really not how things play out for most fugitive child rapists, as I understand it. I'm pretty sure only the white, wealthy, well-connected ones are ever permitted to make such a mockery of justice for so long, let alone be assured that, as the SACD petition puts it, "Filmmakers, actors, producers and technicians — everyone involved in international filmmaking — want him to know that he has their support and friendship." I'm guessing, in fact, that Roman Polanski could most accurately described as a unique fugitive child rapist.

Lévy's next argument is that Polanski's victim, whom he refers to as "the plaintiff," wants the charges dropped, so what's the big deal? Yesterday at Salon, I explained why, despite my deep sympathy for the victim and the media circus she's been subjected to, I don't think her wishes should take precedence over the law. So today, I'll only point out that the victim is not the plaintiff in the criminal case. She was the plaintiff in the civil case she brought against Polanski, for which she was awarded a settlement. Now, it's Los Angeles County's score to settle, on behalf of the people, not the victim.

Of course, many of the celebs standing up for Polanski are people of Los Angeles County. Let's just hope the authorities remember that although those might be the loudest ones, they're hardly the only ones. And the public interest is, in fact, better served by punishing people who rape children and flee the country than it is by bowing to famous and powerful people who somehow believe that really good films make up for felonies — or that living, traveling, and working openly in your chosen profession for 30 years, just on a different continent, is "punishment enough." (But the poor man was always looking over his shoulder! Yes, because he was a fugitive child rapist. Do you see how it always ends up there?)

I'm just sickened to see some of the names on these lists — people I've long admired, and whose work I've shelled out for on multiple occasions. But at the same time, I'm glad the names of unapologetic child rapist supporters are being made public, so I can consider their stance on art vs. child rape when choosing how to spend my entertainment dollars. Last summer, Tiger Beatdown's Sady Doyle proposed that we join her in a game she likes to call "Don't Give Money To The Rapist."

Basically, most rapists have jobs. Sometimes they're really good at their jobs! But if, for example, a rapist is someone who makes movies which you want to see, you have to balance what you don't know with what you know. Here's a little breakdown, as far as this relates to noted rapist Roman Polanski, and the film Rosemary's Baby:

WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW: Whether or not you are going to enjoy Rosemary's Baby, a film made by noted rapist Roman Polanski. It could go either way!

WHAT YOU KNOW: Roman Polanski raped someone.

Now, ask yourself: is it worth contributing, in any way, to the well-being of a rapist? Probably not!

I think that sounds like a superfun game, and I also think I'd enjoy one called, "Don't Give Money To People Who Think Rapists Deserve Absolution, Sympathy, Freedom and Regular Public Tongue Baths."

Unfortunately, playing it basically means you can never watch a movie again.

Does Being An "Artist" Trump Being A Rapist [Women & Hollywood]
Filmmakers Demand Polanski's Release [CNN]
Petition For The Release Of Roman Polanski [The Wrap]
Artist Rally Behind Polanski [HuffPo]
Euro Outrage Over Polanski Arrest [Variety]
Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped A Child [Salon]
Perfect Disguise: Isaac Brock, Samantha Shapiro, And The Ethics Of Journalism In Rape Culture [Tiger Beatdown]

Earlier:Whoopi On Roman Polanski: It Wasn't 'Rape-Rape'


http://jezebel.com/5370356/letters-from ... -big-thing

[Nordic]

It's weird, this at the same time as the MacKenzie Phillips story, about having sex with her Dad when she was a kid.

These things always comes in threes, and that's two. What's next?

Even stranger is that it was Polanski who spent a lot of time and money trying to prove that it was John Phillips who was ultimately responsible for getting Manson to get his minions to kill Tate. That was a big story at the time, Polanski was certain that Phillips was behind it all.

No kidding. Could you elaborate on that? What was the supposed motive of John Phillips? Other than being a drugged up amoral nut?

Polanski was almost a victim himself, he was supposed to be there. Did Phillips have it out for him? Maybe Phillips busted Polanski having sex with Mackenzie, when he was saving her for himself. (that's a joke).

[barracuda]

There is no need to do deep research! (Even though that's what we do on this board, isn't it?) This is front and center, in all the news media, in everyone's face. And watching a movie is not like going without clothing! You cannot choose not to wear clothing, at least in this country. And you can sure as hell choose clothing made by union members who work in humane conditions. Yeah, you got to PAY for it. A little sacrifice. But what you are saying is that you can (or even MUST) separate the filmmaker's crimes from his films. Nope! I don't agree in the slightest, and I think boycotting films is a necessary, and pretty damn easy step to take. Does a film boycott un-rape a child? No, it doesn't. But it is a good step.

I think you have some good points there, however knowledge of Polanski's crime has never made me avoid seeing one of his films - not that I've seen his whole catalog.

I guess what I mean is there are no innocents. The world views Einstein as a penultimate genius, even though his discoveries led to the atomic bomb and a variety of other killing devices. He himself foresaw the uses to which this information could be put. Why did he not simply destroy his research once he realised the implications of it?

Da Vinci spent much of his life designing war machines for some of the most ruthless regimes of his time. These designs were surely responsible for the deaths of many thousands. Even though I know this, I very rarely evaluate his artwork in this context.

As I said in the horrorcore thread, the artwork carries with it the aura of it's provenance. Polanski's films carry his notoriety as a rapist, just as they carry his history as a victim of the Holocaust. I understand OP ED's suggestion that they are overvalued largely for this notoriety. And I agree that the works of Polanski's supporters are now colored by that support. You cannot unhear their words. I am saying that this aura is implicit in every man made thing you encounter, most of which is taken for granted behind the anonymity of mass-production and overfamiliarity. And I would ask you if you've ever seen one of his films.

And by the way, I've been to jail for being "bad" myself, tough guy. And did you really mean to equate your going to jail for some apparent trivial reason with Polanski pleading guilty for child rape? I would really like to hear your reasoning behind that.

Well, I've carried the stigma of jail with me for much of my life, and it has radically altered the variety of options available to me in a variety of ways, and altered how people respond to my work and opinions.

I don't really think going to jail makes me tough. It's been other, more difficult things in life that have done that. But it is a part of my biography which I cannot un-do or un-live.

As I said in my post above, Polanski's got it coming to him. The authorities have been after him more and less for thirty years. Though as everyone knows, he has made good his reparations to his victim, and that does mean something, at least to her. And frankly, the needs of the victim trumps quite a bit of the rest of this story. I have no sympathy at all for Polanski's plight, beyond the fact that just about his entire life history is a series of tragedies for himself and others. But my sympathy level for the motivations of the American "justice" system happen to be at an all-time low as well.

[MacCruiskeen]

But my sympathy level for the motivations of the American "justice" system happen to be at an all-time low as well.

Well said. But my sympathies for most of the signatories to that petition have never been very great either. (Kundera is one of the few exceptions, and even he is someone I have mixed feelings about.)

Still: One very obvious question is: Why now?

The FBI's claim that they seized their chance after discovering "through the Internet" that RP was going to be in Zürich this week is too grotesque to merit rebuttal. There must be a serious reason for the timing of this arrest.

[IanEye]

[url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ghr0TYlynjXmIfCmHQ_RdpHOoluAD9B17UO80]"We don't make any difference between criminal acts," said Guido Balmer, spokesman for the Swiss Justice Ministry. "The basic principle is whether the act is criminally punishable in both countries."

Balmer said Polanski's case is different from Rich's because sex with a minor is a criminal offense in Switzerland and the United States. But coming so shortly after a U.S.-Swiss deal to help U.S. authorities prosecute nearly 5,000 American account holders, a number of politicians weren't so sure.

"Maybe Switzerland wanted to serve the United States," Green Party chief Ueli Leuenberger noted on the radio panel providing a rare moment of accord between Switzerland's main right-wing and left-wing parties.

Jean Ziegler, a former Socialist politician and author who advises the United Nations on human rights issues, called the arrest a "political action."

"The government is so traumatized by the IRS and whole UBS scandal," said Ziegler, a frequent critic of the U.S. government and Swiss banks. "If any American authority asks for anything in Switzerland, they get it in 24 hours. They could call and say 'Please send the gold of your national bank to America,' and (the government) would do it right away."[/url]

[OP ED]

But my sympathy level for the motivations of the American "justice" system happen to be at an all-time low as well.

Still: One very obvious question is: Why now?

The FBI's claim that they seized their chance after discovering "through the Internet" that RP was going to be in Zürich this week is too grotesque to merit rebuttal. There must be a serious reason for the timing of this arrest.

keyword hijacking?

let's see... POLL - AN - SKI ...

nope, i got nothin.

i find the descriptions by the star-fuckers humorous. if he'd been treated like a "common terrorist" they'd have had no trouble just abducting him from france.

my opinion is that the USG made the right choice in this instance and as such i'm not as questioning of their motives as i'd be if they'd arrested someone for a less transparent crime. RP should be held accountable, and (suprise!) sometimes even the FBI accidentally gets something right.
...

i understand the notion of no one being innocent, although in other contexts i might argue precisely the opposite.

however, i do think there is a very important distinction to be made between providing the means, i.e. designing weapons directly or indirectly as with DaVinci and Einstein versus actually personally participating in crimes of your very own as in deSade or Polanski.

[smallprint]

There is no need to do deep research! (Even though that's what we do on this board, isn't it?) This is front and center, in all the news media, in everyone's face. And watching a movie is not like going without clothing! You cannot choose not to wear clothing, at least in this country. And you can sure as hell choose clothing made by union members who work in humane conditions. Yeah, you got to PAY for it. A little sacrifice. But what you are saying is that you can (or even MUST) separate the filmmaker's crimes from his films. Nope! I don't agree in the slightest, and I think boycotting films is a necessary, and pretty damn easy step to take. Does a film boycott un-rape a child? No, it doesn't. But it is a good step.

I think you have some good points there, however knowledge of Polanski's crime has never made me avoid seeing one of his films - not that I've seen his whole catalog.

I guess what I mean is there are no innocents. The world views Einstein as a penultimate genius, even though his discoveries led to the atomic bomb and a variety of other killing devices. He himself foresaw the uses to which this information could be put. Why did he not simply destroy his research once he realised the implications of it?

Da Vinci spent much of his life designing war machines for some of the most ruthless regimes of his time. These designs were surely responsible for the deaths of many thousands. Even though I know this, I very rarely evaluate his artwork in this context.

I see your point here but neither Einstein nor Da Vinci was ever convicted, or even charged, with a crime. And futhermore, Polanski is not an inventor. He merely made some movies.

As I said in the horrorcore thread, the artwork carries with it the aura of it's provenance. Polanski's films carry his notoriety as a rapist, just as they carry his history as a victim of the Holocaust. I understand OP ED's suggestion that they are overvalued largely for this notoriety. And I agree that the works of Polanski's supporters are now colored by that support. You cannot unhear their words. I am saying that this aura is implicit in every man made thing you encounter, most of which is taken for granted behind the anonymity of mass-production and overfamiliarity. And I would ask you if you've ever seen one of his films.

Ok, yeah, aura. What we are talking about is an extremely public, extremely controversial ARREST, not an "aura".

Oh, and the "you can't criticize unless you've seen his films" defense. That is a worthless argument, and I HAVE seen several of his films.

And by the way, I've been to jail for being "bad" myself, tough guy. And did you really mean to equate your going to jail for some apparent trivial reason with Polanski pleading guilty for child rape? I would really like to hear your reasoning behind that.

Well, I've carried the stigma of jail with me for much of my life, and it has radically altered the variety of options available to me in a variety of ways, and altered how people respond to my work and opinions.

I don't really think going to jail makes me tough. It's been other, more difficult things in life that have done that. But it is a part of my biography which I cannot un-do or un-live.

That is very interesting and all, but why are you comparing your jail time to Roman Polanski? Your original comment gave the impression of trivializing or minimizing the fact that he was in jail/going to jail.

As I said in my post above, Polanski's got it coming to him. The authorities have been after him more and less for thirty years. Though as everyone knows, he has made good his reparations to his victim, and that does mean something, at least to her. And frankly, the needs of the victim trumps quite a bit of the rest of this story. I have no sympathy at all for Polanski's plight, beyond the fact that just about his entire life history is a series of tragedies for himself and others. But my sympathy level for the motivations of the American "justice" system happen to be at an all-time low as well.

Well, I think the American "justice" system is absolute shit, but that doesn't mean I fucking root against them when they actually arrest a child rapist that they should have arrested a long time ago!

Oh, and the "needs of the victim"?? You are so CONCERNED about her, that's why you want this to just go away. The case is called "State of California vs Polanski" and the entire State is the aggrieved party, by law, and the State will take him in. And the victim has repeatedly said that she is in PAIN because she is reliving the events every time she gets dragged through the mud!! Yeah, she is saying that she doesn't want him to go to jail!! All of Hollywood and half of Europe are basically calling her a worthless slut! Of course she wants this to be over with!

I'm sorry, open your fucking eyes.

[IanEye]

The case is called "State of California vs Polanski" and the entire State is the aggrieved party, by law, and the State will take him in. And the victim has repeatedly said that she is in PAIN because she is reliving the events every time she gets dragged through the mud!! Yeah, she is saying that she doesn't want him to go to jail!! All of Hollywood and half of Europe are basically calling her a worthless slut! Of course she wants this to be over with!

I'm sorry, open your fucking eyes.

I'll make a deal with you. How about we both squint until there is an actual "State of California vs Cheney" case to talk about.

When you go to '11' over Polanski, you've got nowhere to go when the big names come up.

You want Polanski to face justice. That is fine.

But if the above is your response to Polanski, and I am supposed to have my eyes wide open, what am I supposed to be seeing as your response to Cheney?



Or do you just lump Cheney and Polanski together?

If you were directly related to the victim, I'd have my eyes and ears focused towards you, and I'd take in the anger.

But you're not.

So dial it back, and don't fucking tell me to open my eyes.

I'm looking right at you.

[smallprint]

The case is called "State of California vs Polanski" and the entire State is the aggrieved party, by law, and the State will take him in. And the victim has repeatedly said that she is in PAIN because she is reliving the events every time she gets dragged through the mud!! Yeah, she is saying that she doesn't want him to go to jail!! All of Hollywood and half of Europe are basically calling her a worthless slut! Of course she wants this to be over with!

I'm sorry, open your fucking eyes.

I'll make a deal with you. How about we both squint until there is an actual "State of California vs Cheney" case to talk about.

When you go to '11' over Polanski, you've got nowhere to go when the big names come up.

You want Polanski to face justice. That is fine.

But if the above is your response to Polanski, and I am supposed to have my eyes wide open, what am I supposed to be seeing as your response to Cheney?



Or do you just lump Cheney and Polanski together?

If you were directly related to the victim, I'd have my eyes and ears focused towards you, and I'd take in the anger.

But you're not.

So dial it back, and don't fucking tell me to open my eyes.

I'm looking right at you.

First, of all, I wasn't even talking to you! But, hey, you took it personally.

Look, this is a message board, not the Justice Department, and I am some anonymous shmuck, not Eric Holder! WHO CARES if I vent here?! What, are my posts like some kind of ammunition that we are about to run out of? What are you talking about? And why are you posting pictures of guns? Are you about to shoot someone??

You think that I think Polanski is worse than Cheney? I haven't even mentioned Cheney in this thread. OH YEAH, because this thread is about ROMAN POLANSKI.




On Edit: OK, I just figured out the reason why you are posting creepy pictures of guns, and talking about Cheney when no one else even brought him up, and responding to a post that was adressed to someone else ---

You think I'm a "teabagger"!!

Ummmmmmm... no!!! Talk about knee-jerk responses. When someone gets angry because lots of people are defending a rapist, they must be a.... RW conservative? WTF is wrong with this board?