Roman Polanski arrested in child sex case

[lightningBugout]

2. no. Bryant's book establishes that some specific law enforcement agents are complicit, not that the vaguely defined abstract "law" is complicit. I'd suggest the average FBI agent has probably never heard of the Franklin case before, and if they have, it was in passing during their university days.

I see. Have you read the book?

[OP ED]

not completely.

[justdrew]

more mindless garbage from FOX on 5th Ave., formerly known as the Washington Post:

Thursday Oct. 1, 2009 06:02 EDT
Post editors should read their own columnists

The Washington Post Editorial Page today lashes out at "Roman Polanski's apologists," a group it says is "typified by the comments of Swiss filmmaker Otto Weisser, Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, film and TV celebrity Whoopi Goldberg" and includes "a number of Hollywood luminaries -- Martin Scorsese, Jonathan Demme, David Lynch, to name but a few" as well as "European political and cultural authorities." This hodgepodge of Limbaughian Demons -- Hollywood celebrities and decadent Europeans -- "don't let basic facts, or even simple decency for that matter, get in the way of their defense of this notorious director."

What a righteous stance. For some reason, though, Fred Hiatt's brave editorial crusaders overlooked two of the most wretched defenders of Polanski: their very own columnists. The Post's Richard Cohen announced that "it’s alright with me if Roman Polanski is freed by the Swiss authorities" and disgustingly used the word "seduced" to minimize Polanski's act of child rape. The Post's Anne Applebaum called Polanski's arrest "outrageous" and invoked virtually every defense scorned today by The Post Editors, and thereafter, when responding to critics, spouted outright falsehoods to suggest that the 13-year-old girl consented (while arguing that the real victim was Applebaum herself, who had to endure mean emails in response to her column).

How strange to watch Post editors stand tall in opposition to the easy targets of vapid celebrities and "the French" while steadfastly ignoring the equally twisted (at least) Polanski defenses coming right from their own Op-Ed backyard. But the last thing that ought to be surprising is to find defenses of morally depraved acts on the Op-Ed page of the Post; that is, after all, its essence.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/01/washington_post/index.html

[lightningBugout]

not completely.

My point is not that "the law" is a corrupt octopus but that the book demonstrates a level of coordination of effort between the FBI, secret service and members of the Nebraska judicial that is profoundly disturbing. The picture Bryant gives is not one of a few corrupt agents but of a systemic cover-up that could not have succeeded without a high degree of buy-in, authority and participation. Polanski's extradition could easily follow the same model. Or not. I dunno.

[brekin]

Nordic wrote:

The George Orwell on Salvador Dali is perfect.

Although i didn't know all of this about Dali, and now I do, and I wish I didn't! Smile

Because I always liked Dali ...... his work that is.

Could it be that his autobiography was deliberately and artificially contrived to be "shocking" like many of his works of art?

I mean, perhaps he was playing with audiences expectations, and seeing what he could get away with as the great "artist", I mean, some of that is so over-the-top it's actually a bit hard to swallow. Like melting clocks over tree branches.

Some more dirt on Dali:

http://www.counterpunch.org/navarro12062003.html

The Jackboot of Dada
Salvador Dali, Fascist

By VICENTE NAVARRO

The year 2004, the centenary of Dali's birth, has been proclaimed "the year of Dali" in many countries. Led by the Spanish establishment, with the King at the helm, there has been an international mobilization in the artistic community to pay homage to Dali. But this movement has been silent on a rather crucial item of Dali's biography: his active and belligerent support for Spain's fascist regime, one of the most repressive dictatorial regimes in Europe during the twentieth century.

For every political assassination carried out by Mussolini's fascist regime, there were 10,000 such assassinations by the Franco regime. More than 200,000 people were killed or died in concentration camps between 1939 (when Franco defeated the Spanish Republic, with the military assistance of Hitler and Mussolini) and 1945 (the end of World War II, an anti-fascist war, in Europe). And 30,000 people remain desaparecidos in Spain; no one knows where their bodies are. The Aznar government (Bush's strongest ally in continental Europe) has ignored the instructions of the U.N. Human Rights Agency to help families find the bodies of their loved ones. And the Spanish Supreme Court, appointed by the Aznar government, has even refused to change the legal status of those who, assassinated by the Franco regime because of their struggle for liberty and freedom, remain "criminals."

Now the Spanish establishment, with the assistance of the Catalan establishment, wants to mobilize international support for their painter, Dali, portraying him as a "rebel," an "anti-establishment figure" who stood up to the dominant forces of art. They compare Dali with Picasso. A minor literary figure in Catalonia, Baltasar Porcel (chairman of the Dali year commission), has even said that if Picasso, "who was a Stalinist" (Porcel's term), can receive international acclaim, then Dali, who admittedly supported fascism in Spain, should receive his own homage." Drawing this equivalency between Dali and Picasso is profoundly offensive to all those who remember Picasso's active support for the democratic forces of Spain and who regard his "Guernica" (painted at the request of the Spanish republican government) as an international symbol of the fight against fascism and the Franco regime.

Dali supported the fascist coup by Franco; he applauded the brutal repression by that regime, to the point of congratulating the dictator for his actions aimed "at clearing Spain of destructive forces" (Dali's words). He sent telegrams to Franco, praising him for signing death warrants for political prisoners. The brutality of Franco's regime lasted to his last day. The year he died, 1975, he signed the death sentences of four political prisoners. Dali sent Franco a telegram congratulating him. He had to leave his refuge in Port Lligat because the local people wanted to lynch him. He declared himself an admirer of the founder of the fascist party, Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera. He used fascist terminology and discourse, presenting himself as a devout servant of the Spanish Church and its teaching--which at that time was celebrating Queen Isabella for having the foresight to expel the Jews from Spain and which had explicitly referred to Hitler's program to exterminate the Jews as the best solution to the Jewish question. Fully aware of the fate of those who were persecuted by Franco's Gestapo, Dali denounced Bunuel and many others, causing them enormous pain and suffering.

None of these events are recorded in the official Dali biography and few people outside Spain know of them. It is difficult to find a more despicable person than Dali. He never changed his opinions. Only when the dictatorship was ending, collapsing under the weight of its enormous corruption, did he become an ardent defender of the monarchy. And when things did not come out in this way, he died.

Dali also visited the U.S. frequently. He referred to Cardinal Spellman as one of the greatest Americans. And while in the U.S., he named names to the FBI of all the friends he had betrayed. In 1942, he used all his influence to have Buñuel fired from the Museum of Modern Art in New York, where Buñuel worked after having to leave Spain following Franco's victory. Dali denounced Buñuel as a communist and an atheist, and it seems that under pressure from the Archbishop of New York, Buñuel had to leave for Mexico, where he remained for most of his life. In his frequent visits to New York, Dali made a point of praying in St. Patrick's Cathedral for the health of Franco, announcing at many press conferences his unconditional loyalty to Franco's regime.

Quite a record, yet mostly unknown or ignored by his many fans in the art world.

[justdrew]

Throw another Dali on the fire. The quality of his art doesn't excuse this. How the hell did I not know this until now. Damn it.

[barracuda]

Burning art as a demonstration of your disappointment with the personal political opinions of the authors is a generally bad idea, justdrew.

[lightningBugout]

Quite a record, yet mostly unknown or ignored by his many fans in the art world.

Dali is a commodity and he is among those twentieth century artists most recognizable to the man on the street. Alternatively you cant buy, say, a Matta poster at Spencer Gifts. Dali, you can. I don't think he's a figure with particular magnetism to most in the art world itself.

Starting largely with Marinetti, the 20th century avant gardes' relationship to fascism is very complicated and can not be fairly represented without a hindsight that acknowledges the profound and still relatively young impact of Freud and Marx. Historical and psychological materialism seem to have led many sharp minds to believe in certain quixotic and deeply flawed forms of absolutism. Their ugliness is much more lucid seen in hindsight.

[justdrew]

Burning art as a demonstration of your disappointment with the personal political opinions of the authors is a generally bad idea, justdrew.

they're not personal political opinions anymore when they cheer on the slaughter of good people and are megaphoned by fame. Fame in part earned by participation in a movement he also betrayed. His contributions were often just rip-offs of Brueghel and Bosch, real cutting edge work done 400+ years before.



but yeah, don't actually burn them... just metaphorically.

[OP ED]

(thank you lbo)

[barracuda]

^ Seconded.

[SonicG]

In 1942, he used all his influence to have Buñuel fired from the Museum of Modern Art in New York, where Buñuel worked after having to leave Spain following Franco's victory. Dali denounced Buñuel as a communist and an atheist, and it seems that under pressure from the Archbishop of New York, Buñuel had to leave for Mexico, where he remained for most of his life.

Good job then since that's where Bunuel made some awesome films and without Bunuel in Mexico there may not have been a film career for Alejandro Jodorowsky who made his early films there.

Also , this just in, William Burroughs used to drown kittens and, er, he shot his wife.

[Percival]

In 1942, he used all his influence to have Buñuel fired from the Museum of Modern Art in New York, where Buñuel worked after having to leave Spain following Franco's victory. Dali denounced Buñuel as a communist and an atheist, and it seems that under pressure from the Archbishop of New York, Buñuel had to leave for Mexico, where he remained for most of his life.

Good job then since that's where Bunuel made some awesome films and without Bunuel in Mexico there may not have been a film career for Alejandro Jodorowsky who made his early films there.

Also , this just in, William Burroughs used to drown kittens and, er, he shot his wife.

I majored in literature in college and one of my favorite professors in particular was less in to the literature and more in to the private lives of famous writers and we learned a great deal about some of them, suffice to say most of them were not model citizens, but it seems that is what made them such great writers for some strange reason. Tortured brilliance.

[American Dream]

Just found this- hopefully it hasn't been posted previously:

Roman Polanski Has a Lot of Friends
October 02, 2009
By Katha Pollitt
Source: The Nation


If a rapist escapes justice for long enough, should the world hand him a get-out-of-jail-free card? If you're Roman Polanski, world-famous director, a lot of famous and gifted people think the answer is yes. Polanski, who drugged and anally raped a thirteen-year-old girl in 1977 in Los Angeles, pled guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sex with a minor and fled to Europe before sentencing. Now, 32 years later, he's been arrested in Switzerland on his way to the Zurich film Festival, prompting outrage from international culture stars: Salman Rushdie, Milan Kundera, Martin Scorsese, Pedro Almodavar, Woody Allen (insert your own joke here), Isabelle Huppert, Diane von Furstenberg and many, many more. Bernard-Henri Levy, who's taken a leading role in rounding up support, has said that Polanski "perhaps had committed a youthful error " (he was 43). Debra Winger, president of the Zurich Film Festival jury, wearing a red "Free Polanski" badge, called the Swiss authorities action "philistine collusion." Frederic Mitterand, the French cultural minister, said it showed "the scary side of America" and described Polanski as "thrown to the lions because of ancient history." French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner, co-founder of Doctors Without Borders, called the whole thing "sinister."

Closer to home, Whoopi Goldberg explained on The View that his crime wasn't 'rape rape,' just, you know, rape. Oh, that! Conservative columnist Anne Applebaum minimized the crime in the Washington Post. First, she overlooks the true nature of the crime (drugs, forced anal sex, etc), and then claims "there is evidence Polanski did not know her real age." Talk about a desperate argument. Polanski, who went on to have an affair with 15-year old Nastassja Kinski, has spoken frankly of his taste for very young girls. (Nation editor-in-chief Katrina vanden Heuvel, who tweeted her surprise at finding herself on the same side as Applebaum, has had second thoughts: "I disavow my original tweet supporting Applebaum. I believe that Polanski should not receive special treatment. Question now is how best to ensure that justice is served. Should he return to serve time? Are there other ways of seeing that justice is served? At same time, I believe that prosecutorial misconduct in this case should be investigated.") On the New York Times op-ed page, schlock novelist Robert Harris celebrated his great friendship with Polanski, who has just finished filming one of Harris' books: "His past did not bother me." This tells us something about Harris' nonchalant view of sex crimes, but why is it an argument about what should happen in Polanski's legal case?

I just don't get this. I understand that Polanski has had numerous tragedies in his life, that he's made some terrific movies, that he's 76, that a 2008 documentary raised questions about the fairness of the judge (see Bill Wyman in Salon, though, for a persuasive dismantling of its case.). I also understand that his victim, now 44, says she has forgiven Polanski and wants the case to be dropped because every time it comes up she is dragged through the mud all over again. Certainly that is what is happening now. On the Huffington Post, Polanski fan Joan Z. Shore, who describes herself as co-founder of Women Overseas for Equality (Belgium), writes: " The 13-year-old model 'seduced' by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies. The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California. (It's probably 13 by now!)." Actually, in 1977 the age of consent in California was 16. Today it's 18, with exceptions for sex when one person is underage and the other is no more than three years older. Shore's view--that Polanski was the victim of a nymphet and her scheming mother--is all over the internet.

Fact: What happened was not some gray, vague he said/she said Katie-Roiphe-style "bad sex." A 43-year-old man got a 13-year-old girl alone, got her drunk, gave her a quaalude, and, after checking the date of her period, anally raped her, twice, while she protested; she submitted, she told the grand jury "because I was afraid." Those facts are not in dispute--except by Polanski, who has pooh-poohed the whole business many times (You can read the grand jury transcripts here.) He was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge, like many accused rapists, to spare the victim the trauma of a trial and media hoopla. But that doesn't mean we should all pretend that what happened was some free-spirited Bohemian mix-up. The victim took years to recover.

Fact: In February 2008, LA Superior Court Judge Peter Espinosa ruled that Polanski can challenge his conviction. All he has to do is come to the United States and subject himself to the rule of law. Why is that unfair? Were he not a world-famous director with boatloads of powerful friends, but just a regular convicted sex criminal who had fled abroad, would anyone think it was asking too much that he should go through the same formal process as anyone else?

It's enraging that literary superstars who go on and on about human dignity, and human rights, and even women's rights (at least when the women are Muslim) either don't see what Polanski did as rape, or don't care, because he is, after all, Polanski--an artist like themselves. That some of his defenders are women is particularly disappointing. Don't they see how they are signing on to arguments that blame the victim, minimize rape, and bend over backwards to exonerate the perpetrator? Error of youth, might have mistaken her age, teen slut, stage mother--is that what we want people to think when middle-aged men prey on ninth-graders?

The widespread support for Polanski shows the liberal cultural elite at its preening, fatuous worst. They may make great movies, write great books, and design beautiful things, they may have lots of noble humanitarian ideas and care, in the abstract, about all the right principles: equality under the law, for example. But in this case, they're just the white culture-class counterpart of hip-hop fans who stood by R. Kelly and Chris Brown and of sports fans who automatically support their favorite athletes when they're accused of beating their wives and raping hotel workers.

No wonder Middle America hates them.

URL: http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22750

[American Dream]

(Victim's Op-ed)

Judge the Movie, Not the Man By Samantha Geimer

February 23, 2003

I met Roman Polanski in 1977, when I was 13 years old. I was in ninth grade that year, when he told my mother that he wanted to shoot pictures of me for a French magazine. That's what he said, but instead, after shooting pictures of me at Jack Nicholson's house on Mulholland Drive, he did something quite different. He gave me champagne and a piece of a Quaalude. And then he took advantage of me. It was not consensual sex by any means. I said no, repeatedly, but he wouldn't take no for an answer. I was alone and I didn't know what to do. It was scary and, looking back, very creepy....We pressed charges, and he pleaded guilty. A plea bargain was agreed to by his lawyer, my lawyer and the district attorney, and it was approved by the judge. But to our amazement, at the last minute the judge went back on his word and refused to honor the deal.

Worried that he was going to have to spend 50 years in prison -- rather than just time already served -- Mr. Polanski fled the country. He's never been back, and I haven't seen him or spoken to him since. Looking back, there can be no question that he did something awful.

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/23 ... e-geimer23