criterionforum.org

foliagecop wrote: Actually it was Whoopie.

oops- corrected.

thirtyframesasecond wrote:Is it time to invoke the Family Guy reference....

"What's going on down there?"
"We're playing House"
"But that kid's all tied up"
"Roman Polanski's House".

"It's Pedotown, Jake".

Tom Hagen wrote: They shouldn't be "avoided," but most American criminal lawyers would view them with a healthy dose of skepticism because they were never subjected to cross examination. In fact, under current US Supreme Court decisions, testimonial evidence that was not subjected to cross is inadmissable in an actual trial. This is not to say the victim in this case lied to a grand jury, or that her testimony at an actual trial would have necessarily differed. The point is that we simply don't know. The Constitution protects the right of the defendant to confront their accusers, which cannot be done if testimony is given without the opportunity for cross.

Its a good thing, then, that I'm on an Internet forum rather than in a court of law, and free to believe the statement of a 13 year old girl rather than the old guy with a bottle of champagne and a quelude in his pocket. If, that is, Polanski has ever even denied that the girl said no.

GringoTex wrote:

bearcuborg wrote: What's stupid is your reactionary response.

You're...you're...you're such a nazi!

Hehe. Let's just agree on Oprah and Whoopie both being stupid.

From the BBC...

French drop Polanski release call

The French government has dropped its public support for Roman Polanski, saying the 76-year-old director "is neither above nor beneath the law".

The move follows a backlash against a campaign for Polanski's release, with several leading European politicians and cultural figures refusing to join.

He is being held in Switzerland on a US arrest warrant over his conviction for unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl.

On Monday, the French foreign minister called for Polanski to be freed.

Polanski, who has dual French and Polish citizenship, was arrested on Saturday when he flew into the country.

He had been due to pick up a lifetime achievement prize at the Zurich film festival.

Speaking to reporters, French government spokesman Luc Chatel said: "We have a judicial procedure under way, for a serious affair, the rape of a minor, on which the American and Swiss legal systems are doing their job."

Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski and his French counterpart Bernard Kouchner have written to US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton calling for Polanski to be freed.

But the Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has distanced himself from the move by asking his ministers to show "greater restraint" in defending him.

He added that despite a "leading Polish director" being involved, it is still a "case of rape and of punishment for having sex with a child".

ellipsis7 wrote:From the BBC...

French drop Polanski release call

The French government has dropped its public support for Roman Polanski, saying the 76-year-old director "is neither above nor beneath the law".

The move follows a backlash against a campaign for Polanski's release, with several leading European politicians and cultural figures refusing to join.

He is being held in Switzerland on a US arrest warrant over his conviction for unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl.

On Monday, the French foreign minister called for Polanski to be freed.

Polanski, who has dual French and Polish citizenship, was arrested on Saturday when he flew into the country.

He had been due to pick up a lifetime achievement prize at the Zurich film festival.

Speaking to reporters, French government spokesman Luc Chatel said: "We have a judicial procedure under way, for a serious affair, the rape of a minor, on which the American and Swiss legal systems are doing their job."

Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski and his French counterpart Bernard Kouchner have written to US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton calling for Polanski to be freed.

But the Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has distanced himself from the move by asking his ministers to show "greater restraint" in defending him.

He added that despite a "leading Polish director" being involved, it is still a "case of rape and of punishment for having sex with a child".

Now there's something new... a French retreat.

If Polanski is extradited back to the US what will happen? Will they begin where they left off? Will he serve extra time for fleeing to Europe?

ellipsis7 wrote:From the BBC...

French drop Polanski release call

I'm pretty pleased about that. Polanski may be a cultural icon, but France's turning a rape case into a diplomatic incident sends a pretty strong message about how enough fame and praise is all that's needed to rise above the law.
Polanski has made some of my favourite films, and I have a great deal of sympathy for him based on some of his own terrible experiences, but I think the line has to be drawn somewhere. This is a case of rape-rape, and child rape at that, and regardless of the misconduct or otherwise of the judge involved it is one where the accused has avoided sentencing by fleeing justice for 30 years.
This isn't the ideal way to resolve the case, but we don't live in an ideal world, and the case seems pretty clear-cut to me.

According to Deborah Tate it was consensual--not really sure how she would know that.

skuhn8 wrote:According to Deborah Tate it was consensual--not really sure how she would know that.

I feel terrible for her, particularly since she just went through Susan Atkin's last parole hearing. In both cases, its clear to me that she's trying her hardest to protect her family, and its hard to blame her. However, the devil in me wonders where this boundless good will and generous forgiveness was when she let a reformed woman with terminal brain cancer die in prison. Roman is a "philanthropist," we're told. But so, apparently, was Ms. Atkins.

For those wondering why arrest Polanski now, his friend and collaborator explains that Polanski's legal team has been making an aggressive push to have the charges dropped in the wake of last year's documentary calling into question the judge's actions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/opinion/30harris.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And to make things murkier, a former prosecutor at the heart of the documentary's contention of judicial misconduct now says that he lied for the documentary. Who knows why he is backtracking: the truth? embarrassed that he helped the defense? pressure form ex-colleagues? etc.
But a documentary film is hardly sworn testimony.
He says that he thought it was just entertainment for the French, so he embellished. After 30 years and Polanski in his mid-70's, I assume that the prosecutor thought Polanski would never be apprehended, so he spoke to the cameras.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/3 ... 05772.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Doing a little research here, and just to throw things into a wider context, Polanski's liaison would have been quite legal in fourteen countries, including Spain, South Korea, Argentina and the Vatican State. Had they waited a couple of months, this would have widened to 45 countries, including Germany, Austria, Israel, Portugal and China. This is, of course, assuming there was no violence or coercion involved, an assumption one must make in the absence of any conviction to that effect.

I suppose my point being that those frothing at the mouth and comparing Polanski, unfavourably it would seem, to the woman who disemboweled and murdered his heavily pregnant wife and wrote 'PIG' on the wall in her blood, might wish to reconsider.

Nothing wrote:Doing a little research here, and just to throw things into a wider context, Polanski's liaison would have been quite legal in fourteen countries, including Spain, South Korea, Argentina and the Vatican State. Had they waited a couple of months, this would have widened to 45 countries, including Germany, Austria, Israel, Portugal and China. This is, of course, assuming there was no violence or coercion involved, an assumption one must make in the absence of any conviction to that effect.

What? No informed person, on either side of the issue, disputes the fact that Polanski raped Geimer. It still would have been rape had she been 30 at the time.

And as for the comments on "mob mentality," that phrase could describe the knee-jerk reaction of many of Polanski's defenders on this site and elsewhere just as well. It amuses me to think of how many people will deny ever having said a word in Polanski's defense once this all blows over.

It's like, you know you shouldn't open a thread, and then you do, and then you just shake your head after about ten seconds and hit the 'Back' button

domino harvey wrote:It's like, you know you shouldn't open a thread, and then you do, and then you just shake your head after about ten seconds and hit the 'Back' button

So true. I'm now walking outside to stare at the sun, then I'm off to the local shopping centre to start conversations with strangers about politics and religion.

Tomorrow I begin filming my first feature, with the entire cast made up of children and animals.

I'll never learn.

Nothing wrote:Doing a little research here, and just to throw things into a wider context, Polanski's liaison would have been quite legal in fourteen countries, including Spain, South Korea, Argentina and the Vatican State. Had they waited a couple of months, this would have widened to 45 countries, including Germany, Austria, Israel, Portugal and China. This is, of course, assuming there was no violence or coercion involved, an assumption one must make in the absence of any conviction to that effect.

I don't see how "a wider context" is relevant when we're talking about someone who broke US laws while in the US. And even though he wasn't a US citizen, the legal situation wouldn't have been any different in Poland, France or the US, the three countries that Polanski lived in prior to crossing the Atlantic.

Lemmy Caution wrote:For those wondering why arrest Polanski now, his friend and collaborator explains that Polanski's legal team has been making an aggressive push to have the charges dropped in the wake of last year's documentary calling into question the judge's actions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/opinion/30harris.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And to make things murkier, a former prosecutor at the heart of the documentary's contention of judicial misconduct now says that he lied for the documentary. Who knows why he is backtracking: the truth? embarrassed that he helped the defense? pressure form ex-colleagues? etc.
But a documentary film is hardly sworn testimony.
He says that he thought it was just entertainment for the French, so he embellished. After 30 years and Polanski in his mid-70's, I assume that the prosecutor thought Polanski would never be apprehended, so he spoke to the cameras.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/3 ... 05772.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I haven't wanted to comment in this thread for several reasons, mainly the distressing amount of Nancy Graceism on display in many of the responses, but since Lemmy mentioned this, I'll chime in. Do not kid yourself: this is what the whole current aspect of the case is about. The LA DA's office was embarassed that their misconduct (and Rittenband's even grosser actions) were exposed to the whole world. Polanski's legal team had what looked to many people like a plausible case to press for dismissal and the current occupants of the DA's office have hit back.

The idea that Wells just had a lark and confessed what he did out of a temporary fit of self aggrandizement strains credulity. To put it very mildly. He's been rounded up and brought into line as part of a full court press to try to rewrite history and scrub the abuse of power that happened in '77 and '78.

None of this excuses Polanski's actions in the original crime or some of the stupider things said in his defense, but the abuse still happened and it was substantial and serious enough that most any of us would have fled in the face of it.

I happen to take the rule of law seriously. "All's well that ends well" isn't really a basis for any legitimate system of justice, at least any that I want to be any part of.

I'm hesitant to weigh in on this emotive topic, but its been playing on my mind and making me sad, angry and grumpy all week, so this post should best be considered as a kind of exorcism. At least for myself if not for Polanski!

I'll say straight out that I'm not a parent, have no intention of ever really being so, and have strong views anyway on bringing children into the world and then not caring for them but expecting the wider community to do so by the threat of heavier punishments than in other cases. And I've been witness to too many situations where people have used child almost like human shields from criticism and as an excuse for any kind of behaviour. So I'm probably biased in my disinclination to think of this from the "think of the children!" point of view, but I'll try. I do feel however that while Polanski is obviously a foolish person for doing what he did, especially when the drugging angle is added in, and should have faced a criminal charge, I can't escape the feeling that if the girl was just three years older there wouldn't have been such a fuss made of this situation - likely to the detriment of the girl claiming she was assaulted, I hasten to add.

I'm also not entirely sure if we should separate the work from the man - Polanski's a great director and his work is inextricably tied into his life. But I also agree that liking a director's (or actors, or singers or anyones) work is not the same as condoning things that occur in their private lives. I'm sure we can all think of directors or actors who have terrible reputations but who still produced masterpieces. Or vice versa.

I certainly feel that Polanski should have to take responsibility for his actions but I think the aspect that muddies everything is the hypocritical one - on the one side of whether Polanski should be exempt from punishment because of his status (he shouldn't), and on the other of the simple fact of this question being raised at all suggesting a double standard compared to other celebrity trials suggesting that Polanski is not a highly recognisable celebrity that would give him immunity from prosecution that others have (as the Minister for Culture, Media and Sport here in the UK damningly and dismissively said on Question Time last night when questioned on the issue that he wasn't really aware of Polanski at all because he was "before my time").

The sheer irony of this coming after the recent deifying of a certain member of the Jacksons after a consensual wiping clean of the slate (a situation that raises similar questions about parental responsibility and exactly how involved they were in these affairs), by our British Prime Minister no less, suggests that the guilt for the willful ignorance displayed in that situation is now going to be sublimated somewhere else to cathartically show that the West really is tough on celebrity child molesters. I think this particular hypocrisy brings up the old issue of arthouse filmmaker versus populist entertainer - luckily Polanski has been both, so maybe if he gets a good flashy lawyer and a TV reality show deal he may get exonerated!

In some ways though, this could be the best thing to happen for all concerned (it depends on the final verdict though, of course!) - the girl finally gets closure out of the situation and maybe the media leaves her alone since she clearly wishes to put this behind her, and maybe it would be better for Polanski to deal with this matter in one way or another rather than dying with it always hanging over his head. Who knows - since I'd like to feel optimistic about this perhaps he will get to work in the US again in the future - if he wishes to. I sincerely hope though that we don't have to see Polanski die before he gets rehabilitated and that this doesn't act as a full stop to his career.

Getting back to the issue of his films though (a place where I am on much more comfortable ground), I remember reading an article a few weeks before all this (probably in David Thomson's joyful but simultaneously frustrating Biographical Dictionary of Film!) that wondered at what Polanski's career would have been like if he had not fled the US, and that this series of events obviously cast a pall over his films. I would agree with that because apart from the obvious geographical restrictions I feel that there is a definite pall hanging over the films following this situation. It is hard to watch a film like Bitter Moon and not see issues of sexual guilt being worked through. I understand if this is little comfort for those wanting more tangible punishment (though they'll likely be satisfied soon enough), but I do sense that he has been condemning himself in his films ever since this event, looking at events from victim and aggressors point of view. A film like Tess can be seen as displaying knowledge of an inevitable retribution that will be carried out and accepting that final judgment when it does come. Death and the Maiden and Bitter Moon are also key works in that they show how easily the tide of sympathy can twist from character to character - it's a muddled situation where there is no purely innocent victim and no completely blameless protagonist, and the absurdity (and condescension) of the outside observer trying to disinterestedly apportion blame and fit people into pure victim or villain moulds is ludicrous in itself when the entire world around them is corrupt, from top to bottom.

it's a muddled situation where there is no purely innocent victim and no completely blameless protagonist, and the absurdity (and condescension) of the outside observer trying to disinterestedly apportion blame and fit people into pure victim or villain moulds is ludicrous in itself when the entire world around them is corrupt, from top to bottom.

Sorry, but Polanski had a 13 year old girl in his care, he fed her alcohol and drugs, and molested her, including subjecting her to sodomy. He sodomised a 13 year old girl. He did a deal, pleading to a lesser charge, so he wouldn't have to do jail time for his crime. When he thought he might have to actually pay for his crime, he fled the country.

30 odd years later he is taken into custody, for molesting a 13 year old girl years before.

The idea that he has paid his pennance by dealing with themes in his films is, franky, absurd.

That was not exactly what I said in my post. I spent a while before that quote explaining the importance of facing up to his actions (albeit with a bit of an eye towards the irony and hypocrisy of such an action now).

That final section was more to point out that we shouldn't get caught in the trap of separating the body of work from the man himself, just so we can in some way go on enjoying the films 'with a clear conscience'. They are inextricably interlinked and that is something the individual audience member has to come to terms with. Personally, I have and find them quite moving. Also as someone with a particular interest in film I would love to see Polanski finally have to deal with this issue if only to see what films he might make following this (though I am, as I also said earlier, likely a naive optimist on the outcome of this issue).

MichaelB wrote:I don't see how "a wider context" is relevant when we're talking about someone who broke US laws while in the US.

Yes, a country that has exported terror, including rape and murder as policy, beyond its borders on a regular basis... Don't get me wrong, I have little sympathy for Polanski. He chose to live there and chose to break this law for no reason other than his own sexual gratification. But, then, he did serve the sentence agreed by both the defense and the prosecution, so...?

Nothing wrote:

MichaelB wrote:I don't see how "a wider context" is relevant when we're talking about someone who broke US laws while in the US.

Yes, a country that has exported terror, including rape and murder as policy, beyond it's borders on a regular basis... Don't get me wrong, I have little sympathy for Polanski. He chose to live there and chose to break this law for no reason other than his own sexual gratification. But, then, he did serve the sentence agreed by both the defense and the prosecution, so...?

He was held for evaluation, and if I understand correctly that time would have counted as time spent in his eventual sentencing. He fled prior to sentencing.

Nothing wrote:I suppose my point being that those frothing at the mouth and comparing Polanski, unfavourably it would seem, to the woman who disemboweled and murdered his heavily pregnant wife and wrote 'PIG' on the wall in her blood, might wish to reconsider.

Assuming you mean me, I wasn't comparing their crimes at all. Nor am I "frothing at the mouth" about Polanski -- frankly I'm ambivalent on the issue of whether or not Polanski should be extradited to a country where the justice system is exacting and dogged in its prosecution, and at the same time embarrassingly corrupt and incompetent. The way this case has been handled hasn't brought justice to either Polanski or his victim.

But, yes, I did think a reformed criminal dying of terminal brain cancer was, perhaps, worthy of the slimmest measure of mercy. I wonder what use it was for anyone to have such a person die in prison -- punishment? Reform? Its a bit disingenuous to cry foul that the justice system is cruel and too persistent and that Polanski deserves forgiveness for rape, when weeks before the justice system couldn't be cruel or persistent enough.

tartarlamb wrote:

Nothing wrote:I suppose my point being that those frothing at the mouth and comparing Polanski, unfavourably it would seem, to the woman who disemboweled and murdered his heavily pregnant wife and wrote 'PIG' on the wall in her blood, might wish to reconsider.

Assuming you mean me, I wasn't comparing their crimes at all. Nor am I "frothing at the mouth" about Polanski -- frankly I'm ambivalent on the issue of whether or not Polanski should be extradited to a country where the justice system is exacting and dogged in its prosecution, and at the same time embarrassingly corrupt and incompetent. The way this case has been handled hasn't brought justice to either Polanski or his victim.

But, yes, I did think a reformed criminal dying of terminal brain cancer was, perhaps, worthy of the slimmest measure of mercy. I wonder what use it was for anyone to have such a person die in prison -- punishment? Reform? Its a bit disingenuous to cry foul that the justice system is cruel and too persistent and that Polanski deserves forgiveness for rape, when weeks before the justice system couldn't be cruel or persistent enough.

Why do you care about someone like Susan Atkins? She neither gave nor was given any mercy. I'm relieved that we saw that through to the end--not one minute of freedom for such an awful human being.

Nothing wrote:

MichaelB wrote:I don't see how "a wider context" is relevant when we're talking about someone who broke US laws while in the US.

Yes, a country that has exported terror, including rape and murder as policy, beyond its borders on a regular basis... Don't get me wrong, I have little sympathy for Polanski. He chose to live there and chose to break this law for no reason other than his own sexual gratification. But, then, he did serve the sentence agreed by both the defense and the prosecution, so...?

As Skuhn notes, he wasn't sentenced. He skipped before it got that far. And I would think it needless to say, but defenses and prosecutions don't get to team up and decide sentences. Make recommendations yes, but that's about it.