Fr. Roman Polanski...

There are threads on Polanski, there are threads on the Bishop.  I'm sure you can find a niche for this somewhere in an ongoing thread.

Quote:

I suspect that if the facts regarding Polanski's long-ago crimes were the same except that he was "Father Polanski" (and not "Roman Polanski, brilliant film director") most of the people now defending him would be callling for his head.

I suspect that if Roman Polanski were famous for making movies in which shirtless action heroes fire rocket grenades at cybernetic aliens amid expensive CGI effects, most of the people now defending him would be callling for his head. Fans of "cinema" can be pretty harsh.

I'm glad to see that Whoopi Goldberg is really wearing it for her "rape-rape" comment. She tried to do some damage control, and pretend she wasn't trying to minimize Polanski's crime, but the pee is in the pool now. I hope a lot of Polanski's apologists are remembered as Polanski apologists. Personally, I'm finding it incredibly gross.

Tis sad, that there are other women who are also condoning this besides Whoopi.

Wente wades in:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/columnists/margaret-wente/r...

I have to agree with her.   I also have to believe that Navigator is not representing Polanski, hence Wente's sudden realization that no one should be above the law.

Roman Polanski is a rapist who spent most of his adult life avoiding punishment. Chinatown, The Tenant, Rosemary's Baby, Cul-de-Sac and others are brilliant films. Elia Kazan is a turncoat coward who destroyed the careers of many colleagues and friends. On the Waterfront and A Streetcar Named Desire were incredible pieces of work. I guess these things are hard to remedy in the minds of fans. Maybe when they realize that his films are about the repression of desire and taboo, the fact that the man who made them turns out to be a rapist is highly, highly unsettling.

Having never watched any of said films, in a decades long protest of his actions, catchfire, I have no idea what they are about.

Tommy, I hear you. And sometimes even Wente is correct.

That these old middle aged white men, in power, are standing up for him and trying to demand his release, is just sickening, and one wonders how many young girls they have done the same to, and believe it is their right to  do so, of course in Allen's case we know. And what the hell was that comment by the one director about, if he is convicted it will have far reaching consequences for them?

The women supporting him I do not understand.

original transcript of girl's testimony

And what does the denotation of "brilliant" mean anyway?

Yep, sick fuck, and yet some think he is brilliant....and have no recriminations for him.

too fucking bad catchfire, I find those supporting Polanski to be well beyond odious, especially when they are supposedly oh so concerned about  other sexual and physical abuses against women and children, and hypocritically deride others here for their supposed lack of progressiveness.

I have been boycotting this sick fuck for decades, and actually cried when I heard he had been finally arrested.

There ain't nothing brilliant about the man, he is just another sick fuck.

remind wrote:

Yep, sick fuck, and yet some think he is brilliant....and have no recriminations for him.

You can think he's brilliant without thinking what he did was okay.  I find this topic a hard one for me to discuss while staying level-headed (see the other thread), but I highly doubt that Unionist was saying that rape is okay. 

Let's all give each other the benefit of the doubt here - we all know each other, and know that none of us condones drugging and raping 13 year-olds.  We can discuss what might or might not be appropriate action to take in this case without assuming the worst about each other's motives and beliefs.

Um, I just did.  Did you read the rest of my post?

Michelle wrote:

Um, I just did.  Did you read the rest of my post?

Yes I did. Now please read the half-dozen other threads where the same crap is going on, when you have a moment.

However, I'll just use the ignore button from now on when people accuse me of justifying rape, being a hypocrite, lacking "moral authority", using women and children to beat my own drum - that's within the past half hour if my count is right.

Thank you, Michelle.  The diminishment of this crime by some "celebrities" is sexist, ageist and classist.

Michelle, your post is awesome.

It's true that Polanski is an incredibly talented filmmaker.  He's a master of cinematic form and language and he creates films of great beauty and and meaning.  That's without question.

It's also beyond question that the man is a morally reprehensible person who has committed a terrible crime that he richly deserves to be punished for.  His talents as a filmmaker are irrelevant to this. 

Neither truth cancels out the other.

Michelle wrote:

remind wrote:

Yep, sick fuck, and yet some think he is brilliant....and have no recriminations for him.

You can think he's brilliant without thinking what he did was okay.  I find this topic a hard one for me to discuss while staying level-headed (see the other thread), but I highly doubt that Unionist was saying that rape is okay. 

Let's all give each other the benefit of the doubt here - we all know each other, and know that none of us condones drugging and raping 13 year-olds.  We can discuss what might or might not be appropriate action to take in this case without assuming the worst about each other's motives and beliefs.

No.. I am sorry, I can't Michelle, not when there is endless threads where he  is espousing  religions being destroyed,  bashing people who belong to them, etc etc etc, allegedly on the side of women and children, but when it comes to Polanski all that is said is that the man is brilliant and NOT one other word of criticism or censor about him.

Said more in the other thread that I won't repeat here.

BYW, I walked away, as it is a topic that I am not level headed about. But it still comes back to the same damn thing, how dare anyone carry on about the moral authority lacking in others,  and other child abuse criticisms, and pretend they are allies of women and children, but yet have NOTHING to say about this.

That I am furious is putting it mildly.

And I am not suggesting that he thinks rape is okay, I am stating that apparently there are times when it can be excused, and apparently on the part of a good many, and I am stating it can NEVER be excused, under any circumstance.

It is at best classist. And I find it creepy in the extreme, that people think his films are so great.

And for those who want to take me to task for saying this, have a  look at the Catholic Church thread where Catholics are soundly denounced for  still being Catholics, by many, and it is all dandy fine to do so, as people cannot understand how people can still be Catholic after all the Church has done.

This is the same damn thing, how can people watch a Polanski film knowing what he has said and done!

Timebandit I think the problem many of us have with the celebrities coming to his defence is exactly because his criminal behaviour cannot be justified by any talent.  The reason it is getting so much discussion is this defence based on his talent.  If everyone had said he has admitted guilt and he should be appropriately punished there would be little discussion on this board because we would all agree.

The other part of that bothers me is that he used his fame as a film maker to lure this girl into his rape scenario.  He knows how to set a scene very well and he has definitely used that talent for perverted ends.  It was his fame that allowed him to do this and thus it is in some respects relevant.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I think the problem many of us have with the celebrities coming to his defence is exactly because his criminal behaviour cannot be justified by any talent.  The reason it is getting so much discussion is this defence based on his talent.  If everyone had said he has admitted guilt and he should be appropriately punished there would be little discussion on this board because we would all agree.

The other part of that bothers me is that he used his fame as a film maker to lure this girl into his rape scenario.  He knows how to set a scene very well and he has definitely used that talent for perverted ends.  It was his fame that allowed him to do this and thus it is in some respects relevant.

Exactly and thank you.

It is also just the same as people going into professions such as the priest hood so that they can access those whom they want to for their perverted sexual desires.

Wasn't Charlie Chaplin, whose romantic proclivities were well-known, brought down when a calculating mother steered her underage daughter into his path? What really IS the backstory to this Polanski matter? And where were her parents/guardians in all this? Here in Germany they'd be legally liable, for failing in their legal duty to protect. Obviously they didn't expect their daughter to be molested by the distinguished acting editor of Vogue, but - so what? Why should that let them off the hook, when we are so keen to press the case against Mr.Polanski?

Much is made of the fact that she was underage. Polanski claims to have believed she was actually 16. If she had been, would this have made it alright? Or, legally alright but still disgusting, and if so why?

Also, the way the term 'rape' is being deployed here, it's going to go the way of 'terrorist'. Why can't we just leave it to mean, the act of compelling sexual relations with an unconsenting partner by threat or actual use of violence? Presumably that is its origin. But when it starts to spread into concepts like 'statutory rape' let's make sure we don't lose sight of the fact that we're talking about something as different as say, manslaughter and murder. Consenting sex between early adolescents constitutes rape under such a definition, for example, which makes an awful lot of us rapists. 'Statutory rape' as a concept is deployed to criminalize the preying of adults on early adolescent and legally not responsible minors which is its purpose, but this is a TECHNICAL term which due to semantics unfortunately connotes what to me is a graver antisocial act.

Because, when I think of rape, I think of rampaging Congolese soldiers, or sadists lurking in dark alleys who take their pleasure at least as much from the violent component as the intercourse. I don't think of compliant underage aspiring models and actresses who wind up on the casting couch. When the term 'rape' starts flying around as thickly as it is here, I think we need to keep in mind the wide range of behaviours it covers, and take note of the distinctions.

Regarding this case, I must once again note that Polanski long ago apologized and settled with the child he violated, presumably to their mutual satisfaction if she took the trouble to initiate court proceedings to have the matter dropped, as she did last year. I note that she made the decision to seek to have the charges dropped of her own volition - as a fully autonomous adult and not incidentally married with children of her own to care for. But what do her wishes count for in this? There's a principle at stake here! We have to burn the village to save it!

At 74 years of age, it is unlikely he poses a threat to other underage women; what in God's name is the point of continuing this prosecution, what does it accomplish?

Because to me, I just see a braying pack of angry villagers waving torches and pitchforks, stirred up on cue by a gutter press and incoherent with emotion, and not too fussy about the details. 'Rape' they yell, then everything goes red...

"Picasso wa...Does that make his art less brilliant? "

Apparently, little consideration is given to individual taste relativity, in respect to the use of the word  "brilliant". ;)

However, making a juxtaposition between the 2, is excusing both for their proclivities, because one feels they are brilliant and thus apparently a net plus to society is perceived. Though I take exception to the use of a past figure given, it is the past and nothing can be done to change said persons behaviour and people's acceptance of it. This is in the present, and the culture of rape needs to be destroyed.

As that is really the underlaying reality of it all.

An internalized appreciation of "art", that only certain population demographics, around the world, can aspire to seeing and knowing about, let alone understanding, being weighted as a positive mark, by some, and thus they lessen his culpability as they *shrug* it off, as brilliance. It is an expression of classism and sexism.

It is done with the unspoken, but very implicit expression of:  "I feel I should not deprive myself of viewing his brilliance, just because he sodomized and raped a 13 year old girl, after drugging her. Brilliance is brilliance afterall,  it stands alone, and that a girl was raped, and perhaps many more, comes secondary to my being able to view brilliance".

That he also fled, and continued life in the same vien, as per his 1979 commentary, only compounds that fact, that those who view him because he is brilliant, are impllicitly stating it is okay to rape and flee, as long as it benefits them and their pleasure of accessing "brilliance".

As I stated above, it is classist, ageist and sexist and sickeningly allows the culture of rape to continue.

Does anyone here think a 13 year old girl appreciates Polanski's "brilliance", if she even know who he is ,or what the hell brilliance he exhibits. I do not think so, especially not when she is being drugged and raped by a middle age man, who thinks he is brilliant, and "if Polanski got away with it because he is brilliant, so can I".

Wow again. What a horrible post, filled with a lot of horrible crap.

First of all, READ THE COURT TRANSCRIPTS!!! They are on the Smoking Gun, verbatum. Secondly, WTF? At NO POINT did this girl ever say she was 16 and at no pojnt did Polanski NOT know she was 13. Again, read the transcripts. This girl was raped, anally by a man 30 years older than her. He raped her anally to avoid getting her pregnant. Nice guy huh? He pled GUILTY to the charges and stated he knew her age was 13. He is no innocent man being lured into sex by shifty mothers and their underage daughters. What a disgusting post you have made Merowe. Beyond tolerable truly.

One can easily say Polanski is gifted but we sure as hell cannot say he did not rape a 13 year old girl. Period. Full stop. He should be charged with that crime.

Also, the way the term 'rape' is being deployed here, it's going to go the way of 'terrorist'. Why can't we just leave it to mean, the act of compelling sexual relations with an unconsenting partner by threat or actual use of violence? Presumably that is its origin.

The origins of rape as a crime lie in crimes against property.  Rape wasn't a crime against women; it was a crime against the father, or the husband.

But we've come, or at least many have come, a ways in our understanding from the days of Alfred the Great.

Because, when I think of rape, I think of rampaging Congolese soldiers, or sadists lurking in dark alleys who take their pleasure at least as much from the violent component as the intercourse. I don't think of compliant underage aspiring models and actresses who wind up on the casting couch.

A winsome blend of the false dichotomy and the straw man.  And, I find myself not possessing the patience to expand on that.

Merowe wrote:

Wasn't Charlie Chaplin, whose romantic proclivities were well-known, brought down when a calculating mother steered her underage daughter into his path? What really IS the backstory to this Polanski matter? And where were her parents/guardians in all this? Here in Germany they'd be legally liable, for failing in their legal duty to protect. Obviously they didn't expect their daughter to be molested by the distinguished acting editor of Vogue, but - so what? Why should that let them off the hook, when we are so keen to press the case against Mr.Polanski?

Much is made of the fact that she was underage. Polanski claims to have believed she was actually 16. If she had been, would this have made it alright? Or, legally alright but still disgusting, and if so why?

Also, the way the term 'rape' is being deployed here, it's going to go the way of 'terrorist'. Why can't we just leave it to mean, the act of compelling sexual relations with an unconsenting partner by threat or actual use of violence? Presumably that is its origin. But when it starts to spread into concepts like 'statutory rape' let's make sure we don't lose sight of the fact that we're talking about something as different as say, manslaughter and murder. Consenting sex between early adolescents constitutes rape under such a definition, for example, which makes an awful lot of us rapists. 'Statutory rape' as a concept is deployed to criminalize the preying of adults on early adolescent and legally not responsible minors which is its purpose, but this is a TECHNICAL term which due to semantics unfortunately connotes what to me is a graver antisocial act.

 

This has to be the most offensive post that I have ever read on babble. Merowe, this was NO ONE'S FAULT BUT POLANSKI'S! It does not matter if the parents dropped her off at his house with a bag of sex toys and told him to do whatever he wanted. IT would still be rape and would still be illegal and it would still be his fault. YOur comment sounds so much like that "she was asking for it" bullshit - like what was she doing wearing skimpy clothes adn climbing into his hottub? What did she think would happen? Relax, it's not his fault - how can men resist screwing 13 year old girls after drugging them and ignoring the fact that they said no?

She did say no according to her testimony, so it would be rape whether she was 18 (age of consent in the US) or 13. However, rape is defined by the absence of consent. When a victim is below age of consent - they are too young to consent! Rape is rape. It is not just some "technical" term made up.

And your bs about rapists just being over in the Congo or something?? Wake up! Do you know how many women and girls have been raped and sexually assaulted in your community- in your country? It is quite often by someone they know!

Some of you are way too complicated for me, but for my 2 cents i think the world would have been better off without his "brilliance" and perhaps improved if he had been made an example of when this crime was first committed.  Hopefully he will suffer for the remainder of his days for what he did.

In imagining the type of mind that it takes to commit those extremely violent and cruel acts, the so called 'gifts' and 'brilliance' which emanated from the same head places them into their proper perspective, tarnished creations of a depraved intellect where privilege and status is offered as an excuse in the place of personal responsibility for reprehensible crimes.