Roman Polanski: BRILLIANT film maker or DISGUSTING criminal? Or, BOTH?

Timebandit wrote:

So what if she had had sex on another occasion?  What does that have to do with anything?  How would the defense attorney know? 

30 years ago, if this had gone to trial, her past sexual history would have been brought up in court. I was speculating that she did not want this to happen, and that probably was communicated to the defense attorney. I have no clue how the defense attorney knew she had a prior sexual experience, but the clip in the movie showed that he knew about it and intended to peruse the matter, in fact he asked at that press conference why her previous sex partner was not prosecuted.

Still, Boom Boom, the defense attorney himself may be creating a diversion to mitigate the crime of his client.  I can't take it at face value.

For sure, they'd have tried to smear the kid in a trial, and that's why they offered the plea bargain.  However, the judge would still have been within his rights to apply harsher sentencing, especially given Polanski's behaviour as he awaited his sentence.  Polanski knew if he withdrew from the bargain that he'd probably have to face a trial, and didn't want that.  He also didn't want to serve time. 

I'm not suggesting they should try him now, even if they could.  But Polanski should still face sentencing, and his actions should come to bear on what sentence he gets.

Boom Boom wrote:

What happens next? Does Polanski face a full trial if he is returned to the US?

 

Oops - sorry, I posted before I saw your response, Timebandit.

Polanski could face trial on a charge of being a fugitive from justice, but he'd be an idiot to plead not guilty.  It's, you know, kind of obvious.

Sorry to hear that, Boom Boom.  Hope you feel better tomorrow!

martin dufresne wrote:

remind wrote:

Would you go shop in the store of a known pedophile and rapist just because he had what you perceived to be good quality clothing, or products? Would you advocate others go to his store and support his life style?

Would you go to the home of a pedophile rapist, or let one into your home?

I doubt it, so why would you let one into your mind and pleasure emotions?

I think these are very valid questions. And they are nothing as unsubtle as Timebandit's straw man paraphrase: "If you like a Polanski film, you are complicit in his crimes".

 

Actually, it was Stargazer's.  And remind had no problem with it in the previous thread, where Stargazer originally suggested remind was equating watching Polanski films with supporting rape. 

Okay, remind, but here's where you say that if we don't boycott, we are excusing his actions and being complicit in rapes that are committed:

Quote:

The culture of rape has continued to grow, not diminish, perhaps if Polanksi had been boycotted instead of lauded it would not have gone so far as it has. By accepting his actions without boycott, because one personally believes his work is brilliant, IMV, one gives a clear message to other men who are preditors of young girls. And that message is "go ahead".

So you did actually say, more or less, that those of us who watch Polanski's films are complicit in his crimes. Stargazer didn't misread you at all.

Classic remind - smear anybody who doesn't agree with your point of view. then make like butter wouldn't melt in your mouth.  You weren't talking about those excusing Polanski, you were talking about anybody who doesn't take up your boycott.

Stargazer wrote:

Just for clarification, the victim was asked in court whether she had had sex before.

I just had a question. It seems to me the victim never appeared in court (or at least what we would view as being a court) - but rather a "grand jury", which is kind of like giving a statement to the police, no cross-exam, and the grand jury decides whether there are grounds to have a trial. Not even sure if the defence is present?? I have said before that I am almost completely unable to sort out the simple facts of what happened here, so that's the context of my question.

You're right unionist. She testified in front of the Grand Jury. He did his in front of a judge. Here is his motion to dismiss. Talk about hamming it up. He uses every trick in the book to get himself off this charge, including using his past as an excuse. 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1203081roman1.html

Okay remind, I see you're riled up by Timebandit. Sorry but there is no way in hell you are equating my watching Bitter Moon with a Free Polanski shirt. Not going there but if you wish, go ahead. You're on your own in this one. I refuse to get into this again.

unionist, all of the various transcripts are up on The Smoking Gun...

Okay than...I support the rape of young girls. You got me. Who would have known?

That's me, rape supporter!

remind, you have made these past three threads explicitly "against" anyone who thought we could still glance at Chinatown without getting thrown in prison. This is actually a topic I find very interesting, but we have been unable to talk about it because any attempt to utter anything but an outright condemnation of Polanski has been turned into an endorsement of his crimes. Your contributions have been disruptive and insulting at best, totalitarian and abusive at worst. I don't even see the point of posting in this discussion anymore, since you have completely monopolized it with your brand of personal attacks, evasion of culpability and responsibility and odious moralizing. You have painted allies and abuse survivors as complicit in child rape, while upholding the slimy sensationalism of corporate media and their strategy of demonizing sodomy, radicalizing conservative moral crusades, and moving the discussion from a framework of commonwealth ethics to fantastical subjective anecdotes--all the while ignoring the humanity of the one person we should be remembering in all of this: the victim.

I mean, what is the fucking point?

remind wrote:

Timebandit, apparently you have comprehension problems. I stated I stood by my comments, and what  I was responding in this conversation with stargazer.

Are you trying to cause issues?

Being tweaked on my reading comprehension by you, remind, is pretty rich.  Seriously so.  But let's just lay it out simply and all in one place:

remind wrote:

Quote:

I am so not going down that tight little rope called "If you like a Polanski film, you are complicit in his crimes" line. Been there, done that.

Didn't mean that at all, with what I was stating. I was stating that excuses for his pedophilia and raping, and escaping justice actions, are wrong headed. And that they, and accepting his actions, are just based in the world of isms, and that is a problem.

Okay. So Stargazer was talking about the discussion in the previous threads, and that was your response. You didn't mean that those of us who don't participate in your boycott are complicit by supporting a "culture of rape". Okay... but what gave Stargazer that idea? Maybe it was when you made such posts as:

Quote:

The culture of rape has continued to grow, not diminish, perhaps if Polanksi had been boycotted instead of lauded it would not have gone so far as it has. By accepting his actions without boycott, because one personally believes his work is brilliant, IMV, one gives a clear message to other men who are preditors of young girls. And that message is "go ahead".

So do forgive me, but these two statements of yours look contradictory. Can you explain how you stand by what you said but didn't mean what you said, even if you said it, but it's MY comprehension that's off?

I'm not sure what you mean by "causing issues", but I do take issue with people who say one thing, have a drawn-out argument supporting what they said and then two days later claim they didn't mean it. I think you're being manipulative and I think it's a crock.

If you're down to lobbing stereotypical insults, please help yourself to all the space you want: you are cutting youself out of any serious discussion. remind's point about the logic of a boycott is nothing like the red herring of "complicity in Polanski's crimes" for those who would demur.

In watching films by this man we are benefiting from something he produced when he should have been in prison or we are adding to his professional reputation and success therefore to his wealth. In so doing we are sending the message to ALL rapists that rape isn't that bad, it need not or should not affect your professional life. That doesn't mean we are complicit in his crimes. However, I do agree that it contributes to public attitudes that minimize the significance of rape because Polanski benefits even when his films are just rented. The critical acclaim, (which led to financial wealth) he received despite his crime against this little girl suggests that his crime wasn't all that bad. If he had at least paid his dues for what he did that would be a mitigating factor.

The issue for me isn't whether or not his films were great. That is totally besides the point.  It is whether or not society should reward this man with wealth and critical acclaim that he achieved as a direct result of escaping justice for his crime. I vote no. It sends the message that raping a little girl need not interfere with your ability to be professionally admired and financially rewarded by society as long as you can escape the jurisdiction where you commited the crime. Polanski's problem isn't that he commited the crime, it's that he mistakenly thought he wouldn't be arrested in Switzerland. If he had not stumbled everything would still be hunky-dory for him. He would still be jet-setting around Europe.

I wonder what the attitude would be if his crime had been wearing the garb of the KKK while drugging and sodomizing a black man, or if he were a promoter of the destruction of Palestine.  Would people still be saying, "but it's okay to continue enjoying his films and aknowledging his artistic genius". One has nothing to do with the other.

I understand a call for a personal boycott but I think it has to be up to each individual where to draw the line on what, as we really should try to seperate the artist from his works.  Being moral has almost nothing to do with talent, either way.  In fact it would be almost impossible to see any great art otherwise, if we saw how many geniuses were total dicks towards others.  (though not a criminal like Polanski perhaps)  Maybe because of the status we now elevate succesful artists in recent generations, and the no-responsibility egocentric behaviour we almost expect from them now.  No shortage of personally upstanding "model" citizens, who have nothing of interest to say to others either, and may be complete reactionaries politically.

I actually used to be kind of sympathetic to Polanski, and thought the state was being vindictive in prosecuting him so many years later -until I heard him justify it by saying "but she as a very mature thirteen...".  Any sympathy ended there.  So I'd have no trouble watching a rerun of his movies while hoping he does serious time for his actions.  I might have to think twice about paying for anything he might put out now.

Erik Redburn wrote:

I understand a call for a personal boycott but I think it has to be up to each individual where to draw the line on what, as we really should try to seperate the artist from his works.  Being moral has almost nothing to do with talent, either way.

Why should we try to separate it in Polanski's case but not in the case of others.  People boycott talented stars for bigotry why not for rape?  Is bigotry more serious than rape? 

It is always up to the individual to decide on whether or not they wish to support a boycott but promoting a boycott publically is a valid progressive action.  A boycott does not necessarily pass judgement on the quality of the product.  The product may be excellent. The boycott is based on the actions of the people behind the product not the quality of the product. Roman Polanski's product is his films.

Perhaps someone more familiar with the movie business could correct me if I'm wrong but  if you were to rent a Polanski movie or buy the DVD, would Polanski get any money from it? Obviously, if I buy a musician's CD, they will get money for each unit sold just like an author will get money for each book sold. But with films, in most cases at least, isn't it something like the producer and studio recruit people for a film - the directors, the actors, special effects people, etc. - pay them for their work and that's where it ends? E.g. if they pay Polanski (or Scorcese or whoever) $5 million to direct a film, that's the end of it? The film could bomb or the film could go on to be the highest-grossing of all time and the director's fee is still the original $5 million.

Obviously, if I shop at a store, teh store's owner makes money on each item purchased.

if Polanski does get additional money for each time someone watches his movies, then I do think it would be unethical to watch them. If the money goes to teh studio, it's not really an issue.

As for the overall idea of whether someone can be both brilliant and disgusting, obviously the answer is yes. People have different spheres of life and in some may be remarkably successful and in others be complete and utter failures. I don't think a reasonable person could say OJ Simpson is not a murderer. I also don't think a reasonable person could say he wasn't a great football player.

I know a cardiac surgeon at the hospital where I work who is about the most obnoxious, arrogant, rude, etc. person I've ever met. On the other hand, if I ever needed open heart surgery, he would be my absolute first choice to perform it and I'd trust the man with my life.

Is it your birthday? In that case, have a very happy one!

What Infosaturated said. Thanks for your very thought-out posts and vital information.

Erik, bravo for your call for respect. I am shocked by the way remind was treated for daring to suggest that we follow through on our stated disapproval of Polansky's actions. ([url=http://rabble.ca][color=purple]Now had he raped a Palestinian child, things would be different...[/color][/url]). 

SSC, even if Polanski wasn't getting royalties/residuals from sales of his films to video distributors, TV stations, etc., continuing success on this secondary market would still add to his value as a filmmaker, influence his salary on new projects and their approval, etc.

From the Murphy letter:

Quote:

Cultural values are created, in part, through the dissemination of ideas. You had a chance to explain to millions of people why the personal autonomy, bodily integrity and liberty of all women and children is at stake when even one rapist is not held accountable for his actions. At a minimum, you could have explained how backward we really are in this country – and how the epidemic of rape and child sex abuse serves as a kind of domestic terrorism that interferes with the freedom of millions of people who are affected by the disproportionate failure of our legal system to redress sexual violence. According to a study submitted to Congress in support of the Violence Against Women Act in the 1990s, by then Senator Joseph Biden, only 2% of rapists spend even one day behind bars. Violence against women and children is grossly underreported and underprosecuted, and the data consistently shows that crimes against property are punished much more harshly than crimes against female bodies.

Rather than highlight this profound and pervasive injustice, you bemoaned the fact that Mr. Polanski was compelled to flee the United States after pleading guilty to child rape because he was about to go to jail for "a hundred years".

Many people would argue he deserved such a sentence, and under California law today, but not back then, drugging and raping a child would expose Mr. Polanski to a mandatory minimum term of 25 years. But because he was allowed to plead guilty to only one of six felonies with which he was originally charged – he faced no more than four years behind bars, and some reports say the judge intended to impose a sentence of only a few weeks of incarceration.

Mr. Polanski arrogantly decided that he shouldn’t spend any time in jail, and he fled this country spinelessly for a nation he knew would not extradite him for his crime. If it’s true, as has been reported, that he took off because he thought it was unfair that he should go to jail after his lawyer worked out a "no jail" deal with the prosecutor, he had a right to withdraw his guilty plea and go to TRIAL – not PARIS.

That Mr. Polanski would show such disrespect for this country’s legal system is a reason to punish him MORE, not less, for his crime. It may be a decades-old case, but it bears stating the obvious that the law should not reward fugitives for their successful efforts to evade justice.

Nonetheless, Mr. Polanski is a man of wealth and power, and kids don’t vote or have any money. Which is why people like you are so quick to say things that degrade children. Admit it Whoopi, you’d be talking out of the other side of your mouth if filmmaker Polanski were garbageman Polanski.

Next time, try reading the Constitution BEFORE speaking on this topic. There’s nothing in there that says people of influence should not be held accountable for their crimes. In fact, try focusing on the 14th Amendment for a few minutes – especially the part about how all citizens are entitled to "equal protection" of the laws. Then try reading some of our most basic court decisions that discuss how the law is supposed to protect the weak, and deter the cunning.

You have a 13 year-old granddaughter, Whoopi. What does she call you? "Nana"? "Grandma"? What if she told you that she had been "raped" by a 45 year-old man who stripped her naked and then penetrated her private parts even as she cried "no". Would you correct her for using the word "rape"? Would you say, "sorry sweetheart – what happened to you was not a ‘rape rape’".

No matter how hard some people try to make the crime seem harmless and full of gray areas – - it really is quite simple if you think about it the way someone famous once did: "rape is to sex what a punch in the mouth is to a kiss". Not all punches knock teeth out – but nobody ever says "it wasn’t a ‘punch punch’".

bolding mine

Interesting question. My initial take is that when we decide to boycott someone or some country, we do it both for ourselves and to reduce benefits for the offending party. I can understand how someone's vision of him or herself may wish to exclude input from someone we come to see as tainted by his or her actions. In this sense, I feel that a boycott is a choice that, in the end, adds, not detracts, to our value, even if it excludes some consumer products. remind's point about letting Polanski's fantasies colour our most innermost thoughts seems quite salient. Of course, this flies in the face of the libertarian ideology that paints a cultural icon as audacious, innovative and provocative to the extent that he or she has behaved cruelly in his life. (DAF de Sade gets a lot of mileage from some folks because of that.) But I wouldn't extend this criterion to an artist's opinions, which often simply reflect dominant mores. Of course, when an intellectual makes his opinions into statements, articles, books, theory - as did Sade, Heidegger, Louis-Ferdinand Céline, and many others - then, these become actions. "Words matter." (MacKinnon)

[url=http://evilbeetgossip.film.com/2009/10/04/quotables-363/] Here [/url] is one quote I liked remind:

Quote:

 

People are defending Roman Polanski because he made good movies 30 years ago? Are you kidding me? Even Johnny Cochran didn't have the nerve to go, 'Well did you see OJ play against New England?

 

Chris Rock was completely out of line and illustrated that he doesn't "get it".  Both Chris and Rock used the issue as a vehicle to get laughs which was clearly illustrated when Chris suggested that only Scully, the airline pilot, should be able to get away with that but only once. 

It's unworthy of me but at this moment I wish Chris and Jay could both be raped and experience people laughing and joking about their experience.