Nugent on Polanski

Another Roman Polanski pitchforker went after me today ("you need to man up and explain yourself a lot more thoroughly and at length, but you're ethically deficient and a bad person even if you do"). And I'm just too Shreveport-drained to write yet another re-phrasing of what I'm been saying in fits and spurts for six days now. But Phil Nugent's 10.2 article about the RoPo brouhaha solves everything. It says a lot of what I'm feeling right now, and in a slightly more arresting way that I've recently managed. (Or so it seems to me now.) So here's "The Roman Arena" -- the best assessment I've read so far of the Polanski situation and particularly what drives the haters. Here's the link, but I've pasted almost the whole thing.

"During the last few years when I was writing for Nerve's now-defunct film blog The Screengrab -- a much-missed golden era in online critical and journalistic commentary that my landlord and I like to call 'back when I was getting paid for doing this' -- -I spent enough time writing about the decades-long legal travails of Roman Polanski that I felt no compulsion to weigh in on the news that the little Polish sausage had been detained by Swiss authorities and may finally be facing extradition to the United States.

"But since the news broke, I'll admit to having been surprised by the number of people who've latched onto it as a rare opportunity to stand up and bravely declare themselves to be opposed to the rape of children -- or, to be specific, to the 'anal rape' of children. (Polanski admits to having done more than that to his young victim, but I guess that some people like to boil the charges down to 'anal rape' because they think it has a special lyrical ring to it, especially when shouted in one's best Howard Beale voice.)

"Part of what's striking about that side of the debate is that, as so often seems to be the case in our current culture of self-righteous apoplexy, a lot of the combatants sound as if they're really advertising their rage and loathing towards, as well as their superiority to, anyone who disagrees with them, or even sort of agrees with them but with reservations or even in a quiet tone of voice. These people stand accused of being insufficiently opposed to the anal rape of minors, and to drive that point home, their more purple-faced opponents were quick to put together a collection of straw arguments that they could then accuse their foes of having embraced.

"One of these was that anyone less than thrilled with Polanski's arrest felt sorry for the guy in leg irons, or as they preferred to put it, 'I'm sure not feeling sorry for a rich celebrity who finally has to face justice for having committed anal rape of a child!' Suspicions were also hatched that maybe some people think that Polanski should be able to do whatever the hell he wants to our daughters because he's a highly respected movie director, or, again as the suspicious-minded were more likely to phrase it, 'I don't think that having made Chinatown should give somebody a license to run amok!'

"After hearing a few thousand variations on that sentence construction, one might almost begin to wonder if, for some few of those most livid at Polanski, the whole thing was really about them, and about seizing the opportunity to show that they were morally superior not only to the award-winning anal rapist at the center of the story but all those cowards who seemed insufficiently avid for his blood. Of course, I would never suggest such a thing myself. We're talking about my brothers and sisters in Christ here.

"Cards on the table time: I do not feel sorry for Roman Polanski. He had a hell of a rough time of it coming up, and he also reaped the benefits of the ways in which that shaped him and became one of our most rewarded film artists. He has explored the darkness he knows so well in some lasting works of movie art, and during the very long periods when inspiration seemed to have fled him, he also managed to keep himself in business by exploiting his reputation as a master of darkness in junk like The Ninth Gate. Nor do I think that his talent should be a factor in any legal judgments made against him, though I'll admit to finding it perturbing that, if this development ends his career, it will have come at a time when he'd unexpectedly started making really good movies again. (At least, I'd take his 2005 Oliver Twist over the 1980 Tess in a hot minute.)

"But for reasons that have nothing to do with Polanski, his life, or his art, I find this last-minute outbreak of law-giving troubling. An article in The New York Times addresses the ways in which Polanski's celebrity may affect his ability to drum up support from within the ranks of fellow moviemakers (who see him as a colleague and artist) and also inside the Hollywood film industry (which may see him as a guy who hasn't had a hit in ages). But does anyone think that the law would still be on his tail, for this crime, if the LAPD itself weren't impressed, and chagrined, by his celebrity? (Questions have also been raised as to whether he'd have even been arrested for the crime if he hadn't been a big-name movie director, and I think it's only fair to declare them canceled out by the likelihood that, were he not a big-name movie director, he wouldn't have been able to persuade an underage girl to meet him in Jack Nicholson's hot tub in the first place.)

"For those of us who think there's something hinky about Polanski's being detained now, it comes down to, why now? For some thirty years, Polanski's case seemed to be as low priority as it could get. After fleeing to Europe, he picked up his career and made more movies, none of which were denied release in the U.S., and one of which, The Pianist, won him an Academy Award for Best Director. Journalists and critics continued to write about him, and as the years slipped by, the fact that he was a fugitive from justice inexorably became less and less prominently featured in the stories about him.

"For those of us who think there's something hinky about Polanski's being detained now, it comes down to, why now? For some thirty years, Polanski's case seemed to be as low priority as it could get. After fleeing to Europe, he picked up his career and made more movies, none of which were denied release in the U.S., and one of which, The Pianist, won him an Academy Award for Best Director. Journalists and critics continued to write about him, and as the years slipped by, the fact that he was a fugitive from justice inexorably became less and less prominently featured in the stories about him.

"There didn't seem to be any noticeable public cry for his capture, the way there was about such vanished or insufficiently punished monsters as Josef Mengele, Byron De La Beckwith or O. J. Simpson. The girl in the case is now in her mid-40s. She maintains that Polanski repeatedly raped her -- the statutory rape charge he's been in flight from was the eventual result of plea bargain negotiations -- and also says that she bears him no ill will and would rather he be left alone. A number of gallants have chimed in that her statements about having forgiven Polanski should be ignored, because the poor dizzy thing must be so traumatized by the experience that she can't think clearly enough to hate Polanski as much as they think she should, but luckily, they're willing to hate him enough for both themselves and her.

"Despite the evident fact that the Swiss have had numerous occasions to pick up Polanski in the past several years, what with having a house there and all, and despite the law's having produced a timeline of past attempts to apprehend Polanski over the years -- it looks as if a secretary spent at least twenty minutes on it -- I find it hard to believe that the recent developments aren't largely the indirect result of Marina Zenovich's 2008 documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired.

"This is what Alanis Morissette would call ironic, because that movie, which Lauren Bans calls 'a gross overwrought defense of Polanski', is implicitly on Roman's side, sometimes in ways that flirt with the ridiculous. Zenovich tries to leave you with the sense that Polanski had found his soul mate in his starlet wife Sharon Tate and that, after an early life with far too much pain in it, he was on his way to The Big Happy Ending before the Manson family shattered his life, and, on some level, his moral compass.

"It's not my place to speculate on how plausible I find all that, but I can do Polanski the favor of saying that I doubt that anything that sentimental would ever find a place in one of his movies. The documentary is full of new interviews with Polanski's friends, who try to sell the viewer on an image of him as a lost, hurting, abandoned child, more sinned against than sinning. In this effort, they are repeatedly undercut by the inclusion of news footage of Polanski himself, who remains (in network TV-speak) one of the most unrelatable public figures of our modern age.

"But once the legal negotiations begin, the movie has an irresistible story to tell it, and it tells it in stereo: much of the second half is narrated by the lawyers involved, including the prosecutor David Wells, and their accounts match. The villain is the late Judge Lawrence J. Rittenband, a publicity addict who was mainly concerned with how the show, excuse me, I mean the trial, was playing out in the media. (The title Wanted and Desired comes from a witness to the circus who notes the striking difference between the European reporters who saw Polanski as an important cultural figure and the American TV crews and journalists, who saw him as a malignant dwarf who had come for our women -- and Zenovich makes the point that this view was so strong even at the start of Polanski's Hollywod career that, in the wake of his wife's murder, the media often treated the director as if he might be complicit in the killings, or at least as if he had somehow brought it on himself by making sicko movies like Rosemary's Baby.)

"According to the lawyers, Rittenband actually called them into his chambers and told them what parts he wanted them to play in scenes that he wanted to act out in the courtroom for the media. Ultimately, he agreed, as his little secret with Polanski and the lawyers, to force Polanski to spend a maximum of ninety days in a maximum security prison receiving 'psychiatric evaluation.' Again, according to the lawyers, it was understood that this would be Polanski's sentence, and that after it was over, he'd be given probation. If true, this would mean that Polanski, for all practical purposes, had already served his sentence when he went on the lam, and both the prosecution team and the psychiatric experts were good with it. But after the shrinks decided that Polanski had had enough and he was turned loose after 42 days, the media decided that he wasn't showing sufficient public remorse, and Rittenband, upset by the bad press, informed the lawyers that he'd changed his mind and was going to throw the book at the little bastard.

"Gunson recalls that, after that mind-blower, Polanski's lawyer asked him how he could explain this to his client, and Gunson, to his regret, he says, replied that if Polanski were his own client, he might just tell him to hop the next plane out of Rittenband's magic kingdom.

"Wanted and Desired, which won an award at the Sundance Film Festival, played on HBO, and had a modest theatrical run, re-ignited interest in the case, so much so that, as the year was drawing to a close, Polanski's lawyers made a motion to have the case against him dropped. They were quickly followed by an effort by the woman Polanski raped to drop the charges, saying that the lingering 'attention' the case still generated "is not pleasant to experience and is not worth maintaining over some irrelevant legal nicety, the continuation of the case." (There were also rumors, based on material deleted from the film, that a new judge on the case offered to drop the whole thing if Polanski would only agree to have the hearings televised.) The let's-drop-this-thing movement ultimately foundered because Polanski refused to return to the U.S. He didn't trust the District Attorney's office, and in light of recent events, he may have had the right idea.

"Based on how the case that had laid dormant for so long -- especially during those years when Polanski, the director of Pirates and Frantic, was ice-cold as a celebrity name in Los Angeles -- suddenly became of pressing importance in the wake of the doc and all the attendant stories about how justice in L.A. isn't even what it's cracked up to be, despite the fact that it's already seen as pretty damn cracked, it's hard for even a conspiracy-phobe like myself not to conclude that what made this case an A-list priority after all this time is that Roman Polanski's real crime is that he ran away, thrived, and in the process made the law look ridiculous.

"And then, having done all that, he even had the audacity to feel them out about getting his name cleared so that he could visit their fine city again and, after they tried to save face by imposing some restrictions of their own, like asking him to actually show up in a courtroom, walked away again, saying, no -- my life's good, it's not really that important to me.

"Now David Wells has declared that he was flat-out lying in the documentary, and his explanation for this ought to be enshrined in the Weasel Words Hall of Fame: he says that he thought it would be okay to tell these lies (and slander the dead judge) for the sake of 'a better story' because he didn't think anyone would see the movie. (He also says that he didn't think that it would be a big deal because nobody cared about the case anymore, which would seem to give the lie to the claims by the D.A.'s office that they've been sweating over it like Inspector Javert since 1977.) The [Daily Beast] article that broke this story -- it's by "Marcia Clark", who is either a different person than the TV prosecutor of that name who starred in the O. J. Simpson miniseries of fourteen years ago or is that person after receiving a head transplant -- seems to think that Wells's claim to be an untrustworthy lying motherfucker are a great thing for the state's case, and adds that 'If you want to know what it's all about, read Samantha Geimer's testimony before the grand jury. See what you think.'

"Actually, deciding that the testimony that Polanski's victim gave 32 years ago is more important, in deciding what to do about it now, than taking into consideration her adult pleas that the case go away has nothing to do with what anyone thinks. It's about what people feel. There's no softer place in most people than the thought of raping a child, and when you throw in 'rich and famous', 'sinister foreigner', 'Hollywood pals' and all the other buzzwords that adhere to Polanski, you have a handy smokescreen that's guaranteed to short-circuit any debate about whether you really want a considerable amount of the law's limited resources devoted to hauling in a 75-year-old man on a thirty-two-year-old warrant, ostensibly because of something he did to someone who says she doesn't want to see him prosecuted, but really (and, I think, obviously) because the law doesn't like to be humiliated by someone it sees as an unrepentant show business sleazeball.

"Polanski may be a sleazeball, but nobody thinks he's a menace to society -- one big difference between then and now is that nobody working for his prosecution can seriously think they're working to prevent him from doing this again -- so the spectacle of his detainment and possible future prosecution can only appeal to that lizard part of the brain that thinks that the justice system has nothing to do with protecting society and everything to do with punishing those we disapprove of. This isn't, or shouldn't be, about how much of your pity you want to lavish on monsters. It's about whether, in a country with the largest and most overcrowded prison system in the world, we want to apply any practical considerations at all to who goes and stays into a cell or if we just want to use the system to luxuriate in our capacity for blood lust.

"I don't think that people would support this kind of use of their tax dollars and the police's time if Polanski had robbed a bank or maybe even if he'd killed somebody, but throw in 'anal rape' of a child, and many people would probably all for seeing him torn apart by hungry bears in the Thunderdome on live TV. I'm not sorry for Polanski. I don't think his talent gives him license to rape children. I don't even, I swear to God, support the rape of children by anyone. But the Los Angeles County Justice Department is performing an expensive, international operation that I doubt it would like to try to justify on the grounds of protecting and serving the public, and all because it got its shins kicked.

"They feel that they can get away with what they want to do because there are certain crimes that set off such a light show inside the skulls of most people that, if they're told what they're seeing is in reaction to one of those crimes, they'll forgive the law anything. So did John Yoo."

Moore Sanders<< previous | next >>Tooth Fairy

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 2, 2009 at 4:47 PM

comment #1

Gogocrank Author Profile Page says ...

The comments on that post you linked to are uncommonly intelligent and mostly reasonable. It's the fleeing that forced the prosecution's hand, and likely insured the case would never end well for the accused. Or at least as well as it could have ever ended had he just faced the judge's decision and fought it rather than flouted it.

Posted by Gogocrank Author Profile Page at October 2, 2009 5:46 PM

comment #2

Luke Y. Thompson Author Profile Page says ...

I was hoping to see TED Nugent's commentary, since he once adopted an underage teen in order to have sex with her.

Posted by Luke Y. Thompson Author Profile Page at October 2, 2009 5:54 PM

comment #3

Gordon27 Author Profile Page says ...

I think that that article is fairly well written and very interesting. However, it flirts very closely with a sin which you yourself are obviously guilty of; it seems to take the position (one you 100% definitely, repeatedly take) that everybody who *doesn't* think that Polanski is being railroaded, who thinks he deserves any and all punishment he gets, are all exactly the same; it takes the specious position that they need to justify feeling this way, and then falsely states that they are all justifying it by saying "he anally raped a little girl". It completely ignores the fact that, legally speaking, Polanski defenders haven't got a leg to stand on when they make their claims, while arrest-supporters merely have to stick to (as many do) the legal facts.

And I find it disengenuous to claim that that well-written article reflects the position you were trying to take when it says: "Cards on the table time: I do not feel sorry for Roman Polanski." and "Nor do I think that his talent should be a factor in any legal judgments made against him", both of which you are diametrically opposed to the statements you have made.

Posted by Gordon27 Author Profile Page at October 2, 2009 6:04 PM

comment #4

Gordon27 Author Profile Page says ...

Actually, one other point in there I'd dispute:

"so the spectacle of his detainment and possible future prosecution can only appeal to that lizard part of the brain that thinks that the justice system has nothing to do with protecting society and everything to do with punishing those we disapprove of."

There are obviously fundamentally different ways of looking at the justice system; some say it's meant as punishment, some say it's meant to reform the criminal's behavior, some say it's meant to protect people from repeated offenses. I'd say that's certainly true. But, as I said yesterday, given the state of rape cases in general, given how hard it is to find women willing to testify knowing what they will be put through by defense attorneys doing their job no matter how skeevy it is, knowing that even when they testify and make it through that the conviction rate is absurdly low, knowing that there are thousands of women in the country who feel bad knowing that somebody raped them and walked free... these women are part of society too. This arrest gives rape counsellors across the country a really good day; they can walk into their office and tell the dozens of victims they're meeting with, "Look, you see? Even the richest, most famous rapist in the entire world does not get to get away with it." I am completely sure that there are women out there whose healing is being aided by even the possibility of this belated punishment.

The moral question does not exist in a vacuum, where Roman Polanski and the victim are the only people affected by it. That's pretty much the whole point of living in a society with laws.

Posted by Gordon27 Author Profile Page at October 2, 2009 6:12 PM

comment #5

Gordon27 Author Profile Page says ...

(Essentially, that guy is saying, "Isn't it unfair that is being prosecuted because he has become a symbol for the crime that he actually committed?" and I don't think that it is unfair; that's the gamble when you break the law, especially when you're famous.)

Posted by Gordon27 Author Profile Page at October 2, 2009 6:14 PM

comment #6

bents75 Author Profile Page says ...

I just bought The Ninth Gate on blu-ray at Best Buy for $9.99. It was so conveniently on sale from $12.99, which was on sale from the original $17.99.

They didn't bother to reprint the price tag, they just stuck the "DVD" price tag on the shelf over the old blu-ray $12.99 one. And the $9.99 price still came up at the register.

None of this bothered me. That's $8 they just cost themselves. Suckers!

My only wish is they hurry out the Chinatown and Rosemary's Baby blu-rays before any trial or hearing so that someone can arbitrarily lower those prices too.

Posted by bents75 Author Profile Page at October 2, 2009 6:23 PM

comment #7

Josh Massey Author Profile Page says ...

Yeah, but now you have to watch The Ninth Gate.

Posted by Josh Massey Author Profile Page at October 2, 2009 6:33 PM

comment #8

DarthCorleone Author Profile Page says ...

Yeah, I'm sorry, I disagree with this take, and I agree with Gordon27 with respect to the fact that this does paint those who would like to see Polanski extradited with an extremely broad brush. We're not all in it for blood-lust, and I've never once couched any of my arguments with hysterical shrieks of "He anally raped a child!" as Nugent would have you believe.

I'll address the "Why now?" question. Why not now? If it was right to apprehend him 30 years ago, then it is right to apprehend him now. I'm sorry there wasn't more of a public outcry (although given the number of debates I've had in film circles over the last ten years on this topic, the claim that we've forgotten the crime is not true), and I'm frankly ashamed that the LA prosecution would seem to be doing this for the purely opportunistic reason of saving face. Whatever their reasons might be, though, that does not make the ultimate result any less just.

As for the judge, yes, we get it. He was a jackass and likely corrupt. But if the defenders wish to hang the argument on the fact that the legal proceedings were not "fair," would it not follow by their own logic that the first thing to do is hold a legal proceeding that is fair? How does one bad judge completely negate the possibility of a fair appeals process? That's of course ignoring the fact that Polanski himself in his plea waived his rights and agreed that the judge still had the right to reject the plea conditions in the first place, for better or worse.

And frankly - outside of the ex parte communication and pandering for celebrity - I don't really have a problem with a judge's changing his stance based on the potential bellwether of public sentiment. If there was to be public outrage over a plea bargain and a resulting sentence which were forgiving beyond the reasonable standards of society, then a wise judge should take that into account when he assigns punishment.

I agree that the grand jury testimony is an emotional appeal, even if it is a mighty damning one. If I'm taking this case solely at legal face value, then I would have to throw that testimony out, because the testimony therein is not to what Polanski plead guilty. But he did plead guilty to unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, and he did unlawfully flee his sentencing. Perhaps it is an inefficient operation, but if we're going to believe in our justice system, then it is the right thing to bring those two points to fruition.

This leads to my final point. Nugent concludes that this case implies, "The justice system has nothing to do with protecting society and everything to do with punishing those we disapprove of." Even if I take it for granted that Polanski is no longer a menace to society (a point with which I might be willing to agree but which I do not think many others would concede given Polanski's lack of remorse and the clinical history of chronic behavior of this sort of criminality), this is simply wrong. There is a protection for society in that we're deterring future criminals. We're sending a message that an individual is not above the law. That might seem like a rather pollyannaish rationale coming from a cynic like me, but - especially being acquainted with more than one rape victim, not to mention innumerable parents - this reasoning is not a joke and does matter to our citizenry and the overall well-being and morale of our society.

As I said, I have no blood-lust for Polanski. This pitchfork and straw-covered cell imagery is appropriate, because it is nothing more than a straw man. I might as well claim that all those who have signed the petition for his release did so because they want the unfettered right to rape children. I simply want due process and the closest thing to justice that the process can afford.

Posted by DarthCorleone Author Profile Page at October 2, 2009 6:38 PM

comment #9

lazarus Author Profile Page says ...

Darth Corleone, who are you to say that Polanski shows no remorse? Did he himself tell you this? Just because he's still a fugitive and is reluctant to come back and open up the old wound doesn't mean he doesn't feel bad about what happened. You have no idea what goes on in the man's head. My guess is that he feels like shit, especially when he has to look at his own daughters knowing what he did.

Jeff, I'm glad you posted this in its entirety. I actually read it earlier today and was thinking of sending you the link.

Posted by lazarus Author Profile Page at October 2, 2009 7:05 PM

comment #10

The Winchester Author Profile Page says ...

LYT took my Ted Nugent joke.

Posted by The Winchester Author Profile Page at October 2, 2009 7:45 PM

comment #11

Geoff Author Profile Page says ...

Wells, thank you for the link. That really helped.

Posted by Geoff Author Profile Page at October 2, 2009 8:52 PM

comment #12

Rabi Author Profile Page says ...

Wow, Jeff. You really are not backing down from defending him, are you? And you quote Phil Nugent to show people who are against child rape are really just trying to find moral high ground.

Good luck with your position. I am sure it will net you alot of page hits and comments.

This will be my last, as I know that a troll can be both a commenter and a blogger.

Posted by Rabi Author Profile Page at October 2, 2009 9:32 PM

comment #13

Gordon27 Author Profile Page says ...

"Darth Corleone, who are you to say that Polanski shows no remorse? Did he himself tell you this? Just because he's still a fugitive and is reluctant to come back and open up the old wound doesn't mean he doesn't feel bad about what happened."

You're conflating "showing remorse" with "feeling remorse". Yes, it is technically possible that he feels remorse deep inside, and just never lets it show. However, there has always been evidence that he shows no remorse. He has steadfastly, over the years, said that they had sex but it was consensual, and further maintained that he "did nothing wrong". Given that statutory rape has *nothing* to do with consent, those two statements are directly at odds. Further, there is the photo that Wells passed on to the Judge; the defense is so quick to latch onto the legal question of how it was delivered, naturally, but the actual photo in question, nobody has denied that the picture is him gleefully cavorting with two underage girls in bikinis at a party while he's still awaiting trial for his first crime with an underage girl.

You're right, though, that it can not be definitively proven whether somebody feels (or even shows) remorse, certainly not the degree of it that they feel. And I'm sure some defenders will give him kudos for not pretending to feel something he doesn't feel, and then bend over backwards to show how that proves he should go free. But it certainly seems as if every statement from him and several actions by him give credence to the claim that he felt no remorse, and continues to feel no remorse. Have you ever seen him express even the possibility that having sex with an underage girl (as he knows he did) was wrong of him to do?

But, okay, now that's all said, none of that matters, because it's not *our* job to judge whether he is feeling remorse. The judge, on the other hand, does have a legal (and certainly moral) obligation to consider that when considering his sentencing. So it doesn't really matter what we think now, 30 years after the fact [though it does seem telling that he *continues* to express no remorse; wouldn't you think his lawyers would say, "Hey, Roman, maybe you could try to come off a *little* bit more human about the whole thing?"]; it would've potentially mattered what the Judge thought, though... if a certain criminal hadn't fled the country before the Judge had time to explain what he thought and why.

Posted by Gordon27 Author Profile Page at October 2, 2009 9:59 PM

comment #14

Gordon27 Author Profile Page says ...

"I find it hard to believe that the recent developments aren't largely the indirect result of Marina Zenovich's 2008 documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired."

Suppose that this is not only true, but actually relevant in some way (which, legally-speaking, it [like much of what he brings up above] isn't). Why are defenders so quick to bring this up when the simple fact is that Polanski's own lawyers petitioned the courts, requesting that they watch the doc? (The link is on the homepage of the doc, and its the same article that the director cited (very, very loosely) in her statement to Jeff.) So, after the doc was released, Polanski's lawyers publicly requested that they watch it, and then complain that it reminds them that Polanski is still a fugitive. I mean, look, I believe the documentarian has the right to criticize the L.A. court system without reprisal -- but Polanski's lawyers had to be pretty dumb to rub their noses in it that way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/movies/17polanski.html?ref=movies

Posted by Gordon27 Author Profile Page at October 2, 2009 10:09 PM

comment #15

stillwater Author Profile Page says ...

You are one smart, articulate and reasoned movie semi-anonymous movie blog commenter, Gordon27. I'm down with the science you're dropping.

Posted by stillwater Author Profile Page at October 2, 2009 11:07 PM

comment #16

Deathtongue_Groupie Author Profile Page says ...

I will ditto the comments about how the defenders keep trying to paint those of us who aren't as some sort of fever-griped mob baying for blood, but considering they really have nothing to stand on I guess grossly intellectually dishonest straw-man arguments is all that is left to them.

Posted by Deathtongue_Groupie Author Profile Page at October 3, 2009 12:00 AM

comment #17

Muscle McGurk Author Profile Page says ...

How long is this circle going to keep going round before everyone realizes they're getting nowhere?

Posted by Muscle McGurk Author Profile Page at October 3, 2009 12:05 AM

comment #18

Deathtongue_Groupie Author Profile Page says ...

To use one of Jeff's favorite soapbox tactics, I'd like to put forth the idea that all of the ignorant or just downright living in denial folks who signed that petition (Woody Allen, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Martin Scorcese, David Lynch, Wong Kar Wai, Harmony Korine, Stephen Frears, Alexander Payne, Michael Mann, Wim Wenders, Tilda Swinton, Julian Schnabel, and Pedro Almodovar among them) decrying Polanski's arrest have forever blackened their names until the end of time, regardless of their talent.

Yes, we will still admired their contributions to the arts, but there will always be that stench of belittling a charge of child rape associated with their names unless at some point in the future they publicly make amends for having done so.

(When you think about it, why isn't Jeff taking this very stand? Usually he is supposedly fearless in taking the contrarian view. But here, he marches lock-step with the Eloi apologists)

Posted by Deathtongue_Groupie Author Profile Page at October 3, 2009 12:11 AM

comment #19

frank_delsa Author Profile Page says ...

DeathTongue_Groupie, I believe you just proved Phil Nugent's point...

Posted by frank_delsa Author Profile Page at October 3, 2009 2:04 AM

comment #20

Gogocrank Author Profile Page says ...

According to CNN, Polanski settled the damages suit against him for $500,000 in '93. As of '96, according to the article, he had not paid her, and it is unclear if he ever did.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/02/polanski.lawsuit/index.html

There's your remorse for you.

Posted by Gogocrank Author Profile Page at October 3, 2009 6:59 AM

comment #21

Majorian99 Author Profile Page says ...

Check out NY Times-site today and read the article by Michael Cieply and piece by Op-Ed contributor Ronald Sokol...

Posted by Majorian99 Author Profile Page at October 3, 2009 7:27 AM

comment #22

Majorian99 Author Profile Page says ...

There's many quotes -- easy to find -- were Roman expresses great remorse over his actions in this case.

It is very likely that Mr. Polanski has paid the 500 000 to Samantha too...

Posted by Majorian99 Author Profile Page at October 3, 2009 7:29 AM

comment #23

Deathtongue_Groupie Author Profile Page says ...

frank - newbie, eh? Otherwise you would realize I was satirically aping Jeff.

Posted by Deathtongue_Groupie Author Profile Page at October 3, 2009 8:15 AM

comment #24

Gogocrank Author Profile Page says ...

Majorian99, do you have any links? Because all I can find right now is Polanski declaring to Amis defensively that everyone wants to fuck young girls. Not saying Polanski never declared remorse, but all my googling is coming up naught. And the CNN link I posted says nothing about it being very likely Polanski finally paid her. Only that three years after he agreed to do so he still had not.

Posted by Gogocrank Author Profile Page at October 3, 2009 10:30 AM

comment #25

crazynine Author Profile Page says ...

"LYT says ...

I was hoping to see TED Nugent's commentary, since he once adopted an underage teen in order to have sex with her."

Never heard that before. 10 minutes worth of googling didn't turn up a single reputable source for that.

Sounds like an urban legend to me.

Posted by crazynine Author Profile Page at October 3, 2009 10:43 AM

comment #26

Majorian99 Author Profile Page says ...

If anyone still reads this thread in our horse-fly attention span reality -- here goes something for the foaming pitch-forkers --

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/opinion/03iht-edsokol.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=polanski&st=cse

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beth-arnold/letter-from-paris-the-sou_b_308184.html

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/how-polanskis-probation-officer-saw-his-crime/#more-41499

Posted by Majorian99 Author Profile Page at October 3, 2009 1:33 PM

comment #27

Gogocrank Author Profile Page says ...

I'm not a frothing pitchforker, so please read my response in a calm, reasonable tone. First, per the Arnold piece, polls in even France overwhelmingly support Polanski's apprehension. Second, the really interesting piece on the probation officer's take stresses throughout how much said take reflected the tenor of the times circa 1977 when it comes to rape cases, and in turn reflects how far we (arguably) have come since then. A great read, if only for that.

Regardless, this is all more or less moral saber-rattling, and mostly a philosophical exercise at this point, considering Polanski has been detained, and the absolute last thing we can expect is his sudden release. One way or another this is winding its way through the legal system once again, so we should all (all) save our self-righteouness or indignation for the looming denouement.

Another way to say it is that there's really no way to argue his arrest has no merit. We can quibble and equivocate later once his fate is decided, as the current state of affairs is pretty incontrovertible.

Posted by Gogocrank Author Profile Page at October 3, 2009 1:53 PM

comment #28

DarthCorleone Author Profile Page says ...

I wrote this last night, but the browser or the site was not functioning for me. Gordon27 covered my points more or less, but here is my response...

lazarus >> Funny how you jumped on that one point (but I notice you have nothing to say about my other points), as immediately after I posted that those particular words struck me as a little harsh and I regretted them. I would have offered an immediate addendum, but I had to run from the computer.

Anyway, I'll expand on that point and poor choice of words. I should have said a "relative lack of remorse" or perhaps a "seeming lack of remorse." I expect he does feel some measure of remorse, but there has been evidence over the years to indicate otherwise.

First, during the trial when he was essentially out on bail (I don't think it was technically bail - but it was an allowance by the court to work on the movie he was filming in Europe at the time), a publicity photo that was released showed him having a pleasant time with some rather young women. The photo seemed innocent enough, and perhaps it was not even intended as the taunt that the judge interpreted. Hence, this is a minor point that I'm willing to let pass, even if I would think in that situation of awaiting that particular trial it would be wise to keep a low profile. But that photo might have just been unfortunately arranged and timed, so I can give him the benefit of the doubt.

Second, something for which I have more trouble giving him the benefit of the doubt is the comment he made publicly a year after his flight from justice about the appeal of "f-ing young girls." Someone else already posted it on one of these threads, so I will not repeat the rest of it.

Those are tough words to reconcile with remorse. But perhaps we can even let that slide, given how long ago he said it and whatever forgiving definition of "young girls" you might have.

Finally, perhaps you'll disagree, but for me personally - when I feel remorse - my immediate impulse is to own up to my wrongs and absolve myself. Obviously I can't empathize with the man, but if I try to put myself in his mind with the information that I have, I imagine myself simply wanting to settle this thing legally and put it behind me. (He at least has shown a hint of that with his expressing interest a year or two ago in having the outstanding warrant and charges dropped, although perhaps that was just for the sake of personal convenience.) Perhaps he thinks he has done that with the civil settlement, but when you commit a felony there is more owed to society than simple direct redress for the victim. At least that's my personal belief. Roman Polanski might not agree.

On top of all that, my statement about his lack of remorse was couched within a parenthetical about the feelings of many other people with the proviso that I actually thought he probably was not a menace to society any longer, so it does feel as if you're jumping on a very minor point within my post as a whole.

Anyway, I apologize for the poor choice of words, but I do not think it is a wholly inaccurate representation of Polanski's public face and behavior. Again, you're absolutely correct that I do not know the man's heart. I stand by everything else I said, however, and I certainly believe that as far as public remorse and contrition go, he has been lacking.

Posted by DarthCorleone Author Profile Page at October 3, 2009 2:31 PM

comment #29

Gatrios2010 Author Profile Page says ...

I wonder if the Jeffster would feel the same about Polanski if it was his 13 year old son's anus dripping with Roman's cum. "Jett, think of the great movies he's made, you just can't press charges. Anyway, if Polanski pays enough I can finally buy those movie stills of naked Vinessa Shaw"

Posted by Gatrios2010 Author Profile Page at February 17, 2010 10:53 PM

comment #30

Natali Watson Author Profile Page says ...

Hello friends,this is a nice site and I wanted to post a note to let you know, good job! Thanks
Best regards, Natali, CEO of free mp3 songs download
free sheet music

Posted by Natali Watson Author Profile Page at June 24, 2011 7:53 AM

Leave a comment