Emperor Fuckshit

Very good post re: The Clash, Skummy.

I think you're right that "youthful exuberance" is the best way to explain the Clash's "all talk, no trousers" approach to political songwriting. Coupled with that is the fact that Punk frequently expressed itself in negative terms. Few bands -- certainly very few who are now seen as being a 'canonical' punk band -- really laid out prescriptions, but there did seem to broad agreement about "the enemies." In this matter, I generally work from the principle laid down by Trotskyist and music journalist Benjamin Watson: "attack whatever you like, but always shoot from the Left." The Clash, the Pistols, Stiff Little Fingers etc. were clearly "sounder"/"better" than the things that they opposed.

A bigger problem with TC is brought out by your comment re: machoness, I think. One of punk's problems was that it failed to cut out the fetishisation of "hardness" which is quintessentially part of Rock and Roll. The Clash's cowboy hats are a part of it -- so are Henry Rollins' bare-chest, and the general absence of any female musicians from the main wave of Punk. I guess it's not much of a surprise that politicised female music either attached itself to different movements (Riot Grrrrrl) or have been pushed to the Punk margins (The Slits). I'm sure that there were plenty of female Punks in the 70s and after, but the "no enemies amongst the kids" ethos of the movement must have been hurt considerably by the lack of female faces in prominent bands. One of the ideological thrusts of indie was, after all, to place some of the music industry's power into the hands of women.

The other problem with The Clash's masculinity is that they didn't even do anything interesting with it artistically. I mean, Big Black are another band who wade almost knee deep in unconvincing images of violence. But the "masculinity" of Albini could also be frustrated and self-defeating ("Pavement Saw"), and was often expressed through characters rather than direct-from-artist.

I'm not sure if you're joking as relates to Oasis, MM... but they're surely too popular and shit for a list of this sort, aren't they? The music is all just plodding, uninspired dad-rock -- like a combination of The Beatles without the joyfulness and The Jam without the politics. And although I agree that there has been a fairly considerable reaction against them, I still find people who consider themselves to be musically discerning defending the band. Note also that the NME gave both "Dig Out Your Soul" and "Heathen Chemistry" very positive reviews. If there's a strong anti-Oasis sentiment within the music press, then I think it emanates from places like Pitchfork, rather than the 'E.

I don't get what makes people think that Sting is a pompous git. He looks like a poncy git a lot of the time, but he seems unafraid to take the piss out of himself (see especially his "The Smell of Reeves and Mortimer" appearances, but also his "Simpsons" appearance and fantastic delivery of the line, "this isn't about us... it's about a kid trapped down a well or something.").

I've already written about two bands that I think fit this category in other threads.

About Nirvana, from the old Contrarion Musical Opinions thread:

Nirvana were great, and still are.

It's kind of de rigeur now to take shots at Nirvana for one of four reasons: i) they've 'aged badly' ii) un-melodic music, iii) Cobain was a twat / the lyrics and images are just generally deserving of eye-rolls; iiiv) their legacy is in large part due to Cobain's suicide and subsequent vigorous media fawning.

i) is just meaningless.

ii) is true in large part, but misses the point -- they're supposed to be a balls-out rock band trading in simple, catchy riffs. No matter how much they're overplayed these days, how can you not like the intro riffs of 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' or 'Come as You Are'? Or, if popularity turns you off, the riff and bass-line to 'Even in His Youth' are tremendous. Songs like 'Something in the Way', 'Dumb' and 'Pennyroyal Tea' show their diversity: they could slow things down and meander too. Cobain was a very good vocalist, who could sound viciously raw when needed (see the end of 'Lounge Act') without ever coming across as forced or simply sounding unpleasant to thine ears.

iii) has some truth to it: how can anyone hear "never met a wise man / if so it's a woman" or watch Cobain taking the piss out of his audience for clapping (those appreciative FUCKS!!!!!) without feeling a bit ill? But to cast Cobain as someone who was acting in bad-faith, or 'sold' depression/alienation/whatever seems to go way too far to me. His life both before and during Nirvana was genuinely troubled, and the end to his life should be evidence that he wasn't someone who intended on trading in youthful ire and then mellowing-out as needed later on. He had his traumas -- sure he basked in them a bit, and took up wankery positions in songs, but he was yong and pissed-off. Who'd like to cast the first stone? Most of his lyrics also have a subtle quality to them which means that, even if you can't relate to him personally, they can easily be re-interpreted to fit your life. I know that 'Pennyroyal Tea' is about heroin addiction, but, for me, "sit and drink pennyroyal tea / steal the life that's inside of me" speaks a lot about boredom, restlessness and inefficacy. And whilst I might not be attending the sort of parties and places that Kurt frequented (never seen anyone "load up on guns" as far as I can remember), "bring your friends / it's fun to lose and to pretend / she's over-bored / self-assured / oh no, I know a dirty word" is a perfectly nice story of dejected evenings spent in dismal company.

iv). Yeah, the media has pimped the fuck out of Cobain since his death in a way that is in large part attributable to its nature and circumstances. But none of them give a sincere fuck about him: 'The Times' give away free Cobain CDs to suggest that they're down with the youth, but to prevent them from having to decide for themselves what's worthy of praise (for we all know Nirvana are 'classic' and 'iconic'). But the media talks shit about everything, and to react to them by declaring that Nirvana and Cobain were actually entirely without merit musically and in the public eye solely due to Cobain repainting his greenhouse with his grey matter is disingenuous.

I've also mentioned The Clash in this regard before, too. I hear a lot of criticism of their being "unmelodic" and/or possessing an aesthetic that's (insincerely/unsupportably) macho or violent. I think that both of these criticisms can be addressed together by pointing out that those observations only come close to holding for the debut album. London Calling features a number of fantastic pop songs ("Rudie Can't Fail", "London Calling" itself, and "Train in Vain" -- a song so bubblegum-y that the band disowned it). And, fuck me, the follow up LC ("Sandinista!") is a double CD of world music! There is a lot of violent/revolutionary imagery woven into the songs from the self-titled album, and one might reasonably point out that this sits poorly with Joe Strummer's middle class upbringing in Surrey. But "Give 'em Enough Rope" contains a song which straight-up criticises political violence ("Tommy Gun"). And I don't buy the argument that just because a person is middle-class, (s)he can't be worried about rising British nationalism ("English Civil War"), empathise with kids who have it less easy ("Career Opportunities"), or support revolutionary/radical Leftism ("Washington Bullets"). And, hey, these were young kids who were musicians. They grew up in a time when radical Leftist ideas spoke to a lot of people about their situation, regardless of how closely one's immediate circumstances resembled those of Chilean copper miners. I think that Strummer was mostly sincere and, in any case, he wasn't a Professor of Political Science.

It's pretty good, but I honestly don't think it's an album I will listen to all that much, not as good as the first.

Their career trajectory at this point reminds me of that of Million Dead. Both released excellent first albums which had been many years in the making, and which brought together songs which had been endlessly and diligently re-worked over the course of the band's life. Both released slightly ropier second albums which had been written whilst the band was on tour and over a much shorter period.

The analogy breaks down somewhat in that "Harmony No Harmony" felt like a "tribute to our fave bands" album with no internal coherence; whereas "Grace..." feels just as composite as "WUTIWL", only weaker. And I'm sure that this process occurs for a lot of bands (bands that release second albums shortly after debuts, anyway).

It's just that JF and MD are really the only two post-millenial bands that I've followed closely and in "real time". And I know that Alexei is a fan of MD, and was disappointed by "HNH".

"Grace & The Bigger Picture" by Johnny Foreigner

Quirky, white/black/fit girl trio Johnny Foreigner are back quickly with their 2nd album. I haven't heard this yet, but I expect it to most definitely be frantic and fun. Will definitely help with the wait for the 3rd Los Campesinos! release. The songs seem shorter and snappier than before.

Shitter, too, unfortunately.

Nah, I've only given it one listen thus far. They've really ramped up the "noise" aspect this time, and the intentionally shambolic register in which everything is couched is really noticeable. Some of the album just sounds like studio outtakes ("Kingston Called..."). "Custom Scenes..." is getting "next singulllll"-type hype on the official (sycophantic as fuck) forums. It sounds like it wasn't quite good enough to make the cut for the first album to me. And contains a really self-consciously "anfummm" bit at the end. Yuck. (Although so did "The Hidden Track...", but then that was never going to be a single and mostly just felt like a hat-tip to older fans of the band.)

The version of "Criminals" that is up on their MySpace had me really worried, but I swear that the production on the album versh is much better. Even though the takes are the same length, which suggests that they're identical. One of history's mysteries, I guess. "Feels Like Summer" is still very nice, and resembles the WUTIWL stuff closely. "I'llchoosemyside..." represents their first real attempt to marry up plonky acoustica with hacking electrified riffs. It don't work -- it's basically just like listening to Aimee Mann and then listening to someone say with their mouth "THUMP THUMP THUMP!"

"Every Cloakroom Ever" is the best song ever, though. (It was leaked as "Rapsidy" [sic] and live'd as "This Trapeze Thought Out", incidentally). Kelly's vocals are at their most tender and child-like; the sliding high-pitched riff is accentuated by some buzzy production; the shuddering rim-shots sound like they should be in a public information film about dying from a drugs.

Maybe it's not that bad. Not enough songs about Birmingham. For my licking [sic].

e: Also, I know that the opening to "More Heart..." is supposed to sound 'mature', but I just can't help thinking SHANE MCGOWAN SHANE MCGOWAN SHANE MCGOWAN when I hear it. A drunk man and a piano -- very sophis'. It is a good song, though. But not for any pianistical reasons.

I'll have to dig out my old VCD of "Seven Samurai". I think I have "Ran" somewhere about as well. I always have a problem when viewing Japanese films, in that I constantly think I might be missing the cultural significance of images or plot elements. It happened with "Audition", too, though I did enjoy that rather a lot. The whole stream of gynophobia that runs through the film is kind of interesting -- is it ironic? Is it "personal" rather than cultural? I've heard that Miike is quite reluctant to talk about the "ideological" aspects of his films, which is annoying. I guess sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, or I suppose the film might be read as a kind of Japanese "Fatal Attraction" or something. But I'd like to be able to make that judgement for myself, which I don't feel capable of doing at this point.

I was semi-kidding about "Amelie". I think I've been turned off that film more by its fans than its content -- they all seem to be "kooky" (sc. "dull") Europhilic girls who go frolicking in No Frolicking Zones. But when I offer that observation, most people just tend to tell me that I have a heart of stone. Which is bollocks -- I CRIED DURING "PARIS, TEXAS"!!!!!!

CSAMH -- can you explain the appeal of "Seven Samurai" to me? I started watching it several years ago and only made it about an hour in. I've always felt like it was my fault, though, considering the reputation of the film and the fact that I was both sixteen and really sleepy. Since then, I've seen "Rashomon" and enjoyed it tremendously -- it's a fantastic nugget of murky minimalism visually, and packs in some tremendous images of atonement, solidarity, humiliation, etc.. All this has kind of piqued my interest in Kurosawa generally. I'm just not sure whether I'd enjoy three hours of the bloke. So can you talk up TSS for me?

Oh, and a man who likes "Amelie"? Now I've seen everything...

Does anyone know anyone who doesn't like "Back to the Future", incidentally? I can't imagine what someone could hold against that film -- it's probably the most likeable thing I've ever seen. It has a human plot-driven aspect for people who find stuff like "Airplane!" too relentless or "show-me-the-funny"-ish. It deals with fairly comfy themes (unlike, say, "The Producers"). It's very PG all around; but still thumpingly amusing. "Toy Story" might go in this category too, but I'm sure there is probably a quite significant rump of people who are opposed to "kids' films" on principle.

I probably should've listed "Parenthood" in my 'honourable mentions'. If I were a person who believed in such things as 'guilty pleasures', then that would be one. I mean, I don't think it's any more or less flawed than various films we're allowed to like ("Memento", say). But its 'sin' -- shlocky American "all cosy at home in the family house"-ness -- is one that 'should be' fatal.

(Yeah, that's right. "Memento" and "Parenthood" -- very related and comparable films...)

ONE MOMENT PLEASE! I came to this thread because I heard Fuckshit was being a cunt and I want to read it. Can someone direct me?

So you need directions to a thread you're already posting in? You daft twat.

I think that we're pretty much done here. Or at least I am. Quom's was the last useful contribution to the thread; everything since has just been re-hashing.

If anyone is really interested in continuing the discussion in a way that doesn't involve going relentlessly over old ground or bitching about me in the Donators' forum because you're too much of a slack-jawed dullard to post something constructive in here, then there's always PMs.

I'll be back to say more substantive things, but I think my films "pantheon" consists of "The Rules of the Game", "Wild Strawberries", "Persona", "Shame", "Scenes from a Marriage", "I Stand Alone", "Gummo", "The Producers", "Back to the Future", "Airplane!", "Funny Games", "The Third Man", "Double Indemnity", "Mulholland Dr.", and "Magnolia".

There a fuckload of honourable mentions. A lot of Hitchcock films into that category -- "North by Northwest", "Vertigo", "Rear Window", "The Lady Vanishes", "Saboteur", "Frenzy". Some excellent-but-not-quite-unique-enough thrillers and noires like "The Conversation", "The Maltese Falcon" and "The Big Sleep". The whole ocean of comedy full-lengths that just aren't as gleeful as "Airplane!", as heart-warming as "Back to the Future", or as straight-up balls-out funny as "The Producers" (the whole "Naked Gun" series, "Silver Streak", "Stir Crazy", "Three Amigos", "Blazing Saddles", "Young Frankenstein"). Some 'secondary' works by some of my favourite directors ("Irreversible", "Cries and Whispers", "Boogie Nights", "The Apartment", "Lost Highway"). And then just... some other stuff.

I didn't say that I think they should let him off. Just that I could see why if there was prosecutorial misconduct going on back then that led to him fleeing.

I didn't say that you did say he should be let off. If you had said that, then we'd be ultimately agreed.

And I don't believe that someone no longer being a threat or having gone decades without committing a crime should be an excuse; you did the crime, you should do the time.

Why?

Yes, jail here is used for short term custody, for the most part. I was thinking give him 30 to 60 days, then toss him out of the country, since a lot of people think prison would be too harsh.

Like... what the hell would be the point of that? D'you wanna frighten this young tearaway with a night in the cells?

Oh, man, I just LOVE repeating myself. Straight up can't get enough of that shit. Total like <3 for assailing the same arguments with the same arguments over and over.

You know what? I have a problem with the justice system anywhere letting people off because of old age;

There are factors other than Polanski's age to consider here. As I said myself, "[a]llied to the above is the fact that, as SDM says, Polanski is now 76 years old and would appear to be physically frail. Obviously this on its own cannot be allowed to serve as "proof" that Polanski is not in some way a "threat", since many crimes (and, significantly, the crime of which he is accused) do not require a physically strong aggressor."

In Polanski's case, I can sort of see letting him off due to the things that have come to light about what the prosecution did back when the incident originally happened and due to the victim's wishes.

But not, like, because he poses absolutely no danger to society or because he has gone thirty years without being involved in any criminal activity of any kind or because his victim wants him to go unpunished? None of those reasons do anything for you?

But I think he should still be punished somehow. Wouldn't mean much to him, probably, but I think the simple thing to do would be to throw him in jail (not prison) for a time for fleeing, then permanently ban him from the United States.

Isn't jail in the US (the only country I know where that institution is materially distinct from prison) used either for people serving short prison terms or in the same way that custody is in the UK? So you want either to give him a really short (~12 months or under) "prison" sentence (and, if so, then refer to all the arguments already tendered against that in this thread), or to put him in custody? If the latter -- to what ends?

Would it really kill people to read the thread and try to make some kind of original contribution before posting in here? Without wanting to get too precious, I've put some reasonable amount of effort into my posts here (particularly the one that heads this page). It's absolutely mind-numbing to be met with constant re-hashings of the same arguments in response.

e: Removed stuff about Nazi war criminals, because I can't be arsed with that discussion right now.

I fully accept there is no epithany moment when a girl goes from 15 and innocent to 16 and abe to make these choices but that is largely irrelevent in this case as well. Whether she was capable or not, the law states that it is 16. They both knew this and thus for me it's an open and shut case as both have admitted in court that it happenned.

Look, man, this is crushingly dumb on a number of levels:

i) So you admit that inelastic consent laws misrepresent the reality (i.e. that there is no "epiphany" moment when one suddenly becomes fully aware of what it means to consent to sexual activity).

ii) Yet you think that this bad law should be upheld because, hey, it's the law!

iii) You apparently think that Polanski is going to be tried for sex with a minor ("it's an open and shut case"), despite the fact that he was already tried for and found guilty of that.

There's an is/ought issue here. I know how consent laws are enforced and why they are enforced that way. What I, and some other people, are arguing is that these laws aren't much good from an ideal perspective. Saying "but... THEY AM THE LAWSSSS!!!!" doesn't act as a counter-argument to this -- without wanting to get hyperbolic, Jim Crow laws were the laws; anti-sodomy laws were the laws; etc..

If the courts took the view that at 80 he is past being a threat (likely true) and let him off then it's a big green light for anyone else who wants to behave in a similar manner.

Fucking hell. I dealt with this. I'll just copy and paste.

Relating this back to Polanski, one might point to the extreme specificities in this case that are being used to justify his non-imprisonment: the long period between charge and trial; the (seemingly entirely genuine) desire of the accuser that he not be punished; the 'clean' record that Polanski possesses in the intervening period; and Polanski's age and frailty. In a sense, Polanski's case reflects a very unique "perfect storm" of mitigating conditions. For that reason, I find it hard to accept that his non-imprisonment would "send a message" of any sort to the general population -- or, at least, that it will suggest that the state is suddenly deciding not to enforce punishments against rape. And I don't think society needs to be too concerned with "sending a message" of conciliation to its legions of old, frail, non-recidivist accused rapists who have managed to evade capture for thirty years and have been forgiven by their accusers.

WHO is going to see this as a "green light"? "People" can't just "behave in a similar manner" to Polanski -- the mitigating circumstances in part rely upon factors outside of the defendant's control.

e: Steve Martin opened one of his stand-up shows some years ago with the line, "I'm really happy to be here. Because nothing makes me happier than doing the exact same thing every night for a period of several weeks." That's kind of how I feel about this thread.

The above made me lol, but I accidentally clicked "-" rather than "+". Or maybe I just subconsciously HATE FUN???? Either way, sorry for the dent in your rep, Sdum.

ugly cunt

As far as I'm aware, ugliness doesn't play much of a part in determining consent.

drugged

Again, this hasn't been proven in a court of law. But it may very well have happened.

But those are marginal issues. Your central argument, I guess, is that Polanki's fame and influence acted as a kind of coercive means of gaining sex that otherwise would have been with-held. I think that that's very possibly true. But in order to be meaningful and determinable/measurable for legal purposes, "coercion" has to be in some way substantive/material, doesn't it?

There are a lot of "grey" ways of obtaining sex that aren't materially coercive (in the way that, say, drugging or using violence are). For example, I'm sure that many feminists would (reasonably) argue that marriage frequently constitutes a way of obtaining sex coercively -- in that situation, sex is the "right" of the husband and the "obligation" of the wife. Furthermore, in some marriages it may be difficult for a woman to seek outside assistance, and so the vague suggestion of "material" coercion might linger. The idea that "all sex is rape" might sound like a wacky straw-man advanced by Second Wave Feminists, but there's an element of truth in it, in that there's no easy binary between "coercion" and "consent".

But the type of "coercion" that you describe does ultimately require the complicity of the "victim", and is also incredibly hard to prove. (Or, more specifically, its precise effects are hard to prove -- it would be difficult to argue that Polanski's influences/status have no bearing on the matter at all.) And, even at 14, I think that a great many people would be able to weigh those factors. Not all; but many.

1. The Fall

2. Big Black

3. Half Man Half Biscuit

4. Rapeman

5. My Bloody Valentine

6. Sunny Day Real Estate

7. Million Dead

8. Husker Du

9. Dead Kennedys

10. Minor Threat

None of those bands will make the list. NOT BOTHERED.

In some contexts yes - but in this one, no. There's an aim of both protecting the interests of the victim, and then punishing the offender and detering would-be offenders. I don't quite see where vengeance comes into it.

I've posted about my opinion regarding the function of prison before -- it's not very exciting or controversial, so I won't do so again. But I think we're agreed that the three functions of prison are to i) rehabilitate offenders, ii) provide a deterrent against crime, and iii) remove dangerous individuals from society.

I think it should also be uncontroversial that i) and iii) do not apply to Polanski. The first idea doesn't apply because Polanski is functioning well (exceedingly well, by some measures) in society at present. He doesn't need to be "re-skilled"... anyone who has seen "Chinatown" should agree that he's a pretty skillzy fellow as it is. I don't think he is having any problems making a living for himself.

The third idea -- that he might be dangerous to society -- seems difficult to support. His victim doesn't think that he is dangerous, and thinks in fact that he is regretful about past wrongdoings. Polanski was accused of rape and convicted of unlawful sex thirty years ago. The former crime is one of the most serious in existence -- in most situations a rapist would rightfully be considered as a potential threat to society. But Polanski (through nefarious means, sure) has lived freely for three decades now without being implicated in any other crimes of any kind. In most cases, determining whether or not someone is a "threatening" individual is a difficult and unscientific business unlikely to render an objective conclusion. This is precisely because the one test of a person's "threat" status (i.e. their ability to reintegrate successfully into society without re-offending) is impossible to set for a person deemed potentially "threatening". But, quite accidentally, this test has been applied to Polanski -- and he has "passed" it. The proof, to use a shit cliché, is in the pudding.

Allied to the above is the fact that, as SDM says, Polanski is now 76 years old and would appear to be physically frail. Obviously this on its own cannot be allowed to serve as "proof" that Polanski is not in some way a "threat", since many crimes (and, significantly, the crime of which he is accused) do not require a physically strong aggressor. But I think that considerations relating to RP's physical condition deserve some weight in this discussion.

So, we're left with the idea that Polanski must be imprisoned (if found guilty, natch) so that other individuals who may be disposed towards committing rape are dissuaded in some sense from committing rape. This is the most difficult of the three justifications for prison to "pin down" in a rigorous fashion, but let's have a go.

The "deterrent" argument rests on the assumption that criminal behaviour is materially inhibited by the existence of channels to sanction that behaviour. This seems to me to be a valid assumption to some extent. If there were no laws against, say, shoplifting or benefit fraud, then those crimes might well be expected to rise exponentially. Those crimes are easy to construct as "victimless", since the victim of the crime is faceless and/or seen as significantly "stronger" than the perpetrator and so able to absorb (what are, after all, only monetary) losses. In the case of crimes like rape or murder, however, which require a significant act of (often brutal) violence and violate what are for most us "consensus" principles, it seems clear that there are inhibitions on the perpetration of those crimes other than fear of punishment. Particular brands of psychological thought might even suggest that there are significant cerebral inhibitions, rendered by the evolution of the human species, upon those crimes. Nevertheless, the absence of strong punishments for such crimes is likely to lead to some amount of increase in their frequency. For evidence of this, one may look to the uncontrollable outburst of political violence in late Republican Rome -- a society which for a long time employed no sanction against murder, and thereafter introduced a fine. Alternatively, and in the perhaps more relevant context of a strong and modern state, one may look into the frequent use of murder by American organised crime syndicates confident that they could "buy" freedom (or in some other way escape punishment thereafter).

It therefore seems difficult to me to accept either extremes of argument (not saying that anyone in this thread is advancing them, incidentally): i.e. that it is necessary, because of the "deterrent" principle, that any transgression must be punished regardless of other considerations, or, on the other hand, that the presence of sanctions is irrelevant in determining the rates at which crimes are committed.

Relating this back to Polanski, one might point to the extreme specificities in this case that are being used to justify his non-imprisonment: the long period between charge and trial; the (seemingly entirely genuine) desire of the accuser that he not be punished; the 'clean' record that Polanski possesses in the intervening period; and Polanski's age and frailty. In a sense, Polanski's case reflects a very unique "perfect storm" of mitigating conditions. For that reason, I find it hard to accept that his non-imprisonment would "send a message" of any sort to the general population -- or, at least, that it will suggest that the state is suddenly deciding not to enforce punishments against rape. And I don't think society needs to be too concerned with "sending a message" of conciliation to its legions of old, frail, non-recidivist accused rapists who have managed to evade capture for thirty years and have been forgiven by their accusers.

Are we not agreed per the issue that I mentioned at the outset of this post? (And if we aren't, then why didn't you mention it when I sat down to start typing? Cuh, of all the cheek, etc., etc.,) Or is there any other non-bullshity application of the "deterrent" argument I'm missing? Or something?

e: It's kind of amusing to me that one of the main justifications for the plea bargain system, which was used to attain Polanski's "guilty" plea on the unlawful sex charge, is that there isn't enough punishment to go around. Now, apparenty, there's a surplus of the stuff to be (potentially) used on Polanski.

Thanks for the kind words, machine. I'm on board with all of the points you make in your post. In particular, I think the flipside of the idea that "ahhh, but the sympathy for Polanski is only result of his fame" which you bring out is important. This case has not been prosecuted in a way that is entirely above board. That's why the responses from the acting community about the "corruption of the law" or whatever can't be brushed off entirely -- there may be an element of 'persecution complex' about them, but that's not all there is to it.

I think it's the squawking moralism and desire to cheerlead for law enforcement that turns me off about this case, too. People seem to lose their heads completely when "sex" and "children" are mentioned in the same breath.

If you don't see any problem with a 44-year-old man having sex with a 13-year-old girl, no argument I make is going to change your mind.

Jeez, Z, you can do better than that.

"If you can't see that universal healthcare provision is a Nazi policy, no argument I make is going to change your mind!!!!!!!!"

At age 44, Polanski had the life experience and knowledge that it is illegal to engage in any sort of intercourse with a child.

I think most eighteen year olds would know this also. And some 44 year olds might not know this, if they were particularly ignorant or were big dum-dums. But you didn't say "this is worse, because Polanski knew about age of consent laws". You are consistently mentioning his age as though it carries a sledgehammer significance. I don't understand why. And your above explanation doesn't really help me to understand why, because it just makes "age" a proxy for "knowledge about consent laws".

I also find it disturbing that we're all willing to completely ignore the testimony of the victim, which is reason #1 why rapists are never convicted in this country, the way "the woman must be lying!" has worked its way into our culture is frightening.

Comments made by me in this thread:

"There's an unpleasant element of "dumb bitch crying rape" to the idea that that aspect of the case can just be left alone. I see no reason why Geimer would need to lie -- at least not repeatedly over a course of thirty years."

"Polanski has not been convicted of getting Geimer drunk, plastered, fucked, wankered, shitfaced, ratarsed, or exhilarated. Obviously that doesn't mean that he didn't do so. It's significant that she has (as far as I can tell) persistently accused him of doing so for thirty years now."

"I'd say there's a good chance of wrongdoing [on Polanski's part, beyond "unlawful sex"]."

"For the record, I'm not "supporting" Polanski in the sense that i) if someone put a gun to my head, I would guess that some form of coercion (however prosaic) was involved here."

"Again, I have no idea what he is or isn't guilty of beyond engaging in sex with a minor. If forced, I'd guess that some coercion occurred; whether it was sufficient or not to constitute rape -- I have no idea."

COMPLETELY IGNORED!!!!!! Seriously, your above comment can fuck right the fuck off -- it not only misrepresents an element of my argument that I've made overandover a-fucking-gain, but it accuses me of appropriating a misogynistic and chauvinistic attitude that I have criticised and repudiated explicitly. The above quote manages to be lazy, offensive and too-late-to-the-party all at once. Thx.

Bottom line, had this story been about Ronnie Polowski the cab driver instead of Roman Polanski the acclaimed director, his ass would've been in jail 30 years ago and no one would've shed a single tear.

People who admired and respected Polowski would have shed tears. But there would have been fewer of them, that's all, and they would not have had access to public fora (to such a degree). The situation of Polanski's case isn't changed by any counterfactuals such as the above. I'd still have the same analysis, personally. The arrest of prominent people generates more debate than the arrest of non-prominent people when all else is equal -- big deal. I like that this supremely irrelevant consideration is the "bottom line", though.

And my continued use of "anal sex" is to illustrate how horrific this experience sounds and that even with "consent," it qualifies as rape.

Anal sex is somewhat more risky and more likely to be painful than is vaginal sex in most instances. But I'd argue that anal sex only carries with it "horrific" overtones due to its status as a social taboo and due to its associations with homosexuality -- an illegal practice until very recently (and a practice still greeted with opposition and sneery responses from a significant proportion of the media and population at large). I have no idea how you get from "consensual sex" to "rape" by switching orifices.

To argue this in a slightly different way: vaginal sex is quite significantly more "risky" than is oral sex (in a number of different senses). But no-one would, when describing a rape case, constantly stress vaginal sex or vaginal rape. Both vaginal and oral sex are taken to be "normative" expressions of sexuality. Anal sex is still marked specifically as a "deviant" activity -- I believe that this is inextricably related to its association with homosexuality, despite weak ex post facto justifications relating to how dan-ger-uzzzz anal sex is.

in what culture is it acceptable for a 44-year-old man to fuck a 13-year-old girl in the ass?

Throughout much of the Europe, the age of consent is 14. And the legislatures in those countries don't seem to see as much significance in the age differential of the sexers as you apparently do. But obviously thirteen is BEYOND THE PALE!!!!!!

e: Oh, wait, a.o.c. is 13 in Spain. So there's your answer I guess. We all know that the Spaniards are filthy as fuck, though, obviously.

Which is rape. A 44-year-old man having admitting to having anal sex with a 13-year-old girl, regardless of whether or not it's "consensual," is rape... a 13-year-old cannot give consent.

This is a weird assume-what-you-set-out-to-prove argument that I don't agree with at all. I believe that I, personally, would have been in a position to understand the implication of agreeing to sexual activity when I was thirteen. I knew what sex involved, and would've been able to know whether or not it was something I felt comfortable doing in a particular circumstance. Geimer may have. She may not have. But that is what the usage of the term "rape" hinges on.

Your above post and the article you quote within it is very very very disingenuous in that it makes no clear semantic distinction between rape (as defined by criminal law) and "rape" (as you yourself define it based upon a highly contentious ethical judgement). By saying that Polanski is a "rapist" and that he "plead guilty to rape", you are knowingly encouraging inference of something unsubstantiated by established evidence (in the first case) and simply factually inaccurate (in the second).

If you wish to make the argument that "unlawful sex with a minor" always involves an element of "rape" (i.e. coercion), then that's fine -- I will strongly disagree with that, but at least the terms of the (now quite different) debate are clear. But by making references to "drugging" and Polanski "pleading guilty to rape", you were engaging in some pretty Unspeak-y rhetoric.

Call it "statutory" if you wish, but this isn't some 18-year-old kid fooling around with a 15-year-old, we're talking about a 44-year-old man and a 13-year-old girl, which I honestly think is indefensible.

Why does the age of the accused have any bearing on your judgement here?

Also, does the insistence on "anal sex" have resonance of ugly conservative argumentation against equalising the age of homosexual consent to anyone else?

I've always vaguely liked the look of the ATP line-ups (particularly TNBC, I seem to remember). I was going to go whichever year Liars were playing; but that fell through. I'd seriously consider going solely for MBV. Seeing them in Manchester last summer was without exaggeration one of the best experiences of my life. The rest of the line-up is mostly bands I'm lukewarm about (Sonic Youth), or would see as a kind of vicarious long-after-the-fact thing (Buzzcocks, Bob Mould).

Hahaha... given your taste for sexual experimentation, SDM, I'd be wary about what you could potentially construe as "a cuddle"...

Really I'm surprised that Salon can get away with that piece. I guess it comes down to the fact that Polanski is hardly in a position to sue for defamation right now, and that public opinion is generally against him. The idea that RP has to some extent made his own bed can go so far; but implying falsely that someone has been convicted of raping a minor is pretty serious business. That's especially so given the modern Western attitudes towards the sexualisation of children generally, and towards the sexual abuse of children specifically. I think it's pretty significant - for example - that convicts found guilty of murder, battery, and yer standard vanilla "rape of a normal-sized person" see themselves as possessing moral high ground above "nonces". It's an area in which the liberal counter-arguments relating to crime are expressed in the most constrained fashion -- apparently not even the boring old principle of presumptive innocence necessarily applies.

It's a tawdry and twatty case, this, but there's a lot of more intriguing stuff packed into it about sexual attitudes, and also the relationship between Hollywood and laypersons.

I'm sorry, when you plead guilty to anally raping a 13-year-old girl, that's pretty much all there is to it in my book. A 44-year-old man drugging and engaging in anal sex with a 13-year-old girl is rape, I can't think of any situation where anyone could possibly ever justify that behavior. The victim wanting to "move on" has no relevance at this point, Polanski escaped justice and needs to serve his time.

He was neither tried for nor convicted of the bolded, though, was he? He most certainly did not "plead guilty" to an offence he wasn't tried for. He pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor, and the rape charges against him were dropped as part of a plea bargain. He was accused of rape by Geimer, and she testified in court that she had been given champagne and a 'lude by Polanski before anything happened. A verdict of "guilty" in that case does not require the jury to endorse every aspect of Geimer's testimony. He may well be guilty of rape, despite not having been convicted of it. But any Polanski apologism presumably starts with the assumption that he was not guilty of rape. Due to the absence of a conviction, that assumption is still defensible.

Again, I have no idea what he is or isn't guilty of beyond engaging in sex with a minor. If forced, I'd guess that some coercion occurred; whether it was sufficient or not to constitute rape -- I have no idea. But I'm not trying to tender a judgement on the TRUFACKS of VERCASE. I'm just arguing that the characterisation of support for Polanski as somehow beyond the pale is unsound. And that the explosive mix of trite analysis and tautology as found in, "yes, he made some good films... but THE LAW'S THE LAW"-type commentary is irrelevant since it attacks a position that no-one holds.

I guess what I was trying to say was, she may have appreciated her predicament, but all things considered, can you trust her appreciation of that predicament? Wasn't particularly trying to get on your back or anything, even if it may have seemed that way.

No worries. And I think your question above is the important one to ask... and not one easy to answer for outsiders who don't even have access to transcripts of the trial.

For the record, I'm not "supporting" Polanski in the sense that i) if someone put a gun to my head, I would guess that some form of coercion (however prosaic) was involved here, and ii) I think that, if so, obviously he should have served (some amount of) time thirty years ago. But at the same time, it's important to note that there's no proof that he was guilty of rape; that age-of-consent is a slippery fish at the best of times; and that therefore people can defend or sympathise with Polanski without being coke-snortingly arrogant Hollywood jerk-stores.

Right, I'm off to watch the extra from the "Fearless Vampire Killers" DVD where Roman does Sharon Tate's corpse up the bum...

On a sidenote, isn't it wonderful how guarded and deferential people get in their arguments when a matter of case law is involved? If people argued like that all the time, the world would be way more :3.

I dunno if it would have been dismissed as irrelevant, but surely, on the moralist grounds, you cant argue about consent etc, if he needed to get her drunk. Surely, if she was good to go, he wouldn't have needed to get her plastered.

It would not have been relevant to the case, because he was on trial for the crime of "sex with a minor". Nothing to do with coercion. Whether evidence submitted could refer incidentally to alcohol consumption, I don't know.

If you read my earlier post, I was not trying to put on my fedora and ESTABLISH THE FACTS; I was responding to someone's question about how anyone could support Polanski by offering a rationale for the support of Polanski -- without adopting (or dismissing) that rationale myself. Polanski has not been convicted of getting Geimer drunk, plastered, fucked, wankered, shitfaced, ratarsed, or exhilarated. Obviously that doesn't mean that he didn't do so. It's significant that she has (as far as I can tell) persistently accused him of doing so for thirty years now. It's also worth noting that the Judge tried to renege on a plea bargain deal that involved a dropping of the rape charge. Can anyone who knows more about American law comment upon the circumstances in which plea bargains of this type are offered? Can we infer from the dropping of the rape charges that the evidence for them was too slim for a chance at conviction? Anyway, rape is a notoriously difficult crime to prove, and absence of proof doesn't necessarily mean innocence.

But because Polanski has never been convicted of applying coercion to Geimer, then people who are sympathetically disposed towards him can easily boil the matter down to age-of-consent-related issues. That's all I was saying, hence the "if... then..." that opened my post.

Plus, mature for her age or not, age of consent laws are there to protect people, of that age, whose hormones etc are going wild, and cant be trusted with these decisions.

I don't really get what you're saying at this point -- your argument seems to be "whether she appreciated her predicament or not... she didn't appreciate her predicament." You can't seriously believe that all people suddenly become capable of being "trusted with these decisions" at a particular age, can you? Age of consent laws are necessary as a baseline, but everyone develops at different rates and at different times. Each case needs to be judged on its appreciable merits.

What he did was wrong in the extreme, and I can't help but think that the only reason ANY kind of debate is going on, is because he is an oscar winning director. Imagine, had she been a boy and he been a priest, would there be the same debate? Or just an everday man in his 40's and a 13 year old girl?

I would hope that there would be this sort of debate going on regardless of the circumstances. Can people point me in the direction of this "debate", incidentally? I haven't really seen a groundswell of pro-Polanski opinion.

Personally, I don't know exactly what Polanski did -- I don't think anybody except Geimer and Polanski do -- much less whether he was "wrong". I'd say there's a good chance of wrongdoing. But I'm irked rather more by the "hurr -- peeedo!" lynch mob attitude emanating from certain sectors of opinion. (Not talking about this thread there, for the record).

e: Removed unwarranted guessing about plea bargains under The Metalman Principle / because I don't really have a clue what I'm talking about and just wanted to use the phrase "double jeopardy".

ee: And this all comes from someone who hated "A Pure Formality".

He got her drunk first, so surely the whole argument of elasticity on the age of consent doesn't apply, since he had to ply her with alcohol.

Wasn't that part of the charge dropped as a result of Polanski's plea bargain? He couldn't have been convicted of a serious amount of "coercion", since he wasn't on trial for rape in the first place. IANAL, obviously, but wouldn't any testimony relating to use of alcohol have been dismissed as irrelevant?

I'm not posting it for the newsworthy apect, just from the aspect that I'm surprised there is a lot of support for the guy.

Depends on what you think about age of consent laws, I suppose. If you're willing to accept that the "rape" aspect of the charge was dropped as part of the plea bargain only because the evidence to support those aspects of the allegations were excessively thin, then Polanski's only "crime" was to have sex with a thirteen year-old girl. (The "fleeing justice" aspect presumably wouldn't interest someone who took such a view, since Polanski would be ethically "in the clear" anyway).

Age of consent laws obviously exist to protect those incapable of making rational decisions about sexual practice from suffering abuse. But surely they have to be treated with some elasticity, since there's no sudden sexual "epiphany" at the age of eighteen (or sixteen or twenty-one... and perhaps higher for homosexuals) that causes a person immediately to appreciate the full scope of what "consent" means within a sexual context. Gaining appreciation about what sex involves is processional rather than "digital", and occurs at different ages for different people.

With those considerations in mind, one could easily cast Polanski as the victim of a bad law. Allied to that is the idea that, hey, this was all a long time ago; water under the bridge; geez this "girl" is an old woman now heheheh. And also the fact that people within the movie industry are likely at least to respect Polanski and at most consider him a friend. I think most of us are likely to presume the best about people we have that kind of relationship with. I really don't think that it's as simple as people in the movie industry believing themselves to be "above the law"; nor do I think anyone (or anyone with serious influence) is saying, "hey, I really enjoyed 'Knife in the Water' -- no way should this guy do time!"

So I think that's how one arrives at a position of sympathy with / support for Polanski.

That said, I don't really buy (all of) the argument. Bracketing out the (important) considerations re: age of consent; I find the mysterious disappearance of the coercion-related charges slightly suspicious -- especially considering the Judge's attempt to renege on the plea bargain at a later date. There's an unpleasant element of "dumb bitch crying rape" to the idea that that aspect of the case can just be left alone. I see no reason why Geimer would need to lie -- at least not repeatedly over a course of thirty years.

If he'd been sent to prison years ago, many of his key films wouldn't have existed because he'd have been in prison. Without these films, he'd have been known for a string of films of varying quality and wouldn't have built up the reputation that he's in at the moment.

"Chinatown"; "The Tenant"; "Rosemary's Baby"; "Knife in the Water"... that's a hell of an oeuvre for a guy under forty-five -- and I'd take any over "The Pianist" any day.

e: I mean, obviously he'd have a less robust reputation without "The Pianist" and "Pirates" and "Tess" -- though I've never seen the last two personally. But I think he'd be remembered as a director who had already produced a solid number of great works before being "cut down in his prime" (albeit by his own weakness/demons/whatever), rather than being shrugged over.