Roman Polanski

[Iain76er]

Read this and the other stuff on the BBC website if you want

He's been arrested on charges from 30 years ago, when he admitted sleeping with a 13 year old girl.

He's made many good films. He's also committed acts of paedophilia.

He received a standing ovation at the Oscars. He appears to have much support from his contemporaries in France. He also fucked a child.

Why exactly are people opposed to him having to stand trial?

[The Quasi Juice]

Weird.

Polanski had unlawful sex with 13-year-old Samantha Gailey at actor Jack Nicholson's Hollywood home.

So Nicholson must have given permission? I mean, you don't just take a random girl to a friend and then ask; 'hey, can we use your bedroom? I gotta tell her something personal....'.

[Benji]

I'd barely call this news, surprised it took this long.

[Iain76er]

Weird.

Polanski had unlawful sex with 13-year-old Samantha Gailey at actor Jack Nicholson's Hollywood home.

So Nicholson must have given permission? I mean, you don't just take a random girl to a friend and then ask; 'hey, can we use your bedroom? I gotta tell her something personal....'.

From what I understand of the matter (from reading about it years ago), Nicholson's agreed to his house being used for auditions/screen tests etc. and wasn't actually there at the time.

I'd barely call this news, surprised it took this long.

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.

[Bigal]

Agreed. Roman Polanski may be a genius film maker, but he had sex with a minor, and the fact that he's famous doesn't make that okay. He should be tried and sentenced like anybody else. And the argument that the girl involved wants the charges to be dropped is a moot point; a crime was still committed.

[Crybaby Bunting]

I think the argument was more about the way in which he was arrested, he'd been smugly living in Switzerland and other countries that don't allow extradition. Then he moved out of the country SLIGHTLY in order to catch a plane to wherever the awards were, that's where he was caught, in a country that ALLOWS EXTRADITION.

So ultimately he was caught out when he least expected, but legally, but he's crying about how he wasn't given a fair chance... after spending 30 years sticking two fingers up at the US.

There's also a rumour that the girl who was raped had actually dropped the case against him, but that really doesn't matter. When you openly flaunt how you are invincible for so long you're going to get send down just to prove a point (like OJ, where the guy didn't want to press charges despite nearly dying)

[Johnny Latino Heat]

Even if the girl dropped charges, the fact that he fled justice is a separate crime altogether, isn't it?

[Liam]

There's also a rumour that the girl who was raped had actually dropped the case against him, but that really doesn't matter. When you openly flaunt how you are invincible for so long you're going to get send down just to prove a point (like OJ, where the guy didn't want to press charges despite nearly dying)

It's not a rumour, she reached an out of court settlement with him of some sort.

[SeanDMan]

He actually plead guilty on the charge, and agreed to a plea bargain. However, the judge backed out of the plea agreement prior to sentencing, which is why he ran. She has agreed to drop the charges since she just wants to move on with her life (she's 43 now, it's old news, she's accepted it and such).

[METALMAN]

I heard he slept with Oliver too.

[K]

Why exactly are people opposed to him having to stand trial?

I haven't read any of the new articles yet, but I thought that he had already stood trial years ago, was found guilty, and fled.

That's why theres no statute of limitations and shit. He's already been found guilty. All that's left is to serve time.

[probablyoliver]

I heard he slept with Oliver too.

I don't like to kiss and tell.

[Crybaby Bunting]

In a way it's a delicious irony.

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.

He's tried to build himself up as too valuable to be sent down, but it never mattered once he'd already been found guilty.

[Emperor Fuckshit]

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.

Edited September 29, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[shaneo]

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.

[Emperor Fuckshit]

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?

Edited September 29, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[shaneo]

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.

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.

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?

[METALMAN]

AS A STUDENT AT LAW SCHOOL...

...I am not going to pretend I know anything about this just because it concerns a legal matter, as some other stuck-up people might do here. I know nothing. Which is why I resorted to a pathetic joke earlier on. >_>

[Emperor Fuckshit]

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".

Edited September 29, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[shaneo]

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

As for debate, was just a personal thing, as I had these debates with a few friends of mine, who are film students in London, who seemed universally to think that he should be let off, forming their opinions based on his works, in so far as thats why they gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Then again, maybe I am in a similar boat, in that all I can see is "Rape" and "Minor", and nothing else.