Roman Polanski

[Emperor Fuckshit]

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.

[zero]

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.

Here's a good article that pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject:

Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in "exile" (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never -- poor baby -- being able to return to the U.S.). Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

Can we do that? Can we take a moment to think about all that, and about the fact that Polanski pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, before we start talking about what a victim he is? Because that would be great, and not nearly enough people seem to be doing it.

The French press, for instance (at least according to the British press) is describing Polanski "as the victim of a money-grabbing American mother and a publicity-hungry Californian judge." Joan Z. Shore at the Huffington Post, who once met Polanski and "was utterly charmed by [his] sobriety and intelligence," also seems to believe that a child with an unpleasant stage mother could not possibly have been raped: "The 13-year old model 'seduced' by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies." Oh, well, then! If her mom put her into that situation, that makes it much better! Shore continues: "The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California. (It's probably 13 by now!) Polanski was demonized by the press, convicted, and managed to flee, fearing a heavy sentence."

Wow, OK, let's break that down. First, as blogger Jeff Fecke says, "Fun fact: the age of consent in 1977 in California was 16. It's now 18. But of course, the age of consent isn't like horseshoes or global thermonuclear war; close doesn't count. Even if the age of consent had been 14, the girl wasn't 14." Also, even if the girl had been old enough to consent, she testified that she did not consent. There's that. Though of course everyone makes a bigger deal of her age than her testimony that she did not consent, because if she'd been 18 and kept saying no while he kissed her, licked her, screwed her and sodomized her, this would almost certainly be a whole different story -- most likely one about her past sexual experiences and drug and alcohol use, about her desire to be famous, about what she was wearing, about how easy it would be for Roman Polanski to get consensual sex, so hey, why would he need to rape anyone? It would quite possibly be a story about a wealthy and famous director who pled not guilty to sexual assault, was acquitted on "she wanted it" grounds, and continued to live and work happily in the U.S. Which is to say that 30 years on, it would not be a story at all. So it's much safer to focus on the victim's age removing any legal question of consent than to get tied up in that thorny "he said, she said" stuff about her begging Polanski to stop and being terrified of him.

Second, Polanski was "demonized by the press" because he raped a child, and was convicted because he pled guilty. He "feared heavy sentencing" because drugging and raping a child is generally frowned upon by the legal system. Shore really wants us to pity him because of these things? (And, I am not making this up, boycott the entire country of Switzerland for arresting him.)

As ludicrous as Shore's post is, I have to agree with Fecke that my favorite Polanski apologist is the Washington Post's Anne Applebaum, who finds it "bizarre" that anyone is still pursuing this case. And who also, by the by, failed to disclose the tiny, inconsequential detail that her husband, Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski, is actively pressuring U.S. authorities to drop the case.

There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.

There is also evidence that Polanski raped a child. There is evidence that the victim did not consent, regardless of her age. There is evidence -- albeit purely anecdotal, in this case -- that only the most debased crapweasel thinks "I didn't know she was 13!" is a reasonable excuse for raping a child, much less continuing to rape her after she's said no repeatedly. There is evidence that the California justice system does not hold that "notoriety, lawyers' fees and professional stigma" are an appropriate sentence for child rape.

But hey, he wasn't allowed to pick up his Oscar in person! For the love of all that's holy, hasn't the man suffered enough?

Granted, Roman Polanski has indeed suffered a great deal in his life, which is where Applebaum takes her line of argument next:

He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski's mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland.

Surviving the Holocaust certainly could lead to an "understandable fear of irrational punishment," but being sentenced for pleading guilty to child rape is basically the definition of rational punishment. Applebaum then points out that Polanski was a suspect in the murder of his pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, a crime actually committed by the Manson family -- but again, that was the unfortunate consequence of a perfectly rational justice system. Most murdered pregnant women were killed by husbands or boyfriends, so that suspicion was neither personal nor unwarranted. This isn't Kafkaesque stuff.

But what of the now-45-year-old victim, who received a settlement from Polanski in a civil case, saying she'd like to see the charges dropped? Shouldn't we be honoring her wishes above all else?

In a word, no. At least, not entirely. I happen to believe we should honor her desire not to be the subject of a media circus, which is why I haven't named her here, even though she chose to make her identity public long ago. But as for dropping the charges, Fecke said it quite well: "I understand the victim's feelings on this. And I sympathize, I do. But for good or ill, the justice system doesn't work on behalf of victims; it works on behalf of justice."

It works on behalf of the people, in fact -- the people whose laws in every state make it clear that both child rape and fleeing prosecution are serious crimes. The point is not to keep 76-year-old Polanski off the streets or help his victim feel safe. The point is that drugging and raping a child, then leaving the country before you can be sentenced for it, is behavior our society should not -- and at least in theory, does not -- tolerate, no matter how famous, wealthy or well-connected you are, no matter how old you were when you finally got caught, no matter what your victim says about it now, no matter how mature she looked at 13, no matter how pushy her mother was, and no matter how many really swell movies you've made.

Roman Polanski raped a child. No one, not even him, disputes that. Regardless of whatever legal misconduct might have gone on during his trial, the man admitted to unlawful sex with a minor. But the Polanski apologism we're seeing now has been heating up since "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," the 2008 documentary about Polanski's fight to get the conviction dismissed. Writing in Salon, Bill Wyman criticized the documentary's whitewashing of Polanksi's crimes last February, after Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza ruled that if the director wanted to challenge the conviction, he'd need to turn himself in to U.S. authorities and let the justice system sort it out. "Fugitives don't get to dictate the terms of their case ... Polanski deserves to have any potential legal folderol investigated, of course. But the fact that Espinoza had to state the obvious is testimony to the ways in which the documentary, and much of the media coverage the director has received in recent months, are bizarrely skewed."

The reporting on Polanski's arrest has been every bit as "bizarrely skewed," if not more so. Roman Polanski may be a great director, an old man, a husband, a father, a friend to many powerful people, and even the target of some questionable legal shenanigans. He may very well be no threat to society at this point. He may even be a good person on balance, whatever that means. But none of that changes the basic, undisputed fact: Roman Polanski raped a child. And rushing past that point to focus on the reasons why we should forgive him, pity him, respect him, admire him, support him, whatever, is absolutely twisted.

[MalaCloudy Black]

Here's Brett Ratner defending him with some really, kind of awful logic:

"The family has forgiven [Polanski]. The victim has forgiven him. The rest of the world has forgiven him. The LA judicial system is corrupt. It's horrible."

"IT'S OKAY! EVERYONE FORGAVE HIM! UGH THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS SO CORRUPT! "

[Emperor Fuckshit]

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.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[SeanDMan]

Indeed.

I'm so glad we have Fuckshit around.

Fuckshit, can we cuddle?

[Emperor Fuckshit]

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.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[Herr Matzat]

I always thought everybody said it was ok becaus she agred with him and that it was just the California Law that would drop hard on him or something... well, Polanski has one hell of a fucked up live. Was this before or after his wife and her frinds got brutaly murdert by Mansons followers?

[zero]

Again, I have no idea what he is or isn't guilty of beyond engaging in sex with a minor.

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. Sex without consent is rape. Same goes for if he gave her alcohol and drugs, even if she "wanted" the alcohol and drugs, she's not legally able to consume those products and any adult providing her with those substances is breaking the law, and further impairing her ability to give any sort of consent. I will concede that my use of the word "drugging" may have been a bit too much, but I stand by the rest of my post. 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.

[Emperor Fuckshit]

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?

Edited October 1, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[zero]

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

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. 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 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. I maintain the position that it is impossible to have any sort of consensual sex with a child when you're a 44-year-old man, but that's operating under the assumption that it was "consensual" in the first place.

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. I don't see anyone in Hollywood speaking out in defense of all the people on "To Catch a Predator," the only difference here being that Polanski actually had sex with a child and didn't just intend to.

EDIT

And my continued use of "anal sex" is to illustrate how horrific this experience sounds and that even with intoxicated "consent," it qualifies as rape. The only reason I'm not saying "anally raped" is to be as fair as possible, but again I have to ask... in what culture is it acceptable for a 44-year-old man to fuck a 13-year-old girl in the ass?

[Emperor Fuckshit]

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.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[zero]

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

Yeah, because that's exactly the same. And you're telling me to fuck off?

While we're on the subject of that outburst, I was not accusing you specifically of saying the victim was lying, hence why I used "we're all." That was more directed at some people in here and other people I've discussed this topic with, but I did not make that distinction clear and on that note, I apologize.

But essentially this argument is boiling down to whether or not someone believes that in some instances it is okay for a 44-year-old man to have sex with a 13-year-old girl. Maybe I'm the uptight prude here, but I just don't find that acceptable under any circumstance. Any intercourse, be it oral, anal, vaginal, between those two people, especially with drugs in the mix, would be considered rape, and not just statutory rape... rape. It has nothing to do with social taboos or an "ick factor" from homosexuality (I don't even know why that entered the discussion), it's a situation where an adult is taking control over a child.

On the specific subject of Polanski, it's mostly irrelevant as he plead guilty many many years ago and chose to run instead of serve his time. While the victim wants to move on (though she still maintains what Polanski did was "wrong"), it's really not about her anymore, it's about justice being served.

[SeanDMan]

Who in this topic has said that the victim was lying? No one here is debating what she said, as far as I can see.

EDIT: Also, justice is about the victim. If the victim has no interest in seeing the guilty party punished, than it's just vengeance.

Edited October 1, 2009 by SeanDMan

[zero]

You're right. I'm probably just getting my different discussions confused and should pay closer attention.

EDIT

EDIT: Also, justice is about the victim. If the victim has no interest in seeing the guilty party punished, than it's just vengeance.

The case was The State of California vs. Roman Polanski, not Geimer vs. Polanski.

[SeanDMan]

The problem is you go to boards other than EWB. You should stop doing that.

[Mongrel]

EDIT: Also, justice is about the victim. If the victim has no interest in seeing the guilty party punished, than it's just vengeance.

The whole point of victims not being allowed to withdraw complaints at a whim is to protect the victim. Using sexual abuse as an example, it is hard enough to convict an offender without bringing in the added ability for victims to have any say in dropping charges. It puts an undue burden upon the victim above and beyond what is already there. The fact this particular lady wants to move on with her life is all good and well, but how does this help others who just find the whole process too hard and let criminals walk free?

It also sets a poor example. Do I only have to do a runner to escape justice so the victim eventually rehabilitates and moves on? You'd hope not. Whilst there is undoubtedly an element of protecting the victim's interests, there is also a need to protect society's interests from both the actual offenders and other prospective offenders. In other words, the system is above all else still a punitive one. To do any thing else once there has been a complaint would be to seriously undermine the whole notion of criminal justice.

[Ananas]

If justice is about the victim then I guess the victimized State of California has the responsibility to press charges for evading custody.

[SeanDMan]

In other words, the system is above all else still a punitive one.

Since vengeance is a punitive action, I thank you for proving my point and providing an otherwise useless wall of text.

If justice is about the victim then I guess the victimized State of California has the responsibility to press charges for evading custody.

My heart weeps for the State Of California and all the money they expended by not paying to house a criminal for the past three decades. Hey, hold on a minute...

[the machine]

EF, I was really wary of entering this thread after reading a bunch of knee jerk moral outrage about how Polanski is a dangerous pedophile rapist and Rosemary's Baby was a documentary shot in real time that proves Polanski's connections to satanic rituals. But you are a bastion of reasoned debate!

While I don't think we should ignore the victim's statements no amount of depositions cribbed off some web-site substitute for the fact that no judge and no jury ever convicted Polanski of the crime of rape. If he had pled guilty to rape, France would have extradited him. Because he was convicted with the wishy-washy unlawful sex with a minor, it was discretionary. So all that's been proved is that Polanski had sex with a minor. The then-existing law was so vague and useless that the sentence varied from probation to decades in prison. Today, the MOST the state of California could charge for the crime Polanski was convicted of would be one year.

And the recommended punishment from the sentencing board was probation. You could say "hey, that's only because he's famous," but it's only because he was so famous that the trial judge (who was later removed because of actual prejudice) felt he needed to "send a message" to the press by conducting mock trials and jerking around with this guy's life, promising a light sentence to the defense while telling anyone who'd listen at the local country club (frequented by celebrities) how he was going to throw the book at Polanski. A normal guy would've taken a plea, gotten probation, and not been the subject of a media circus. But then a normal guy probably would not have have been practically accused of the murder of his wife in every dirtsheet in Hollywood 8 years earlier. So when this media circus came around, it was even bigger.

The Judge himself was 58 years old and had a 20 year old girlfriend. How long had he known her? Mia Farrow, star of Polanski's first American hit Rosemary's Baby, was 21 when she married 50 year old Frank Sinatra. How long had they been dating? This was Hollywood in the 60's and 70's. Now I'm not saying that makes what Polanski was accused of okay: it definitely doesn't suddenly make rape acceptable. But too many people are applying today's standards to his conduct.

I think Polanski should stand trial for fleeing and I don't think being a celebrity makes you above the law, but whose interests are being served here? Will anybody be happy with any eventual outcome? The moral outrage bandwagon will be unhappy when he doesn't get life in jail because of one side of the story they read on a web-site, Fox News will whine about how no one in Hollywood has morals, and the media will move on to their next big story about something tragic happening to attractive white people.

In conclusion, you make some great points EF and the discussion here is far better than anywhere else I've talked about this.

[Emperor Fuckshit]

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.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit