***
Here's the NYT editorial:
From across Europe, nearly 100 representatives of the entertainment industry, including Pedro Almodóvar and Wim Wenders, signed a petition declaring themselves “dismayed” by the arrest, especially since it happened at the time of the Zurich Film Festival....Wow... atoned for the sins of his young years. Polanski was 44 when he raped the 13-year-old girl. 44! Young years! What a long long time some people would give men to run wild!
In Europe, the prevailing mood — at least among those with access to the news media — seemed to be that Mr. Polanski has already “atoned for the sins of his young years,” as Jacek Bromski, the chief of the Polish Filmmakers Association, put it.
We disagree strongly, and we were glad to see other prominent Europeans beginning to point out that this case has nothing to do with Mr. Polanski’s work or his age. It is about an adult preying on a child. Mr. Polanski pleaded guilty to that crime and must account for it.
पोस्ट्स
९७ टिप्पण्या:
Well, when actors talk about morals they are simply acting again. They have no core beliefs - they are paint in the hands of the director-painter.
My sympathy depends on what reason’s they give for not wanting to put him in jail. If it’s he’s an old man or the victim doesn’t want to deal with everything, I have sympathy. I may not agree, but those are defensible positions.
“He has paid his debt by making awesome movies” and “he has suffered by not being able to pick up his Oscar” are not defensible positions and those people deserve only scorn.
I'm only 38. I'm such a child. Well, at least that's what my wife tells me sometimes.
OJ Simpson was a great running back.
But what about Poor Little Roman's mid-life crisis? Of course if he had married at 20, as many men did back then, his first child would have been 13 when he was 44....So let him rot in jail after his trial, or do Fatwahs allow a trial first?
People pretending to be other people tend to lose sight of things like rape being anything more than a mistake of youth. Afterall, they also forget that pretending to be other people while making loads of money entitles them to give passes to not only their own indiscretions but others in their business as well.
According to Patterico, the parties thought that the judge would make him serve the rest of his sentence, or 48 days!
So he fled to Europe for this horrid sentence of a month and a half.
Fwiw, there are relatively few "Hollywood" names on the petition that I've seen (http://tinyurl.com/ycxgnzq, via @freemanhunt).
Most of them are Europeans.
What's a horny dude undergoing a mid-life crisis supposed to do? And as an artiste, he is supposed to push boundaries, n'est-ce pas? Plebeians simply don't understand the perceptions of the creative process, as this brilliant interpreter of our bourgeois delusions points out.
"According to Patterico, the parties thought that the judge would make him serve the rest of his sentence, or 48 days! So he fled to Europe for this horrid sentence of a month and a half."
I have my doubts about that.
You see, before he was to be sentenced, California law required that Roman Polanski undergo a psychiatric examination.
The purpose of that examination was to determine whether or not Polanski was a "mentally disordered sex offender." California law mandated such an examination for anyone convicted of raping a girl under the age of 14.
So, Polanski was sent off to Chino to undergo the examinaition. Many people believe this was part of his sentence, or that this was the equivalent of time being served. It was not. He went there by his own agreement (part of the plea deal). He was not sentenced to be there.
The judge in his plea agreement explained it to Polanski: "You have been certified to this court as a mentally sex offender."
The judge, after the examination, could have sent Polanski to a mental hospital - since, you know, he's mentally ill. Two psychiatrists were to examine him for a period of 90 days and report back to the judge. This was all part of the pre-sentencing requirements.
Polanski's examination only lasted 42 days before he fled the country.
I do not believe that the psychiatrists report has ever been made public.
But I suspect it was leaked to Polanski.
And I think that's probably why he fled. He didn't fear jail.
He feared the insane asylum - which is precisely where he belongs.
I think these people are not really very politically savvy, though they want to look engaged and good. They're surrounded by people who tell them what views to reflect and they got a clear message that made them think this was another easy one. And now, the backlash comes.
So that would put Hollywood celebrities in the same category as college kids, big media "journalists", and Obama, right?
(the other kev)
I see Sam Mendes signed the list. "American Beauty" makes so much more sense now.
"What a long long time some people would give men to run wild!"
That is an incredibly sexist and pathetic comment to make, Ann!
Women are also rapists, I would remind you. Rape has nothing to do with sex. It is about power and domination. And both men and women are equally able to do it.
Women are just as capable and often commit rapes. Our nation's schools are full of female rapists. There is an epidemic of it. You can get a better understanding of the depth of the problem once you start making a list of all the female rapists taking advantage of both young girls and boys in our nation's public school systems.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53859
Woody Allen signed this. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
I'm not the least bit surprised at the moral imps who are signing this petition.
What's telling is that the "common folk" on both sides of the Atlantic are outraged that there is the slightest controversy over this. The deep amorality of the intelligentsia is being laid bare. At least we're getting their names now and not merely by casting aspersions--they are damning themselves.
In a more serious vein, where are the A-List celebrities in support of deporting Polanski? Or are they complete moral cowards too? (As if I have to ask.)
Well now. Isn't it time we all forgave Charles Manson for killing Sharon Tate and her unborn child?
Really, that was so long ago, and Charles has moved on with his life. Why continue the charade of justice by keeping Charles Manson in prison any longer?
I'm certain that wherever she now is, Sharon Tate has forgiven Charles Manson. And so has Roman Polanski, Sharon Tate's husband at the time of her murder.
Although he's been too busy to attend Manson's parole hearings.
Dick Nixon was a great President. So was Bill Clinton.
Ann Althouse said...
I think these people are not really very politically savvy, though they want to look engaged and good.
Good point, but, it misses the mark, somewhat. There's an old piece on the Internet from the early days of anti-Iraq movement comparing the educational pedigrees of Bush Administration people (Cheney, Condi, Rummy, etc.) with many of the Hollywood crowd.
Almost no college degrees (Susan Sarandon is the exception), many dropped out of college after a year or two, more only had a high school diploma, and some didn't even finish high school.
These people are led around by the nose by anyone who has the cachet of a guru.
WV "thinces" A very narrow flinch
Young years! What a long long time some people would give men to run wild!
When Republican Congressman Henry Hyde carried on the extramarital affair he later characterized as a "youthful indiscretion," he was between 41 and 46. So by this GOP yardstick the 43 year old Polanski was still a youth.
Rape has nothing to do with sex. It is about power and domination.
This is a feminist platitude that oversimplifies the crime for political purposes. I hope you're just being sarcastic.
I think these people are not really very politically savvy, though they want to look engaged and good.
That's what angers the rest of us. These morons get their morally bankrupt opinions published merely because they're celebrities. It's as though Caligula were still around and living in Hollywood.
You know why middle-aged men like young girls, right?
Equal emotional sophistication and maturity.
The things some actors will say to get a gig in a famous directors movies..
By my estimation, the figured they could kill many birds with one stone. Woody Allen, Martin Scoresese, David Lynch, Jonathan Demme and John Landis were among the directors who signed the pledge to free Roman Polanski, another director.
Debra Winger will be busy for years now.
In a more serious vein, where are the A-List celebrities in support of deporting Polanski?
So far, I've heard that Jewel and Luc Besson support deportation. Anyone else?
I have no sympathy for them. If you excuse it that way, you'll get more of it. There are celebrities who are NOT defending Polanski and are wholly in favor of his going to jail.
Maybe not A-List, but Jewel has expressed bewilderment at the defense of Polanski.
Then there's this:
Winner quote from Polanski
"But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!"
In the comments of the above, someone points out that "Poland on Friday approved a law making chemical castration mandatory for paedophiles in some cases, sparking criticism from human rights groups."
These celebrities are only making things worse for Polanski. The nobility are joining ranks and proclaiming the droit du seigneur.... People are not just angry at the crime he committed but at the luxe life he subsequently enjoyed. He was not just evil, but evil regnant and in gloria.....Both as a perpetrator and as victim and as a film maker, Polanski was a study in evil. There is a need for exemplary justice in his case or the times are out of joint.
Did he actually rape the girl.
Because there is a difference between having sex with an underage girl and having sex with an underage girl agains her (de facto) will.
Both are illigal but only the latter is morally rape. (There are places such as US where the latter is called "statutory rape" which is of course misleading).
So, what did actually happen?
There is a need for exemplary justice in his case or the times are out of joint.
There is a need for exemplary justice in this case or we face the possibility that the next movie Polanski directs will be a remake of "Lolita" starring himself as Humbert Humbert.
Just to rub it in our faces.
@FLS
When Republican Congressman Henry Hyde carried on the extramarital affair he later characterized as a "youthful indiscretion," he was between 41 and 46. So by this GOP yardstick the 43 year old Polanski was still a youth.
Come on. You have more gravitas than using bad behavior to excuse bad behavior. Besides, you're probably already aware of this but couldn't let it go without a swipe at the political opposition...
...an extramarital affair is NOT in the same ballpark as using drugs to RAPE a MINOR.
It's possible that since, by your own admission you don't have kids, you simply don't get it. I believe, however, you're smart enough to academically understand the awful horror an act like this would inflict on a family and you're just using the occasion to point nah-nah fingers at the GOP.
This has zero to do with politics and everything to do with amoral relativism.
Albert, you could, you know, google the grand jury testimony and the plea Polanski agreed to to understand what actually happened.
Forcible rape of a 13 year old by a 40+ year old is what happened.
Polanski legally agreed he was guilty and then fled sentencing. So he's not being prosecuted - he agreed he was guilty. He's being pursued for avoiding sentencing.
FLS - not getting the connection between Hyde - now dead - who had an affair with a married adult woman.
I still like Martin Scoresese, even if his movies have been declining. I am disappointed with this stupid petition. This is not voting on Academy Awards or Palme d'Or. And this petition means nothing, other than these guys miss the entire point of doing something criminal and having to pay for it.
As for Woody Allen, well he is not a hypocrite.
@Seneca the Younger
You know why middle-aged men like young girls, right?
Equal emotional sophistication and maturity.
Explicitly sexist remark without a hint of humor. Thanks for buying into the de-manning of men in our society.
There is some very interesting science out just recently that may offer a reason why some men "suffer" what's commonly referred to as a mid-life crises. Bear in mind that this is based on purely unconscious and uncontrollable biological hard-wirings.
The logic goes something like; the man is primarily attracted to the fact that the young wife can bear children. As that woman reaches middle-age with the man, part of him realizes that she can no longer bear children and that part starts to pine for one who can.
I forward this not as an answer to the ridiculous statement given by Seneca, but merely because I think it's interesting. I don't subscribe to the point of view that we're all slaves to our urges. If that were so, Polanski would be just fine...but so would wife-beaters, rapists, serial killers, and pedophiles of all stripes and sizes.
You have more gravitas than using bad behavior to excuse bad behavior.
Just pointing out that others have used an absurd claim of youth to excuse their sexual sins, not that the sins were in anyway comparable.
edutcher - There's an old piece on the Internet from the early days of anti-Iraq movement comparing the educational pedigrees of Bush Administration people (Cheney, Condi, Rummy, etc.) with many of the Hollywood crowd.
Almost no college degrees (Susan Sarandon is the exception), many dropped out of college after a year or two, more only had a high school diploma, and some didn't even finish high school.
The problem with such a partisan piece is that it tends to be selective, pointing out certain Hollywood types lack "smart" credentials while ignoring a ton of celebrities with high IQs, high educational attainment.
This realization that Hollywood, music, even sports has some very, very smart people should not be surprising - these people are in highly competitive, highly rewarding businesses that you expect people to gravitate to. And sometimes brains are what distinguishes one from others of high talent, looks, singing ability, athleticism.
Go peruse some lists of "Hollywood brains", "entertainment celebrities who went to great uiniversities and did well", even high IQ stars in some sports..
They are pretty interesting.
The lesson is that overall, they appear to be much more intelligent than the equivalent number of people taken from the general population.
Similar to what you'd expect if you looked at successful entrepreneurs, top enlisted people in the US Armed Forces in certain specialities...
@FLS
Just pointing out that others have used an absurd claim of youth to excuse their sexual sins, not that the sins were in anyway comparable.
I call bullshit. You weren't innocently pointing this out. You were leveling the charge at an entire political party (and, subconsciously or consciously, all conservatives) that since Hyde did it, it's just hunky-dory.
Your statement was to score points against political foes, nothing else.
He slipped her a drug so that she couldn't resist.
But even so, at 13, even had she been willing, it would have still been statutory rape.
They should let the Manson gang finish him off.
I can't wait for someone to ask our Celebrity in Chief about this. I'm expecting he'll stick his best Skip Gates foot in it.
WV: sagishea: kind of like a wise guy.
Did he actually rape the girl.
Because there is a difference between having sex with an underage girl and having sex with an underage girl agains her (de facto) will.
Both are illigal but only the latter is morally rape. (There are places such as US where the latter is called "statutory rape" which is of course misleading).
So, what did actually happen?
From what I've read, he gave her drugs and alcohol before forcing himself on her. Reportedly, he raped and sodomized her against her will. To me, that meets the definition of rape in addition to statutory rape.
So he fled to Europe for this horrid sentence of a month and a half.
In Europe, that IS a horrid sentence. They don't believe in punishment, routinely releasing first-degree murderers after a decade or so.
On another note, I agree with the NYTimes. Reminds me of the column one of them wrote titled "Harvest the whales" about the ban on whale hunting even when the whales are abundant. Sometimes they get it right.
Using cocaine and drinking to excess up till your 40s makes you an excellent presidential candidate, apparently.
Sorry, couldn't resist. Rape is not in that realm.
Add Kevin Smith to the list of those saying "WTF? He raped a girl. Stop supporting him." More evidence that comic books don't rot the mind.
Hollywood is full of idiots. And we'll continue to elect some of them anyway.
Boy, Obama sure is making us wait for his opinion on Roman Polanski.
"Boy, Obama"
Is that racist?
Not Almodóvar! That makes no sense coming from someone who made Bad Education.
Hate to tell you, Cedar, but that list was of the most outspoken of the Hollywood crowd. There may be behind the camera people with some credentials, but, given what's come out of Tinsel Town the last ten years or so, I kind of doubt it.
How much of this is really about supporting Polanski rather than just one more forum to spit on the United States, the stupid and un-nuanced country that refuses to learn from its sophisticated European betters.
The Oscar? A chance for anti-American Hollywood to spit on the United States by elevating a martyr. Kind of like Jimmy Carter's NobelPrize. Or Al Gore's. Or Obama's Grammy.
Add Kevin Smith to the list of those saying "WTF? He raped a girl. Stop supporting him." More evidence that comic books don't rot the mind.
Good. Thank god there are at least a handful of sane people in hollywood.
There must be this HUGE gaping hole between 44 and 45 that I wasn't aware of since she is now the same age Polanski was when the crime was committed - yet those were his "young" years, but she's so old now that it can't even be relevant, right?
Amazing how that works.
The entire abuse-therapy culture that has grown since is a direct result of assholes like Polanski and his enablers. I despise that generation.
Maybe this is a generation gap thing.
Maybe it's a "casting couch" thing, i.e., justification for their own past abuse of positions of authority over unwilling actresses/actors (or the actresses'/actors' justification for giving themselves over to the producers, directors, etc. to advance their careers). Someone should ask Debra Winger how she got the part in "Urban Cowboy."
Florida,
I am relying on a LA DA's analysis of the sentencing agreement.
Polanski Sentence
Politicians have been trying to increase the time frame for which they can refer to certain events as "youthful indiscretions."
I think youthful indiscretions had better be over by the time one is 23.
Oh Goody!
Update:
Add-
Harrison Ford
Kristen Scott Thomas
Jeremy Irons
and-
Natalie Portman
to the list of Polanski Defenders
From the Telegraph (UK):
The French director Luc Besson refused to sign the petition calling for Polanski's release.
He said: "I have a lot of affection for him, he is a man that I like very much but nobody should be above the law. I don't know the details of this case, but I think that when you don't show up for trial, you are taking a risk."
According to some people who heard him yesterday, Michael Medved belongs on the list of Polanski apologists. Or did he find the need to recant on today's show?
Here is the complete list-update at the bottom-you can also add Ethan Coen.
link
Thanks madawaskan. The non-signatories are interesting (and heartening) too, especially if they're expected to sign.
wv: Karma Nips Loon (anagram for Roman Polanski-OK I made that one up)
THE LONESOME RAPE OF SAMANTHA GEIMER
Roman Polanski raped Samantha Geimer
With champagne and a Quaalude
He drugged and subdued her
At Jack Nicholson's Mulholland Drive home in Hollywood
Anjelica Huston knocked, said "Roman, are you in there?"
As Polanski committed his crime of violence
And he brutally raped a mother's young daughter.
But you who philosophize disgrace and cherry-pick the law,
Take the rag away from your face.
Now ain't the time for your bawl.
Angelica Huston, Jack Nicholson's girlfriend,
Said the girl looked to be "any age up to 25."
"She did not look like a 13-year-old scared little thing."
To the court Huston called her a "sullen little chick."
While confessing his crime, he asked for a bargain And directors and actors, defended Polanski
And in a matter of time he skipped out on his sentencing.
But you who philosophize disgrace and cherry-pick the law,
Take the rag away from your face.
Now ain't the time for your bawl.
Samantha Geimer was a thirteen year-old child.
She was led to believe he could make her an actress
And her photo would be in a famous French magazine
And she would soon sit at the head of the table
And talk to famous Hollywood people at the table Who deserve certain privileges like being the table And live in a world on a whole other level,
She was forced by a man, raped by a man
Who came in to her life, came down to her home, Determined to break the law of the People.
And she never done nothing to Roman Polanski.
But you who philosophize disgrace and cherry-pick the law,
Take the rag away from your face.
Now ain't the time for your bawl.
In the courtroom of opinion, rarefied film industry
To protest extraditing the child-rapist from Switzerland
Debra Winger, Harvey Weinstein, and even Jack Nicholson.
Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, and Rushdie, Salman
Mike Nichols, Neil Jordan, and Diane von Furstenberg
Milan Kundera, David Lynch, and Bernard-H. Lévy
Defend their friend who child-raped to please himself
Who just happened to be feelin' like he should please himself.
And they speak through their agents and sign their petitions
Say the so-called crime's over so now let's forget it
Our Roman should go free - honor and sense require it.
Oh, but you who philosophize disgrace and cherry-pick the law,
Bury your faces deep in the rag
For you're now a shame to us all.
Letter written by the lady in the Polnnski case to the LA Times, as people were asking the charges be dropped and Polanski allowed back into the USA after "The Pianist" was widely described as a "great film" and had swept Europe for awards prior to the Oscars.
Judge the Movie, Not the Man
By Samantha Geimer|February 23, 2003
And should he come back? I have to imagine he would rather not be a fugitive and be able to travel freely. Personally, I would like to see that happen. He never should have been put in the position that led him to flee. He should have received a sentence of time served 25 years ago, just as we all agreed. At that time, my lawyer, Lawrence Silver, wrote to the judge that the plea agreement should be accepted and that that guilty plea would be sufficient contrition to satisfy us. I have not changed my mind.
I know there is a price to pay for running. But who wouldn't think about running when facing a 50-year sentence from a judge who was clearly more interested in his own reputation than a fair judgment or even the well-being of the victim?
If he could resolve his problems, I'd be happy. I hope that would mean I'd never have to talk about this again. Sometimes I feel like we both got a life sentence.
My attitude surprises many people. That's because they didn't go through it all; they don't know everything that I know. People don't understand that the judge went back on his word. They don't know how unfairly we were all treated by the press. Talk about feeling violated! The media made that year a living hell, and I've been trying to put it behind me ever since.
Today, I am very happy with my life. I have three sons and a husband. I live in a beautiful place and I enjoy my work. What more could I ask for? No one needs to worry about me.
The one thing that bothers me is that what happened to me in 1977 continues to happen to girls every day, yet people are interested in me because Mr. Polanski is a celebrity. That just never seems right to me. It makes me feel guilty that this attention is directed at me, when there are certainly others out there who could really use it.
*
Editor's note: The Times' usual practice is not to name victims of sexual crimes. Samantha Geimer's name is used here with her consent.
Other than Anne Applebaum, are there any U.S. supporters of Polanski who are not Hollywood celebrities?
Does anyone think that this rape and sodomy of a 13 year old child was the first or even the only time he had committed such a vile act? Really?
How many other children do we imagine that he has violated in the subsequent years? People who are pedophiles rarely stop at just once.
But, it's all cool because he makes such wonderful movies. Bleeech.
chickenlittle-
No problemo.
Meade-
Ugh-that damn comment by Angelica Houston.
She looked old, sullen.
Ghee you think a kid of what eighty pounds or so with half a Quaalude and the synergistic effect of champagne before and after, with a creep like Polanski hovering over her-anyone might look-
sullen.
But, somehow this was presented as a point against her-as if she was a plotter, devious-world weary at thirteen.
"Boy, Obama"
Is that racist?
Nope...You were saved by a comma.
DBQ
Oh ya the recidivism rate-it's about the highest.
C-4-
Do we let abused children defend their parents?
Do you think after what we've been exposed to of the opinion popular in Hollywood that her ability to calibrate the situation might be affected by their preferential treatment of one of theirs.
There is a reason law is decided by neutral parties.
Seriously, cry me a river. I have no sympathy for these nitwits whatsoever. If they don't know what they're talking about, they shouldn't butt in.
If they find they've unwittingly placed themselves in the position of defending a child rapist, they deserve to reap the full, glorious consequences.
Most of these dim bulbs are far too coddled as it is. A good brisk slap in the face would do some of them wonders.
No sympathy for those who have unlimited resources to become educated, but aren't.
They pay a LOT of money for the luxury of being misguided and loony-liberal.
Show me a 13-year-old who isn't sullen. Seriously. They define the term.
Sullen is age-appropriate for a 13-year-old.
In 1979, Woody Allen made the movie Manhattan. That movie featured Woody consorting with a 17 year old high school student. The affair was presented sympathetically. The young girl was shown as being level headed; Woody's need for her was shown as charming, not sick or self destructive.. The movie was well received critically, and I don't remember a single reviewer pointing out that the affair romanticized something very putrid in a slick, glib way. The past really is a foreign country.....After his flight, Polanski took up with Natasha Kinski. She was underaged at the time. There was very little outrage then or now at this. For one thing, she was Natasha Kinski; for another she was the daughter of another celebrity and presumably knew the rules of the celebrity sandbox. But looking back, it does seem strange that this affair attracted so little scandal. Were we all so complacent and accepting back then of molestation?.....One other thing: I find Polanski's fame and power to be an aggravating factor in this case. He could fool around with movie stars and instead chose to drug a thirteen year old girl. He wasn't doing this despite the rules but to spite the rules. There is something so willful and entitled in his behavior that it sets your teeth on edge.....That said, I find it difficult to enunciate the proper punishment for him. I think he should go to jail for his flight. The rape was, of course, a far greater crime, but there seems something over the top about our anger towards him, as though we are trying to extinguish our complicity in his crimes.
C-4-
Do we let abused children defend their parents?
Do you think after what we've been exposed to of the opinion popular in Hollywood that her ability to calibrate the situation might be affected by their preferential treatment of one of theirs.
There is a reason law is decided by neutral parties.
1. We have a goal to let children be heard if what the State is proposing to do on behalf of their so called-best interests in fact deeply harms the child more than the initial offense, in the child's opinion. In many cases, children, with lawyers - have sought the legal right to defend their relationship with parents and AGAINST the "nurturing Nazis" of Child Protective Services or Courts AFTER their parents fall in - say - a pot bust.
2. The woman lived in Hawaii, had nothing to do with the entertainment industry, and was stating her opinion without "artiste influence" back in 2003.
3. The idea that prosecutors and even judges on some occasions are "neutral parties" is a joke. Geimer felt that both agencies, judge and prosecutor, had absolutely no concern whatsoever for her welfare..they were in complete focus on using the publicity to promote their careers.
Along with the media, which cared nothing about harming her or her reputation if it got them more money.
I'm not going to pretend to know much about the law but what I see here is -someone trying to escape the unified code of the law.
And I still think the motivations of lawyers-on both sides-defenders and prosecutors might provide more balance and opportunity for justice than a thirteen year old has a chance of on her own against someone of Hollywood.
William-
Sure, how else do these artists attain their special status if not for the fact that it is somehow given to them by us.
Why else would they be signing their names to a petition like a high school clique of -the cool kids?
You can guess-only 'the cool" were asked to sign it.
You don't see the name of [as peter hoh mentions]-"Mr. Medved" because -horror! the cool kids might not sign after seeing that.
And, who is he anways?
The 1970s was a remarkably unpleasant, creepy decade in a lot of ways, William.
One of its seedier aspects was that it was the the time of what the NY Time called "porno chic," when hardcore pornography enjoyed its biggest level of mainstream respectability. The porn of that time routinely included scenarios that glamorized sex with women who were presented as underage.
It's all very ick, in retrospect.
It's not like Polanski was soliciting sex with an undercover officer in a bathroom stall or anything as icky as all *that*.
The 1970s was a remarkably unpleasant, creepy decade in a lot of ways, William.
Yes it was. Just watch Boogie Nights.
Things that were terrible about the 1970's (from one who lived through it)
Carter.....need I say more.
Stagflation. Gas rationing.
Horrible ugy cars at mid to end of the decade.
Polyester leisure suits, men's hair doos. Sideburns. WOMEN'S hair doos and make up. Bell bottoms. White boots. White belts. Hip huggers. Platform shoes. Jumbo gargantuan ties. Giant bug eyed glasses. Afros.. Afros with combs stuck in them.
ORANGE everywhere. Shag carpeting. Avocado green.
Disco. Cocaine mania. Free wheeling sex but with cruel cynicism that the starry eyed hippies lacked. No peace and love and earth groovy. Just fuck.
Not that there wasn't good stuff too. But seriously ....Polyester??
Yup, as someone who lived through the '70s, the good stuff isn't what lingers, which is, so far, not true of any other decade I'ved lived through.
Peter, I didn't get to hear Medved yesterday, but I dearly hope his callers gave him Hell. Sometimes, his read on things is just backwards. Take his insistence that McCain was the best GOP candidate for 2008.
"The movie was well received critically, and I don't remember a single reviewer pointing out that the affair romanticized something very putrid in a slick, glib way."
The age of consent in New York state is 17 and may have been lower back when the film was made. So, as long as both partners consent, I see nothing "putrid" about it.
Now, I'm 33 and if one of my friends in New York was dating a 17 year old? I'd mock him mercilessly, personally. So I guess that I'd see something off about it, but I don't know that I'd consider it "putrid".
"After his flight, Polanski took up with Natasha Kinski. She was underaged at the time."
She was 15 and the age of consent in France, where the affair happened, was then (and still is) 15. So, no, she wasn't underaged.
If one of my peers was dating someone who was 15? Again, I'd mock him mercilessly, and I'd probably see him as kind of creepy.
But the fact that the behavior was legal in the country where it took place goes a long way toward explaining why there wasn't much of a scandal.
Jerry Lee Lewis, on the other hand, was a hick. Roman Polanski is an artiste.
Whoopi Goldberg said it wasn't "rape-rape", like where somebody forces you to have sex that you don't want.
Whoopi wants people to be aware of the facts, not what they *think the facts are. Man! I'm beginning to question Goldberg's sense!
Next she'll be encouraging her white boyfriend to appear in blackface, defending Michael Vick (from Virginia Beach)the dogfighter as a deep South cultural value, or saying her 80 year old mom was prevented from voting 90 years ago.
Shreds of sympathy for the likes of Goldberg, an idjit...? No.
Adding: Goldberg is on the current ToysRUs circular, selling toys. Her timing is not great.
Perhaps she was asked to defend Polanski, by their mutual agent. Or maybe she's just that stupid.
But the fact that the behavior was legal in the country where it took place goes a long way toward explaining why there wasn't much of a scandal.
Woody Allen's behavior was legal, and yet a scandal surrounding it nevertheless mysteriously happened. For that matter, Bill Clinton's adultery was legal, even if his perjury about it wasn't.
Scandals normal arise not from illegal behavior, but from behavior that is perceived as immoral. One would hope that it would be seen as morally questionable for a man it his late 40s to be boinking a teenager, even if it is entirely legal.
Show me a 13-year-old who isn't sullen.
Well, there are boys that age who are still pleasant to be around. Once they wake up, in the early afternoon.
Regarding Jerry Lee Lewis: the age for consent for marriage has often been different from the age of consent for sex. People have usually been able to get married legally much younger than they have been able to have sex. So JLL's marriage was probably a matter of poor taste rather than illegal.
The spread of porn in the 70s was tied to the VCR, and vice versa. At a Consumer Electronics Show I attended, the line to get Seka's autograph wrapped around McCormick Place.
I should have said "on occasion".
I can't stop laughing at the lunacy Whoopi enacted before the entire world by declaring it wasn't "rape-rape". Shitster, why not keep adding a few more, let's see, I wonder if it would have been more sane if Whoopi would have said it wasn't, "rape-rape-rape", or maybe "rape-rape-rape-rape". Personally if I were going to act crazy on national TV, I'd go for broke and string about ten "rapes" together.
I wish, when Whoopi had asked if he wanted to reinstate slavery, that McCain had said something like "well, yes, but it won't be slavery slavery. It will be a milder form. Like weekends off, or something.
i guess jeremy irons learned a thing or two when he played humbert humbert in lolita...
as for woody allen, how many movies has he made where he dated or hung around with little girls? in "manhattan" he was dating a high school girl and it was laughed off by the sophisticates in the movie. hell, in "crimes and misdemeanors" he pseudo-dates an 8 year old girl.
in "manhattan" he was dating a high school girl and it was laughed off by the sophisticates in the movie.
No it wasn't. Diane Keaton's character mocks him for it, saying that the fact that his first wife left him for another woman "explains the little girl", who she describes as "no threat at all". The rest of the characters generally react with embarrassed silence. The only one who supports the relationship is his lecherous best friend.
I was pretty sure there was a reason that I'd never watched a Woody Allen movie.
Bleh.
I've mentioned that I write science fiction... speculative fiction. In some of my story development I've got age disparities between "couples" that would not be acceptable in our culture. Not everything is portrayed as positive just because it exists as part of the story because a great deal of what drives plot is "bad things happen". But they aren't all bad, either, but when they aren't that is because the people exist within a cultural framework that does something to balance out what we see as disparities.
Obviously, if someone is sexually mature, then that's what they are. What squicks us is that we understand that in the context of *now* (and pretty much every era prior to now) a 13 year old or 15 year old really isn't able to consent... which is really our rather backward way of saying that a young person that age has a very limited ability to say NO. Consenting is easy enough... it's the lack of consent that takes personal power that vulnerable young people do not have.
And which is why I have to ask...
"After his flight, Polanski took up with Natasha Kinski. She was underaged at the time."
... although LEGAL at the time, what were the consequences to Natasha Kinski if she said no? We're supposed to, I suppose, think that a stunningly beautiful young woman would rather f*ck Roman Polanski than make love with a young man of similar physical beauty. We're supposed to imagine that he is just really that wonderful a lover?
Did she actually have any power? Could she have refused and still had his patronage and had her career?
In a situation where no woman has any power age seems less important though we'd wish any woman of any age someone who was kind and not repulsive. In a situation where even a very young woman, even at puberty, had power and understood her options, then age seems less important as well.
But we live in a situation where women *chose* because they have the power to do so, and we recognize that the ability to wield that power comes stronger with maturity and that a young person does not have the ability to *consent* to sex with an older adult.
"peruse some lists of "Hollywood brains,... even high IQ"
C-fudd's idea of "high IQ" is anything in double digits.
Peter Hoh:
"Other than Anne Applebaum, are there any U.S. supporters of Polanski who are not Hollywood celebrities?"
C-fudd. Like I've been saying, the NAMBLA mentality.
Hollywood smarts? How about Hedy Lamarr. In 1942, she and a co-inventor got a patent for a frequency-hopping technology that was 20 years ahead of its time.
I was pretty sure there was a reason that I'd never watched a Woody Allen movie.
Well, your mileage may vary, but in my opinion he did some great films (of which "Manhattan" is, in my opinion, the best) in the 60s and 70s. He had a great ear for dialogue.
We're supposed to, I suppose, think that a stunningly beautiful young woman would rather f*ck Roman Polanski than make love with a young man of similar physical beauty. We're supposed to imagine that he is just really that wonderful a lover?
The lure of wealth and fame have been inspiring beautiful young women to boink ugly old dudes for thousands of years. This is not exactly a new or unusual phenomenon.
Do you think Mick Jagger landed all those groupies on the basis of his appearance? The man has the face of a sea bass.
When Sharon Tate and her child died, it wasn't murder murder. Right, Whoopie?
Revenant,
Fair enough. You're right. Although many sex scandals involve illegality, not all do.
I guess that what I was getting at was that, for the most part, people don't really find affairs between two people who are considered to be consenting adults all that scandalous.
If Woody Allen simply started seeing a young starlet, I don't think that there would have been much of a scandal. But it was a betrayal of Mia Farrow, his long-term partner, with a younger girl he helped raise.
Similarly, had Bill Clinton been a businessman, a rockstar, or a film director, there wouldn't have been that much of a scandal. The scandal resulted more from the fact that the president engaged in such tawdry Jerry Springer behavior.
There were no homes wrecked, no rape allegations made, and no sex tapes or anything salacious. And since I was a very small child at the time the relationship happened, I have no idea if Polanski's relationship with Kinski was general knowledge at the time. I'd be surprised if it was.
And while I mostly agree that it's morally questionable for a guy in his 40's to be messing around with a 15 year old girl, it was legal at the place and in the time it took place, and legal pairings with the same age difference aren't particularly scandalous in and of themselves.
I think that Trump's latest wife is like 25 years younger than he is, right? I don't remember anybody making a big stink about it. I don't know.
The US should cut a deal with polanski. If he goes to Gitmo and uses his techniques to encourage the prisoners there to expunge what they know we'll let him go on his merry way. It's a win-win the Hollywood lefties are fine and dandy with his methods and the US gets their intelligence info.
"The lure of wealth and fame have been inspiring beautiful young women to boink ugly old dudes for thousands of years. This is not exactly a new or unusual phenomenon."
Which plays back to my other point. What were the consequences for her life if she *didn't* hook up with him? Beautiful young women don't boink ugly old dudes for the *sex*. And while a 25 year old might be mature enough to know just what she's getting out of the deal, I'm still inclined to think it highly unlikely that a 15 year old, in any culture, has the same understanding of her options.
What were the consequences for her life if she *didn't* hook up with him?
Hard to say. There isn't exactly a shortage of beautiful actresses with mediocre acting ability. The patronage of a well-known Hollywood insider presumably helps a lot.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा