I agree with Best, and also agree that in a society where child molestation is considered the most unforgivable of crimes, it's hypocritical to have a different standard for someone just because of his legendary celebrity status.
After years of hearing how he should be forgiven, I *did* see the documentary and though I agree the prosecution left something to be desired the documentary also made it pretty clear that Polanski raped a 13 year old. Perhaps he will be treated rather leniently if found guilty, but he should at least be prosecuted like any other person accused of such a crime.
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/10/04
Hey, orangeskittles, LISTEN HERE! Someone mentioned "Dance of the Vampires" in this thread. That's the only reason I posted. Did you notice the first word I said was off topic? To me off topic means NOTHING to do with the topic being discussed (It just so happens Polanski directed "Tanz") and if you actually paid close attention to my last sentence, "I have NOTHING to say about Roman" I wouldn't be making this post NOW.
Applause to FindingNamo for the hilarious sarcasm.
Every bit of evidence indicates that he drugged and raped a child, then fled prosecution. I find it impossible to comprehend how anyone has anything but contempt for him.
Lately, it has become trendy to boycott celebs when folks disagree with their politics, everyone from the Dixie Chicks to Rosie O'Donnell. I have never seen, and I never will see, a film by Roman Polanski.
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/10/04
I didn't want to pass comment in this thread but me, personally, I'm not too sure what the judge did, but Roman took advantage of that girl and he ought to face up to it after 31 years. Period.
Edit: That's the only way I can put it.
--He agreed to "sex with a minor", not rape.
--Both the prosecuting attorney and the defense agreed that the judge--high on being in a celebrity case (echoes of Judge Ito here)--was out to make an example of Polanski.
--Similar cases did not end with such harsh sentences.
--If the girl agrees that we should "let it go" who are we are to say that she's wrong? What Polanski did was perverted and wrong but there is no indication that he is a serial pedophile who should be kept from society.
Incidentally, where was the mother at the time? She just dropped her 13-year-old off at Jack Nicholson's house for a photog session?
Didn't the mother put her daughter up to it? Or am I thinking of another celebrity case?
Time has an article about France's reaction to the arrest. If anyone is trying to write off the crime because he's famous, it's them.
In France topless 13 year old girls are featured in advertising all over the city, then and now. Moreso then than now, but it is still not taboo. Actually, Sharon Stone at 55 topless on the cover of a big french magazine last month caused more waves than a 15 year old would, there (CERTAINLY not here in the USA - Home of the Cougar!) so I guess times are changing... but for better or worse?
Nudity and sexuality is a much different issue in France and most of Europe than it is here.
First of all, nudity and sex are NOT automatically assumed to be one in the same as they are here, and neither is considered inherently "dirty" whether 13 or 31...
This area of cultural discourse can become a VERY slippery slope, particularly in THIS thread, so someone who wants their head chopped off may continue this side of the argument, if they care to, but I've had enough cultural ignorance for one lifetime!
And the girl even admits it was consensual, btw, drugs or no drugs... and if you've SEEN the pictures, you'd know that this girl could have passed for 23 and she DID lie about her age (she said she was 19 - and I would've believed her stone cold SOBER, which Roman was not)...
::Waits for the inevitable "13 year olds aren't capable of making their own decisions!"/"It's still a crime!"/"He should have known better!"::
P
This is from Wikipedia, so trust it to whatever extent you do (though it is annotated), but it certainly doesn't sound consensual to me:
In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, became embroiled in a scandal involving 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now known as Samantha Geimer). It ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.
According to Geimer, Polanski asked Geimer's mother if he could photograph the girl for the French edition of Vogue, which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, "Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him." She added, "It didn't feel right, and I didn't want to go back to the second shoot."
Geimer later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the Mulholland area home of actor Jack Nicholson in Los Angeles. "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there." She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!,' and then I didn't know what else to do," she stated.
Geimer testified that Polanski performed various sexual acts on her after giving her a combination of champagne and quaaludes. Specifically, Geimer's testimony was that Polanski kissed her, performed cunnilingus on her, penetrated her vaginally, and then penetrated her anally, each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop.
Wiki link
Updated On: 9/28/09 at 04:02 PM
--He agreed to "sex with a minor", not rape.
Well, see it IS rape, because she wasn't a consenting adult. She was a child of 13. It's statutory rape.
--Both the prosecuting attorney and the defense agreed that the judge--high on being in a celebrity case (echoes of Judge Ito here)--was out to make an example of Polanski.
Purely speculation and an opinion, since the case never came to trial. No "example" or intent to make one was ever made.
--Similar cases did not end with such harsh sentences.
He wasn't sentenced or convicted, so his sentence couldn't be viewed as "harsh." He was never brought to trial.
--If the girl agrees that we should "let it go" who are we are to say that she's wrong? What Polanski did was perverted and wrong but there is no indication that he is a serial pedophile who should be kept from society.
Well, yes, he is a pedophile. He also had a relationship with Nastassja Kinski, who was 15 at the time. This wasn't the first time or the last for him.
Leading Actor Joined: 5/17/06
I wasn't sure what to think until a friend sent me this excellent article (assuming all the facts are correct therein):
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/index.html
The above article makes it clear that it was rape--plain and simple--no matter what the girl's age was at the time.
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/4/04
Both the prosecuting attorney and the defense agreed that the judge--high on being in a celebrity case (echoes of Judge Ito here)--was out to make an example of Polanski.
Similar cases did not end with such harsh sentences.
Again, he could have appealed. Heck, if he could prove the judge was purposely tormenting him he might have been able to get damages from the state of California. But instead he decided that he was above the law, ran, and tried to get his case dropped because he's the great Roman Polanski.
Being famous doesn't give you special permission to do an end run around our legal system. There were mechanisms in place for him to protest his sentencing and get it overturned, and fleeing to a country with no extradition treaty wasn't one of them. So frankly, he can take his woe is me routine and shove it.
He plied a 13 year old with alcohol and drugs, and then had sex with her. He is a rapist. A very talented and gifted rapist, but a rapist nevertheless.
And Pgenre, regardless of what she looked like, he asked her mother for permission (as per RT's info) so he knew she was not the age of consent. So, even if it was consensual (which is highly doubtful because of the use of drugs and alcohol) it was still statutory rape.
A huge AMEN, YWIW.
For those of you feeling sorry for Polanski, read what he did to a 13 year old girl. (I mean in addition to anal rape).
The Victim's Testimony
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/4/04
Wow, the old "she looked 18" argument. I feel like I should be starting a "classic excuses for rape" drinking game or something. Are we going to talk about how consensual sex totally involves one party drugging the other with Quaaludes, too?
But you know what? Let's put that aside for the moment - no matter what you think of the validity of the rape charges, there is absolutely no denying he ran out on his sentencing and then lived as a fugitive for decades. Those are crimes. For which people get arrested. I'm really not getting what's so complicated about that.
I can't see any reasons to defend him.
I can't even really see any reasons to protest the law.
===
The teenager's troubling--and contemporaneous--account of her abuse at Polanski's hands begins with her posing twice for topless photos that the director said were for French Vogue. The girl then told prosecutors how Polanski directed her to, "Take off your underwear" and enter the Jacuzzi, where he photographed her naked. Soon, the director, who was then 43, joined her in the hot tub. He also wasn't wearing any clothes and, according to Gailey's testimony, wrapped his hands around the child's waist.
The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson's home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he "keep away." According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later "started to have intercourse with me." At one point, according to Gailey's testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was "on the pill," and "When did you last have your period?" Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of him."
I'd still like to know where ol' permission-granting mom was all this time.
I'm really... surprised that anyone would think that anything other than the law matters.
I don't care who he is or what the victim wants, the law is clear on this (as others with far more knowledge have stated). He has broken the law in numerous ways, and he needs to be punished.
I think Plum said it perfectly: he can take his woe is me routine and shove it.
If he weren't famous, this wouldn't even be a discussion. This would be a thread cheering his capture and criticizing the justice system for not getting him behind bars sooner. It doesn't matter that she doesn't want him prosecuted. It doesn't matter how old he thought she was. It doesn't matter if she was a completely willing participant. A 20 year old will go to jail for having sex with a willing 16 year old partner in most states. Nowhere in the US is it legal to have sex with a 13 year old under any condition.
The ease with which people resort to blaming the victim, in this case a 13 year old, makes me a little nauseated.
Broadway Star Joined: 11/3/07
"The ease with which people resort to blaming the victim, in this case a 13 year old, makes me a little nauseated."
It makes me sick too, having been in a similar position. I think blaming the victim (unless you know for a fact that they're not really a victim...which, sadly, has happened) comes from a lack of understanding of the situation and what that must be like for someone.
Nowhere in the US is it legal to have sex with a 13 year old under any condition.
It's legal if the partner is another minor. Horrible and unfortunate, but nothing criminally wrong.
But skittles, that has no bearing on this case. He was a 43 year old man.
Videos