View Full Version : Perverts making movies
Thu, 27th Mar '03, 1:28am
In order not to derail the Oscars discussion in Whatnots, I am starting this discussion about Roman Polanski here. I hope those who were in that thread find this one.
As was mentioned there, Polanski is accused of rape for drugging and having sex with a 14 year old girl. This is called rape here in Canada, and I believe in the States as well (where the crime took place). Someone pointed out that sex with someone under the age of consent (it was 16, I believe, at the time in that jurisdiction) is known as statutory rape. I would argue that even if she had been over 18, let alone 16 at the time, but was drugged before the sex occured, that would be called rape, at least in my books.
This brings to mind another filmmaker (his name escapes me) who made a film called "Powder" around '95 or '96. His victim was quite upset that after a few years in a cushy prison, his molester was allowed to re enter society as if a life had not been seriously damaged and direct a big ticket movie (Jeff Goldblum was the big name actor therein). The victim mounted protests and managed to taint the film enough so that it tanked at the box office (IIRC). I say good on that kid. I do not care how good a moviemaker the rapist was, or how good Polanski is/was. I find it disturbing that such a serious crime is treated as though it didn't happen, and people want to give rewards to the perpetrator. I argue that there IS a connection between a crime and your career. We're not talking about a blacklist over political beliefs here, we're talking about serious, disgusting crime, and to turn a blind eye to such behaviour, to my mind, spits on the victims of these sickos.
Thu, 27th Mar '03, 4:06am
"Powder" was directed by Victor Salva. Personally, I think it tanked because it wasn't a very good movie.
If you're talking about a CONVICTED criminal you have a point. But look at what happened to Jeff Smith, the Frugal Gourmet. He was accused of molestation and reached an out-of-court settlement. There was no admission of guilt but he still hasn't been on TV since, and there are A LOT of fans out there. There's no way to know if the alleged incident was real or just another sicko's ploy for a quick profit.
Thu, 27th Mar '03, 7:47am
I don't know much about this because I don't watch the news or read the papers (if I'm being lied to, I at least like to know about it). Seems to me though, that if you're rich enough, and the media gets in there, pretty much anything can happen. If the media gets sympathy out there for you, you're on easy street. That's the american (and canadian) justice system for you.
Thu, 27th Mar '03, 4:10pm
The crime was 25 years ago, I dont know really much about American law, but isnt the crime expired then?
Thu, 27th Mar '03, 5:03pm
Possibly the statute of limitations has expired, but some savvy lawyers might be able to sneak around that.
Thu, 27th Mar '03, 5:24pm
Polanski was arrested and agreed to a plea deal:
Following his indictment on various sex charges, Polanski agreed to a plea deal that spared him prison time (he had spent about 45 days in jail during a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation). But when it seemed that a Superior Court judge might not honor the deal--and sentence Polanski to prison--the director fled the country.From (NOTE: This site contains ADULT CONTENT in relation to this matter): smoking gun (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html)
What I find additionally appalling is the standing ovation the *****s in Hollywood gave when his Oscar victory was announced. He wasn't there of course.
Thu, 27th Mar '03, 7:56pm
A couple of years ago there was a similar (although perhaps not as inflammatory) situation: Elia Kazan was given an honorary oscar for life achievement. Although everybody agrees he is (was) a great director, the question was raised of whether he morally deserves such an honour (he cooperated with the McCarthy comittee and named about 20 people as communists or communist sympathisers).
Both here and in Polanski's case the question is essentially similar - if you're honouring somebody's skill as a filmmaker should their immoral attitudes in other matters influence the decision. I would say no, but then again I would also say that the academy is constantly influenced by factors other than artistic merit - so hypocrisy in abundance.
Thu, 27th Mar '03, 8:11pm
Depaara: If he did it once, he's likely to have done it in the past, or do it in the future. They can always catch him on a different charge even though the statute of limitations is expired for that particualar charge.
Thu, 27th Mar '03, 9:14pm
He had sex with the girl, when SHE didn't want it. That is rape and in my opinion, should be punishable by death. No matter her age.
Fri, 28th Mar '03, 11:29am
Agreed, Eze, Agreed.
(tired, hungry, and just abut hating everyhing on the bloody planet...)
Fri, 28th Mar '03, 4:39pm
He raped her. Case closed, castrate the bastard. I will never watch the Oscars again.
Fri, 28th Mar '03, 10:29pm
It is a horrible crime. I mean, what does it really give you that a Vicky Secret catalogue and a box of tissues don't? :rolleyes: Like I said before, he'll do it again next chance he gets because he didn't get caught, the only difference is that this time he'll maybe kill her. He should be hunted down and done SOMETHING with.
Sat, 29th Mar '03, 12:07am
My opinion is still the same. The accusations are bogus. He didn't rape her, therefore Polanski is neither a "pervert" nor a "rapist".
1. Sex and violence sells. That's why all the newspapers love to print the story about an "perverted" director who get's an Oscar. "Oh, wanna know all the little nasty details ? Everything inside !"
2. If he acutally did rape her, he would have spent a long time in jail. But he didn't. Now, why didn't he ? Well, if the DA at that time really thought he had a "rape-case", he wouldn't have made a deal in which Polanski would have been sentenced to a ridiculous short time in jail. And more important, "statutatory rape" is a crime in France (surprise :eek: ). So, after polanski fled to France, all what the californian DA had to do, would have been to send his evidence to the France authorities. Whereas the french authorities are not allowed to turn Polanski over to the USA, because his a french citizien, the french authorities are oblieged by french law to prosecute him, if they get the necessary evidence from the americans.
Hm, but this didn't happen. And I can't help to ask myself why ? Does an californian DA not know how to write a letter ? :confused: Or might it be, he hasn't enough evidence ?
3. The whole thing is not expired. The californian DA therefore still has the possibility to send the evidence over to the french authorities. Strangely enough, I read in a newspaper, that the now for the case responsible DA is well aware of this possibility, but doesn't intend to do so. And I am asking myself why ? :confused:
[ March 29, 2003, 00:13: Message edited by: Yago ]
Sun, 30th Mar '03, 3:02am
That's why I say, if he does it again, there's a good chance he did it before with that other girl. If he does do it again, they can nail him on that, rather than ***** and moan about the one that got away. Look around for other rape victims.
Mon, 31st Mar '03, 8:06am
Well, if he did it then he should be punished. But let's return to the question on whether he should have been given the Oscar. I say yes. He was not honored for his morals. If you don't agree, consider this. If he did time for his crime would you change your mind? If not, then we should not honor anyone for anything if he has committed a crime. There a lot of showbiz personalities who have been charged with assault, adultery, theft, etc. Does the nature of the crime determine determine it? If it's a misdemeanor, it's okay. If it's a heavier crime, it's not.
The people present during the awards night didn't seem to find anything wrong. I'm not saying that they should be our barometer but when Elia Kazan got an honorary Oscar, a lot of them didn't clap. They remembered his role in the McCarthy witchhunt and reacted accordingly. There indeed be more to Polanski's case than meets the eye.
Mon, 31st Mar '03, 8:13am
There's the whole question of 'morality' (I don't even think that should be a word anymore, it's apparent there's none left) in showbiz. You've got porn stars on midday TV, rape cases airing prime time, people shooting each other, casual sex/drugs/drinking/murder. We've become no better than Roman's watching lions tear some poor Jews apart.
Mon, 31st Mar '03, 3:59pm
Nay, we became human
Mon, 31st Mar '03, 5:01pm
Polanksi made a lot of movies after this "sex-scandal". Starring Harrison Ford, Johnny Depp, Walter Mathau, Hugh Grant and others. All "perverts" ?
The main point I think is still, they all aplauded, because the knew that the rape accusations are bogus.
Few will argue that Mr. Polanski is not a talented filmmaker. But his artistry does not negate the fact that he is a convicted child molester who does not have the moral fiber
to accept responsibility for his actions. The unrelenting narcissism among so many of Hollywood's elite, the industry's rejection of moral standards and embrace of extreme left-wing politics, perhaps help explain why the TV
audience for this year's Oscar telecast was down 23 percent to an all-time low. Hollywood is simply out-of-step with America.
What really annoyed me was this comment. Obviously an excerpt from one of those pseudo-christian papers, which mainly are bought for their pornographic content, are notorious for the bad journalism and which are made by people which I like to call "perverted hypocrits".
"an all time-low". Ever heard about the war in Iraq ?
[ March 31, 2003, 17:15: Message edited by: Yago ]