Perverts making movies

Remove all ads!

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.

 

"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.

 

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.

 

The crime was 25 years ago, I dont know really much about American law, but isnt the crime expired then?

 

Possibly the statute of limitations has expired, but some savvy lawyers might be able to sneak around that.

 

Polanski was arrested and agreed to a plea deal:

From (NOTE: This site contains ADULT CONTENT in relation to this matter): smoking gun

What I find additionally appalling is the standing ovation the whores in Hollywood gave when his Oscar victory was announced. He wasn't there of course.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

Case closed.

 

*nods*

Agreed, Eze, Agreed.

(tired, hungry, and just abut hating everyhing on the bloody planet...)

 

He raped her. Case closed, castrate the bastard. I will never watch the Oscars again.

 

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? 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.

 

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 ). 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 ? 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 ?

[ March 29, 2003, 00:13: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Nay, we became human

 

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.

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 ]