Milan Kundera
Isabelle Huppert
Diane Von Furstenberg
Pedro Almodovar
Wes Anderson
Darren Aronofsky
Stephen Frears
Tilda Swinton
Martin Scorsese
David Lynch
Woody Allen
Debra Winger
Mike Nichols
Harmony Korine
Terry Gilliam
Julian Schnabel
Harvey Weinstein
Sam Mendes
Steve Soderbergh
Taylor Hackford
Natalie Portman
Harrison Ford
Alfonso Cuaron
Isabelle Adjani
Jeremy Irons
Ethan Coen
Penelope Cruz
Gael Garcia Bernal
Kirsten Scott Thomas
Terry Zwigoff
16 comments:
They all support Roman Polanski in the case of him raping a 13 year old girl about 30 years ago. Appalling is too weak of a word to describe what I think this is...
I'm curious: what is the German reaction to all of this? Are they calling the Americans pride or unnecessarily powertripping?
Oops-I meant Prude not Pride. Do Germans think we are prude?
Americans prude? Generally speaking: YES!!! ;-)
But I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. Do the Germans think it is prudish to arrest a rapist 30 years after the deed? A very famous one as well? Well, the general media coverage has been very neutral so far, mostly just quoting what certain celebrities, German or other, have said in favor or against Polanski. Some say it is powertripping, some call it justice. What do you mean with "the Americans" though? I mean, Polanski was arrested in Switzerland. Or you mean because the arrest warrant against him was kept up for so long? So far, the role of "the Americans" hasn't really been addressed, at least not to my knowledge... But trying to answer the question generally: NO, Germans do not think it is prude to arrest a rapist, no matter how long ago it happenend, or how famous that person happens to be.
Perhaps my first comment was not clear. I meant it is appalling that so many high-ranking celebrities publicly support a man who drugged and raped a 13-year-old!
No, I understood your first comment. I was just wondering because Europeans so often think we Americans are prude and, as the case with the French, they thought we were making a mountain out of a molehill because the girl, while 13, was "not unschooled in these matters" -- to quote one Polanski supporter. So maybe she wasn't a virgin (many 13 year olds are not) and she was, technically, a woman ... what many Americans are objecting to is the fact that he gave her a Qualude and some champagne. If it was consensual, why did you have to drug her?
For me, at least initially, I felt the matter should be dropped because the victim, after 30 years, says she seeks no further punishment and just wants to move on with her life. She has said, in so many words, that the charges should be dropped and she did, after all, receive $500,000 in a civil suit. Sounds like this should be all over by now.
But then, an attorney pointed out to me that it doesn't matter that the victim wants the charges dropped or whatever. A crime happened and it is society that has to pay. What I think he meant was that when someone commits a crime and gets away with it, it sends the wrong message and others may feel they can just get away with it too. So society is harmed that way. A good analogy is domestic violence. Even if the wife/woman wants to drop the charges, she cannot. The trial goes on anyway and she still has to testify. A crime is a crime regardless of whether or not the victim has forgiven.
I thought that was very interesting.
Polanski suffered enough. He had to live in France for the last 30 years.
I also wanted to add that it's a little fishy that just now, after 30 fricking years of not doing anything, they decide to extradite Polanski. This is political, I think. It's been suggested that relations between the Swiss and the U.S. is a little strained right now because of Swiss privacy banking practices (which enable money laundering, etc.) that the U.S. objects to. So at this point, the Swiss government wants to cooperate with the U.S. in any way they can to take attention away from the banking issue and to appease the U.S. Makes a lot of sense to me. I mean, the U.S. government could have extradited him countless times over the last 30 years -- apparently, Polanski travels all over Europe constantly and doesn't just stay in France where he is protected from extradition as a French citizen. But maybe the U.S. didn't want to pursue it before because they didn't want to ruffle any European feathers. But at this point, with the Swiss relations being what they are, it was a window of opportunity to do something like this. Just food for thought.
um, is it 100 % sure that this girl has been raped and it wasn't in any way consensual? i just can't understand it, if someone's done something to you as unspeakable as this how could you just lay low and couldn't care enough to put this guy behind bars for a healthy period of time.
but if indeed there is a proof no way polansky should get a free ride. for me any kind of consensual sexual relationship no matter whether i approve of it nature or not is fine, but sexual assault is disgusting really. i'm quite appalled at some of the names in that list, i don't believe anyone's professional achievements should free them of personal responsibility...
@ Nick: No, it was not totally consensual. Sure, she was not kicking and screaming the whole and saying "No No Stop!!" What happened was, according to her, he was slowly seducing her all night, asking her to take her top off, for example (she complied), then asking her to get into the jacuzzi. She felt uncomfortable, so she said she was having an asthma attack and needed to go home. He said okay, then offered her half a Quaalude, saying it would help her asthma (she didn't really have asthma; she just said that to get out of the situation). She took the pill with some champaign he offered her. At some point, they ended up on the bed, naked. He started to have sexual intercourse with her, but stopped, asking her when the last time she had her period. Apparently, he was afraid she would get pregnant. When she said she could not remember, he sodomized her instead. It is unclear if she protested at any time during this and we only know her side of the story. But it seems she was at least uncomfortable at the beginning and didn't know how to get out of the situation.
It has been implied that because she was not a virgin at the time, that somehow that lessens the crime.
@ Nick: in addition to what I said above, the reason why she wants to drop the whole thing is that this was already settled in a civil suit for $500,000. She says he's paid enough by having to be an exile and that everybody needs to put the past behind them. I saw her on tv and she doesn't seem bitter anymore. She's moved on with her life.
Like I said, it wasn't like he violent with her. But she was a girl and she didn't have the ability at her age to say no to an adult. She didn't know how to get out of the awkward situation and I think he took advantage of that. Because he was older, he was in control of the situation and she was not.
So, I've been doing some reading on this whole case, and I agree that this probably isn't as "black and white" as one would think the rape of a young girl would be. However, even IF it was consensual, which I don't think it was, isn't it still illegal for an adult to have sexual relations with a child, let alone to give her drugs and alcohol and to refuse to take her home when she clearly wanted to get out of the situation? Polanski clearly took advantage of a helpless girl and used it to the fullest. Plus, he has never shown any kind of remorse, even saying in interviews that he only regrets what happened to HIM after the whole thing, and claiming that every man secretely thinks about sex with young girls!
I read this really eye-opening statement by the spokeswoman of the L.A. Court of Justice (or something like that, the institution that issued the international arrest warrant against Polanski), and she said that when they arrest a priest or teacher who molested/raped children, sometimes more than 30 years ago, they are applauded. But when they arrest a famous director, they are booed. Go figure. And the article ends with the question: "Where is the difference between an artist and a priest?"
PS: Are some people really claiming that, just because that girl might not have been a virgin, it couldn't have been rape?! This is sickening.
The person who said that the girl "was not unschooled in these matters" was someone at the film festival in Switzerland. I think what he meant was that it wasn't like she was a virgin who was traumatized and that she was indeed a willing participant.
At the risk of ending up like Whoopi Goldberg, I kind of understand what he meant. Perhaps the woman/girl didn't protest so much because a part of her was actually enjoying the seduction. She never claimed to have been crying or terribly upset. She never said "No." But that doesn't take away from the fact that she was a minor and that it was not completely consensual. It's a grey area, but mostly black.
I don't think Roman Polanski is a pedophile. He's not attracted to children who have not yet developed pubic hair and breasts. The person in question was more a woman than a girl.
I remember reading some Roman Polanski interviews in the 80s or whenever, and his attitude was, "What's the big deal? This would never be a big deal in Europe where people are more enlightened about such things." Of course, now those quotes are going to haunt him in a major way once he's put on trial again or whatever.
I don't think he raped her in the sense that is usually thought of. He seduced her and while she may have been uncomfortable in the beginning, she did go along with it. But who's to say really? She may have gone along with it because, at her age, she didn't quite know how to extricate herself from the situation. And he took advantage of that.
I want to clarify what I said earlier. When that guys said "She was not unschooled in these matters," I understood it to mean that it's not like he took her innocence away. She'd had sex before.
You know, this all could have happened with her and a boy her own age. That's what people don't want to think about because they want everything cut and dry. If a boy her own age offered her half a Qualuude and some champagne, eventually getting her to take her top off and get into the jacuzzi, then later luring her into a bedroom to have sex and even sodomizing her ... would people be all up in arms? I mean, plenty of people lose their virginity at 13 with someone around their own age. Nobody, except the religious right, seems to care -- or at least aren't upset about it enough to voice an opinion. But why is it different, then, if the man is older?
The crux of the argument against Polanski is that she was too young to know how to extricate herself from the situation and say no to an older man. But a 13-year-old can have those same problems with a boy her own age. If it's peer pressure, then it's not rape?
This issue is more complex than people are willing to admit and that is why people are so appalled by Whoopi Goldberg's comment that "It wasn't rape-rape." People really don't want to think too deeply about this because we don't want to acknowledge that children/young adults have sexual feelings as well.
Unconsented-to, unlubricated rectal sex with anyone, let alone a tween girl plied with both methaqualone and alcohol, justifies his extradition at any time. What is scandalous is that it did not occur sooner. I have a hunch that what protected Roman Polanski was the concurrent release of Gerald Green's miniseries "The Holocaust" (1977), an event which some sensitive souls tell us confers a kind of Kosher Indulgence for crimes not yet committed by those so affected. If you thought Pope Urban II was a corrupt throwback, try Anne Applebaum!
Very good points brought up by all of you...so I can't really add too much other than to reiterate that this young woman was given a champagne and Quaalude combo and is therefore not likely to have had the same ability to reason with or resist Polanski (while under the influence) as she would have had while sober. As a much older man, Polanski would have known this.
Bottom line: Polanski took advantage of a young woman. Even on the unlikely and very remote chance this was consensual, she was still under-age. End of story.
In the U.S. this is considered rape no matter how you slice it. The laws are in place to protect those under age 18 from predatory older adults.
All I can say is that I don't consider Polanski absolved of his crime. He's gotta pay for it somehow - and I don't mean financially....Doesn't matter if 30 years have gone by. IMO, justice has not been served.
[In an interesting irony of sorts, Susan Atkins was in prison for 40 years - and just recently died there - after being convicted for the murder of Polanski's late wife, Sharon Tate in 1969. Susan had terminal brain cancer and one leg amputated but was never allowed, even in her last few months of life, to be mercifully released on parole to die at home...]
@ George: Oh my God. Applebaum is fucking pathetic. But wait, one of her supporters is even worse. Here's a sampling:
Do you realize his wife, Sharon Tate, 8 months pregnant with their unborn child was brutally butchered by the Manson family? This happening to a man that for years struggled to survive under Nazi rule in the Krakow Ghetto, had his mother gassed in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and even with all that was able to keep it together enough to direct some of the greatest films of all time with Chinatown and Rosemary's Baby. Hasn't the guy suffered enough in his life? Let's see if all your judgement calls are crystal clear after you've had your unborn child butchered along with your wife.
Jesus.
Post a Comment