394 replies to this topic

[jrcjohnny99]

Loomis; c'mon, WND? hardly the most balanced viepoint...at best conservative and in the case of their op-ed pieces (like the one you linked to) right-wing bible bashing....

Really? As a Brit, I don't know, to be honest. But that isn't to say that conservatives and Bible-thumpers are necessarily always wrong, or indeed that the pro-Polanski camp doesn't go in for propaganda of its own.

I completely agree, there's plenty of propaganda on both sides;
Having read a few books and caught the excellent doc i referenced before, I absolutely believe Polanski was in the wrong, but I also feel he was "set up" to an extent and certainly believe he was treated differently as a foreigner (especially one who made "edgy" movies) than he would have been had he been a)an American and/or someone not in the arts

It's doubtful in our celebrity obsessed world that ANY famous person can ever get a fair trial one way or another; Polanski was convicted by the US media before any trial could get started; often it happens the other way; Steven Gerrard's escaping punishment is a good example of a UK situation, similar in some ways to the OJ trial, where a sports hero was always going to get away with crimes that a normal person would not...

[Loomis]

I do not beleive for one minute it's as black and white as people like to make out.

Fair enough.

All I'm saying, really, is that the man would seem - at the very, very least - to be worthy of extradition to the United States, on the basis that he is a convicted criminal and a fugitive. Is he guilty or innocent? I don't know, but let him sort it out Stateside.

But, yes, it seems to me that certain people think Polanski should get an automatic free pass just for being (allegedly) a brilliant artist, and that attitude disgusts me. It's like those extremist Michael Jackson fans who thought that even if their man was guilty he should go unpunished. A Swiss film industry body describing Polanski's arrest as "a monstrous cultural scandal", as though it were an event on a par with the Taliban's destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan, displays an attitude so obscene, arrogant and unhinged that I have trouble even believing it.

[Harmsway]

again, I'm not condoning the actions, but I do not beleive for one minute it's as black and white as people like to make out.

That's my stance, as well.

But lest I seem too sympathetic, here's a pretty good rebuttal to that article I previously linked to:

Whitewashing Roman Polanski

[SecretAgentFan]

Why is it ridiculous? Polanski has been a fugitive from justice for many years. Why should he not be arrested?

My take is this: Yes, Polanski committed a crime back then. Yes, it was wrong to leave the US in order to avoid sentencing. But from everything I could read it was clear that the judge on that case did not have justice on his mind but booking a famous and controversial artist. So, it was understandable for Polanski to escape.

Now, time has passed. The victim has repeatedly stated that she does NOT want this case to be re-opened. There was a settlement between her and Polanski.

Still, some people still want Polanski to be tried and sentenced. Why? To do justice? For whom? The victim has moved on and is in fear of being again subjected to world wide scrutiny. But, hey, justice has to be done, right? The feelings of the victim just don´t interest here, right? Justice is so much more worth than what the victim wants.

So, a man, who is 75 years old, gets arrested. In a country that he has a mansion in. A country he has visited many times before. Nobody wanted to arrest him before. They explain it by saying: Well, we did not really know before when he would stay here.

Excuse me? If you really want to arrest someone, maybe you could watch his house? Or put him on the wanted list when he checks in at the airport? Is that too difficult for you?

This is clearly a case of someone with a personal vendetta against Polanski finally pushing for the arrest and getting his wish.

Make no mistake - I do not think that anybody, especially an artist, should be excused for his mistakes or crimes simply because he/she is an artist.

But in this particular case - who is to benefit from sending Polanski to jail now? The victim? Definitely not.

[Zorin Industries]

The fact that Roman Polanski was arrested at the weekend over this incident AGAIN is very wrong.

I don't know how many folk are aware of the wider facts and perspectives at play here, but there are many.

Yes, Polanski had sexual relations with a minor in the pool of a colleague. But if we look at the finer details there are murkier elements at play....

At the time Polanski was a very well known playboy, film maker, party boy, lover of women and girls with the wealth to entertain all of that. He had also just almost singlehandedly found and launched Nastassia Kinski on the world - by photographing her for a leading fashion mag and putting the teenage star in the limelight. From that point on a great many desperate mothers paraded their daughters infront of him. This is very important when deciding what you think of the events.

The mother in question was herself a failed glamour model and had - allegedly - campaigned to get Polanski to notice her and take her photos. This mother also - allegedly - took her 13 year old daughter to major Hollywood parties (where all sorts of narcotic, alcohol and sexual play was at work). She was very aware of the context she was pushing/promoting/lobbying her daughter into. As was the daughter. Now, the 13 year old is always and should be the victim in all of this, but where are the abuse charges levelled at a mother who - in my opinion (and not that of anyone else here at CBN) whored out her daughter to a film director who it was widely known had a love for the young ladies. That appreciation of the younger woman was also quite a French/European trait - and not one that sat well with some of America (for good or bad) but is worth remembering too.

Polanski has also served time for this incident already. And bearing in mind, the severity of the unit he was sent to - he had more than legally served his time for what he was being alleged of. He was sent to a high security and publically acknowledged dangerous prison where his fame and the media circus did him no favours. It was a detention centre that people alleged to have done what Polanksi was alleged to have done should not be sent to. Why was he sent there then...? Because a career and limelight hungry judge wanted to court the press, the media and Hollywood itself. This was a judge who would allegedly brag about trial outcomes before the legalities had run their natural course and who would keep cuttings of his brushes with fame and try and trade on that showbiz life to win women, better restaurant tables and higher profile Hollywood cases. The alleged conduct of the judge in that resulting trial was dubious at best and completely railroaded the facts, testaments and - worst of all - the law.

It is in this context that Polanski allegedly left the States (with a bit of help from a well known film producer who was working with Polanksi and could see what the witchhunt was doing to his director's reputation and spirit). He had had enough of being the pawn in the cast of career-hungry lawyers and judges who were using him (and the girl in question).

As for the girl in question now dropping the charges.....this new arrest speaks volumes about a suspiciously dubious legal system which - apparently - allows grudges more life than the law.

And there is another factor at play here... it is that of America's completely unfair global bias to extradite people back to US soil for trial when it is very hard for other countries to do likewise.


These are my views.

[Loomis]

He had had enough of being the pawn in the cast of career-hungry lawyers and judges who were using him (and the girl in question).

Poor lamb. He shouldn't have "used" the girl, then, should he?

It was a detention centre that people alleged to have done what Polanksi was alleged to have done should not be sent to. Why was he sent there then...?

Where should alleged child rapists be held on remand?

Now, the 13 year old is always and should be the victim in all of this

Quite. And that's all that really matters. Not whether the judge was a celebrity-hungry jerk. Or whether CHINATOWN is one of the best films ever made (personally, I don't think it is - I do have a soft spot for BITTER MOON, though).

As for the mother's alleged behaviour, well, just because others may have behaved badly it doesn't lessen Polanski's guilt (if indeed he was guilty). It has been rumoured that more than a few Vietnamese mothers pushed their young daughters in the direction of Gary Glitter - does that mitigate Mr Gadd?

At the end of the day, we're talking - allegedly - about a man in his forties having sex with a thirteen-year-old, and not even with her consent. Oh, and up the Gary into the bargain. Should this really be excused? I mean, not that I think you're excusing it, but, hey, c'mon....

[Zorin Industries]

He had had enough of being the pawn in the cast of career-hungry lawyers and judges who were using him (and the girl in question).

Poor lamb. He shouldn't have "used" the girl, then, should he?

It was a detention centre that people alleged to have done what Polanksi was alleged to have done should not be sent to. Why was he sent there then...?

Where should alleged child rapists be held on remand?

Now, the 13 year old is always and should be the victim in all of this

Quite. And that's all that really matters. Not whether the judge was a celebrity-hungry jerk. Or whether CHINATOWN is one of the best films ever made (personally, I don't think it is - I do have a soft spot for BITTER MOON, though).

As for the mother's alleged behaviour, well, just because others may have behaved badly it doesn't lessen Polanski's guilt (if indeed he was guilty). It has been rumoured that more than a few Vietnamese mothers pushed their young daughters in the direction of Gary Glitter - does that mitigate Mr Gadd?

At the end of the day, we're talking - allegedly - about a man in his forties having sex with a thirteen-year-old, and not even with her consent. Oh, and up the Gary into the bargain. Should this really be excused? I mean, not that I think you're excusing it, but, hey, c'mon....

"Consent" is a grey term here. And why was the girl's mother never charged with whoring her daughter out to satisfy a few Hollywood fantasies? Polanski has served his time for this one.

And whilst I didn't bring in his canon of work, it is worth remembering too that the sexual and experimental nature of some of his work condemned Polanski before an allegedly corrupt, allegedly lying and allegedly back-stabbing series of lawyers and judges could. Where is the justice in that? And also Polanski was not a Disney animator pre-that day at Nicholson's pad. He was the director of the sexually charged REPULSION, ROSEMARYS BABY and CUL-DE-SAC whose wife was slaughtered in Hollywood's darkest day who in turn then photographed young women with a very male eye... and this mother sends her daughter to him to "take a few pictures"...?!!!!

And bearing in mind Loomis your apparent views on Polanski (which you are entitled to by all means), can I enquire why you watched BITTER MOON, when it was - by your reckoning - the work of an alleged child rapist? Just curious...

Not that I am trying to pick you personally up to task here. Far from it. I just find the inconsistencies in opinion on this one always quite staggering. I am not excusing the sexual violation of a 13 year old girl (who, in my book, knew exactly what she was doing - though Polanski was still the adult in all of this, so there is blame there). But it is curious surely that the other side of the argument - i.e. one I tend to support - sees a whole slew of names who do not see Polanski as a child rapist at all. Maybe they know a bit more about events and Roman than we all do. Surely the likes of Harrison Ford, Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley, Adrian Brody, Pierce Brosnan, Kim Cattrall, Ewan McGregor, Kristin Scott Thomas and Hugh Grant all testify a slightly different take on events. And remember, these are people with their own kids.

[Zorin Industries]

In all fairness (and I'm not condoning Polanski's actions) we're talking about statutory rape (because the girl was under age); just abouty everyone close to the case (including the victim) acknowledges there was a certain amount of entrpament involved in the whole incident; Again, I'm not condoning Polanski's actions, but to see it as a black & white 'rape' is to misunderstand the events.

I thought he drugged Samantha Geimer. And in a 2003 interview she explained: "I said, like, '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.

"We were alone, and I didn't know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I'll get to come home after this."

She was drugged, did not give consent and tried to resist (and let's not forget we're talking about a 13-year-old female and a man in his forties, and a wealthy and powerful man as well). How, then, is this not rape but "only" statutory rape?

Because - I imagine - it was rape because she was under-age, but not because he forced himself (i.e. she did possibly / allegedly consent).

This was also a "man in his forties" who had seen his wife and unborn child slaughtered for real and then in the press every day after and a man who ran from the Nazis as a child and who lost his mother in Auschwitz. I would like to imagine that makes you a little more aware of others suffering and surely comes into play when folk point the finger about you allegedly raping a girl who was sadly more than aware and familiar with the hedonistic and futile world she was being paraded in.

This is a murky story and maybe not one we should go too much into on CBN, but I did want to suggest / highlight a different take on the matter - especially as Samantha Geimer's story and attitude to the whole thing has changed back and forth dramatically over the years.

[Loomis]

"Consent" is a grey term here.

Why? No means no, does it not?

And why was the girl's mother never charged with whoring her daughter out to satisfy a few Hollywood fantasies?

Probably because there's no law to cover that offence and/or that's only what the pro-Polanski mob would have one believe. In any case, as I've said, it hardly lessens Polanski's guilt.

Polanski has served his time for this one.

If he did indeed drug and rape a child, then, no, he hasn't. Not by a long chalk.

And whilst I didn't bring in his canon of work, it is worth remembering too that the sexual and experimental nature of some of his work condemned Polanski before an allegedly corrupt, allegedly lying and allegedly back-stabbing series of lawyers and judges could. Where is the justice in that?

Nonsense. You are saying, in effect, that he had the book thrown at him in part for being an artist and free thinker.

And bearing in mind Loomis your apparent views on Polanski (which you are entitled to by all means), can I enquire why you watched BITTER MOON, when it was - by your reckoning - the work of an alleged child rapist? Just curious...

BITTER MOON is a good film (well, I know that's a bit of a minority view, but I think it's a good film). Likewise, I reserve the right to listen to Beatles songs produced by Phil Spector, watch the O.J. Simpson-starring CAPRICORN ONE, and have no plans to boycott ANY GIVEN SUNDAY on the grounds that a Gary Glitter track plays on the soundtrack at one point. I am also a massive fan of former jailbird Ian Brown. What I'm doing - rightly, I think - is separating the "artist" from the "art". Which is something that Polanski's supporters seem utterly incapable of doing.

Not that I am trying to pick you personally up to task here. Far from it.

Ditto. I always enjoy debating with you, Zorin, you know that.

But it is curious surely that the other side of the argument - i.e. one I tend to support - sees a whole slew of names who do not see Polanski as a child rapist at all. Maybe they know a bit more about events and Roman than we all do.

Fair point.

[Zorin Industries]

Nonsense. You are saying, in effect, that he had the book thrown at him in part for being an artist and free thinker.

Yes, a prevailing part of this has indeed been down to that. And still is - even today.

And why a mother allegedly acting as a pimp to her 13 year old daughter in order to get a few dollars and moments of fame is NOT a crime, then I don't know what is.

[Loomis]

This was also a "man in his forties" who had seen his wife and unborn child slaughtered for real and then in the press every day after and a man who ran from the Nazis as a child and who lost his mother in Auschwitz.

The playing of the Holocaust card by Polanski's supporters is---- I'm sorry, I just find it nauseating. But, again, I do realise that (unlike some) you're not bringing it up to excuse Polanski's actions, but rather to make the point - if I'm understanding correctly - that he may have been falsely accused.

Look, I'm not - despite possible appearances - baying for Polanski's blood here. I'm trying more to draw attention to the seemingly prevalent attitude among the great and the good of the cultural establishment that laws are the little people and not for "artists" like Polanski.

This is not Oscar Wilde incarcerated for his homosexuality. This is - allegedly (that word again) - a man raping a child.

[Zorin Industries]

This was also a "man in his forties" who had seen his wife and unborn child slaughtered for real and then in the press every day after and a man who ran from the Nazis as a child and who lost his mother in Auschwitz.

The playing of the Holocaust card by Polanski's supporters is---- I'm sorry, I just find it nauseating. But, again, I do you realise that (unlike some) you're not bringing it up to excuse Polanski's actions, but rather to make the point - if I'm understanding correctly - that he may have been falsely accused.

Look, I'm not - despite possible appearances - baying for Polanski's blood here. I'm trying more to draw attention to the seemingly prevalent attitude among the great and the good of the cultural establishment that laws are the little people and not for "artists" like Polanski.

This is not Oscar Wilde incarcerated for his homosexuality. This is - allegedly (that word again) - a man raping a child.

Yes, I would imagine Roman Polanski's misfortune at losing the people he held dearest actually makes him very sensitive to loss and suffering (as evidenced in most of his films post 1969, when Sharon Tate was murdered). Can I also add that the American press and police treated him shamefully at that time. That is vital when putting a perspective on why he didn't trust the police and judicial system post 1977 and that afternoon at Jack's pad.

[Righty007]

The French culture and communications minister, Frederic Mitterrand, said he "learned with astonishment" of Polanski's arrest. He expressed solidarity with Polanski's family and said "he wants to remind everyone that Roman Polanski benefits from great general esteem" and has "exceptional artistic creation and human qualities."

Source: CNN.com

Is this guy serious? Being a "artist" may exempt you from the law in France but not in the United States of America.

EDIT: Mr. Blofeld, I know how fond you are of all things French but please don't attack me for criticizing this French official.

[David Schofield]

The French culture and communications minister, Frederic Mitterrand, said he "learned with astonishment" of Polanski's arrest. He expressed solidarity with Polanski's family and said "he wants to remind everyone that Roman Polanski benefits from great general esteem" and has "exceptional artistic creation and human qualities."

Source: CNN.com

Is this guy serious? Being a "artist" may exempt you from the law in France but not in the United States of America.

While clearly Mitterand seems rather pretentious - a not unfamiliar stance of French lit. types - I hardly think the USA has a perfect track record on "artists" not being above the law.

Messrs Jackson and Simpson "got away with it" because they weren't plumbers, I venture, but artists and celebrities.

[Tybre]

The French culture and communications minister, Frederic Mitterrand, said he "learned with astonishment" of Polanski's arrest. He expressed solidarity with Polanski's family and said "he wants to remind everyone that Roman Polanski benefits from great general esteem" and has "exceptional artistic creation and human qualities."

Source: CNN.com

Is this guy serious? Being a "artist" may exempt you from the law in France but not in the United States of America.

While clearly Mitterand seems rather pretentious - a not unfamiliar stance of French lit. types - I hardly think the USA has a perfect track record on "artists" not being above the law.

Messrs Jackson and Simpson "got away with it" because they weren't plumbers, I venture, but artists and celebrities.

Indeed, but in many cases ones status as artist or celebrity doesn't save one from punishment. Sadly, it often lightens the punishment considerably, but they are still punished for their actions.

Edit:

Oh well this is pleasant:

The international tug-of-war over Roman Polanski escalated Monday as France and Poland urged Switzerland to free the 76-year-old director on bail and pressed U.S. officials all the way up to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the case.

[Righty007]

The French culture and communications minister, Frederic Mitterrand, said he "learned with astonishment" of Polanski's arrest. He expressed solidarity with Polanski's family and said "he wants to remind everyone that Roman Polanski benefits from great general esteem" and has "exceptional artistic creation and human qualities."

Source: CNN.com

Is this guy serious? Being a "artist" may exempt you from the law in France but not in the United States of America.

While clearly Mitterand seems rather pretentious - a not unfamiliar stance of French lit. types - I hardly think the USA has a perfect track record on "artists" not being above the law.

Messrs Jackson and Simpson "got away with it" because they weren't plumbers, I venture, but artists and celebrities.

And now Jackson is dead and OJ's in jail. Karma? I'd say so. Punishment may not always be "swift and certain" like Cesare Beccaria advocates in his classic book, On Crimes and Punishment, but a criminal's past catches up with him/her eventually as we have seen with Jackson, Simpson and now Polanski.

[Zorin Industries]

Punishment may not always be "swift and certain" like Cesare Beccaria advocates in his classic book, On Crimes and Punishment, but a criminal's past catches up with him/her eventually as we have seen with Jackson, Simpson and now Polanski.

I would be cautious right now in making claims that this is Polanski's criminal past catching up on him. This is the by-product of a messy, dirty and legally erroneous case where even now Hollywood career-judges are trading on real people's liberties and freedoms in order to whip up a bit of a storm. And if we are looking at the notion of karma here, I think Polanski has more than served his time for this incident and seen enough pain and suffering to know just how the fickle see-saw of fate can work in our lives.

[Loomis]

The French culture and communications minister, Frederic Mitterrand, said he "learned with astonishment" of Polanski's arrest. He expressed solidarity with Polanski's family and said "he wants to remind everyone that Roman Polanski benefits from great general esteem" and has "exceptional artistic creation and human qualities."

Source: CNN.com

Is this guy serious?

Sadly, I believe he is serious.

In Britain, too, it does all too often seem that celebrities are above the law. And don't get me started on our Members of Parliament.

[Zorin Industries]

The French culture and communications minister, Frederic Mitterrand, said he "learned with astonishment" of Polanski's arrest. He expressed solidarity with Polanski's family and said "he wants to remind everyone that Roman Polanski benefits from great general esteem" and has "exceptional artistic creation and human qualities."

Source: CNN.com

Is this guy serious? Being a "artist" may exempt you from the law in France but not in the United States of America.

While clearly Mitterand seems rather pretentious - a not unfamiliar stance of French lit. types - I hardly think the USA has a perfect track record on "artists" not being above the law.

Messrs Jackson and Simpson "got away with it" because they weren't plumbers, I venture, but artists and celebrities.

And now Jackson is dead and OJ's in jail. Karma? I'd say so. Punishment may not always be "swift and certain" like Cesare Beccaria advocates in his classic book, On Crimes and Punishment, but a criminal's past catches up with him/her eventually as we have seen with Jackson, Simpson and now Polanski.

Yes and Beccaria also suggested that sodomy should no longer be classed as something someone could be put to death for, but something that is just part of some people's normal sexual behaviour. Isn't that a tad relevant to this Polanski case...?

("can of worms in aisle three....")

[Sark2.0]

The French culture and communications minister, Frederic Mitterrand, said he "learned with astonishment" of Polanski's arrest. He expressed solidarity with Polanski's family and said "he wants to remind everyone that Roman Polanski benefits from great general esteem" and has "exceptional artistic creation and human qualities."

Source: CNN.com

Is this guy serious? Being a "artist" may exempt you from the law in France but not in the United States of America.

While clearly Mitterand seems rather pretentious - a not unfamiliar stance of French lit. types - I hardly think the USA has a perfect track record on "artists" not being above the law.

Messrs Jackson and Simpson "got away with it" because they weren't plumbers, I venture, but artists and celebrities.

And now Jackson is dead and OJ's in jail. Karma? I'd say so. Punishment may not always be "swift and certain" like Cesare Beccaria advocates in his classic book, On Crimes and Punishment, but a criminal's past catches up with him/her eventually as we have seen with Jackson, Simpson and now Polanski.

You're not serious are you righty? That's just... silly. Michael Jackson is dead because he had numerous health issues (and probably wasn't helped by his doctor, I don't really keep up with the MJ news but heard something to that effect). OJ Simpson is in jail because he's an idiot and committed still more crimes, not because of a double-murder. I'm sure that if we thought hard enough we could come with a number of celebrities that 'got away with it' for their entire lives.

[Righty007]

The French culture and communications minister, Frederic Mitterrand, said he "learned with astonishment" of Polanski's arrest. He expressed solidarity with Polanski's family and said "he wants to remind everyone that Roman Polanski benefits from great general esteem" and has "exceptional artistic creation and human qualities."

Source: CNN.com

Is this guy serious? Being a "artist" may exempt you from the law in France but not in the United States of America.

While clearly Mitterand seems rather pretentious - a not unfamiliar stance of French lit. types - I hardly think the USA has a perfect track record on "artists" not being above the law.

Messrs Jackson and Simpson "got away with it" because they weren't plumbers, I venture, but artists and celebrities.

And now Jackson is dead and OJ's in jail. Karma? I'd say so. Punishment may not always be "swift and certain" like Cesare Beccaria advocates in his classic book, On Crimes and Punishment, but a criminal's past catches up with him/her eventually as we have seen with Jackson, Simpson and now Polanski.

You're not serious are you righty? That's just... silly. Michael Jackson is dead because he had numerous health issues (and probably wasn't helped by his doctor, I don't really keep up with the MJ news but heard something to that effect). OJ Simpson is in jail because he's an idiot and committed still more crimes, not because of a double-murder. I'm sure that if we thought hard enough we could come with a number of celebrities that 'got away with it' for their entire lives.

It's silly if you don't believe in karma.

[DAN LIGHTER]

Guess what!

The Official site for the film The Ghost is up!

http://www.theghost-romanpolanski.com/

Pierce look the part! If the film is like the book were onto a winner!!!

Edited by DAN LIGHTER, 28 September 2009 - 05:15 PM.

[MarkA]

It's silly if you don't believe in karma.

Well frankly I don't. I think it is silly to believe it. Thanks Zorin by the way for putting this sorry (from both sides) mess into some kind of perspective. I truly believe Polanski knew he would never get a fair trial in the States so he ran. Another sad side to this (not worse than what happened though) I believe after it happened Polanski has never risen to the heights of his sixties and early seventies output. I am sorry Loomis I would be deeply suspicious of someone who likes Bitter Moon over Chinatown.

Edited by MarkA, 28 September 2009 - 05:36 PM.

[Loomis]

I also prefer THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN to FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.

[Jim]

Never convinced these sort of discussions portray any of us at our most beautiful.

Does all seem a bit odd that this turns up again now. Still, there y'go.

[Matt_13]

Guess what!

The Official site for the film The Ghost is up!

http://www.theghost-romanpolanski.com/

Pierce look the part! If the film is like the book were onto a winner!!!

Looks great. When will it be released stateside?

[Royal Dalton]

When will it be released stateside?

Sometime before Polanski is, I would imagine.

[Judo chop]

Pierce braves the destructive fires of TWINE, DAD and MAMMA-MIA to arrive at a part that looks like it might actually suit him, and talk turns to the dubious illegalities of Mr. Polanksi. Poor guy.

(Bravo, Royal! )

[DAN LIGHTER]

I note on the official The Ghost website, under cast, it makes no referance to Brosnan's past as Bond. Only The Matador is mentioned. Maybe he is leaving it all behind and concentracting on serious acting. When I read the book and then heard that Brosnan was cast I thought "bugger". But I must confess looking at the trailer and photos is does seem to suite him quiet well.

Edit: I editted my spelling mystakes.

Edited by DAN LIGHTER, 28 September 2009 - 06:37 PM.

[Judo chop]

I note on the official The Ghost website, under cast, it makes no referance to Brosnan's past as Bond. Only The Matador is mentioned.

As it should be. You can find a better performance in any 10 seconds of THE MATADOR than you can searching all four of his Bond films.

Edit: I editted my spelling mystakes.

Don't. I think they're cute.