394 replies to this topic

[MarkA]

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

Each to his own. It would be a boring world if we were all the same.

[Zorin Industries]

There is no such thing as bad publicity and today's news developments with Mr Polanski have already added a few pounds to the box office of THE GHOST. Apologies if that sounds harsh.

And the film looks good too, so it could be a shot in the arm for Brosnan, Polanski and all concerned.

[Tybre]

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.

And yet they mention Obi-Wan under McGregor. Hardly his best work. Still, they did mention some of his other stuff.

[SecretAgentFan]

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.

I respect your opinion. Yet, I think the debate is resting on the preconceived notion that you are stating as well: "a man raping a child".

That is such a repugnant and disgusting crime that guilt cannot be in question.

However, is that what really happened?

I don´t think so. Because the definition of "child" does not apply.

We are talking about a 13 year old. Which makes it a teenager by definition.

This teenager was dropped by her mother, as Zorin correctly pointed out already, at a Hollywood party in notorious bad boy Jack Nicholson´s private mansion with the notorious director Roman Polanski.

Now, think about this for a moment. Was the teenager forced by her mother to stay here? That seems hardly likely, does it?

Doesn´t it seem more likely that the teenager wanted to be here?

The mother definitely encouraged her thinking that her child could be "discovered". But if the teenager did not want to be at Nicholson´s playboy mansion, well, would she have gone anyway?

Before you accuse me now of being an accomplice: this is where I do think that Polanski´s guilt comes in.

He wanted to have sex with this teenager. He made her drunk and drugged her and then took advantage of her. This is wrong. This is a crime. And this is why he was sentenced. Correctly so.

BUT... this is not a man raping a child. This is not a clear-cut case of good being perverted by evil.

This, IMO, is a case of a man having lost all boundaries and following his impulse to take what he wants. It is also a case of a woman having lost all boundaries and pimping her daughter out. And it is also a case of a teenager flirting with desaster and having to endure the brutal consequences.

But, of course, it seems easier to make it all black and white and reduce this situation to a stereotype: The man-monster with all his perverse notions making the innocent pure child his victim.

And let´s not forget that anything sexual is immediately raising a red flag with some puritan US thinking. Even implying that a teenager would have sexual notions seems scandalous for some.

That does not mean that I think that the teenage victim here enjoyed sexual thoughts while being raped. But do we know for sure that the teenager in question did not have any sexual thoughts when she went to the party in the house of a sexual predator like Nicholson with a sexually uninhibited director like Polanski?

Of course, that does not make Polanski any less guilty.

But it underlines my point: This is NOT about a child being raped. Which should be taken into account when considering the need for punishing Polanski then and especially now.

[Mr. Blofeld]

What the hell? Now, you're just raping... er, I mean, splitting hairs here, buddy.

[DAN LIGHTER]

The BBC have a comment area that might better suit all this than CBn?

http://news.bbc.co.u...int/8277852.stm

Just an idea....

[SecretAgentFan]

The BBC have a comment area that might better suit all this than CBn?

http://news.bbc.co.u...int/8277852.stm

Just an idea....

Thanks for the link. But I do think that we can also debate serious things here, don´t you?

What the hell? Now, you're just raping... er, I mean, splitting hairs here, buddy.

I don´t think so, Mr.Blofeld. My point was to show how the discussion of Polanski´s guilt is informed by a public opinion that is reduced to stereotypical notions.

[DAN LIGHTER]

Of course you can discuss serious things here. As I said it was just a thought. Although if this thread gets closed then I won’t be able to say “I told you so”.

[SecretAgentFan]

Of course you can discuss serious things here. As I said it was just a thought. Although if this thread gets closed then I won’t be able to say “I told you so”.

I did not mean to criticize you at all, Dan. So, apologies if you felt antagonized.

I also don´t think why this thread should be closed simply because of a heartfelt and sensible debate. Granted, the thread has run off course. But IMO it is still part of the topic. Brosnan has gotten a part working with the most acclaimed director he has ever worked with. And this director now is unable to complete the film.

But if mods feel that I went too far I apologize, of course.

[Zorin Industries]

Of course you can discuss serious things here. As I said it was just a thought. Although if this thread gets closed then I won’t be able to say “I told you so”.

I did not mean to criticize you at all, Dan. So, apologies if you felt antagonized.

I also don´t think why this thread should be closed simply because of a heartfelt and sensible debate. Granted, the thread has run off course. But IMO it is still part of the topic. Brosnan has gotten a part working with the most acclaimed director he has ever worked with. And this director now is unable to complete the film.

But if mods feel that I went too far I apologize, of course.

No. You didn't go too far. You have presented a perspective, and that is vital to all discussion and certainly this one. You also are coming at it as an adult - so if anyone is having their sensibilities rocked then that is their problem and theirs alone.

Of course it is relevant to discuss this one here. For no other reason than Pierce Brosnan has taken a stance by working with Polanski. The man doesn't appear to me to be the monster some would have - otherwise why would such a role-call of names continue to work with Polanski?

[DAN LIGHTER]

Sorry SAF, I wasn’t getting at you dear boy and can only agree with Zorin.

[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.

I respect your opinion. Yet, I think the debate is resting on the preconceived notion that you are stating as well: "a man raping a child".

That is such a repugnant and disgusting crime that guilt cannot be in question.

However, is that what really happened?

I don´t think so. Because the definition of "child" does not apply.

We are talking about a 13 year old. Which makes it a teenager by definition.

This teenager was dropped by her mother, as Zorin correctly pointed out already, at a Hollywood party in notorious bad boy Jack Nicholson´s private mansion with the notorious director Roman Polanski.

Now, think about this for a moment. Was the teenager forced by her mother to stay here? That seems hardly likely, does it?

Doesn´t it seem more likely that the teenager wanted to be here?

The mother definitely encouraged her thinking that her child could be "discovered". But if the teenager did not want to be at Nicholson´s playboy mansion, well, would she have gone anyway?

Before you accuse me now of being an accomplice: this is where I do think that Polanski´s guilt comes in.

He wanted to have sex with this teenager. He made her drunk and drugged her and then took advantage of her. This is wrong. This is a crime. And this is why he was sentenced. Correctly so.

BUT... this is not a man raping a child. This is not a clear-cut case of good being perverted by evil.

This, IMO, is a case of a man having lost all boundaries and following his impulse to take what he wants. It is also a case of a woman having lost all boundaries and pimping her daughter out. And it is also a case of a teenager flirting with desaster and having to endure the brutal consequences.

But, of course, it seems easier to make it all black and white and reduce this situation to a stereotype: The man-monster with all his perverse notions making the innocent pure child his victim.

And let´s not forget that anything sexual is immediately raising a red flag with some puritan US thinking. Even implying that a teenager would have sexual notions seems scandalous for some.

That does not mean that I think that the teenage victim here enjoyed sexual thoughts while being raped. But do we know for sure that the teenager in question did not have any sexual thoughts when she went to the party in the house of a sexual predator like Nicholson with a sexually uninhibited director like Polanski?

Of course, that does not make Polanski any less guilty.

But it underlines my point: This is NOT about a child being raped. Which should be taken into account when considering the need for punishing Polanski then and especially now.

In the eyes of the law, a teenager (well, if he or she is under eighteen, or if the age of majority is lower than eighteen where he or she lives) is a child.

[DAN LIGHTER]

We are talking about Young Bond age here. A 13 year old is a 13 year old which ever way you look at it. I was playing marbles and building dens with friends out of pallets at that age. And watching Dennis Potters Blackeyes.

Edited by DAN LIGHTER, 29 September 2009 - 10:26 AM.

[SecretAgentFan]

In the eyes of the law, a teenager (well, if he or she is under eighteen, or if the age of majority is lower than eighteen where he or she lives) is a child.

True. But in the eyes of the law a pet animal is also a thing. Which might seem an odd comparison, I agree. Yet, the eyes of the law are sometimes blind to nuances. And let´s not get into the obvious "Justitia´s eyes are blindfolded"-pun here.

I just wanted to point out that one should look at this matter a little bit closer. Which was understood at least by Zorin, by the way, and I thank him for that.

Judging from personal experience, I might add, the 13-year old girls in my class actually were much more sexually interested than I was at that age. But that might also be due to the difference between boys and girls at that particular stage of puberty.

Which, again, is not meant to say that the victim in the Polanski-controversy had it coming. Absolutely not.

[Loomis]

True. But in the eyes of the law a pet animal is also a thing.

?

Judging from personal experience, I might add, the 13-year old girls in my class actually were much more sexually interested than I was at that age.

I highly doubt that. In any case, how is this relevant?

[SecretAgentFan]

True. But in the eyes of the law a pet animal is also a thing.

?

It´s true. If someone kills your dog the law says that your dog has the legal status of a thing. Therefore it can be compensated with the amount of money it was worth at that time.

Judging from personal experience, I might add, the 13-year old girls in my class actually were much more sexually interested than I was at that age.

I highly doubt that. In any case, how is this relevant?

Sorry, if you doubt that, Loomis. But since you weren´t in my class back then...

And it was relevant to mention IMO since Dan Lighter pointed out that at the age of 13 he had different interests. Which I interpreted as a rebuttal to my argument that there is a difference between a child and a teenager.

[Loomis]

If someone kills your dog the law says that your dog has the legal status of a thing. Therefore it can be compensated with the amount of money it was worth at that time.

But the law doesn't just designate a dog as "a thing", does it? If I were to give my dog a good kicking, I could be prosecuted for animal cruelty. It wouldn't do me any good to say "Well, I was just kicking this thing that I own". If I were to kick my other posssessions, the law wouldn't care.

there is a difference between a child and a teenager.

Not in terms of the law there isn't. The law would consider a man in his forties who has sexual contact (consensual or otherwise) with a thirteen-year-old to be a paedophile.

Of course it is relevant to discuss this one here. For no other reason than Pierce Brosnan has taken a stance by working with Polanski. The man doesn't appear to me to be the monster some would have - otherwise why would such a role-call of names continue to work with Polanski?

Well, if some people are going to simplistically claim that this is merely the case of a fearless artist and free thinker persecuted by a philistine judicial system that resents him for his avant-garde films, would it be appropriate for others to just as simplistically suggest that the Hollywood elite looks after its own?

[SecretAgentFan]

If someone kills your dog the law says that your dog has the legal status of a thing. Therefore it can be compensated with the amount of money it was worth at that time.

But the law doesn't just designate a dog as "a thing", does it? If I were to give my dog a good kicking, I could be prosecuted for animal cruelty. It wouldn't do me any good to say "Well, I was just kicking this thing that I own". If I were to kick my other posssessions, the law wouldn't care.

True.

there is a difference between a child and a teenager.

Not in terms of the law there isn't. The law would consider a man in his forties who has sexual contact (consensual or otherwise) with a thirteen-year-old to be a paedophile.

True again. But that was my point. The law simplifies. Sometimes too much. That´s why lawyers are needed.

Of course it is relevant to discuss this one here. For no other reason than Pierce Brosnan has taken a stance by working with Polanski. The man doesn't appear to me to be the monster some would have - otherwise why would such a role-call of names continue to work with Polanski?

Well, if some people are going to simplistically claim that this is merely the case of a fearless artist and free thinker persecuted by a philistine judicial system that resents him for his avant-garde films, would it be appropriate for others to just as simplistically suggest that the Hollywood elite looks after its own?

At this point, I guess, the discussion starts again at the same point: Was it okay to arrest Polanski? Both opinions can co-exist. Let´s agree to disagree.

[Tybre]

According to CNN several directors are demanding Polanski be released. Will post who when they come to the story.

[Loomis]

Gary Glitter must be wishing he'd gone into the movie biz.

[coco1997]

Why is it that when Michael Jackson was still alive and found 'not guilty' of child molestation accusations the general public still wanted him burned at the stake, yet this has confessed to the crime and people want the law to go soft on him?

[dinovelvet]

According to CNN several directors are demanding Polanski be released. Will post who when they come to the story.

Just saw the list. Don't have it handy, but it was mostly high-falutin' artsy types.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Woody Allen was one of them.

[Royal Dalton]

there is a difference between a child and a teenager.

Not in terms of the law there isn't. The law would consider a man in his forties who has sexual contact (consensual or otherwise) with a thirteen-year-old to be a paedophile.

True again. But that was my point. The law simplifies. Sometimes too much. That´s why lawyers are needed.

I doubt Polanski needed a lawyer to tell him it was illegal to stick his dick up a 13-year-old girl's bum.

According to CNN several directors are demanding Polanski be released. Will post who when they come to the story.

I'll be disappointed if Victor Salva isn't one of them.

Gary Glitter must be wishing he'd gone into the movie biz.

Yeah, I bet he would have loved to have been in their gang.

[Loomis]

Why is it that when Michael Jackson was still alive and found 'not guilty' of child molestation accusations the general public still wanted him burned at the stake, yet this has confessed to the crime and people want the law to go soft on him?

I don't know. It truly baffles me. Why is it that Gary Glitter is villified (to the point where British radio stations feel the need to apologise if they play one of his songs "by mistake" and there was talk of British politicians proposing to ban his CDs "to protect children"), yet many speak of Aung San Polanski as though he's some kind of prisoner of conscience?

Seriously, what's the difference between Glitter and Polanski? Why is the latter seemingly getting automatic and uncritical support from the great and the good? What hold does he have over "the establishment"?

[Tybre]

Why is it that when Michael Jackson was still alive and found 'not guilty' of child molestation accusations the general public still wanted him burned at the stake, yet this has confessed to the crime and people want the law to go soft on him?

I don't know. It truly baffles me. Why is it that Gary Glitter is villified (to the point where British radio stations feel the need to apologise if they play one of his songs "by mistake" and there was talk of British politicians proposing to ban his CDs "to protect children"), yet many speak of Aung San Polanski as though he's some kind of prisoner of conscience?

Seriously, what's the difference between Glitter and Polanski? Why is the latter seemingly getting automatic and uncritical support from the great and the good? What hold does he have over "the establishment"?

It's because He's Hollywood™

[Loomis]

So apparently Luc Besson, in a rather brave move, has refused to add his name to the pro-Polanski petition by famous film directors, stating that "no one should be above the law". Why, Luc, you boring old fuddy-duddy, you. Let's hope you'll still be able to get a meeting in Hollywood. And in Paris, come to that. Gah, the generation of European filmmakers that followed Polanski - what's French cinema coming to when its directors no longer smile indulgently upon middle-aged men drilling thirteen-year-olds? Besson wouldn't recognise true cinematic artistry if it came up and slipped him a Quaalude.

Anyway, here's an interesting "anti" Polanski piece:

http://blog.newsweek...d-a-primer.aspx

[Tybre]

Very much agree with this article so far. Thanks for the link, Loomis.

[0012]

So apparently Luc Besson, in a rather brave move, has refused to add his name to the pro-Polanski petition by famous film directors, stating that "no one should be above the law".

That's funny; I thought most of Besson's films are about how the law fails to do proper justice, and vigilantes and secret agents with martial arts skills are the ones who must restore order. And wasn't the Professional about a relationship between an older man and a young girl?

Anyway, from what I've heard the issue isn't the rape, which supposedly it's considered he served some time for (in a psychiatric institution or something like that) and for which the victim has forgiven him, but the fact that he fled the country. Now his rational in fleeing the country was that he had a corrupt judge. Well, that may be, but couldn't he appeal that legally? I don't think he should serve more than one or two years for this, but the Hollywood elite should stop defending him. I understand judging art seperately from the person, but that doesn't mean you have to defend them either.

Edited by 12, 30 September 2009 - 02:59 AM.

[Loomis]

So apparently Luc Besson, in a rather brave move, has refused to add his name to the pro-Polanski petition by famous film directors, stating that "no one should be above the law".

That's funny; I thought most of Besson's films are about how the law fails to do proper justice, and vigilantes and secret agents with martial arts skills are the ones who must restore order. And wasn't the Professional about a relationship between an older man and a young girl?

Yes, Besson's obviously a complete hypocrite. Which is far worse than being a paedophile and rapist. The content of Besson's films is a much more serious matter than what Polanski did in real life.

[Tybre]

and for which the victim has forgiven him

As I understand it, she has not forgiven him, and rightly so. She is merely saying she wants the case dismissed because think about it, it was no doubt incredibly traumatizing, and a considerable amount of time has passed to allow her to more or less bury those memories and start a family and be, for want of a better term, normal. Then this comes along and oh look! Associated Press, CNN, Fox News, 6 ABC, the Beeb, whoever the major French news circuit is, and Lord knows who else will all come descending upon her door, and she doesn't want that to happen. Quite understandably. It would bring up very painful memories, and no doubt it is a massive thorn in one's posterior having to deal with all that press.

*sigh* Perhaps I should learn to stay away from this thread until there's some long overdue justice...