Roman Polanski (split from "NY Times 'Mystic River' review - overkill?") (1 Viewer)

[Tony_Ramos]

Well, sometimes an actor puts their foot in their mouth so often and so deeply, it can be difficult to push their politics or personalities outside of your mind long enough to enjoy the film. And sometimes, in the case of Woody Allen or Altman, an actor may commit a wrong (in a person's estimation) so egregious and avoid punishment that one may not permit themsevles to support their filmmaking habit anymore.

Does that make the audience simpletons? I think not. We're all human, and while seperating art from character may be a lovely ideal, it can be difficult.

As for Penn in particular, his commments on Iraq were so ludicrous that I have trouble not chuckling anytime I see him onscreen. But congratulations to him on the reviews.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

I know Altman is well known for his far left leanings, but are you sure you are not thinking of Roman Polanski?

 

[Tony_Ramos]

I know Altman is well known for his far left leanings, but are you sure you are not thinking of Roman Polanski?

You're right, i WAS thinking of Polanski, although Altman gets on my nerves with some of the rude comments he's made. However, I actually enjoy his movies. But i have trouble enjoying & supporting a film when the ppl who made it should be in jail, not to mention are rewarded by this industry.

 

[Seth--L]

By enjoying a Polanski film you're not condoning rape. Also, let's not forget that even though he's the directo, a lot of other people worked on the film.

 

[Vickie_M]

No. You are just helping to financially support the rapist. I would like to watch THE PIANIST, but I'm not going to donate one red dime to the pocket book of a prick like Roman Polanski.

While I respect your views, I think you're being way too harsh on the man. As a rape victim, I would have a right to despise Polanski even more than you do, but I don't, because I see shades of gray. This is how I rationalize my forgiveness.

1) Polanski had never done anything like it before or since. As big a name as he is, and as much noteriety as he had, both before and after this incident, other rapes or improper sexual relations would have surfaced had there been any. Not that he should be forgiven because he "only did it once" but it does show that he's not the pedophile or serial rapist that many people paint him as.

2) While this doesn't take away any of his responsibility, I can have some sympathy for his mental state. Any good biography will reveal that the man went through hell growing up, then when he finally finds happiness and peace with Sharon Tate and his coming baby, they're brutally murdered. I can believe that he was not his normal self that day with Samantha. I would hate to be misunderstood and have people think that I believe "it's ok" what he did because of his past, because I don't. Not at all. It does help me to begin to understand some aspects of his mindset though.

3) And this is most important to me: His victim forgives him. She knows more about the entire situation and its aftermath than anyone else in the world, she has absolutely no reason to take his side, and yet she does forgive him. She publically forgave him years ago, long before he made The Pianist. If she can, I can too. Who am I to harbor hate for him in my heart when she doesn't?

 

[Daniel J.S.]

Anyway, if I remember right, Polanski wouldn't even be in the situation he's in if a judge hadn't overstepped his bounds; a plea bargain was agreed to on both sides, but the judge wanted to make an example, so he threw the plea out and imposed a jail sentence. What Polanski did wasn't right, but the judge had no right to throw out an agreement made by all involved just because he wanted to flex his muscles.

 

[Vickie_M]

KING: Were you shocked what the judge did?

What did the judge do, tell us?

SILVER: Well, what the judge did was frankly outrageous. We had agreed to a plea bargain. It wasn't what the prosecution wanted, it certainly wasn't what Polanski wanted, but it was what we wanted. We were the victim and this is the way in which Samantha would not be in trial. Samantha would be -- her name would not be exposed at the time. And she would be allowed to recover.

And the plea was proposed to the judge, the judge approved it. And then frankly the day before he called us in the chambers and said he was getting a great deal of pressure and a great deal -- he was concerned about criticism of him in the press. And he was going to sentence Polanski rather than to time served, which is what we agreed to, to 50 years. That's a long -- big difference. And...

KING: Told you that.

SILVER: Yes, told us that. And he Told us other things. He directed Mr. Dalton, Polanski's lawyer, to say certain things during court. He directed the prosecutor, Mr. Guncin (ph), to say certain things the next day. Directed me to do things. This is unheard of.

KING: Inviting him to flee?

SILVER: I don't know about that.

KING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 50 years.

SILVER: Well, I don't know about inviting him to flee. But he also said that he might consider reducing it if Polanski would self- deport himself. This a state court judge, he has no jurisdiction over immigration, naturalization matters. So this change of position by the judge excused Polanski. And there was an agreement. An agreement that was a good agreement. It addressed all of the interests of the parties and frankly I still think it ought to be enforced.

KING: What happens if he comes back now?

SILVER: Well, my view is that the district attorney ought to honor the agreements. Sure Samantha is different today, but there was a public interest at time in protecting her. I think the -- I think that the agreement ought to be enforced. I think that in terms of fleeing, I think frankly, we all understand why that happened.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Excellent post Vickie.

And thanks for reminding us of what really happened in the courtroom Daniel.

Two things, I think: it is OK for anyone to decide not to take actions that would support a person whose actions, morals, political leaning, or pretty much anything else they disagree with, and the merits of art should not be judged on the basis of the morals or political positions of the artist.

To not separate art and the artist from morals and politics results in art being judged not on its intrinsic merits but on criteria that has nothing to do with the work itself. This is far different than the work itself reflecting moral or political positions, which allows legitimate inclusion of such positions or actions into the discussion of the work.

For example, that Martin Scorsese was brought up as a Catholic is not a reason for anyone who hates Catholics to comment negatively on his films—although it would be reasonable to not attend showings of his films or buy the DVDs of his films in order to avoid further enriching him. But including his background would be fair game for any discussion of The Last Temptation of Christ or Kunden to recognize only two of his films with religious themes.

And it would be reasonable for many Christians to debate the treatment of ‘Last Temptation’ and to dislike the film solely for that reason. But not because he was raised as a Catholic.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

But Vickie, one of the key tenets of our justice system is that the victim does not, and should not, have jurisdiction over the punishment. Samantha Geimer's forgiveness is laudable, but irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

As for the repeatability of his offense, we have no way of knowing. In France and Hollywood, art (or "art") is celebrated, and an artist may be forgiven many things. Child rape is a *behavior* far more often than an isolated incident. The man drugged and sodomized a 13 year old girl against her will. While the situation is not that cut and dried (her mother's culpability, the situation, etc), those key elements are not unclear. While the judge may have pursued the law with excessive zeal, and a chip on his shoulder, the law is too generous for my taste.

Vickie, I can't express my feelings on the crime enough, but suffice it to say, we are far too lenient on it in my opinion. I don't forgive Polanski one bit...beyond the media circus, I doubt he has ever regretted it. I sympathize with the horrors of his life, but there is never any excuse. Not even close.

I choose not to support him. Good discussion on a hot button topic. EDIT: This does not mean that I believe someone that sees his films, or appreciates them, is supporting anything he did. It's just a personal choice of mine.

As for Penn, while I disagree with the man's opinions, he has committed no crime...just exercised his rights as an American citizen. No harm in that.

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Tony_Ramos]

This does not mean that I believe someone that sees his films, or appreciates them, is supporting anything he did. It's just a personal choice of mine.

Good point, Chuck, and I concur. I would venture to say that no one here is lenient on child rape! I, too, just don't feel comfortable supporting this individual.

Although the Academy's leniency on these individuals DOES irk me. One can appreciate a person's art w/o my criticism, but does that artist need to be awarded by a trade association?

 

[RyanPC]

Where have I been? What did they do wrong?

EDIT: I know what Polanski did, though.

There, how's that for not being vulgar?

 

[Nick Sievers]

Grow up a bit, mate. I don't think there is a need to be vulgar.

Tony, in my eyes - Yes, Polanski absolutely deserved to be rewarded for his work on The Pianist. I know not all agree around here but I thought it was an incredibly powerful and moving film, unmatched from the films that I viewed in 2002. He is being rewarded based on his art, his personal life had no effect on any awards and acclaim he recieved despite the dispicable crime he committed many years ago.

 

[Daniel J.S.]

Chuck, no one is talking about the victim having jurisdiction over sentencing; we're talking about a judge who thumbed his nose at the law he's supposed to uphold. Plea bargaining is a major part of the criminal justice system where one confesses to a crime in exchange for a sentence agreed to by the lawyers on both sides. The judge basically tossed the deal, but used the confession as a basis for a lengthy jail sentence. This spits in the face of due process and sets a bad precedent for any number of other abuses. If Polanski stuck around he could have appealed and probably would have won.

 

[Lewis Besze]

The interesting thing is that,there wouldn't be any plea bargaining to begin with if the defendent wasn't a known celebrity.I also have a feeling that the Manson killing was thrown in for good measure,like Vickie did.I think if he stayed his sentence would have been reduced a lot,and people would have a different "look" on him.I think today many people just as angry with him because of the severity of his crime,and also with the fact that he dodged his responsibility,by fleeing.He will never be redeemed because of that.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Lewis made my point. The sad truth of our society (then and now) is that the law is not equal for all Americans. Money and fame are incredibly potent, and lead to frequent injustices. Perhaps the judge felt Polanski was getting a free pass. Perhaps he wanted to make a name for himself. The judge didn't commit the crime. Polanski did, and he fled when he realized he couldn't buy his way out.

As for Polanski winning the award, I had no problems with that. The raucous cheering at the ceremony was not for the film, but the man. Which is the right of the members. In short, perhaps his work deserved the award (haven't seen the film). But he didn't deserve to be there to get it.

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Daniel J.S.]

^^^Well, we're definitely in agreement that the law is biased against the poor and minorities as they would get prison terms that the wealthy would never see. As per HTF rules, that's all I can say (and I'm probably on thin ice with what I did say!)

 

[steve jaros]

I'm amazed that Hollywood could ever confer an award on a rapist who hasn't even paid his debt to society, much less stand up at awards shows and clap for the guy. That's revolting.

 

[Michael Reuben]

one of the key tenets of our justice system is that the victim does not, and should not, have jurisdiction over the punishment.

The victim's view is not dispositive, but it's by no means irrelevant. If it were, we wouldn't allow victim impact statements or permit victims and their families to testify at sentencing hearings.

M.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Be warned that the following may fall into the ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin’ category.

Here is a question for Chuck and those of you who choose to boycott Polanski films such as The Pianist. What is your stand on his films that were made before the rape? I’m thinking of something like Rosemary’s Baby. Would you watch that because he had not yet committed the act, or boycott on principle? And the same question as to watching one of his movies if it were shown on a commercial-free channel like TCM or Sundance? I’m excluding channels with commercials or ones that require a premium fee, as it could be argued that a portion of the money would find its way to him.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Lew,
Honestly, I don't put that much thought into it. I don't actively avoid his films. I don't purchase them, rent them, or plan to view them, but if I was to choose between watching The Pianist or Little Nicky on (even pay) cable, I'd probably go with The Pianist. It's easy to avoid, as I wasn't a big Polanski fan prior to my knowledge. But I don't deal with it in my everyday life. There are so many great films I haven't seen...skipping the few by RP is not a big deal.

Again, I make no judgements on the fans of his work. Not even a little teeny-tiny one in the back of my mind that I don't tell anyone about I haven't seen Jeepers Creepers 1 or 2 (or Powder) either.

No doubt I have seen and enjoyed films by men (or women) who've gotten away with things I'd consider reprehensible. I am not THAT naive.

Take care,
Chuck