I can't read it because it wont let me skip the survey, and I refuse to take it because I already filled it out 3 or 4 times and I'm sick of it. whats the gist?
The gist is what it's always been, Polanski is a criminal, and we shouldn't be celebrating him because of it, no matter how good he is. He needs to pay for what he did first.
oh I'm not saying that the standing ovation was ridiculous or that the man himself should be honored, I think he is pretty much lower than the crap coming out of my ferret's ass. but the oscar was best director, right? and directing is his work.
If you're going to honor the work, give The Pianist Best Picture. But giving Polanski the Best Director honor is honoring him, not his work per se, and that's just wrong.
Let's say you have a colleague, a gifted man with a troubled past, whose work you admire.
Imagine that your talented co-worker gave a girl of 13 alcohol and drugs, instructed her to strip and join him in a hot tub and then -- despite her saying, "No, stop" -- had sex with her.
What if he left the country to avoid prison? What if he not only admitted his crime but whined to a reporter that although America has a "wonderful" constitution, it needs to get its "puritanism" under control?
Would you bestow upon him your profession's highest honor?
You might if you lived in Hollywood.
Perhaps 1977 seems like too long ago to matter. Perhaps absence really does make the heart grow fonder. Perhaps professional brilliance overshadows every unsavory thing an artist does personally.
Perhaps Hollywood is even more out of touch than the stars' Oscar get-ups suggest.
Admittedly, when a friend said, "You have to write about Roman Polanski winning Best Director -- it's outrageous!" I balked, even though I'd found Polanski's win for "The Pianist" over never-honored Martin Scorsese ("Gangs of New York") surprising.
But c'mon, Oscar is a joke. Everyone knows that Academy Awards are given to artists for turning in the year's best work -- and for their popularity, lengthy career achievement and past nominations. Oscar isn't a sports competition with clear winners, I shrugged -- it's opinion.
Then I read the grand jury testimony of Polanski's victim, Samantha Geimer, on www.thesmokinggun.com. In it, she said Polanski, then 43, first asked to take pictures of her for French Vogue. Transporting her to Jack Nicholson's home, he photographed her nude, gave her champagne and part of a quaalude, and performed "cuddliness" -- her childish term for oral sex -- on her before raping her.
Polanski, who lives in France, couldn't retrieve his Oscar. Setting foot on U.S. soil would mean his immediate arrest. After pleading guilty to one felony count of having sex with a minor, the director jumped bail when it seemed a Superior Court judge might reject an agreed-upon "time served" deal.
Geimer, now nearly 40, wouldn't oppose Polanski's return. Though he "did something awful," she wrote in a Los Angeles Times article asking that "The Pianist" be judged on its own merits, she harbors "no hard feelings" for Polanski. "He is a stranger to me."
Maybe he is now. But back in 1977, he was like most rapists, two-thirds of whom know their victims. Silver Spring resident Lori S. Robinson was different -- she didn't know the two men who in 1995 raped her at gunpoint. No one was charged.
Robinson turned her horror into an instructive new book, "I Will Survive," which offers resources and advice to victims of sex crimes -- particularly black women, who are raped at a higher percentage than white women and who are less likely to report the attacks.
The author sees similarities between Polanski and singer R. Kelly, whose indictment in June on 21 counts of child pornography didn't keep his new album from instant-hit status. "People trivialize rape, period," Robinson suggests. "But stars are elevated to an almost godlike status."
Clearly, the public often views a performer's art as separate from his behavior. "But if your child is victimized, is art still just art?" asks Robinson, who on April 5 will speak at Caravan Books and Imports in Oxon Hill. "Eighty percent of [rape victims] experience post-traumatic stress disorder, which is usually associated with war combatants.
"People just don't understand how devastating rape is."
Still, a standing ovation for a man who admitted having sex with a girl so young most people would forbid their 17-year-old sons to date her? Astounding.
I needed an artist's view. Deb Gottesman co-founded the Theatre Lab, Washington's largest theater training organization, whose Life Stories program helps disadvantaged people -- including prisoners -- to transform their lives into stage and screen pieces. No wonder she's "a huge believer in second chances for those who've faced the consequences of their crimes."
Polanski hardly qualifies. Even a convicted murderer "who went through the penal system, repented and then won an Oscar" could deserve applause, Gottesman suggests. Polanski, however, "skirted this country's judicial system."
How can he deserve our country's highest directing honor?
Ironically, "The Pianist" eloquently portrays the horrors that can result when every human's inherent worth is ignored or denied -- even, presumably, nubile girls'. Even if it was the year's best-directed movie, which is debatable, Gottesman wonders, "Why is Hollywood still giving [Polanski] this opportunity?"
Because his crime was "just sex," an act that nearly everyone enjoys and that -- unless weapons, bruises and/or a nun are involved -- many people have trouble envisioning as criminal.
But a 13-year-old can't be confused with a grown woman -- or even a mature teen. Physically, mentally and emotionally, she's a child. Sex with children cannot be condoned or -- without apology, regret or appropriate punishment -- forgiven.
okay, now are you mad because you agree with what was said and you didn't know everything that was mentioned, or because you think the writer is wrong?
I'm mad because Hollywood is unwilling to recognize that this guy is scum. As scarcrest said, they wouldn't clap for Elia Kazan but they give him a fucking standing ovation? Sell out other actors and we'll never forgive you, but rape a 13-year-old girl and who cares, we've all done it too!
Perhaps Hollywood did not want to be upstaged. While our government and military is committing atrocities abroad, Hollywood wanted to contribute in its own special way.
What no one has said yet, yet is pretty well-known, is that that 13-year old, who is now in her late 30's has repeatedly called for Roman Polanski's charges to be dropped and for him to be allowed to come back to the USA saying he's been punished enough for having to stay away from his home for 25 years.
That certainly doesnt make what he did right, and he's absolutely no less of a scumbag for it, but they shouldnt still be pursuing charges agaist him after 25 years if the victim herself says they shouldnt be.
It could be argued that the Academy Awards are supposed to be judging people on their work, and not their personal lives.
BUT, to ignore something that sick, nonconsentual, and illegal just because it's "in his past" does not make the even go away. They were still applauding a man that raped a child. I equate it with giving John Wayne Gacy an art award for his clown paintings done in prison.
i've always had a problem with this case. it's the same problem i have with the michael jackson cases.
what in the hell was a random 13 year old girl doing with roman polanski in the first place? i don't have kids, but if i did and say random celebrity came up and asked me if they could hang out with my kid for several days/hours/etc i would have to wonder what in the heck was going on.
the other problem that i have with the case is that i think there is a tremendous amount of he said, she said. i think that something probably did happen, but what happend i don't think anyone will ever know for sure. with the rate this girl keeps saying to drop charges against polanski i wouldn't be surprised if some of the stuff was added to try and recieve money or a payoff.
i'm not saying that he shouldn't be held accountable for what he did, but i think there's a whole lot of other factors at play here.
regardless of the victim calling for his forgiveness, the fact remains that she was thirteen years old at the time. "he said/she said" doesn't matter when it's a child. What if she did say "yeah, okay" to something he did? He still drugged her and she was still 13.
Although I also believe that artists should be recognized for their work and getting a "Best director" means that he was recognized for his direction of a movie, I believe that he needs to account for his crime. The biggest crime he commited was skipping out on answering for what he did. I don't believe they are pursuing him for his original crime so much as for jumping bail and fleeing. What kind of person does that? Why should I think he's anything but scum when his reaction to being caught drugging and raping a thirteen year old was to run away?
The only thing I can think of that mitigates my disgust at Mr. Polanski is the fact that his first wife (and unborn child) was brutally murdered by Charles Manson. That's gotta mess with your head.
he said she said IS relevant regardless of whether you want to acknowledge it or not. it's a thing called being able to disproove charges against you. a right guaranteed to you under the constitution. since we have no idea of what all DID or DID not happen and since there has never been an actual trial with evidence presented and refuted you don't know either.
if you think 13 year old's ALWAYS tell the truth and that they NEVER lie and the parents of children don't have ULTERIOR motives some of the time then you live in a bubble or another planet. because those things happen all the time.
Why should I think he's anything but scum when his reaction to being caught drugging and raping a thirteen year old was to run away?
because the legal system in america is such that someone could present fact upon fact upon fact of being innocent but all the jury sees is a 13 year old girl. you think it doesn't happen? think again. people flee it doesn't always mean their guilty.
and i think it's wrong to offer the murder of his wife as an excuse one way or another. my sister was murdered at the age of 15. i was there. i watched her die. the same person who tried to kill her tried to kill me too. that messes with one's head. watching the legal system let the person off on a technicality. that messes with one's head. REGARDLESS that is not an excuse to go out and do something that is illegal neither is it justification for behaviour.
i have no doubt as i said before though you seem to have overlooked it that something did happen. i just pointed out as someone else did there are MANY other factors at play.
so far as "he said/she said" goes, the most important "anyone said" is that they BOTH agreed to what happened. After the deed has been admitted to, "he said/she said" only affects whether or not it was a crime; i.e. was it consensual? In the case of a girl of 13, it doesn't matter if it was "consensual".
Roman Polanski certainly had enough money to afford a fabulous team of lawyers. Running away does not mean he's guilty, but it doesn't mean he's honorable either.
he has NEVER admitted that everything she said happened. he's never said it's exactly like it happened. he's never alluded to the fact that it's exactly what she said. therefore he didn't necessarily drug her or get her drunk. we don't even know if he had actual sex with her. the only person on record is HER.
do you think having good lawyers is enough to get you off the hook? think again. celebrities like oj simpson may have enough money to hire a passle of lawyers as gifted as can be. it doesn't mean you'll get off the hook.
you honestly seem to think that law is either black or white and that there is no grey area. the problem is THERE IS MORE grey than there is black or white.
thanks for deciding what I think about Law. Yes, he HAS admitted to having sexual relations with a minor. Dishonorable count one. Then he fled. Dishonorable count two. My mind as to his honor is made up.
there is obviously no point in debating with you. I never said it was black and white. I stated my opinion on the matter. So you don't agree. big deal.
he said although he engaged in sexual misconduct with her, it was not exactly what she said. sexual misconduct runs the spectrum from rape to simple harassment.
no one decided law for you. you're the one who attacked me over the girl saying she wanted the charges dropped. the funniest part is I DIDN'T SAY IT. someone else did. please read the responses again.
I dont appreciate being accused of attacking someone. I did not attack you. in both situations, YOU brought up something then denied it later. I thought you might need some reminding.
You said but what happend i don't think anyone will ever know for sure. with the rate this girl keeps saying to drop charges against polanski i wouldn't be surprised if some of the stuff was added to try and recieve money or a payoff. - your words.
you also said you honestly seem to think that law is either black or white and that there is no grey area. - your words.
All I was saying was that regardless of any of that, sexual misconduct happened, she was 13, he ran away. Therefore, he is in violation of criminal codes in america. so lawyers don't ensure justice.... because he's Roman Polanski, it's to be overlooked that he ran from his country's justice system? because it might be skewed? sorry, I can't go with that.
All I was saying, is that two facts are known: he admitted to misconduct with a minor, and he jumped bond. I also said that his work should be judged on its own merits. I also said my PERSONAL opinion is that he is scum for what he admitted doing and then running away. I'm sure there's more factors "at play" here, so far as looking at it ethically, morally, and all whatever else makes for an interesting debate. HOWEVER, I was not talking about ethics, scruples or morals. I was talking about my opinion based on his admitted misconduct and the laws HE BROKE.
no one said he should get away with anything because he's roman polanski... except for the words you tried to shove into my mouth.
you said you were through with that matter as did i. if you insist on being insulting and argumentative i don't find it surprising for a minute that someone anyone including me doesn't want to stick around and discuss this with you.
now as i've said before, i'm through with the matter. if you have more insults, etc to hurl please seek someone else to dish them out to.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 09:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 09:24 am (UTC)The gist is what it's always been, Polanski is a criminal, and we shouldn't be celebrating him because of it, no matter how good he is. He needs to pay for what he did first.
Re:
Date: 2003-03-28 09:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 09:31 am (UTC)If Charles Manson was a world-famous painter...
Re:
Date: 2003-03-28 09:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 09:42 am (UTC)Too long for one comment...
Date: 2003-03-28 09:28 am (UTC)by Donna Britt
Let's say you have a colleague, a gifted man with a troubled past, whose work you admire.
Imagine that your talented co-worker gave a girl of 13 alcohol and drugs, instructed her to strip and join him in a hot tub and then -- despite her saying, "No, stop" -- had sex with her.
What if he left the country to avoid prison? What if he not only admitted his crime but whined to a reporter that although America has a "wonderful" constitution, it needs to get its "puritanism" under control?
Would you bestow upon him your profession's highest honor?
You might if you lived in Hollywood.
Perhaps 1977 seems like too long ago to matter. Perhaps absence really does make the heart grow fonder. Perhaps professional brilliance overshadows every unsavory thing an artist does personally.
Perhaps Hollywood is even more out of touch than the stars' Oscar get-ups suggest.
Admittedly, when a friend said, "You have to write about Roman Polanski winning Best Director -- it's outrageous!" I balked, even though I'd found Polanski's win for "The Pianist" over never-honored Martin Scorsese ("Gangs of New York") surprising.
But c'mon, Oscar is a joke. Everyone knows that Academy Awards are given to artists for turning in the year's best work -- and for their popularity, lengthy career achievement and past nominations. Oscar isn't a sports competition with clear winners, I shrugged -- it's opinion.
Then I read the grand jury testimony of Polanski's victim, Samantha Geimer, on www.thesmokinggun.com. In it, she said Polanski, then 43, first asked to take pictures of her for French Vogue. Transporting her to Jack Nicholson's home, he photographed her nude, gave her champagne and part of a quaalude, and performed "cuddliness" -- her childish term for oral sex -- on her before raping her.
Polanski, who lives in France, couldn't retrieve his Oscar. Setting foot on U.S. soil would mean his immediate arrest. After pleading guilty to one felony count of having sex with a minor, the director jumped bail when it seemed a Superior Court judge might reject an agreed-upon "time served" deal.
Geimer, now nearly 40, wouldn't oppose Polanski's return. Though he "did something awful," she wrote in a Los Angeles Times article asking that "The Pianist" be judged on its own merits, she harbors "no hard feelings" for Polanski. "He is a stranger to me."
Maybe he is now. But back in 1977, he was like most rapists, two-thirds of whom know their victims. Silver Spring resident Lori S. Robinson was different -- she didn't know the two men who in 1995 raped her at gunpoint. No one was charged.
Robinson turned her horror into an instructive new book, "I Will Survive," which offers resources and advice to victims of sex crimes -- particularly black women, who are raped at a higher percentage than white women and who are less likely to report the attacks.
The author sees similarities between Polanski and singer R. Kelly, whose indictment in June on 21 counts of child pornography didn't keep his new album from instant-hit status. "People trivialize rape, period," Robinson suggests. "But stars are elevated to an almost godlike status."
Clearly, the public often views a performer's art as separate from his behavior. "But if your child is victimized, is art still just art?" asks Robinson, who on April 5 will speak at Caravan Books and Imports in Oxon Hill. "Eighty percent of [rape victims] experience post-traumatic stress disorder, which is usually associated with war combatants.
"People just don't understand how devastating rape is."
Still, a standing ovation for a man who admitted having sex with a girl so young most people would forbid their 17-year-old sons to date her? Astounding.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 09:28 am (UTC)Polanski hardly qualifies. Even a convicted murderer "who went through the penal system, repented and then won an Oscar" could deserve applause, Gottesman suggests. Polanski, however, "skirted this country's judicial system."
How can he deserve our country's highest directing honor?
Ironically, "The Pianist" eloquently portrays the horrors that can result when every human's inherent worth is ignored or denied -- even, presumably, nubile girls'. Even if it was the year's best-directed movie, which is debatable, Gottesman wonders, "Why is Hollywood still giving [Polanski] this opportunity?"
Because his crime was "just sex," an act that nearly everyone enjoys and that -- unless weapons, bruises and/or a nun are involved -- many people have trouble envisioning as criminal.
But a 13-year-old can't be confused with a grown woman -- or even a mature teen. Physically, mentally and emotionally, she's a child. Sex with children cannot be condoned or -- without apology, regret or appropriate punishment -- forgiven.
No matter how well you direct.
Re:
Date: 2003-03-28 09:32 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-03-28 09:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 09:46 am (UTC)I don't mean to sound like I'm invalidating your opinion or anything, I am just curious
Re:
Date: 2003-03-28 09:49 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-03-28 09:50 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-03-28 09:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 09:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 10:10 am (UTC)That certainly doesnt make what he did right, and he's absolutely no less of a scumbag for it, but they shouldnt still be pursuing charges agaist him after 25 years if the victim herself says they shouldnt be.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 10:34 am (UTC)It could be argued that the Academy Awards are supposed to be judging people on their work, and not their personal lives.
BUT, to ignore something that sick, nonconsentual, and illegal just because it's "in his past" does not make the even go away. They were still applauding a man that raped a child. I equate it with giving John Wayne Gacy an art award for his clown paintings done in prison.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 10:50 am (UTC)what in the hell was a random 13 year old girl doing with roman polanski in the first place? i don't have kids, but if i did and say random celebrity came up and asked me if they could hang out with my kid for several days/hours/etc i would have to wonder what in the heck was going on.
the other problem that i have with the case is that i think there is a tremendous amount of he said, she said. i think that something probably did happen, but what happend i don't think anyone will ever know for sure. with the rate this girl keeps saying to drop charges against polanski i wouldn't be surprised if some of the stuff was added to try and recieve money or a payoff.
i'm not saying that he shouldn't be held accountable for what he did, but i think there's a whole lot of other factors at play here.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 11:38 am (UTC)Although I also believe that artists should be recognized for their work and getting a "Best director" means that he was recognized for his direction of a movie, I believe that he needs to account for his crime. The biggest crime he commited was skipping out on answering for what he did. I don't believe they are pursuing him for his original crime so much as for jumping bail and fleeing. What kind of person does that? Why should I think he's anything but scum when his reaction to being caught drugging and raping a thirteen year old was to run away?
The only thing I can think of that mitigates my disgust at Mr. Polanski is the fact that his first wife (and unborn child) was brutally murdered by Charles Manson. That's gotta mess with your head.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 11:50 am (UTC)if you think 13 year old's ALWAYS tell the truth and that they NEVER lie and the parents of children don't have ULTERIOR motives some of the time then you live in a bubble or another planet. because those things happen all the time.
Why should I think he's anything but scum when his reaction to being caught drugging and raping a thirteen year old was to run away?
because the legal system in america is such that someone could present fact upon fact upon fact of being innocent but all the jury sees is a 13 year old girl. you think it doesn't happen? think again. people flee it doesn't always mean their guilty.
and i think it's wrong to offer the murder of his wife as an excuse one way or another. my sister was murdered at the age of 15. i was there. i watched her die. the same person who tried to kill her tried to kill me too. that messes with one's head. watching the legal system let the person off on a technicality. that messes with one's head. REGARDLESS that is not an excuse to go out and do something that is illegal neither is it justification for behaviour.
i have no doubt as i said before though you seem to have overlooked it that something did happen. i just pointed out as someone else did there are MANY other factors at play.
Re:
Date: 2003-03-28 02:02 pm (UTC)After the deed has been admitted to, "he said/she said" only affects whether or not it was a crime; i.e. was it consensual? In the case of a girl of 13, it doesn't matter if it was "consensual".
Roman Polanski certainly had enough money to afford a fabulous team of lawyers. Running away does not mean he's guilty, but it doesn't mean he's honorable either.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 03:12 pm (UTC)do you think having good lawyers is enough to get you off the hook? think again. celebrities like oj simpson may have enough money to hire a passle of lawyers as gifted as can be. it doesn't mean you'll get off the hook.
you honestly seem to think that law is either black or white and that there is no grey area. the problem is THERE IS MORE grey than there is black or white.
Re:
Date: 2003-03-28 04:43 pm (UTC)there is obviously no point in debating with you. I never said it was black and white. I stated my opinion on the matter. So you don't agree. big deal.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 04:47 pm (UTC)no one decided law for you. you're the one who attacked me over the girl saying she wanted the charges dropped. the funniest part is I DIDN'T SAY IT. someone else did. please read the responses again.
i'm through with the matter.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 05:06 pm (UTC)in both situations, YOU brought up something then denied it later. I thought you might need some reminding.
You said but what happend i don't think anyone will ever know for sure. with the rate this girl keeps saying to drop charges against polanski i wouldn't be surprised if some of the stuff was added to try and recieve money or a payoff. - your words.
you also said you honestly seem to think that law is either black or white and that there is no grey area. - your words.
All I was saying was that regardless of any of that, sexual misconduct happened, she was 13, he ran away. Therefore, he is in violation of criminal codes in america. so lawyers don't ensure justice.... because he's Roman Polanski, it's to be overlooked that he ran from his country's justice system? because it might be skewed? sorry, I can't go with that.
All I was saying, is that two facts are known: he admitted to misconduct with a minor, and he jumped bond. I also said that his work should be judged on its own merits. I also said my PERSONAL opinion is that he is scum for what he admitted doing and then running away. I'm sure there's more factors "at play" here, so far as looking at it ethically, morally, and all whatever else makes for an interesting debate. HOWEVER, I was not talking about ethics, scruples or morals. I was talking about my opinion based on his admitted misconduct and the laws HE BROKE.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 05:36 pm (UTC)you said you were through with that matter as did i. if you insist on being insulting and argumentative i don't find it surprising for a minute that someone anyone including me doesn't want to stick around and discuss this with you.
now as i've said before, i'm through with the matter. if you have more insults, etc to hurl please seek someone else to dish them out to.