#21488
2003-09-10 1:51 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609
10000+ posts
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609 |
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
however, what most disturbs about your perceptions on many an accused, famous individual is that you most always belittle their accusations and/or crimes and/or wrong-doings in favor of playing the devil's advocate. not that you excuse their actions, but you certainly come across as accepting of them.
I accept that Polanski did what he did. I don't accept that those actions should deter me from appreciating his work, or that those actions were severe enough to suggest that everyone should refuse to involve themselves with him in any way. Did he serve substantial time in a federal prison(which, he had reason to be against; he was imprisoned in a Nazi work camp during World War II, which I'm sure you can imagine was a less than fun experience)? No. However, his actions did not go completely unpunished.
So every POW has a GET OUT OF JAIL FREE card?
WOW! What punishment banished to a mansion...phew...poor guy...
|
|
|
#21489
2003-09-10 1:52 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609 |
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
i can't believe you can follow "i accept what he did" with defense of his actions.
When I say "I accept what he did", I mean I accept that he had sex with a 13 year old girl. I don't defend that. At all. It was wrong, and he deserved punishment for it.
You must have an extensive collection of John Wayne Gacy's Clown paintings in your home....or wait does he have to be popular BEFORE his crime to appreciate his work?
|
|
|
#21490
2003-09-10 8:37 AM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
[QUOTE]Harrison Ford is Roman Polanski's friend. I doubt he thinks what Polanski did was right.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but it appears from the articles that Ford befriended Polanski many years after the rape occurred.
It's one thing to have a friend accused of a crime and stand by that friend.
It's quite another to befriend someone who raped an underaged girl, got convicted AFTER PLEADING GUILTY, and fled to avoid sentencing.
There is no question as to Polanski's guilt. There is no evidence that Polanski has reformed.
By befriending him, Ford is sending a message that he doesn't think child rape is a big deal. That he doesn't factor a person's actions or their morality into the question of whether to befriend them. That says a lot about Ford's character. And it isn't good.
quote:
Polanski received an Oscar because the Pianist is an extraordinary film, and he did a fantastic job directing it. He did not receive the award because the Academy thinks he's a moral person. This is art, not politics.
Tell that Elia Kazan.
Kazan was the director of such film classics "Gentleman's Agreement" "On the Waterfront," "A Streetcar Named Desire," "East of
Eden" and "Splendor in the Grass."
In 1952 Kazan testified before the
House Un-American Activities and informed on eight of his old friends from the Group Theater who, like Kazan, had once been members of the
Communist Party.
"Kazan's testimony, and his refusal to apologize for it in later years, made the legendary director something of a nonperson in politically
liberal Hollywood. ... Kazan was snubbed by several prestigious Hollywood organizations, including the American Film Institute and the Los
Angeles Film Critics Assn., both of which refused Kazan lifetime achievement awards."
In 1999, the decision was made to award Kazan a lifetime achievement Oscar. When the award was announced "Demonstrators had noisily protested the acclaimed director's lifetime achievement award outside the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion earlier in the day, urging Oscar-goers to sit on their hands during Kazan's appearance.
According to eyewitnesses at the ceremony, many...stayed seated and did not applaud...Steven Spielberg remained seated, although he
applauded; actors Nick Nolte, Ed Harris and Amy Madigan made a point of staying in their seats and not applauding."
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/kazan-protest.html
People can disagree on what Kazan did. However, this clearly demonstrates that politics do influence the awarding of the Oscar.
Furthermore, the fact that Kazan's award was more controversial than Polanski's to the academy raises an even more interesting question: has Hollywood become so liberal that child molesters are more easily tolerated that anti-communists?
quote:
to most, the act doesnt have to be text book to be referred to as criminal...Some people feel the same way about homosexuality. Regardless, they're happy, and he broke no law.
I think you're off the mark here on two levels, if I am reading you correctly.
The first is comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. One involves consenting adults. The other involves a consenting adult and a child who is incapable of consent.
Furthermore, too many people seem to have forgoten the actual details of what Polanski did.
Polanski did not have sex with some teenaged "Lolita," who "willingly" gave herself to him. The testimony at Grand Jury from the victim established that Polanski got the girl drunk, doped her up and forcibily raped her, both vaginally and anally. She testified that she did not resist because she was afraid of him.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html
He then, as noted above, pled guilty and later fled to avoid sentencing.
As such, I think it specious to assume that Polanski has reformed. The man has never shown remorse and, in fact, continues to evade responsibility for his actions.
In addition, I think we need to put aside the idea that you honor the art without honoring the artist. Using that idea, we could give "Mein Kampf" awards for being well-written.
But in the end, the real point is this: Ford did not befriend the work "the Pianist." He befriended a convicted child rapist. He made his statement about the man, not the work.
And, in making that statement, he lost both my respect and my business.
|
|
|
#21491
2003-09-10 2:31 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,062
1000+ posts
|
|
1000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,062 |
quote:
Originally posted by the G-man:
In 1952 Kazan testified before the
House Un-American Activities and informed on eight of his old friends from the Group Theater who, like Kazan, had once been members of the
Communist Party.
"Kazan's testimony, and his refusal to apologize for it in later years, made the legendary director something of a nonperson in politically
liberal Hollywood. ... Kazan was snubbed by several prestigious Hollywood organizations, including the American Film Institute and the Los
Angeles Film Critics Assn., both of which refused Kazan lifetime achievement awards."
In 1999, the decision was made to award Kazan a lifetime achievement Oscar. When the award was announced "Demonstrators had noisily protested the acclaimed director's lifetime achievement award outside the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion earlier in the day, urging Oscar-goers to sit on their hands during Kazan's appearance.
According to eyewitnesses at the ceremony, many...stayed seated and did not applaud...Steven Spielberg remained seated, although he
applauded; actors Nick Nolte, Ed Harris and Amy Madigan made a point of staying in their seats and not applauding."
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/kazan-protest.html
People can disagree on what Kazan did. However, this clearly demonstrates that politics do influence the awarding of the Oscar.
Furthermore, the fact that Kazan's award was more controversial than Polanski's to the academy raises an even more interesting question: has Hollywood become so liberal that child molesters are more easily tolerated that anti-communists?
I think if Kazan thought his former friends were plotting against the country (much like Middle Eastern terrorists, nowadays), he should turn them in. If they were harmless, and he was turning them in to save his own ass, then he should be shunned.
quote:
Originally posted by the G-man:
In addition, I think we need to put aside the idea that you honor the art without honoring the artist. Using that idea, we could give "Mein Kampf" awards for being well-written.
This topic came up on the old DC boards when the Oscars were announced. I addressed the posters who defended Polanski and asked if Hitler directed an Oscar-worthy movie, would they give him an Oscar. One poster (don't remember who) said they would, and that they were awarding the art and not the artist. I feel, even if The Pianist is a great movie, I wouldn't feel right giving an award to someone who did what he did.
As for Ford, well, that's kind of a gray area with me yet. I'm not sure I'd boycott Ford, but I probably should because he supports Polanski.
By the way, you still didn't answer my Liddy question, G-Man. :)
|
|
|
#21492
2003-09-11 3:03 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
quote:
Originally posted by Snapman:
I think if Kazan thought his former friends were plotting against the country (much like Middle Eastern terrorists, nowadays), he should turn them in. If they were harmless, and he was turning them in to save his own ass, then he should be shunned.
Watch On the Waterfront. It's Kazan's way of explaining why he did what he did.
|
|
|
#21493
2003-09-11 3:13 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
Acknowledging a fantastic movie, which is the combined effort of dozens of people, not just one man's project, and supporting/defending the personal life of an individual are two very different things.
Just to clarify, the award was for Best Director, meaning that it was given to Polanski alone and ignored the work of everyone else.
And, Bobo, this topic made it to two pages in two days. Where's the Child Fucker graphic on the main page?
|
|
|
#21494
2003-09-11 3:28 AM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 126
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 126 |
I wonder if he stopped fuckin' kids when he ran to Europe?
|
|
|
#21495
2003-09-10 4:37 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
|
|
|
#21496
2003-09-10 7:50 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 47,810 Likes: 2
Hip To Be Square 15000+ posts
|
|
Hip To Be Square 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 47,810 Likes: 2 |
quote:
Does this make Polanski a great guy? No. Does it make him right in what he did? No. However, it also doesn't make him an evil person. He didn't kill or maim anybody
Bullshit,its just as bad as murder.
I hope one day some guy anal rapes you & lets see you defend him & say he`s not evil.
Rapists are scum & do not deserve to even be making films let alone recieve awards for it!
Also your defense that he has a "good" reason for not wanting to serve time in prison cause of his imprisonment during the war is also bullshit.
Who gives a shit about what injustice he suffered,millions of others have suffered but they still have to pay for any crimes they have committed,why is he so different?
Oh & lets hope that every person who has had a loved one murdered doesnt go out and rape a thirteen year old.
|
|
|
#21497
2003-09-10 7:58 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 47,810 Likes: 2
Hip To Be Square 15000+ posts
|
|
Hip To Be Square 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 47,810 Likes: 2 |
quote:
No to all examples, though they are bad comparisons. These are personal services, something movie directing does not imply. I wouldn't want to have contact with the guy, quite honestly, and I wouldn't want my family to either. I don't think the man is mentally stable.
But you`ll quite happily line his pockets with silver!
Would you be willing to do that for any other fugitive criminal?
quote:
No, it doesn't. He's a criminal
So why is he allowed to make money on the USA if he is a convicted criminal who refuses to serve his sentence?
His films should not even be allowed to make money in the US.
|
|
|
#21498
2003-09-10 8:03 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
|
|
|
#21499
2003-09-10 10:11 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
quote:
Originally posted by THE Franta:
I never said that I agreed with Bush just that it was ironic that the same egos tsk tsking Bush support a pedofile.
You blasted other celebrities for doubting Bush and argued that since he's the President he knows what he's doing.
quote:
And as bsams says your past doesnt give you the right to abuse a child.
Never said it did.
quote:
If he really is sorry and regrets what he did and the victim forgave him (without money changing hands) then why didnt he face the music inn a court of law?
Elaborate on "face the music".
The reason he gives for fleeing is simple. He was willing to serve his time in a facility, but he asked that he not be placed in a prison as he was traumatized by his experiences in Auschwitz during WW2(a phobia that thousands of Nazi work-camp survivors have demonstrated). He cooperated with authorities throughout the trial, hoping that they would respect at least that wish. When it looked as if the judge would sentence him to time in a jail anyway, he left.
quote:
WOW! What punishment banished to a mansion...phew...poor guy...
In addition to never being able to set foot in the United States again, Polanski was forced to spend more than 6 weeks in a psychiatric ward(and several nights in a jail cell while being transported) undergoing dozens of tests to see if he was mentally unbalanced. Of course, he'll also forever be associated with statutory rape, tarnishing his image, and severely limiting the amount of money he could have made(no endorsements, no grants or public funding for film teaching, not as many movies as he has to keep a relatively low profile, etc).
Now, before you say "oh gee so he only makes a few million dollars, poor bastard!" or "and this excuses him from raping a girl?", or make similar comments....no, it doesn't excuse him, no, you shouldn't(and I'm sure you won't) feel sorry for him, and no, he's not living in poverty.
However, it is punishment, and probably a good deal more severe than you may think. It's not like he just walked away, got off completely scot-free, and everyone else was none the wiser.
quote:
You must have an extensive collection of John Wayne Gacy's Clown paintings in your home....or wait does he have to be popular BEFORE his crime to appreciate his work?
I have seen some of his clown paintings and self portraits. He's no Robert Owen, but that's ok....
quote:
Originally posted by the G-man:
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but it appears from the articles that Ford befriended Polanski many years after the rape occurred.
They knew each other vaguely beforehand(Ford was still an "up and coming" actor at the time), and became great friends after working together on Frantic in '89, yes.
Again, let me say; I personally wouldn't want to associate with Polanski, nor would I want my family to. However, I'm not going to hold it against others. It's their choice, and I don't take responsibility for them.
quote:
There is no evidence that Polanski has reformed.
He hasn't been accused or convicted of any crimes since. What would you consider to be evidence of reformation?
quote:
By befriending him, Ford is sending a message that he doesn't think child rape is a big deal.
That's ridiculous.
quote:
Furthermore, the fact that Kazan's award was more controversial than Polanski's to the academy raises an even more interesting question: has Hollywood become so liberal that child molesters are more easily tolerated that anti-communists?
I'm sure there were those that didn't applaud Polanski.
I think it was stupid of Nolte and Harris to be so pigheaded, but the fact is, Kazan still got an award, and it was well deserved.
quote:
I think you're off the mark here on two levels, if I am reading you correctly.
You're not; the comments you quoted were in reference to Woody Allen's relationship with Soon-Yi Previn, not Polanski.
quote:
Originally posted by thedoctor:
Just to clarify, the award was for Best Director, meaning that it was given to Polanski alone and ignored the work of everyone else.
Right you are, it was my mistake. Chicago won best picture, despite being a piece of crap.
quote:
Originally posted by Nowhereman:
I hope one day some guy anal rapes you & lets see you defend him & say he`s not evil.
Rapists are scum & do not deserve to even be making films let alone recieve awards for it!
You hope that? You honestly hope I'm anal raped by a man? That sounds pretty evil in itself, Nowhereman.
I never said Roman Polanski was or wasn't evil. I wasn't passing judgement on him either way. I think the only way I could really pass that kind of judgement(say whether or not a person is evil) would be to know his intentions, and I can't determine that as I wasn't there when it happened. And neither were you.
quote:
But you`ll quite happily line his pockets with silver!
Will I? I didn't pay to see The Pianist. Or Ninth Gate. Or Frantic. I've never purchased or rented tapes of such videos, either.
I don't know how exactly Polanski is compensated(if it all) for his directing. He could simply be paid outright, and not receive a share of the profits. I'm not sure.
quote:
So why is he allowed to make money on the USA if he is a convicted criminal who refuses to serve his sentence?
His films should not even be allowed to make money in the US.
Well, there would be other people that you'd be denying the money, too(and not just wealthy actors and actresses). The movie industry is pretty cutthroat, and a lot of your success in it is dependant on pure luck. If you get the chance to break through in a Roman Polanski movie(and when you're desperate, like a lot of aspiring actors/actresses are), but then nobody in the U.S sees it and you aren't paid nearly as much and don't get nearly as much exposure, is that fair?
|
|
|
#21500
2003-09-10 10:11 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
quote:
Originally posted by bsams:
agreed.
Thanks bsams.
|
|
|
#21501
2003-09-10 10:19 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Ah, missed this comment: quote:
Originally posted by Nowhereman:
Who gives a shit about what injustice he suffered,millions of others have suffered but they still have to pay for any crimes they have committed,why is he so different?
I wasn't giving it as his reason of why he shouldn't pay for his crimes. I was giving it as proof that he, himself, was a victim.
|
|
|
#21502
2003-09-10 10:22 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
quote:
I never said Roman Polanski was or wasn't evil. I wasn't passing judgement on him either way. I think the only way I could really pass that kind of judgement(say whether or not a person is evil) would be to know his intentions, and I can't determine that as I wasn't there when it happened. And neither were you.
His intentions? Like maybe he accidently anally raped a 13 year old girlor he thought it would be good for her? I'd like you to further explain this?
|
|
|
#21503
2003-09-10 10:28 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820 |
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
No to all examples, though they are bad comparisons. These are personal services, something movie directing does not imply. I wouldn't want to have contact with the guy, quite honestly, and I wouldn't want my family to either.
"rape" often has a way of being "personal." but, ok, fine. you don't go to the guy's deli anymore. or use that bank. or get gas from his station. you remove the personal factor.
but you're OK if he won major public awards because he had the country's best gas station? or bank? you feel its OK to recognize a teacher for his achievements, despite the fact that he's a wanted criminal, whose crimes include sex with a minor?
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
It's bashing an alternative lifestyle, passing judgement on it simply because you don't agree with it. That's pretty narrow minded. Infact, it's almost bigotry.
im actually very bothered by your thoughts on this, annie.
sexual acts shared between a father (figure) and a daughter (figure) is wrong. that should not be up for debate. its not speculation, its not bigotry, its wrong, plain and simple. that says nothing of the fact that soon-yi was so young (at the oldest, 21, when allen's nude photos were found)
what he did showed obvious ramifications in soon-yi's personality. anyone who undergoes something like that is the victim of incomprehensible damage.
even woody knew he was doing something wrong -- hiding the relationship from mia (the mom/girl friend) for years.
how you dont, i can't say.
|
|
|
#21504
2003-09-10 10:30 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
Not trying to fight here, A-man; but I do have to point out a few things. quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
The reason he gives for fleeing is simple. He was willing to serve his time in a facility, but he asked that he not be placed in a prison as he was traumatized by his experiences in Auschwitz during WW2(a phobia that thousands of Nazi work-camp survivors have demonstrated). He cooperated with authorities throughout the trial, hoping that they would respect at least that wish. When it looked as if the judge would sentence him to time in a jail anyway, he left.
He's a criminal, by his own admission. Criminals shouldn't have the right to choose their punishments. They have to accept what is given to them by the court of law. That's the deal we made for being citizens of a country.
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
quote:
WOW! What punishment banished to a mansion...phew...poor guy...
In addition to never being able to set foot in the United States again, Polanski was forced to spend more than 6 weeks in a psychiatric ward(and several nights in a jail cell while being transported) undergoing dozens of tests to see if he was mentally unbalanced. Of course, he'll also forever be associated with statutory rape, tarnishing his image, and severely limiting the amount of money he could have made(no endorsements, no grants or public funding for film teaching, not as many movies as he has to keep a relatively low profile, etc).
Now, before you say "oh gee so he only makes a few million dollars, poor bastard!" or "and this excuses him from raping a girl?", or make similar comments....no, it doesn't excuse him, no, you shouldn't(and I'm sure you won't) feel sorry for him, and no, he's not living in poverty.
However, it is punishment, and probably a good deal more severe than you may think. It's not like he just walked away, got off completely scot-free, and everyone else was none the wiser.
Yes, six whole weeks institutionalized makes up for the fact that he raped a 13 year-old girl and emotionally scarred her for life. The fact that he can't come back to the U.S. or make all the movies he wants really does even out for perpetrating an act that has been known to ruin people's lives and even drive some to suicide.
|
|
|
#21505
2003-09-10 10:33 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820 |
i'll conclude my thoughts here.
he.
drugged.
and.
raped.
a.
minor.
someone's friend.
someone's sister.
someone's daughter.
adding insult to injury, he THEN escaped his rightful punishment, by fleeing authorities.
...and now he wins awards for his art?
there is no further defense. there is no further clarification. there is no further explanation.
if he's responsible enough to create beautiful art and win acclaim because of it, he's responsible enough to, at worst, attone for his horrific actions. if you credit his work, you better fucking credit his sins.
he.
drugged.
and.
raped.
a.
minor.
whether this means anything to you or not, your posts here have honestly made me think less of you.
|
|
|
#21506
2003-09-10 11:09 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
quote:
Originally posted by bsams:
His intentions? Like maybe he accidently anally raped a 13 year old girlor he thought it would be good for her?
Or she wanted him to have sex with her, or he thought she wanted him to have sex with her. I don't know. There are many, many possibilities. All possibilities do still make him a statutory rapist, and a criminal, but do they all make him an evil person(remember, I'm not debating the criminal part)? How many people here saw this thread and thought about having sex with Hilary Duff(who was only 15 at the time, and looked practically the same when she was 14 and starred in her Disney show)? Imagine you were rich, famous, and had the chance to have her? C'mon, be honest.
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
but you're OK if he won major public awards because he had the country's best gas station? or bank? you feel its OK to recognize a teacher for his achievements, despite the fact that he's a wanted criminal, whose crimes include sex with a minor?
But isn't having the best gas station or bank a question of efficiency and courtesy, rather than a question of art?
quote:
sexual acts shared between a father (figure) and a daughter (figure) is wrong. that should not be up for debate. its not speculation, its not bigotry, its wrong, plain and simple.
Again, this is exactly the way homophobes felt about gay relationships. They felt it was wrong, and that there should be absolutely no question that it was wrong. They weren't being narrow minded, they were simply right, end of story. Period.
One (hopefully)last time. I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't want it done to me. I can also say that about homosexuality. Doesn't mean homosexuality is wrong.
You seem to be adamant in believing that Woody Allen violated her. How do you know? What proof do you have? Nude pictures, which were taken when she was 21(and that has been verified)? What does that show? That Woody Allen was in love with somebody(and vice versa) 35 years older than he was.
The rest of your argument is based purely on assumption. You can't prove that he did anything to her. You can't prove he touched her, or used his status as her father figure to sway her emotions when she was too young to see otherwise.
If you can produce real evidence that he did something like that, then I'll say what he did was wrong. Until then, I maintain that he's done nothing wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by thedoctor:
He's a criminal, by his own admission. Criminals shouldn't have the right to chose their punishments.
You're absolutely right, they shouldn't.
quote:
Yes, six whole weeks institutionalized makes up for the fact that he raped a 13 year-old girl and emotionally scarred her for life. The fact that he can't come back to the U.S. or make all the movies he wants really does even out for perpetrating an act that has been known to ruin people's lives and even drive some to suicide.
quote:
no, it doesn't excuse him, no, you shouldn't(and I'm sure you won't) feel sorry for him, and no, he's not living in poverty.
|
|
|
#21507
2003-09-10 11:34 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
he.
drugged.
and.
raped.
a.
minor.
someone's friend.
someone's sister.
someone's daughter.
We know he penetrated her. We know at the time she had been drinking. We know he didn't use physical force to do any of these things.
That's all we know.
If Franta can discredit her comments that she's forgiven him and that he shouldn't be denied his awards, then I can discredit her comments on exactly what happened that day.
The legal system is not perfect. There is no truth-meter that can detect whether or not people are telling the truth about certain events. We have to decide these things with our imperfect human reason. Reason that, whether we like it or not, can be swayed by emotion.
A lawyer tells a little girl to say that a man forced her to rape him, maybe even convinces her for the time being that that's what he did. Why does the lawyer do this? Because he knows that if that little girl gets up there and says that convincingly(and most of the time the girl won't know any better, it's not her fault), there isn't a jury or judge in the universe that's going to let off that rapist lightly. Boom. There's your conviction, there's your compensation. If he wasn't already, that lawyer is now rich, and so is the family of the little girl.
I'm not saying that that's what happened. But stuff like that happens. A lot. It's sad, but it's reality. There are so many cases of it, it's sickening. And it's stuff like that that makes me very, very, very hesistant to take what "he said/she said" as absolute truth.
That's why I'm not going to judge Roman Polanski. Or anybody. Is he a criminal? Absolutely. Without question. Are all criminals evil people? Are all statutory rapists evil people?
Kevin Gillson was convicted of statutory rape back in 1997 for having consentual sex with his 16 year old girl friend. He was 18 at the time, and said he intended to marry her. Regardless, he paid a fine, spent time in jail, and where-ever he decides to live for the rest of his life, he'll have to register with the local police as a sex offender.
quote:
whether this means anything to you or not, your posts here have honestly made me think less of you.
I'm sorry to hear that, Rob. I respect you and your opinion(infact, I think you're a pretty cool guy most of the time), and I wouldn't want you to think less of me, or be offended by what I'm saying. However, I've stated my case as clearly as I feel possible, and I stand by it.
Please know that I do feel great sympathy for what all these people have gone through, emotionally, mentally and physically. It's not an easy thing to have your life put on display. I wouldn't wish any of these things on anyone, not even those I disliked immensely.
|
|
|
#21508
2003-09-10 11:43 PM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
We know he didn't use physical force to [penetrate here].
In fact, as noted above, the victim testified that he penetrated her while she was conscious and against her will.
That's physical force under the law.
Therefore, you base your argument on a mistake of law and fact.
|
|
|
#21509
2003-09-10 11:49 PM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
quote:
Originally posted by THE Franta:
I care that "respected" actors are proud to be seen with him, honor him and work with him....while at the same time would spit at Bush.
Harrison Ford is Roman Polanski's friend. I doubt he thinks what Polanski did was right. As Kristo said, the girl has said that Roman should be forgiven, and that she doesn't blame or hold anything against him. As you said, often pedophiles are victims themselves. In 1969, Polanski's wife, Sharon Tate, was brutally murdered by the Manson gang. You've never experienced something like that, and I hope you never do, but I can imagine something like that isn't easy to get over.
Does this make Polanski a great guy? No. Does it make him right in what he did? No. However, it also doesn't make him an evil person. He didn't kill or maim anybody, the victim has forgiven him and it's been 30 years. Again, I'm not saying this makes it right, but I don't think it's fair to say that the guy is a horrible human being and that everyone should refuse to come in contact with him or work with him in any capacity.
As for Bush, I find it very strange that you automatically assume that celebrities like Kobe Bryant are guilty of whatever crimes they are accused of(and some that are simply implied or insinuated)....yet you have no doubt that George Bush is completely innocent in his actions. Where's the consistency there?
quote:
Originally posted by thedoctor:
Considering that the Academy Awards has always, and I do mean always, been more of a popularity contest than an actual reward for artistic merit, this award shows that people in Hollywood like Polanski the person despite his admited crime and fleeing from sentencing.
In 1962, George C. Scott refused to even be nominated for an Academy award, stating that he was in no competition with anyone, and that he thought the entire thing was a joke. He was nominated anyway, for the Hustler, and twice more before he died('71 and '72). In 1971 he won, for Patton, and refused to accept his Oscar.
Marlon Brando refused to accept his Oscar in 1973 for the Godfather, and made a mockery of the entire ceremony by sending an actress pretending to be a Native American women to accept his award and then blast the Academy Awards for not nominating more Native Americans. He was nominated twice again after that.
Stanley Kubrick repeatedly said he didn't give a shit about the Academy Awards, and was nominated more than a dozen times.
Michael Moore won last year, despite being an incredible ass, and was promptly booed off the stage when he demonstrated why.
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
did everyone else who worked on the movie get a trophy? did any one else?
Yes, Ronald Harwood and Adrien Brody. Some received various other awards, as well.
Polanski received an Oscar because the Pianist is an extraordinary film, and he did a fantastic job directing it. He did not receive the award because the Academy thinks he's a moral person. This is art, not politics.
I've seen the artwork of Samuel Gaedy, a serial killer who passed his time in an insane asylum by painting, and I find it quite fascinating, in a dark and disturbing way. That's an extreme comparison, but that seems to be a theme here so I guess it's ok.
quote:
to most, the act doesnt have to be text book to be referred to as criminal.
Some people feel the same way about homosexuality. Regardless, they're happy, and he broke no law.
I don't defend their actions, Rob, despite what you may think. I only put things in what I feel to be the correct proportion when they are bloated by outrageous claims(such as comparing Roman Polanski and Woody Allen to Lex Luthor). If playing "the devil's advocate" and taking an unpopular side in an argument(or most arguments) is required in doing that, fair enough.
Besides, this would be a pretty boring(and ignorant) message board if everyone always accepted what Franta said as truth.
I'm coming to the conclusion that you're a communist.
|
|
|
#21510
2003-09-11 12:01 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
quote:
Originally posted by the G-man:
In fact, as noted above, the victim testified that he penetrated her while she was conscious and against her will.
That's physical force under the law.
From my readings, proof of physical force implies substantiated(i.e visible) evidence. However, I'm not a lawyer. We'd have to ask Dave about that.
|
|
|
#21511
2003-09-11 12:05 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
I think it pretty much varies from state to state. Most states have pretty much worded it that anything that isn't consentual is deemed forced rape. But that is a recent occurence. Laws in the 70's more than likely weren't as strict.
|
|
|
#21512
2003-09-11 3:29 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609 |
quote:
Originally posted by the G-man:
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
[QUOTE]Harrison Ford is Roman Polanski's friend. I doubt he thinks what Polanski did was right.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but it appears from the articles that Ford befriended Polanski many years after the rape occurred.
It's one thing to have a friend accused of a crime and stand by that friend.
It's quite another to befriend someone who raped an underaged girl, got convicted AFTER PLEADING GUILTY, and fled to avoid sentencing.
There is no question as to Polanski's guilt. There is no evidence that Polanski has reformed.
By befriending him, Ford is sending a message that he doesn't think child rape is a big deal. That he doesn't factor a person's actions or their morality into the question of whether to befriend them. That says a lot about Ford's character. And it isn't good.
Plus he married Calista Flockhart...ewwwwwww
|
|
|
#21513
2003-09-11 3:32 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609 |
quote:
Originally posted by the G-man:
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
[qb] [QUOTE]
to most, the act doesnt have to be text book to be referred to as criminal...Some people feel the same way about homosexuality. Regardless, they're happy, and he broke no law.[/b]
I think you're off the mark here on two levels, if I am reading you correctly.
The first is comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. One involves consenting adults. The other involves a consenting adult and a child who is incapable of consent.
Furthermore, too many people seem to have forgoten the actual details of what Polanski did.
Polanski did not have sex with some teenaged "Lolita," who "willingly" gave herself to him. The testimony at Grand Jury from the victim established that Polanski got the girl drunk, doped her up and forcibily raped her, both vaginally and anally. She testified that she did not resist because she was afraid of him.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html
He then, as noted above, pled guilty and later fled to avoid sentencing.
As such, I think it specious to assume that Polanski has reformed. The man has never shown remorse and, in fact, continues to evade responsibility for his actions.
In addition, I think we need to put aside the idea that you honor the art without honoring the artist. Using that idea, we could give "Mein Kampf" awards for being well-written.
But in the end, the real point is this: Ford did not befriend the work "the Pianist." He befriended a convicted child rapist. He made his statement about the man, not the work.
And, in making that statement, he lost both my respect and my business.
I totally missed his comparsion to child rape to homosexuality!
![[no no no]](graemlins/nono.gif)
|
|
|
#21514
2003-09-11 3:36 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609 |
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
quote:
Originally posted by THE Franta:
I never said that I agreed with Bush just that it was ironic that the same egos tsk tsking Bush support a pedofile.
You blasted other celebrities for doubting Bush and argued that since he's the President he knows what he's doing.
Nope that aint what I said...
what I said is what makes celebrities EXPERTS in politics and why should anyone care what their opinion is over anyone else's opinion.
|
|
|
#21515
2003-09-11 3:37 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609 |
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
quote:
If he really is sorry and regrets what he did and the victim forgave him (without money changing hands) then why didnt he face the music inn a court of law?
Elaborate on "face the music".
The reason he gives for fleeing is simple. He was willing to serve his time in a facility, but he asked that he not be placed in a prison as he was traumatized by his experiences in Auschwitz during WW2(a phobia that thousands of Nazi work-camp survivors have demonstrated). He cooperated with authorities throughout the trial, hoping that they would respect at least that wish. When it looked as if the judge would sentence him to time in a jail anyway, he left.
I see anyone who doesnt think they can handle prison time shouldn't be imprisoned.
Like Baretta says "If you cant do the time dont do the crime". Oddly enough he may have to live up to those words soon!
|
|
|
#21516
2003-09-11 3:52 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609 |
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
However, it is punishment, and probably a good deal more severe than you may think. It's not like he just walked away, got off completely scot-free, and everyone else was none the wiser.
Youre not serious are you?
Now youre just yanking our chains....if not you REALLY are blinded by celebrities!
|
|
|
#21517
2003-09-11 3:59 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609 |
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
quote:
Originally posted by bsams:
His intentions? Like maybe he accidently anally raped a 13 year old girlor he thought it would be good for her?
Or she wanted him to have sex with her, or he thought she wanted him to have sex with her. I don't know. There are many, many possibilities. All possibilities do still make him a statutory rapist, and a criminal, but do they all make him an evil person(remember, I'm not debating the criminal part)? How many people here saw this thread and thought about having sex with Hilary Duff(who was only 15 at the time, and looked practically the same when she was 14 and starred in her Disney show)? Imagine you were rich, famous, and had the chance to have her? C'mon, be honest.
QUOTE]
How can you possibly compare to someone saying SHES hot and not knowing her age between bringing a young girl over to home with the sole intent of raping her? Oh sorry, I forgot he was hoping it would be "consentual" but things got out of hand!
|
|
|
#21518
2003-09-11 12:39 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
You can't "tarnish" someone's reputation if they committed the act in question. Referring to issues of fact are just that: fact.
He admitted to raping a minor, and there is no evidence nor the presupposition of evidence that any type of coercion was involved. Yes, his wife was brutally murdered years previous; I understand that. But human nature is such that one must take responsibility for one's actions.
Can't blame it on Auschwitz (or any type of occupation.) Not on Sharon Tate. He is responsible for his own actions.
Whether or not the young girl tempted/coerced/forced Mr. Polanski to have sex with her doesn't matter: only the act matters.
I find it disheartening that anyone would spend so much time and energy defending someone not worthy of the words. Polanski remains a less-than-stellar human being; whether he was in Auschwitz or not doesn't matter. (As a point of reference, my mom grew up in Norway during the Nazi occupation. Although there were no gas chambers, the Nazis were every bit as ruthless as the mainland counterparts. Still, she found the strength to live her life in a decent way, and NOT injure the lives of others.)
Please use your mind for more constructive things.
|
|
|
#21519
2003-09-11 1:53 PM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
From my readings, proof of physical force implies substantiated(i.e visible) evidence. However, I'm not a lawyer. We'd have to ask Dave about that.
No we won't.
I am an attorney.
In my career I have served as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney.
A person, especially a child, can be raped by physical force without leaving visible evidence of same. The testimony of the victim, together with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish guilt. the testimony of the victim was sufficient without the physical evidence. See, for example, Williams v. McCoy, 1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 214.
Furthermore, even threats that frighten a victim into quietly submitting can be physical force under the law. See, for example, People v. Rozanski (4 Dept. 1994) 209 A.D.2d 1018, 619 N.Y.S.2d 441, appeal denied 84 N.Y.2d 1038, 623 N.Y.S.2d 194, 647 N.E.2d 466.
In the Polanski case, the child testified, under oath, that she was forcibly raped. That she submitted out of fear and intoxication (said intoxication caused by Polanski). Polanski eventually copped a plea.
Your continued insistence to argue myth or ignorant opinion as fact in this case is, to be blunt, quite troubling.
|
|
|
#21520
2003-09-11 2:14 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
|
|
|
#21521
2003-09-12 3:39 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
quote:
Originally posted by THE Franta:
I totally missed his comparsion to child rape to homosexuality!
I wasn't comparing the two, that was G-Man's misconception.
quote:
I see anyone who doesnt think they can handle prison time shouldn't be imprisoned.
How you can continue to draw that conclusion from my posts despite my specifically stating that I'm not implying or suggesting that at all baffles me.
quote:
How can you possibly compare to someone saying SHES hot and not knowing her age between bringing a young girl over to home with the sole intent of raping her?
1.That's not the comparison.
2.You don't know that was his sole intent(if it was his intent at all).
quote:
You can't "tarnish" someone's reputation if they committed the act in question.
Of course you can. Tarnishing has nothing to do with the validity of the claims.
quote:
Yes, his wife was brutally murdered years previous; I understand that. But human nature is such that one must take responsibility for one's actions.
Can't blame it on Auschwitz (or any type of occupation.) Not on Sharon Tate. He is responsible for his own actions.
Well, you could argue that his past experiences might be reason to believe that he is mentally unbalanced(and it would be very difficult to come out of all of these ordeals without being at least slightly screwed up), in which case, his place isn't in a federal prison, but in an institution.
That, however, doesn't excuse his actions, for which he should certainly receive punishment.
quote:
Whether or not the young girl tempted/coerced/forced Mr. Polanski to have sex with her doesn't matter: only the act matters.
In terms of his being a criminal, absolutely. Again, I'm not debating that angle at all.
This isn't about whether or not Roman Polanski is guilty of statutory rape. It's about whether or not he should receive recognition for his artistic merits, and to a lesser extent, whether or not it's fair to pass judgement on him the way most here seem to be.
quote:
Originally posted by G-Man:
A person, especially a child, can be raped by physical force without leaving visible evidence of same.
If you say so; I won't doubt your credentials. However, disregarding the law for just a second, doesn't it seem somewhat contradictory that physical force can be proven...without physical evidence? Isn't that why it's referred to as "physical" force, rather than psychological, mental, emotional, etc?
Anway, it's unimportant. I'll revise my statement if it pleases you:
We know that whatever methods of coercion he used, if any, left no physical evidence on the victim's body(such as scratches, bruises, welts, etc).
quote:
Your continued insistence to argue myth or ignorant opinion as fact in this case is, to be blunt, quite troubling.
I wasn't continuing to argue; I spoke in layman's terms, and when I was made aware of the fact that my personal terminology didn't identically resemble that of law, I restructured my statement, without hesitation or argument.
|
|
|
#21522
2003-09-12 3:54 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
As I said in an IM last night, I can seperate the artist from the art (and I still don't like most of his films).
But my main contention is, as I have stated before, that the Academy Awards are more of a Who's Who for Hollywood rather than an actual recognition of the artistic abilities of teh recepients. I know this after meeting several people who vote in the Academy. They admited that they are usually too busy working on films to see any. I saw one mark a vote after admiting that he hadn't seen any of the movie nominated in that category based off the fact that he worked with a guy who had worked with that director before. So I feel that this award is Hollywood's acceptance of Polanski the person. The same person who committed a crime and to this day eludes justice.
|
|
|
#21523
2003-09-11 4:01 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
....i'll admit alot of times i argue just to get your goat on here, but in all seriousness defending the right of a child rapist and given excuses for him are very low and show a lack of character that even with my low brow sense of humor i cannot understand....
|
|
|
#21524
2003-09-11 4:27 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
You'll have to elaborate on how I'm "defending his right".
As for the Academy Awards, I do think the voting can have something to do with the reputation of the actor or the role being played. Maybe some people in Hollywood have accepted what Polanski did as ok. If they have, that dissapoints me. I still don't see an Oscar as equating forgiveness or likability, though.
|
|
|
#21525
2003-09-11 5:45 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 47,810 Likes: 2
Hip To Be Square 15000+ posts
|
|
Hip To Be Square 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 47,810 Likes: 2 |
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
[
quote:
Originally posted by Nowhereman:
I hope one day some guy anal rapes you & lets see you defend him & say he`s not evil.
Rapists are scum & do not deserve to even be making films let alone recieve awards for it!
You hope that? You honestly hope I'm anal raped by a man? That sounds pretty evil in itself, Nowhereman.
I never said Roman Polanski was or wasn't evil. [/QB]
Err they maybe I just imagined you saying
quote:
No. Does it make him right in what he did? No. However, it also doesn't make him an evil person.
Nope I was right,go back & check your post on page 1.
If you are gonna defend a dirty bastard rapist,at least try not to contradict yourself!
|
|
|
#21526
2003-09-11 5:55 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 47,810 Likes: 2
Hip To Be Square 15000+ posts
|
|
Hip To Be Square 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 47,810 Likes: 2 |
It has been constantly mentioned that his victim has forgiven him,and Animal,you have said that this is a reason we should as well.
Can I just point out that more than likely the reason she has "forgiven" him is part of the healing process to heal her scarred psyche.
Psychiatrists will probably have persuaded her that this is the best thing for her to do as bottling up the hatred & anger she more than likely truly feels would not help her move on with her life.
As people unconnected to either party,we do not have to forgive this sorry excuse for a human being,and any hatred we direct toward him is justifiable & deserved to a man who took away a childs innocence & without a shadow of a doubt,dictated the course her life took from there on in.
I`d love to see you defend him in front of a real anti-rape group!
|
|
|
#21527
2003-09-11 6:20 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
I still don't see an Oscar as equating forgiveness or likability, though.
The Oscars do represent a type of "seal of appeal" for the director's work, and shouldn't be seen as some sort of positivity parade.
However...Hollywood for years has used the Oscars as a way to shine the light on the people it feels represents the good in the industry. That's why so many outspoken directors and actors have been blackballed in Hollywood--particularly during the 50's and 60's--and this might have been the case when it should have happened.
People who should be disappointed and disgusted with someone who refuses to take responsibility for his actions; Polanski should have been in jail during the time that some of his movies (Chinatown perhaps being one of them), and the Academy giving him an Oscar is like forgiving the act. Harrison should be disappointed and disgusted with someone who he calls 'friend', who refuses to take responsibility for their actions.
Statutory rape is a serious crime because it deprives children of the chance to grow up in a world free from preventable violence. What Polanski did was disgusting, and the Academy acknowledging the work on his film wouldn't be too far off from the Museum of Modern Art an award to a painter who happened to flee the country after being sentenced as a murderer. Polanski is a coward who does not deserve his freedom, nor have any respect for the freedom of others.
The Oscars is implicitly imparting forgiveness and encouraging likeability for Polanski.
|
|
|
|
|
