Cool News
The Poster For Roman Polanski's Terrific THE GHOST WRITER Debuts!
Beaks here...
Critics love to lament that no one is making smart, sophisticated political thrillers on the level of THE PARALLAX VIEW and THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR anymore. So leave it to a contemporary of Alan J. Pakula and Sydney Pollack to turn back the clock and give us a film that is as ambiguous and challenging as those films were, while also delivering his most accomplished thriller since THE TENANT.
Go ahead and derail this talkback with whatever, but know this: as a filmmaker, Roman Polanski is back in a big, big way with THE GHOST WRITER. Adapted by Robert Harris (author of the excellent FATHERLAND and ENIGMA) from his own novel, the film is about a mildly successful non-fiction hack (Ewan McGregor) who lands the plum gig of shaping the memoirs of a recently ousted British Prime Minister (Pierce Brosnan) - who bears a none-too-subtle resemblance to Tony Blair. The opportunity is there for the taking because the PM's former ghost writer washed up dead on a beach somewhere close to Martha's Vineyard. The only downside to the assignment is the PM's potentially unlawful participation in secretly shipping British citizens/suspected terrorists off to Guantanamo Bay for the ol' Jack Bauer treatment.
Though the story is something of a slow burn, Polanski runs the film at a brisk pace, eschewing opening credits in favor of getting into the duplicitous goings-on as quickly as possible. There are the usual intrigues (double-crosses, infidelities, carefully scrubbed pasts), but Polanski and Harris approach these conventions with a self-aware cheekiness: i.e. the characters are cognizant of the part they're playing in this oft-told drama, but they're powerless to opt out - so they wearily give in. At its best, THE GHOST WRITER feels like Polanski's lightly absurd take on ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN. And it's an unusually vigorous film for a seventy-six-year-old director.
It's the kind of film that usually gets held until November, but if you live in New York or Los Angeles, you'll be getting it this February 19th. The film will then go wide sometime in March. I'll be back with a full review in a few weeks.
Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus-
+ Expand All
-
McGregor's face is so horrifically photoshopped on to some dudes body.
-
...who just got out of jail.
-
Can't wait for this.
-
The conversation starts and ends with The Ninth Gate.
-
did something substantial. From the sound of it, this one is similar in tone to The Tailor of Panama which I enjoyed. So good for him. Project sounds promising.
-
Just thought I'd go ahead and derail the talkback as requested.
-
Butterfly on a Wheel. Good God, was that movie awful.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-rTrtlDPBM
-
Anyone notice that Robert B. Parker, creator of Spenser died at 77? Respect for the scribe...
-
I miss Pierce Brosnan as Bond. Goldeneye was awesome, even when hish Bonds became became tripe he was still awesome to the very end smoking cigars and swigging alcohol like nothing.
-
Looking forward to this one.
-
just wondering Beaks
-
Seems the fat-hairy-squeaky-voiced-borderline-pedophile has retreated to the warm embrace of his lemmings at CHUD now that Avatar is poised to do over TWO. BILLION. DOLLARS!!!
-
. . . due to artistic talent a man is given a pass to rape a 13 year old girl. Never.
-
Underage French girls for Polanski to drug and fuck in the shitpipe before you felched his cum out of the girls gaping, ripped and bloody asshole so that you could snowball with him.
-
I thought it -- this is the Americanized remake I'm talking about -- was actually pretty good, though I thought it got a bit bogged down by all the A-listers in it.
-
Poorly executed. That belongs on Photoshop disasters!
-
"Roman Polanski is an admitted Child Rapist" Then I'll go see it.
-
His movies are just too damn good! Sorry, but similar to the Mel Gibson thing, it's the truth
-
"The Long Good Friday". Brosnan's first role, I believe, and a great film.
-
If I were him, I would have served my time back in the 70's and then hired a hitsquad to kill the DA, the Judge, the girl and her mother. NOBODY FUCKS WITH THE POLANSKI!!! Polanski was like the original Tupac but not as Swedish. Sandwiches are falling from my ceiling....
-
Don't tell R. Kelly!
-
He could play himself with a mouthful of dry rice getting cornholed by a pack of lifers right before they stick a jagged shank up his ass that looks like it came out of a scabbard on General Chang's belt.
-
I guess "America Me" was for the other movie I was thinking of...the one where the pedophile on the run wins the Academy Award and the cocksucking, devoid of morals pieces of shit assholes attending the Oscars gave him a fucking standing ovation.
-
— R. Kelly said it wasn't him on the tape!
-
1) Bring it On is a really good movie. It may not be as generation-defining as Amy Heckerling's Fast Times and Clueless, but it's almost as good. I get that you manly geeks are not supposed to like teen flicks and everything, unless they feature fat guys throwing up every twenty minutes, but Bring it On's got a heart! Plus, any teen movie that has a character who thinks The Ramones, The Clash etc. are the shit can't be all that bad. Try watching it again. (And remember, Beaks had it at number 100 on that list you won't let him forget).<p> 2) Repulsion, The Tenant, Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby, Knife in the Water... Sorry, this dude's too much of an asset to be left languishing in a jail for something that went down 35 years ago- something that, if the stories are true, wasn't quite as horrible as some people are making out.<p> That being said, Ewan really hasn't impressed me as a leading man lately. Men Who Stared at Goats was an unfunny, tonally off mess, and Ewan's bad accent and unengaging performance had a lot to do with it. Same goes for Cassandra's Dream, that Woody Allen flick he starred in. By no means am I saying he can't act, it just seems like he's reached a sleepwalking stage of his career that someone- or some role- needs to wake him up from.
-
...a.k.a. the "Shaggy Defense." <p> The hilarious thing is that that's actually how his lawyers got him off (pardon the pun), saying that someone CGI'd R. Kelly's face onto the guy in that video. And a jury bought it. http://www.slate.com/id/2193649/
-
I tried to laugh, but it came out as some weird garbled half-snort/half-sob…
-
Oh well, at least Clint's doing a ghost story. Written by Peter Morgan, no less!
-
I had a whole other movie in mind when I read the title... maybe I should write it.
-
This is gonna be crazy! Craaaaaaaaaazy!
-
Jan. 20, 2010, 8:22 p.m. CST
Raping a 13 year old almost as bad as putting Bring It On
by MattmanReturns
on a Best Of Decade list.
-
Agree with Beak and seppukudkurosawa Bring It On is a light, fun entertaining teen movie. By no means a classic but fun nonetheless. Over the years more and more people either discover the movie or admit that they like it. But I get it that some geeks still like to shit on things they don't like and deem them not "cool". To hell with the days of personal taste in films being subjective. Comic Book Guy rules of the internet dictates something must be Utter Shit or Not - there is no other option.
-
And what is a child molester? A coward who rapes children!!!
-
Not giving money to a remorseless child rapist.
-
Except when Bob Gunton finds out he has a talent for making movies and not for hiding bribes from the I.R.S., Gunton throws him back down in the projector room to swallow what Mark Rolston gives him to swallow.
-
A CHILD MOLESTER!!! Just cuz he ran to Europe 30 years ago or whatever doesn't make it less so.
-
Everyone looks like utter shit on movie posters these days. Is it in an actor's contract that ALL lines must be erased from their faces?!?!??! Jesus H. Christ...
-
Except when Wolf approaches him in the shower and tells him he's looking for a new punk, Polanski asks him if he's ever seen The Pianist. Wolf responds by telling Polanski "Here's my Pianist." and the cornholing begins.
-
I'm surprised they even bothered to put CREDITS on this poster!
-
Jan. 20, 2010, 8:44 p.m. CST
DIDN'T ALAN PAKULA GET SKEWERED ON THE LONG ISLAND EXPWY?
by BringingSexyBack
I think he did.
-
Bet you a million bucks Polanski wouldn't have raped that girl if her father was still in the picture. He took advantage of a single mother's daughter.
-
to the Mel Gibson thing? One guy has sex with an underage girl, drugging her in the process. The other guy just gets drunk and says some racist comments. I do agree that both make awesome films though.
-
can you imagine him and Roman going toe to toe for the oscar.
-
the man undeniably has talent. Yet for some reason he's been phoning in his roles lately. Same goes for Colin Farrell until recently.
-
The European Edition.
-
what mel said was in a drunken state. Be a little forgiving here. Raping a 13 year old girl in her ass vs getting drunk and saying some shit you dont really mean. Cause like hot girls fuck ugly fucks when they get trashed. Same goes for drunk guys who fuck fug ugly chicks, but then again beer doesnt lower our standards. We'll fuck anything when we lose self control.
-
I would suggest everyone to not support Mr. Polanski's works. I won't see this no matter how good this movie is. Simply because I don't want to give my money to a child predator. It's pathetic that Summitt Entertainment would agree to release this film. I would never watch a Roman Polanski movie ever again. This shouldn't even be "Cool News".
-
Stateside anyway, where it won't even crack $1 mil. The cheese-eating frogs will lap it up, however.
-
Jan. 20, 2010, 8:59 p.m. CST
No way Brosnan or McGregor are promoting this on Leno.
by Nosferatu Jones
Or "The View?" Fagettabowdit!!!
-
When that piece of shit Elia Kazan (who ratted people out to Joe McCarthy and his committee) got an honorary Oscar in 1999, Martin Scorsese was with him. Not surprising as Saint Martin also openly supports Polanski. That's the problem with a film geek like Scorsese. He's willing to give anyone a free pass is they happened to make a few great movies and he doesn’t even consider the human cost of the crimes these men committed.
-
for sometime now. Plus, Eli Wallach is in it too!
-
Well, just the fact that they both did things that utterly disgust any normal human being enough for that said human being to want to boycott any film either of them ever make again. But because they're so god damn talented, my love of the arts sadly outweighs my love for justice/hatred of them.
-
...before I'd ever consider buying a ticket to one of Bay's movies again. I'd bet that the only difference between them is that Polanski got caught. At least Polanski makes good movies when he's not being a scumbag.
-
Well, just the fact that they both did things that utterly disgust any normal human being enough for that said human being to want to boycott any film either of them ever make again. But because they're so god damn talented, my love of the arts sadly outweighs my love for justice/hatred of them.
-
other registered sex offenders and pedophiles that look after the guy...
-
Getting a free pass from everyone. He is a child rapist. To paraphrase chris rock who cared if he made good movies 30 years ago. That's like saying 'I know o.j. killed them but did u seem how he well he played against new england?'
-
Getting a free pass from everyone. He is a child rapist. To paraphrase chris rock who cared if he made good movies 30 years ago. That's like saying 'I know o.j. killed them but did u see how he well he played against new england?'
-
Nope your still way off balance... Polanski is a rapist, Gibson said some shit... 'Sugar tits' is quote of the decade, and come on lets be honest, he was wrong by saying ALL the Jews fault but man they do have their fair share of blood on their hands...
-
The opening scene of that movie used to scare the shit out of me as a kid.
-
I don't think talkbacks should have such rigidity as something like "You can't talk about that in *this* talkback, go somewhere else..."
-
I seriously revere Polanski as an artist. Many of my all-time favourite films were made by him; I don't want his career to end. On the other hand, this is a dude who drugged a 13-yr-old girl and (etc, etc, etc) for several hours. In both holes. There must be some sort of penalty we can devise for Roman that involves him making more films. Maybe the court could force him to collaborate with George Lucas? Or cast Sarah Jessica Parker in his next film? That would teach him a lesson.
-
Jan. 20, 2010, 9:13 p.m. CST
I'LL WATCH THIS, AS BROSNAN WAS BRILLIANT IN MAMMA MIA!
by BringingSexyBack
But I still hope Polanski gets hard prison time. He did the crime, he needs to pay. No exceptions. He's lucky to have lived a productive life after the fact. <P> And what CTM said about Marty was spot on. I enjoy his movie-making but Christ he is such a cheap whore. Directors are not demigods. Far from. And he totally put the Hollywood Foreign Press Association on some goddamn pedestal because they donated millions to preserve some movies nobody even watches?!?! For fuck's sake man, just copy them to a hard drive and hire someone to fix them with some editing software. Max cost: $5,000. Stop giving Marty awards already, it's bloating his ego too much.
-
<br><br>I completely missed Polanski's cameo in it when I saw bits and pieces of it at the theatre.<br><br>
-
So, are we saying because he had a career prior to his raping a 13yr old girl he should be allowed to continue to make movies.... how about a convicted child rapist who then comes along as the next Spielberg.. what do we do then??? Once a rapist always a rapist... fuck him
-
By supporting Polanski.
-
Doing the same thing. Though I wish she did it doing something else.
-
Ewan too busy fucking Jim Carrey? Seriously, in that movie. In that fucking bomb of a movie.
-
I'd cut my right arm off to watch Sonny Landham drop a six hundred pound barbell on his throat. The truth is I loved The Ninth Gate. And I won't buy it because I refuse to chip in a dollar towards this fuck's running money.
-
The best art is produced by sociopaths and lunatics. Miles Davis was a wife beater. Oscar Wilde was basically a pedophile. John Wayne was a racist. So was Lovecraft. If you guys are gonna take a zero-tolerance stance on acknowledging evil in this world, you're going to be missing out on some good shit. It's fucked up, and I'm not saying it's right that guys like Polanski and R. Kelly get breaks for their crimes that aren't afforded to the less-talented, but that's life. Go ahead and boycott the movie and wag your finger at people who can separate the art from the artist, but don't expect us to censor our appreciation for the work of a true artist just because it offends your need to have your abstract sense of justice appeased.
-
Mmm, your gauge is a little off. John Wayne being racist is a little different to sodomizing a 13yr old girl and running away from the penalty... and saying 'thats life' is just a fucking lazy cop out...
-
He's good but not that good. Whenever someone mentions Polanski's next film there's all this anxiety chatter like he's some movie god. His films don't legitimize that kind of adoration.
-
You do the crime, you do the time
-
A cinematic display I'd pay 15 dollars NOT to see.
-
Except for people who have alot of money.<br><br>Money Talks and Shit Walks.
-
...which is, people who are scumbags, for one reason or another, can still produce or contribute to things, separate from themselves, that are worthy of respect. Andrew Jackson gave Hitler a run for his money with the extermination of the indians, and yet he's a national hero. You have to take the bad with the good, unless you're prepared to disassociate yourself with almost all of human civilization. Polanski's victim herself has said she doesn't want charges pressed. That's good enough for me, and I question the source of the outrage that most people express towards this controversy. I think in this situation, like MJ before it, people just want blood for the sake of abstract blood justice. I can understand the impulse, but I don't see that it does any good to anyone but the wounded sensibilities of otherwise impotent armchair judges.
-
we need more conspiracy/politcal thrillers.
-
I'm just happy you Godwin'd this thread before I did. Thanks, bud! <p> See, it's okay that you insulted me because I got to produce great art, and you got call someone a prick. Win win!
-
I don't care if he shat Mona Lisa's on command, he raped a little girl. In the ass. He could direct the Best Movie Ever Made In The History Of Movies and I'd still never watch it. I don't give money to ass-raping child molesters.
-
I think the scenario will lend itself well to the format. Think balls flapping.
-
i watched the docco on polanski and i don't remember this being mentioned. sodomy isn't just applicable to ass fucking. it can mean any sexual act e.g. making her suck his dick
-
Cast a couple of white Brits in roles originated by an African-American and Latino...this is an adaptation if the PBS series right? Has that joke already been made, or are we all talking about Polanski having lured, drugged, and raped a 13-year old girl?
-
but that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the law applies to him. He was found guilty in a fair trial, and should pay the sentence that a similar crime committed today would get.
-
You are wrong! Let me start by writing that I am unsure of the Validity of the accusations against those other stars. That said, muddying the waters by bring up other's transgressions is irrelevant, by your own one dimensional thinking I can point out that there are more artists that have not been"lunatics" or "sociopaths" who have produced some of the most beautiful art. Bottom line, it has nothing to do with finger wagging or censoring our appreciation of art it's about making a honorable decision and not support a confirmed rapist. I'm sure you would not go see a movie made by a man who raped your sister. Get your head out of your ass.
-
(I know that is like a triple oxy-moron, but humor me...) <p> Think of your biggest role model, your favorite hero, someone whom you hold in very high regard. <p> Now imagine that you wake up one day to find out your hero is a serial pedophile, or a terrorist sympathizer, or a rapist/murderer, or a closet republican... just something you find specifically intolerable and completely morally repellent. <p> Would you cut that person, and every shred of their influence, out of your life? Could you? What if they were a close friend or family member... would you still be able to regard them as nothing but evil to be ignored and punished and exterminated? And what is your criteria? What kind of offense do they have to commit to warrant the most extreme measures? Would it matter if the victim said they didn't want to press charges? <p> To be honest, my answer isn't always consistent. I think if Polanski murdered someone and fled, he should still be prosecuted for it. And I think that he should have to face some kind of consequence for what he's being charged with now, but the fact that his victim says she forgives him and doesn't want to press charges makes me less inclined to just throw him in jail and deny ourselves the possibility of any more good Polanski movies just to appease the bloodthirstiness of the tabloid masses. <p> R. Kelly should fry though. Nah, I kid, but I don't give a shit about R. Kelly's music, so I'm less inclined to sympathize.
-
Jan. 20, 2010, 10 p.m. CST
Let's all watch the child drugging ass raper's films!!!!!!!!!!!!
by crackerfarmboy
Then let's watch a neo-nazi's opera. Maybe follow it up with a serial killer's poem?
-
"Two weeks after Polanski plied her with Champagne and a Quaalude, Samantha Gailey appeared before an L.A. grand jury and recalled Polanski's predatory behavior in a Mulholland Canyon home owned by Jack Nicholson. The teenager's troubling--and contemporaneous--account of her abuse at Polanski's hands begins with her posing twice for topless photos that the director said were for French Vogue. The girl then told prosecutors how Polanski directed her to, "Take off your underwear" and enter the Jacuzzi, where he photographed her naked. Soon, the director, who was then 43, joined her in the hot tub. He also wasn't wearing any clothes and, according to Gailey's testimony, wrapped his hands around the child's waist. The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson's home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he "keep away." According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later "started to have intercourse with me." At one point, according to Gailey's testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was "on the pill," and "When did you last have your period?" Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of him." Following his indictment on various sex charges, Polanski agreed to a plea deal that spared him prison time (he had spent about 45 days in jail during a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation). But when it seemed that a Superior Court judge might not honor the deal--and sentence Polanski to prison--the director fled the country." Facts.
-
I wouldn't let my sister go on a date with Mike Tyson, but I would still have taken a ringside ticket to any one of his title bouts. <p> So, no, I don't want Polanski to baby sit my firstborn, but I will gladly go see his movies before those of non-pedophile hacks. <p> But yeah, it is nice when great artists are great people, but when that happens, they usually die in some accident anyway, so you gotta take what you can get.
-
We're all still waiting for your first, Mr. or Ms. or Mrs. thejewhunter.
-
are disconnected with humanity and have no sense of right and wrong. <p> The man drugged and raped a child, then hid from authorities for decades. Get some perspective and understand how heinous that is.
-
to these people, other than maybe giving them some royalties if you buy a DVD of something they had a hand in (so just keep it on the down-low[d]). I don't see what the problem is watching something they've done. If you're really that huge a film fan, you won't be able to keep yourself from watching the produce of assholes every now and again. It's the art you're supporting, not the artists. Once a movie's directed, a book is written and an album is recorded it becomes its own animal. You don't have to like the people behind it to like the thing itself.<p> I guess I can understand if you get too distracted knowing a Nazi she-wolf of the SS directed Triumph of the Will to enjoy the thing, but that's your unfortunate problem.<p> What I honestly think all this hate is about is the same thing that lies at the root of all lynch mobs- you want to crush the sinner in order to reaffirm what a righteous son of a gun YOU are. Notice that the people on this talkback who are the most bent on seeing Polanski hung by the balls and left to twitch in the breeze are also the people with the most backwards logic/attitude. I think it speaks volumes that the guy leading the mob is someone named "thejewhunter." If I had to pick a side in that Palestine/Israel situation, I'd side with the Palestinians in a New York minute, but I really don't think this guy is one to wax wise on moral fortitude.
-
Jan. 20, 2010, 10:18 p.m. CST
He drugged and anally raped a child!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by crackerfarmboy
I don't care how good "Rosemary's Baby" is...The man is a fucking monster! He's everything physically that Jay Leno is symbolically!
-
It's often said that an artist treats his pieces of work as his children. To take that thought literally... would you condemn Polanski's actual children? They are something he's produced, it can be said he benefits (mentally, emotionally, spiritually) from their success in life, they were raised with his influence and carry his genes... if you were involved in a business deal with one of his (hypothetical) children, would you feel that it is your moral duty to refuse to deal with them? Where does it stop? If Polanski does a cameo in someone else's film, do you have to boycott that too? What about if he has no lines? What about if he's playing a rapist, but still gets a check? <p> Again, you guys are going to have to go live with the Amish if you honestly want to avoid the work of sick individuals.
-
...at least someone else here gets where I'm coming from.
-
It's cool, I get that. Be how you want. Here's a litmus test though, let's say you had to anally rape a homeless guy with a dildoknife or every copy of your favorite movie would spontaneously combust, lost to the world forever. Would you do it?
-
"Go ahead and derail this talkback with whatever..." Here's a question, since you basically forced it with your comment- is there ANY crime that could be dismissed with a GREAT book, film, invention, etc? Let's go to the extreme here: if Hitler wrote the best novel ever written, or Stalin filmed a bad ass 3D movie that made "Avatar" look like shit, would that excuse them of their crimes, or make the 'art' they delivered worthy of watching despite their crimes against humanity? If an alien race descended upon Earth tonight and started cooking us up with their "To Serve Man" cookbooks, could we overlook their appetites if they gave us the technological means to space travel? At what point do you draw the line, original poster?
-
is dead right.
-
KIDDING. <p> Actually, no... I would not knife-rape a homeless guy so that future generations can know the joy of UHF. But in that situation I can make a difference in the outcome. With Polanski, the girl has been raped, the guy has been fled, he still managed to make some good movies in in there. I only enter the picture when I watch those movies, and are going to exist and find an audience no matter the morality of the situation or whether I approve of it or not. <p> Now if I could have used that dildoknife to stop Polanski from raping that girl, I damn sure would have, just like anyone else. Actually that scene should be in Hot Tub Time Machine.
-
Sam Peckinpah was apparently an abusive asshole to lots of people, from what I hear, but I love his movies. I'm not about to stop enjoying Miles Davis' music, but I have experience with domestic violence with people I love. Should I feel bad about that too? I'm more curious to hear what people really think than have the usual flame war.
-
You didn't rape that girl in the ass after all. And there are some assholes out there who's art I do enjoy and I give them a pass for it. But they weren't rapists, they're Christian Bales and James O' Barrs. It's just my own personal line, rape. Won't buy a Tupac album, I wouldn't go to a Mike Tyson fight, and I won't see a Polanski movie. These aren't suspected rapists, but known ones. If I miss out on great art then so be it. There isn't a shortage of great art in the world by non-rapists. But just because this is how I operate doesn't mean I'm going to shove it down your throat and call you a babyraping sodomite for wanting to see a movie. Polanski is the offending party here not your tastes.
-
...so what if he's good at helping people play dress up and pretend that they're having the devil's baby, or searching for that elusive book to grant them immortality. In a world of pretend monsters, he's the real thing.
-
For me, it's the same reason I'm not vegan... it's a nice ideal and I agree in principle but I could never keep my diet that disciplined. Eventually I'd have some veal or eat a Big Mac or buy a fur lined coat or something. And before some jackass starts yelling at me, I know it's not the same kind of crime, but it's the principle.
-
"Sorry, this dude's too much of an asset to be left languishing in a jail for something that went down 35 years ago" That's the scumbaggiest thing I've read in a long, long time.
-
Seeing a movie doesn't condone the crime and not seeing the movie doesn't do anything to mitigate the real problem of violence against children. So none of the million Polanski discussions really mean anything.
-
Can't justify Polanski's crimes, and I don't defend the man. His guilt (as far as one can judge such things without having been there) seems obvious. I may not pay to see it, but I'll see it. I like his work.
-
There's a difference between saying 'if I could put him in jail I would but I can't' and flat out admitting that he SHOULDN'T go to prison for the rape of a child because of his talent.
-
Seriously.
-
Now that was a cool movie!
-
I watch movie made by idiots and assholes. If I didn't, there would be nothing to watch.<p> But I'm not going to watch a movie made by a child rapist who is in the process of fleeing the law. It is sick, the amount of rationalization that people use to forgive this guy a crime that would send most people to jail for decades.
-
Don't trust the documentary. It was highly slanted, and didn't provide all the facts. He raped her, sodomized her, and she was too scared to stop him.<p> Thirteen god-damn years old.
-
"There's a difference between saying 'if I could put him in jail I would but I can't' and flat out admitting that he SHOULDN'T go to prison for the rape of a child because of his talent."<p>I agree with this for sure. (When I said I agree with seppuku I was referring to his second post about the nature of lynch mobs. I had to scroll up to find the passage you quoted which I do not agree with.<p>But you have to understand that not all people who think Polanski shouldn't go to prison think that way because of his talent. For me, the details of his trial are too sketchy. If the trial happened today I would be disappointed that such a light plea deal was ever on the table. Therefore anything that happened after I couldn't put on Polanski's shoulders.
-
and no seppuku (beaks defender) will not let it go
-
1) Someone called Polanski a pedophile. Pedophiles are men who prey on PRE-pubescents, and if the pictures of Samantha Geimer at the time she got raped are anything to go by, she was anything but.<p> 2) Geimer sued Polanski and he settled out of court. She now says that all she wants is for this whole case to be over with, and has asked that the charges against Polanski be dismissed. They're all squared as far as the victim and the perpetrator are concerned.<p> 3) You ask me, no prison sentence could ever cause Polanski more grief than what Charles Manson did to his wife Sharon Tate. (And that's not to mention his being a holocaust survivor).<p> 4) So, seeing as his punishment wouldn't console the victim or indeed anyone but bloodhungry wolves howling that he gets his just desserts, I'd prefer he just make more movies until he dies... Yeah, I'm a scumbag. C'est la vie.
-
you raise a lot of good points. <p> I wonder if I woke up tomorrow and found out that George Lucas was eating children, and had been eating children since before Star Wars, would I stop watching Star Wars. <p> Obviously he is eating fatter kids these days and doing less excercise.
-
Jan. 20, 2010, 11:52 p.m. CST
I'm disappointed this isn't a big-screen adap. of the PBS
by iamnicksaicnsn
series.
-
Jan. 20, 2010, 11:56 p.m. CST
seppuku - think its more about perception with Polanski
by Miyamoto_Musashi
If Polanski doesn't have to serve any time for committing a criminal act, which is irrespect of a civil settlement that he made, then there is still this view that there is two justice systems. <p> Punishment for the most part in most criminal cases has very little to do with the victims and their family, even if a murderer is executed, you can't really console a family, punishment becomes more about ensuring this individual doesn't do it again and that other individuals maybe deterred from doing it. <p>
-
'So, seeing as his punishment wouldn't console the victim or indeed anyone but bloodhungry wolves howling that he gets his just desserts' He didn't steal a god damn pack of gum from the supermarket, he raped a girl. There's no statute of limitations on that. So don't call me a'bloodhungry wolf' for wishing justice to be served.
-
What, you thought that was just neck fladdle? Come on, not even Harry's neck fladdle's that epic. That's where George stores the kids he eats, until his saliva and bile slowly break them down into smaller, more digestible pieces.<p> I thought this was common knowledge?
-
You suppose that a person being punished for his crimes is solely for the benefit of his victim(s). This is wrong thinking. Criminals are punished for the benefit of society, and in the interest of justice. Whether or not their victims want them prosecuted is irrelevant.
-
The fact that this poor girl doesn't want her world turned upside down by the media spotlight says absolutely NOTHING about the guilt of the perp or what his punishment ought to be.
-
Needs to not see the personalities involved but assess the crime. <p> I am an atheist and am not a fan in anyway of the catholic church, I personally think that they are an evil organisation, but could you imagine that if this had been a catholic priest and a 13 year old girl or boy, whether anyone really would have defended it, let it go, even if it was found to be consensual. <p> Staturory rape is there for a reason, no matter how old the kid looks, its more about their immaturity, understanding and knowledge, what's going on in their head than their bodies.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 12:10 a.m. CST
Sorry, anyone who supports this child rapist is an ass!
by TheGhostWhoLurks
The guy drugged and cornholed a 13-year-old girl! And then jumped bail and fled the country in order to avoid paying the consequences of his crimes! Defending or making excuses for this scumbag ("It wasn't RAPE-rape...") doesn't make you sophisticated, worldly or intelligent. It just means that you're a shallow jackass willing to accept the most DISGUSTING of behavior and actions, as long as it's done by "certain" people.<p>Would you be speaking up for Rush Limbaugh or a guy driving an ice cream truck, if they'd done the same thing? Of course not... because many of you are gross hypocrites, as well as apologists for child rapists. >:(<p>Anyone with a moral center should BOYCOTT Roman Polanski's films until he returns to the States and accepts responsibility for his crimes. Obviously, much of Hollywood LACKS one, seeing how many actors and producers continue to work with him.
-
Can't imagine (and don't want to) how screwed up I would be if my very pregnant wife was murdered. <p>
-
Fucking disgusting. And how can AICN support this brutal child fucker? Harry, do you have any standards at all? Really, how easy is it not to mention this guy's movies? There are hundreds of great movies coming down the pike. It's not like you need material to fill up the main page. Beaks, you or Harry should address this directly. Take a stand, one side or the other. Explain yourselves.
-
Since the studios are making movies out of boardgames and such..no source material should be off limits..Have Roman play himself in a MSNBC production of To Catch a Predator(aka Pedophile Plunked)
-
Since the studios are making movies out of boardgames and such..no source material should be off limits..Have Roman play himself in a MSNBC production of To Catch a Predator(aka Pedophile Plunked)
-
It means that people WON'T be funding his lavish lifestyle overseas. If people didn't see his films, he wouldn't be living in a million-dollar chateau and having wine, cheese and small children delivered to him on a silver platter, while he's under "house arrest." If he won't return to face the music, boycott his films and CUT HIS INCOME SUPPLY OFF! >:(
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 12:26 a.m. CST
'She wants the charges dropped' is a bullshit reason
by Jack D. Ripper
If the victim of a crime was able to unilaterally decide whether or not their attacker was prosecuted or not, do you have any idea how badly domestic violence would spiral out of control? The justice system CANNOT be based on the idea that if the victim just says it's okay, criminals are free to go. And regardless of how great somebody's work is, whether they're an artist or not, they must be held accountable for their crimes. If Polanski were a great bus driver or building inspector, would you faggots still be rushing to his defense? He drugged and raped a minor. But I guess since he made some overrated movies, that's okay with you. How about next time we let him drug and cornhole your mom? Or your daughter? Or your sister? You should be okay with it, because he made OLIVER TWIST, right? He broke the law and ran away, he needs to pay. He also is obviously unrepentant and only sorry he got caught. But I guess that's okay because he made THE NINTH GATE, right? Nah, I'm just kidding. His fucking films suck. All of em. Fry his ass.
-
So it's ok to be a kiddie fiddling nonce if you can make great art??? That's very fucked up. "Ohh please just judge the film it's great, never mind that it was made by a FUCKING CHILD RAPIST" I used to like you Beaks but now I just think you're a twat. Any kudos you give this sick fuck just let's him know he's got away with it. The fact that these actors worked with him too ????
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 12:29 a.m. CST
Star Hump, AICN supports Polanski mainly because...
by TheGhostWhoLurks
They're fame whores. Being able to hobnob and "be friends" with the Hollywood "elite" is FAR more important to them than criticizing the actions of popular people within Hollywood, even if they commit child rape. Strangely enough, however, opposing gay marriage is a capital and unforgivable offense in their eyes...<p>Obviously, Harry & Co. are severely lacking in moral standards themselves. There's NO excuse for their defense of Polanski.
-
a fugitive child rapist. It is disgusting that so many members of the human race put entertainment and celebrity over the well-being and innocence of a child.
-
Does Harry actually care ? , for me if you looked up the word "consumer" in the dictionary you would find a picture of Harry. I don't really see him as being someone that would care as long as he is content. <p> Beaks on the other hand, would surely have a view.
-
I still think the majority of you guys are secretly glad that these "monsters" exist, just because it makes you feel that extra bit more secure about your own moral footing. It just strikes me as odd that you can rattle off the most hateful diatribes and threats, while snearing at your monitor with a face like a bulldog licking piss off a nettle, and then act as if you're an angel of justice and light at the same time. It's fine to want Polanski to do his time, but every time AICN gets an article on Polanski, if you replace a few words here and there the talkbacks read like something you'd expect to see on Stormfront.org
-
Since the studios are making movies out of boardgames and such..no source material should be off limits..Have Roman play himself in a MSNBC production of To Catch a Predator(aka Pedophile Punked) Ala VanDamme in JCVD..Woody Allen could play Chris Hanson's and Mia Farrow could play the"Let yourself in I'm finishing some laundry,help yourself to some chocolate chip cookies girl".Towards the end of the movie Polanski,his mouth full of said cookie can look directly into the camera and do a heartfelt monologue about how hard its been being an on the lam pedophile.The end of movie before credits update scroll can tell how he was convicted and served his time..and that he was in talks to do the Sequel to Rosemary's Baby...Changing Rosemary's Baby's Diapers 3-D!!
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 12:38 a.m. CST
Sorry, but did you just equate pedophiles to minorities?
by TheGhostWhoLurks
...And people who want child rapists punished to RACISTS??? Why are you so defensive towards pedophiles, Seppuku? There's clearly something behind your twisted stance and excuses for the brutal violation of children.
-
to support Polanski's films out of moral indignation, is it not also wrong to support AICN with traffic?
-
By speaking out publicly against AICN's support of Polanski, I feel it does much more GOOD than remaining silent and simply letting AICN "yes-men" rule the talkbacks. It might even let some common sense and decency filter into the brains of the dopes who run and write for this 'site!
-
Race had nothing to do with me saying you guys sound mean as rattlesnakes and fucking choking on your hate and self-righteousness (like those Stormcunters).
-
if you think posting on AICN is a force of good.
-
I hope that all of you assholes, like RedJester, seppukudkurosawa, etc. who are writing shit like, "His movies are just too good," "It was 35 years ago," have a young child, such as a young teenage girl, and exactly what Polanski did to her happens to your daughters. Then we'll see how you feel about it. You fucking jerks. On second thought, I hope you don't have daughters, or any children. I wouldn't want your retarded fucking genes being passed on.
-
and its only when it gets tested that it really matters. <p> If by some miracle I had a chance with Dakota Fanning, (still under age), I would hope I would do the right thing
-
FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU. I hate the mother fuckers who say that he's too talented to go to jail. So even if OJ was proven guilty, we should have let him go because he was a great Football player? So, what you're saying is that if I'm a really good artist, director or athlete; that gives me the god given right, to drug your 0-17 year old daughter, ass fucker her ang get off scott free with no penalty for my actions, because I am too talented????? You know , I'm not even going to bother saying anything else.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 12:56 a.m. CST
Seeing how Stormfront.org is a White Supremist 'site...
by TheGhostWhoLurks
And you compared those of us calling for Polanski — and other pedophiles — to face the legal ramifications for their crimes, to those White Supremists, it logically follows that the people we supposedly "hate" (pedophiles) are the equivalent to those the Stormfronters hate (minorities).<p>Anti-pedophile TBs = White Supremists... ergo, Pedophiles = Minorities.<p>Of course, I should have realized — based on your weird defense of Polanski's behavior — that basic logic and reason would escape you.
-
Because I hope you guys realize you are in effect defending the act of child molestation/rape. Or are you defending the act of child molestation/rape when committed by your favorite actor/director/celebrity?
-
with the kind of guy who goes onto a hate site and writes...hateful rants. That doesn't suddenly mean I equated pedophiles to being a race. Not that I think Polanski is necessarily a pedophile. He is a rapist, however, which is arguably worse, as I'd imagine most pedophiles are forced to just restrain their impulses- born with them or not; it's when they go and force themselves onto a helpless victim that they transgress into total brutes.<p> Anyway, sorry to cut short The Seppuku Show, but I really need to catch some Z's. So have fun, kids!
-
If you feel like lashing out in the talkback at what Polanski did, it's completely understandable, but to go after this website for daring to post a review of a movie is beyond absurd. Same with equating those of us who like Polanski's movies, and plan on seeing his new one as child rapists in the making. It's called being able to separate the artist from the art. Some of us can do it, some of us can't. And that's not a slam against either group of people. I can in truth, see the logic behind both trains of thought... In summary, calm the f*ck down and discuss this without disrespecting those of us who happen to not think the way you do. It's getting way too out of hand.
-
That's right. Go cry yourself to sleep on your cock shaped pillow.
-
I'd ask everyone to read the Martin Amis interview with Polanski before making a judgement on the man. The conclusion I got? Tragic life, great artist, unwaveringly immoral cunt. No argument I've heard has any way, shape or form convinced me this man shouldn't go to jail for what he did. So this aptly sums up my thoughts on it: http://weeklycoitus.co.nz/?p=175 Hollywood Issues New Moral Decree. The article's sub-header for those who can't be assed checking it? “Drugging, Buttfucking 13-Year-Olds Ok If Your Names Start With ‘R’ & ‘P’
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 1:30 a.m. CST
RedJester, if you support the lifestyle of a child rapist
by TheGhostWhoLurks
... with your patronage of his films, thus allowing him to continue to escape punishment for his crimes, how is that different from simply handing over money to a child rapist you know is on the lam?<p>If you believe Polanski is, in fact, guilty of his crimes, I don't know HOW you justify continuing to support his films, knowing it will simply enable his continued escape from justice. Seriously.
-
i was going to say that it's bullshit to refuse to watch his films but i honestly can't criticize someone for being so disgusted that they can't watch a polanski film. he was definitely a piece of shit. my sister was 12 when she was raped. it's not ok. it's never ok. but i understand why some people don't want to let what polanski did sink in because they love the wonderful films he makes. fact of life: amazing people can do horrific things. it's hard to reconcile for some people. but it's a truth in life. people do evil things. and yeah, it's simply evil to be a 30 year old man and fuck a little girl. no excusing it away. he wanted to fuck her. cause he liked fucking child aged girls. i know this cause he did it. and he probably isn't the only one he knows who did it in hollywood. it's a fucking cellpool. almost as bad as churches.
-
if he wants to cornhole your rotten little crotch fruit<br> You should feel honored
-
Not coming back here anymore. I don't pretend to know what's inside any other person besides myself - but I have to wonder about a dude who promotes the product of a child rapist. No movie maker is a saint - but Polanski is completely despicable.
-
He should be allowed to (_i_) fuck your 13 year old daughter!
-
You and sicko perverts like you are the decay of the human race.
-
HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO (_i_) fuck beaks under age daughter!!
-
He should be allowed to (_i_) fuck beaks underage daughter
-
It's like an Italian poster for movie.
-
He should be allowed to (_i_) fuck beaks underage daughter!
-
He should be allowed to (_i_) fuck beaks underage daughter!
-
He should be allowed to (_i_) fuck beaks underage daughter!
-
Herry hasn't seen the movie yet, and he already came in his geek pants! He loved it!
-
He should be allowed to (_i_) fuck beaks underage daughter!
-
He should be allowed to (_i_) fuck beaks underage daughter!
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 2:04 a.m. CST
Whoever does the Harry Flash animation on this site is too talen
by boogy110
He should be allowed to (_i_) fuck beaks underage daughter!
-
He should be allowed to (_i_) fuck his own underage daughter!
-
He should be allowed to (_i_) fuck beaks underage daughter!
-
He should..... oh wait, probably did.
-
From some of the same people who pissed on Brittany Murphy before she was even in the grave. Interesting.
-
But the others who make fun of dead celebrities and call Polanski evil in the same breath... not so much.
-
That movie fucked me up as a kid. The freakin skeletal bride at the end. Ugggh.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 3:02 a.m. CST
I gurantee someone on this TB has probably slept with a 13 year
by Miyamoto_Musashi
and my money is on Jett. <p> "Yes well I can make you a star, you see I am involved in the writing of the new Batman movie and you would make the perfect batgirl."
-
90% of normal people are disgusted with Polanski, and want him rotting in jail. Obviously.<p> But survey the crew at aicn, or any random group of movie critics and hollywood industry members, and it seems like the majority are no more offended by the DRUGGING and ANAL RAPE OF THE THIRTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL than they are by something like Mel Gibson yelling obscenities while drunk.<p> It's like one of the weird German social psychology experiments you read about.
-
...I shouldn't be allowed to call a guy who dopes up and bumfucks a little girl evil? Good to know.
-
... maybe they don't, I really don't know, but he is a good director there's no denying that.
-
Raping a kid up the butt after you drugged them, and then skipping the country to avoid punishment TRUMPS whatever bits of celluloid you may have directed.
-
Damn You Michael Bay
-
It is your site Harry, what are your thoughts on this issue?
-
and it's great to see the TBers respond as forcefully as we have. But hey, you and Harry couldn't care less. Because it's all about site traffic isn't? That's what matters most. I'm sure you're getting your jollies. You both deserve a good smack.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 4:29 a.m. CST
Not much difference between Polanski and Victor Salva
by CarmillaVonDoom
in terms of their crimes. But since Salva only directed those piece of shit jeepers creepers movies and "powder" (shudder) you couldn't find a defender of his if you tried. Yet Polanski has person after person making excuses for him. Sure Chinatown has a lot going for it, but a criminal is a criminal....
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 4:34 a.m. CST
I think everyone would like a Beaks and/or Harry post
by CarmillaVonDoom
......
-
...is a a far scarier and creepy mother fucker than planski will ever be. people like him are the true danger to society. and me thinks the fuckwit doth protest too much.
-
how is nobody villifying Scorsese for heading the petition to pardon him? Scorsese picked up a gong the other night- nobody complained about that
-
how is nobody villifying Scorsese for heading the petition to pardon him? Scorsese picked up a gong the other night- nobody complained about that
-
how is nobody villifying Scorsese for heading the petition to pardon him? Scorsese picked up a gong the other night- nobody complained about that
-
i don't know why, it just did.
-
you hit "post talkback" three times?
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 4:41 a.m. CST
The book ain't no slow burn, and I can't wait to see this
by Mr Gorilla
The Robert Harris source novel is a goddamn page-turner. Shamelessly so. Casting Pierce Brosnan as Tony Blair is total genius. I love/hate that guy. Here's hoping Ewan finds his joy too. Wow, I can't wait to see this. Of course, my fantasy version of this film would be that it follows on from The Deal and The Queen, and therefore stars Michael Sheen, written by Peter Morgan, and directed by Stephen Frears. Following two 'based on a true story' movies, that would have been fiendish. But they're doing Special Relationship or something, are they?
-
I need to look at that thing. And Martin lead it? What a goddamned disappointment. Looks like Brosnan and McGregor are a couple of shit bags too. Like they need the work.
-
thejewhunter has used words, and hasn't RAPED A THIRTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL. Words. Not Rape. If you can't see a difference, you're... probably supporting Polanski.<p> And Scorsese SHOULD be excoriated for defending Polanski. But Scorsese is just foolishly using words. NOT RAPING A THIRTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL. Just words. See the difference?<p> One is worthy of verbal or written criticism. One is a crime and should be punished by years of jail.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 4:47 a.m. CST
all of you people who think this website should boycott Polanski
by mynamesdan
Get a hold of yourselves. It's news. We wouldn't be having this talkback if Beaks hadn't posted. I'll say this though- I would be damned surprised if anyone from this website made a stand against Polanski- the man has industry loyalty, and fanbase loyalty too. Just like Jackson, except Jackson never admitted he did it.
-
i was trying to make the point (mayeb too subtley for you) that thejewhunter vitually accusing a fellow talkbacker who posted a well reasoned and thought out comment on the whole thing of being a pedo was a dangerous, ignorant and fucking slimy thing to do. And what is this? s contest to see who can act more outaged at what polanski did? As if calling for his head on a platter makes people some sort of moral guardian? bullshit. drugging and raping a 13 year old girl is bad? of course it fucking is!
-
Im sure many more Hollywood celebs have done far worse things than Polanski, but behind closed doors and didnt get caught, and no that wasnt me defending him.
-
Did Polanski admit that he knew the girl was underage or is he still denying it? (all we have to go on is his word). But I have to say, I honestly couldn't work with a guy who ran from an accusation like this rather than face it, guilty or not.
-
Hay Beaks, go fuck yourself for pluging a nonce and fuck all the virgin, mail-order bride ordering, man-child contributors to this site! Polansky is a nonce and promoting a film made by him is a shameless ploy to get internet traffic. Mission accomplished you nonce defending bottom feeder! I will not be seeing this movie and i advise anyone thinking of petitioning this to also boycot all future Summit Entertainment produced movies (including the Twilight franchise) untill Roman faces up to and accepts whatever punishment he should have received decades ago.
-
he as much as admits here <p> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvQ9GETrBhc <p> that he knows what he did, and came to understand that it was wrong.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 5:21 a.m. CST
he is obviously fucked in the head if "came to understand
by FamousEccles
that it was wrong", and not know it when the police told him the child's age.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 5:23 a.m. CST
I think he should be should have been shunned all along
by FamousEccles
anyway for this. `Harming a child is unforgivable, no matter the situation.
-
Americans will spit in OJ Simpson's food and refuse to even sit in the same restaurant with him over a crime he was never convicted for but Polanski gets a free pass after he's been tried, convicted, and confessed to brutally incapacitating then raping a child. Seriously every Jew who has posted on this site complaining about Mel Gibson's non-criminal constitutionally protected drunk rant should be here double outraged at Polanski's mere existence. Think we'll see anyone in the media half as outraged at Polanski as over Ron Goldman or the Jewish policeman that Gibson confronted verbally? This sort of short-sighted factionalism, racism and scheming for your own group and fuck everyone else is why the world hates us and why we're losing to the Chinese.
-
the cake or the town.
-
get over yourself. Racist remarks don't move discussions forward. <p> To clarify, I think i read that he did know her age (i can't quote a source on that) but the rape thing is a non-starter. <p> we understand legally in this day and age that sex with a child is always rape, but those days, in the state of California, it wasn't rape. It was unlawful sex with a minor, which is of course the same thing, sensibly, but Polanski was never convicted of rape, per se.
-
i can dig it. <p> My name isn't even Dan.
-
People still coming with the child molesting stuff as their only weapon agaisnt Polanski. Because it's not already well documented that the very reason why he had to fled America was not because he didn't accepted responsability for his actions, but that the accusation itself advised him to flee the country because the corrupt judge in charge condemned Polanksi on a way over harsh condemnation, way behond what was agreed between the accusation and Polanski himself. I mean, it's quite telling when even the state prossecution advises a defendant to flee the country because the judge is crazy. And that's what happened.<br><br>Another fact: the "child" in question has been campagning for more then 30 years now to end this situation. The very person who was "raped". If that is also not telling, i don't know what is.<br><br>Did Polanki made a mistake? He did. Does he deserve to pay for what he did? He does. Was he willing to pay for his due for the crime he comited? He was, so much so that he and the prossecution made agreements for a short prison sentense with communitary work and psychiatric consuling and avaluation for it's duration. The fucked up crazy judge, which wanted to be famous above all things, went for a very harsh prision sentense because he wanted to make himself famous at the expense of another famous person.<br><br>Most people faced with this unjust situation, if they had the means they would do the same thing Polanki did. The unjustice here was done by the judge in charge of the process. So give me a break, will you?
-
the judge was obviously a crook <p> It's quite understandable, though, that people don't want to see him celebrated. He did fuck a child. <p> That's not just a lapse in judgement. He's a wrongun'.
-
If the judge really would have done that, am sure he could have easily appealed the sentence
-
Not on Polanksi, he did a terrible thing and should accept his punishment, which would probably be minimal by now, but why should everyone who is involved in this movie be unfairly treated??? <P> The hundreds of people who worked hard on making what looks like a really great movie, do they deserved to have their hard work boycotted by a group of idiots??? <P> No, no they do not!
-
since the 90s. And i used to hate him. but now, i think he's one of the good actors i really like to watch onscreen. And the man just refuses to age! Who can believe he's pushing 60?
-
Dude, shut up with your pathetic reaching and rationalizing. The man drugged and raped a child; he belongs in jail and that's that. <p> If you had any principles, you would not be attempting to rationalize Polanski's situation.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 5:54 a.m. CST
Gosh, I hope they don't find out tomorrow that Kubrick killed so
by YND
It'd suck to have to suddenly start hating 2001, STRANGELOVE, PATHS OF GLORY, etc. etc. (Unless, you know, he killed them in a war. Then it's okay.) The self-righteous folks posting on this board must love living in a world with no grey areas. Black and white is just so much easier.
-
...it's something needed when arguing over such matters. It's just too damned easy to over-simplify the issue.</p> <p>The transcripts are an excellent place to start...http://tinyurl.com/85iw
-
I am sick of reading this "brutally incapacitating then raping a child" BULLSHIT. <p> What he did was bad enough, without fucktards trying to one-up each other, finding more and more horrific ways to describe what he did. <p> Here's what he did, okay? <br> He had sex with an underage girl. Legally, in California they call this statutory rape. It was not a brutal violent sex crime where he violated her body. They had sex. She was under the legal age limit. Was she drunk/stoned? Possibly. <p> He had sex with a girl who wasn't legal. That's it. Now calm the fuck down the lot of you.
-
Get a hold of yourself man. Rapists deserve harsh prison sentences not community service and minimal jail terms. Usually a judge holds that position due to their knowledge of the law. These guys have paid their dues and they do know their shit. To call the judge "fucked up crazy" is a load of shite on your part. He was a respected senior member of the justice system but maybe you have different and more accurate information as you seem to have all the answers covered on this one.
-
I understand intellectually what you are saying but emotionally and morally I'm nowhere near where you and the others that are supporting Polanski are. I keep coming back to the fact that he CHOSE to molest a child even when that child told him not to. He could have stopped at any time but didn't Ok yes having your pregnant wife murdered by a bunch of psychos is very traumatic but it doesn't excuse his subsequent actions in any way. Now if he had killed Manson and Mansons accomplices I could understand his actions in that case, but to molest a young girl is unexcusable. Personally I don't have much of an opinion on his movies, I thought Rosemary's Baby was pretty goddamn boring and I've seen Chinatown maybe once when I was a kid but apart from that I'm indifferent to his films. I think the main problem most people have is that he wasn't punished for his crime. If he had served time, everybody would probably be a lot less angry in their denouncements of him. But as it is he was living in a mansion and has 3 or 4 kids. Wheres the justice in that? Let me be clear - until he's served time in a maximum 'pound you in the ass' prison I can't find it in myself to feel anything but hate for the man. I may or may not watch this movie but it's unlikely that I would spend any money on it. And to Beaks and all those who support Polanski because he makes 'great' films, by supporting somebody you KNOW that has done a great moral wrong makes you implicit in his crime.
-
I understand intellectually what you are saying but emotionally and morally I'm nowhere near where you and the others that are supporting Polanski are. I keep coming back to the fact that he CHOSE to molest a child even when that child told him not to. He could have stopped at any time but didn't Ok yes having your pregnant wife murdered by a bunch of psychos is very traumatic but it doesn't excuse his subsequent actions in any way. Now if he had killed Manson and Mansons accomplices I could understand his actions in that case, but to molest a young girl is unexcusable. Personally I don't have much of an opinion on his movies, I thought Rosemary's Baby was pretty goddamn boring and I've seen Chinatown maybe once when I was a kid but apart from that I'm indifferent to his films. I think the main problem most people have is that he wasn't punished for his crime. If he had served time, everybody would probably be a lot less angry in their denouncements of him. But as it is he was living in a mansion and has 3 or 4 kids. Wheres the justice in that? Let me be clear - until he's served time in a maximum 'pound you in the ass' prison I can't find it in myself to feel anything but hate for the man. I may or may not watch this movie but it's unlikely that I would spend any money on it. And to Beaks and all those who support Polanski because he makes 'great' films, by supporting somebody you KNOW that has done a great moral wrong makes you implicit in his crime.
-
...if you don't like Asimov's information, then maybe you should inform yourself instead. Here, I'll help you get started. http://tinyurl.com/8aru6n
-
I second that, Brosnan is an amazing actor, he has gotten better as the years go on. <P> And the guy looks fucking amazing for his age! <P> He was fantastic in The Matador.
-
It wasn't consensual sex they had it was rape. At no time did she consent according to the media reports of the trial that I have read. She even told him to stop at one point. Although I do agree with you about toning down the lurid comments.
-
It wasn't consensual sex they had it was rape. At no time did she consent according to the media reports of the trial that I have read. She even told him to stop at one point. Although I do agree with you about toning down the lurid comments.
-
is, that Victor Salva hasn't done anything good artisticly, so there isn't any reason to defend him because of his merits. Polanski on the other hand, while it's regrettable he din't keep his dick in his pants, has a body of work worth defending. His failures as a human don't make his movies bad.
-
You can't appeal an agreement. Didn't you read what i wroter above? The prossecution and Polanksi made an agreement to the terms of his condenation. He was bo be comdemned, and he accepted to the terms and conditions of the condemnation. All it was needed as an homolgation form the judge. But the judge decided to be a bitch and go for the more spectacular sentense that would make him famous. The judge wanted to be famous, and an injustice was done.
-
Under the law, even consentual sex with a minor is considered and classified as rape. The reason why, i believe, is that the adult should know better then to have sex with minors, and there's the presumption that it's the adult who instigated and seduced the minor into sex. Of cours,e reality tells us that many minors porposely seduce adults for fun and powerplays, and many minor disguise themselves as older, as adults, for sex. But it's impossible to put this into law, so the idea is that it's always the adult's responsability for the situation, even if claims he knew nothing of the minor's real age and was seduced into intercourse.
-
I left the matter of consent out of it, because I don't have the facts. I know Polanski said she consented, I know legally she couldn't (because she was a minor) and I know she made a statement to the affect that she said no, and told him to go away, but didn't press the issue out of fear. <p> So I left the matter out. Legally, she couldn't give consent. End of story.
-
And ask what was he thinking
-
Did anyone stop to think why the girl does not want to press charges? Victims usually don't like reliving their experience over and over again. Every Polanski fan here is like even she wants to let it go. I'm sure she'd like to forget the whole thing. In fact I'll bet she wishes it never happened. DUH! She just wants to move on. It was rape. Rape is wrong. Rape is punishable and good for the judge for saying,"a plea agreement for raping a 13 year old girl? Please". The judge wasn't trying to be famous. You all watch to many movies. THe only way you'll know the judge's name is by looking up the case. Jeez. She told him to stop but was afraid to be more assertive. She was 13 and possibly drugged. Polanski was a worm for doing that to someone. Period. I choose not to support someone who exhibits that kind of behavior.
-
I disagree with your statement that 'many minors purposely seduce adults'. While there are some minors that try to do such things, I'm thinking here mainly young men trying to seduce older women or other men (I know I tried to bang a lot of older biatches! Didn't work though, mainly just ended up masturbating furiously in my room), it's in the vast majority of cases adults that initiate sexual situations with a minor. Basically cause kids don't know shit about sex, while adults should have the mental maturity to know not to fuck children. However in this case Polanski knew how old the girl was and still purposely persued sexual acts with her. The guy is just a fragging kiddie fiddler that makes movies. The artistic merits of his films do not impact on his actions in any way and should not allow him to escape a criminal sentence.
-
It's really uncomfortable.
-
who cares if its the minor who is the seducer, absolutely irrelevant, the adult should act like one, but clearly not all do, hence the law
-
Did Polanski drug and rape Ewan McGregor while making this film?
-
There was also the fact that he drugged her to prevent it as well.
-
Dude, why oh why are you defending this man? I understand what you are saying, but isn’t labelling a judge “crazy” just because he wanted to punish a kiddy fiddler to the maximum of the law also unfair. What you are explaining is basically this; defendant team propose a flakey almost non- punishment that the prosecution somehow agrees to, but the judge doesn’t. So the defence claim that the judge is nuts and just wants to be famous just because he didn’t agree with there slap on the wrist proposal and then advise the defendant to get out of the USA as quickly as possible? There is such a thing as an appeals process if a convicted persons feels the sentence was unfairly excessive, and you make this appeal from BEHIND BARS!!! The “crazy” judge would still have remained “famous” even if the sentence were reduced later on. If anything the defence team and the prosecution sound crooked not the judge. Also judges aren’t stupid. Usually if they want to inflict a punishment that will endure any future appeal they would not go overkill with the original sentence in the first place. Polansky was wealthy paedophile with enough resources and scumbag contacts to not only flee from the law, but also continue to work publicly and receive accolades and critical acclaim decades later while bitching about how the supposedly corrupt Californian legal system is picking on him. I sorry AsimovLives but either you seem to feel sorry for this person for some reason or your just trying to continue a open/shut debate, (I just hope it’s the later).
-
burning up this TB. I would never defend Polanski's actions, as they are indefensible. But it's interesting to observe all of the furor over a 30+ year-old crime that the victim has long since forgiven when there are many, many, many other far more severe injustices being perpetrated daily, hell, hourly. Hm. On another note, the book is pretty good. The final twist is pretty solid, although the plot device that allows the writer to uncover it seemed like a bit of stretch to me. I do hope they go with the rather bleak, somewhat inconclusive ending that was in the book.
-
Agreed. But lets be clear - He is legally responsible for raping a 13 year old and has been an international fugitive from justice for close on 4 decades. No matter how good his movies are he should be behind bars. End of story.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 7:31 a.m. CST
OH BOY WAIT 'TIL LOST JARV GETS WIND OF THIS TALKBACK
by BringingSexyBack
-
While I agree that TB'ers focusing on the lurid details, or inventing them whole cloth, is inappropriate or just plain salacious, I strongly disagree with your characterization of it simply being "He had sex with a girl who wasn't legal. That's it.". <p> No.<p> He raped - and that is not being lurid that is a fact, a child. Emphasis on rape and child. <p> A child does not have the emotional or mental maturity to understand the consequences of their actions. Even if she had consented (which she claims no - hence the rape) it still would have been rape because she is a child. Even if she had sexual experience before, it still would have been rape, because once again, she was a child who could not understand the long reaching consequences of her actions. <p> And just look at how it has affected her life some 30 years later. <p> Polanski knew what he was doing. He knew she was a child. Her previous sexual experience or lack of means absolutely nothing in the face of this: She was a child who did not and could not know the consequences of her actions. But an adult does. And that is the difference between an adult and a child regardless the physical maturity.<p> And that is why Polanski is justly vilified.<p> He never paid for his crime. How anyone could come to his 'defense' whether in hollywood or elsewhere, defies belief. <p>
-
either. Or anything about the quality of his movies. I'm just tired of seeing hysterical descriptions of the man and his actions. As if each idiot talkbacker was in a contest to outdo all others in describing the crime. <p>
-
I'm affraid you are a bit naive about the subject of minors teens seducing adults. Only boys do that? That's what you really think? That's naive, man.
-
is deliberately incendiary. <p> Sex with a minor may legally considered "Statutory rape" where you live, but depending on the location, the legal term might simply be "unlawful intercourse with a minor". <p> Doesn't quite have the same visceral appeal though, does it? <p> Similarly, calling him a paedophile is incorrect. She was a teenager. Technically, he's an ephebophile. <p> Your focus on "rape" and "child" is disingenuous, since both terms could be disputed.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 7:42 a.m. CST
THE ULTIMATE SEDUCTION: ZOOEY IN A SCHOOLGIRL OUTFIT
by BringingSexyBack
Excuse me ... brb
-
Is that too much to ask?
-
IIIIIIIIIINCOOOOOOOOOOOMIIIIIIIIIIIING! *ducks*
-
This TB is one of the few that actually mirrors 'real society'.<p> If Polanski had not been a rich, white celebrity, but had been a lower or middle class Latino in L.A. and committed the exact same crime, do you think he would have been given the same deal the prosecutors gave Polanski at that time? Hell no. <p> The judge, for whatever reason, correctly decided that Polanski deserved harsher punishment. And to all who say that is unfair, every plea agreement, every one, is subject to a Judges approval. if Polanski did not know that, his laywers are at fault. Not the judge. <p> Michael Vick had a plea arrangement with prosecutors for one year. The judge felt it was too lenient, and gave him two. <p> More time than Polanski has ever served.<p> Just because a crime did not happen today, does not make it any less of a crime.
-
polarizing talkback. In this case they're just being attention whores capitalizing on a rapist.
-
polarizing talkback. In this case they're just being attention whores capitalizing on a rapist.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 7:48 a.m. CST
The history of rock'n'roll and cinema is filled to the grills...
by AsimovLives
... of stories about teen groupies, fans and espectators who have dressed up and make up to look older so they can get a chance to have sex with rock and movie stars. And considering the cultural aspects of the 70s, when things were so sexually lose to a point it's unthinkable today, teen girls passing as adults to seduce older men, specially well know media figures, are a tonne a square foot. And if we also take into consideration how foreplay used to be played back then, when most men prsumed a no meant an yes, a game which the women played willingly and porposely (just look at any James bond movie of the time, which displayed glamorized versions of the type of seduction game played at the time), it gets easier to understand how both the minor and Polanski got involved in this unfortunatly affraid. They should had know better, of course. Polanski should had know better. But that was how things were back then, and it's little suprise it happened. Polanksi bad luck was that he got caught, while many, many others got away easy. The very fact only Polanski got caugh is more a testement of how well hidden the other such happenings about other people. In fac,t the judge that had Polanski's case used the ruse of setting an example in his atempt to make himself famous at Polanski's and the minor's expenses.
-
There have been some hysterical descriptions haven't there, but its quite a juicy crime and this is the internet so what do you expect?*shrug* There's probably some formula that describes the hysteria as it reaches its zenith, fuck knows what it is though.
-
Thing is, he and I are Americans, and this is an American case where our laws apply. That's the proper context for this discussion.
-
It isn't incorrect to call what Polanski did rape. By our understanding what He did was rape. He is a rapist. <p> however <p> He wasn't ever charged with rape, he was charged with, as you quite rightly point out, unlawful intercourse with a minor. <p> It certainly can't be disputed that he raped a child. He did both of those things, and it doesn't matter which technicality comes into play, he did rape (by his own confession) a girl of thirteen. child/teenager. She wasn't an adult and it was a powerplay, so, come on. We can agree that it was rape. I don't see the merit in disputing it. <p> Wouldn't it be nice if he was brought to the US, confessed it all and the victim dropped the charges. We could all draw a line under it and Scorsese could perhaps make a statement regarding why he chooses to befriend child-rapists...
-
It isn't incorrect to call what Polanski did rape. By our understanding what He did was rape. He is a rapist. <p> however <p> He wasn't ever charged with rape, he was charged with, as you quite rightly point out, unlawful intercourse with a minor. <p> It certainly can't be disputed that he raped a child. He did both of those things, and it doesn't matter which technicality comes into play, he did rape (by his own confession) a girl of thirteen. child/teenager. She wasn't an adult and it was a powerplay, so, come on. We can agree that it was rape. I don't see the merit in disputing it. <p> Wouldn't it be nice if he was brought to the US, confessed it all and the victim dropped the charges. We could all draw a line under it and Scorsese could perhaps make a statement regarding why he chooses to befriend child-rapists...
-
Frankly, i don't blame Harry and Beaks for that. The facts about Polanski's legal problems are already well know, and f people keep on harping about Polanski as a child molester, they do it out of their own deliberate ignorance. frankly, on this matter, the blame falls square on the shoulders of the misinformed. Were they informed, all we would be talking about would be about a new movie made by a genious filmmaker.
-
by your laws he's never been charged with rape. read the case.
-
I have read accounts, as I am sure you have, of babies (two years old or younger) being raped. <p> Would you simply call that 'unlawful intercourse with a minor', even if the law on the books in that state or country used that terminology? <p> No. I don't think so. <p> I am former military, we had all types of nomenclature to describe every day common events or exercises. <p> It was a syntactical game "front lean rest position" = push up. It was still a push up. <p> Unlawful intercourse with a minor=rape. It is rape. That is not incendiary. That is a fact.<p> In some states, if a boy of 17 has sex with a girl of 16, that is called 'statutory rape'. But when a man of 35 has 'unlawful' sex with a child of 13. That is rape.
-
he did molest a child- how is it ignorant to assert that he did. <p> Polanski himself has admitted that he did- did he do so out of deliberate ignorance of his own molestations?
-
The victim already dropped the charges. In fact, everybody involved with the trial have witness in favour of Polanksi, the former minor and her mother too. All have petioned, the former child and the prosecution, in favour of Polanksi. That's really very telling. Very, very telling.
-
She would be the one vilified. Moral of the story: girls are trouble.
-
Read my posts above and then understand what i'm saying. Please, read them. Thank you.
-
weird xenophobia vibe from you, man
-
The real context of the situation is that a corrupt judge with a great desire to get famous abused his powwers to incorrectly aplied the law and completly by-passed the joint plea bargan made by the prosecution and Polanksi to serve his own self-interests.
-
No I'm not naive, I just try to think the best of everybody.:) In relation to my previous statement about boys being more likely to initiate sexual acts I base that purely on my own experiences as an adolescent. From what I remember girls of that age would call me names and then run away and were highly unlikely to let me get a feel in, the frigid bitches.:( I would say that children now are more aware of sex than I was at their age but I still highly doubt that they are trying to seduce adults willy nilly and the ones that are probably have some serious issues in their past.
-
i read your posts- I've researched the case too. I don't see how any of the unlawful treatment of Polanski changes the fact that he raped that child. <p> I get it that the Judge was a crook, that the media played the courts, that the victim would rather it was forgotten, that the extradition order was almost an automatic process that wasn't directly demanded by a court. i get it <p> There remains no defence for his original crime, though, which was to take advantage of a child, a child in his employ and which he was guarding, drug it and fuck it. <p> I'm not sure if i even have an opinion about him or what ought to be done with him, but there's no denying that he did it, surely? He already confessed to it time and time again.
-
He plead guilty as part of a plea deal, he up held his side of the bargain -pleading guilty- and the other side was going to reneged on theirs. I think as telling as it is on Polanski's character, it is also equally damning of our justice system.
-
with a minor. And guess what Whoopi, that is rape rape.
-
your arguement is falling apart by the minute. plenty of victims drop charges, usually when they get substantial cash hush money which the victim in questiom infact did!
-
I do not think you are defending the crime that Polanski committed. I think you are attempting a balancing act. <p> But I think you are incorrect to assert that the judge was at fault for the change in sentencing. Every plea agreement is subject to a judges' approval. Every one. If Polanski did not know this, then shame on him and his attorneys. The judge -correctly, decided that the crime was to heinous for the light sentence the prosecutors agreed to. I used the example of Michael Vick. He had a plea agreement for 1 year, the judge decided it was too light and gave him 2.<p> Bottom line, if Polanski had never raped the child, he would never have been in that situation. Do not blame the justice system for working, when a crime has been committed.
-
Unfortunatly, there's some truth to what BringingSexyBack said. Ironically, the country whihc gives more legal protection to women in the whole middle east outside Jordania and Israel is Iran. And the worst of them all, the one country in which if you are born a women means you are fucked from birth til death? Saudi Arabia!
-
Can't say I'm surprised. <P>He drugged and raped a 13 year old, which may be normal for Almada but is pretty fucking abhorrent to the rest of the world.
-
I would say okay, hand me the rusty jagged knife. A family friend was raped and tortured for 19 hours. She has permanent physical and mental scars. Fuck your sympathy.
-
He's defending. <P>"The facts about Polanski's legal problems are already well know, and f people keep on harping about Polanski as a child molester, they do it out of their own deliberate ignorance." <P>That's a defense. A piss poor one, but a defense none the less.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 8:11 a.m. CST
How ironic that I respect your movie opinions
by Grammaton Cleric Binks
but you're way off base here Asimov.
-
i fail to see what relevance the Polanski case has to the theocratic medieval policies of middle eastern states. <p> You republicans, everything is an excuse to invade an oil rich country to you. <p> "Polanski raped a child" - "well, better invade Yemen then"
-
AsimovLives please come back from the darkside before its too late! every point you have made so far had been knocked back at you. just give it up.
-
Lame!
-
He's a nauseating, hypocritical, pretentious cunt, and this above just makes me want to vomit: <P>"... of stories about teen groupies, fans and espectators who have dressed up and make up to look older so they can get a chance to have sex with rock and movie stars. And considering the cultural aspects of the 70s, when things were so sexually lose to a point it's unthinkable today, teen girls passing as adults to seduce older men, specially well know media figures, are a tonne a square foot. And if we also take into consideration how foreplay used to be played back then, when most men prsumed a no meant an yes, a game which the women played willingly and porposely (just look at any James bond movie of the time, which displayed glamorized versions of the type of seduction game played at the time), it gets easier to understand how both the minor and Polanski got involved in this unfortunatly affraid. They should had know better, of course. Polanski should had know better. But that was how things were back then, and it's little suprise it happened. Polanksi bad luck was that he got caught, while many, many others got away easy. The very fact only Polanski got caugh is more a testement of how well hidden the other such happenings about other people. In fac,t the judge that had Polanski's case used the ruse of setting an example in his atempt to make himself famous at Polanski's and the minor's expenses." <P>Utter horseshit- he's almost condoning rape, and anyway what Polanski did is not remotely similar to "foreplay". Unless fucking Rohypnol counts as "foreplay". <P>What. A. Sickening. Cunt.
-
No the real context of the situation is that Polanski raped a child and then fled the country when he thought he was going to serve some serious jail time. The judge may have been corrupt and self-serving but that doesn't mean that Polanski can just flee the country without going through the whole legal process. I was going to say 'nobody is above the law' but that is blatantly false so instead I'll say that 'nobody is above the law unless they have some kind of fantastic talent, are well connected and/or are rich and famous'.
-
relate on most levels about the movies. But, he is being a dick about the Polanski thing. Obviously he has no children.
-
A 13 year old cannot seduce an older person. Reason being is that it is each person's responsibility to know or find out the age of your partner. Polanski knew the family and knew how old she was. He drugged her and raped her. I dont care if she looks 20 and throws herself onto you it is still rape. No matter what. In Law school we had major debates on this case, among others. And you are right the judge had stars in eyes, but Roman got off easy no matter what the judge was going to do. Also the fact the woman/girl wants this to end has nothing to do with the crime itself. I have studied cases where men have had sex with minors, married them, and their wives begging for the case to be thrown out, yet these men still have gone to jail. Its law and I think you better read the case documents before saying he needs a break. Because if it was a male teacher who did the same exact thing to one his 7th grade students there is no fucking way you would defend him.
-
Oh, I agree he is defending Polanski - here and now. Meaning, he thinks it is over and done with and everyone should move on. That is beyond a doubt. What I said, is I do not think he is defending the crime of rape of a 13 year old - at the time. <p> I have not read all of his posts, so I do not know for certain that he is defending Polanskis actions - or attempting to lessen the crime itself. If I thought that, there is no way I would give him the benefit of the doubt. I will read his posts.
-
He's a nauseating cunt. And he doesn't have children because (luckily) humans can't breed with goats.
-
Jesus Christ man, you are actually proposing that Polanski was 1) going to get fucked over by a judge and that justifies skipping the country 2) that the reality is teenage girls are prone to seducing older men as some kind of power game. Your retarded analysis is clearly the byproduct of watching too many movies. This is reality, when a 13 year old girl is drugged and raped it's fucking wrong. Take away the mans fame and critical acclaim and no one, NO ONE would defend or condone his actions.
-
That the judge is at fault is not an opinion, it's a fact. The reasons why he did what he did are very well known. Everybody who used to know him and worked with him have testified to his lowly character. The man was hunger for public fame. He used Polanski's and the minor's situation to self-promote. The prosecution and Polanski wrote down a plea bargan agreement, with Polanski admiting to wrong-doing and subjecting himself to the penalties of the law. When the demented judge aplied an unjust penalty to Polanski, evne the prosecution admivsed Polankis to flee the country. Those are facts. That is what happened. All else is must over-emotionalism nonsense based on falshoods created and blindly supported for mroe then 40 years and which were accepted as truth by people with unquestioning minds.<br><br>So yeah, i'm atempting a balanced act. And i'm failing. Not for the very first time in a subject about Polanski. Again, the dogmatic nonsense keeps on prevailing against reason and proved facts.
-
Roman Polanski is a brilliant filmmaker.<p>He raped a 13 year old girl.<p>Can these facts be reconciled? No. While the world would be a much easier place if everyone who was brilliant was also defensible, it's not.<p>A lot of people in this Talkback are justifiably angry that Polanski has escaped justice for 30 years. He did undergo psychiatric evaluation in prison for 42 days, but fled out of fear of a harsher sentence. He settled a civil suit with his victim, and his victim has forgiven him - because in order to heal, in order to move on, she had to. Does it excuse his crime? No. But it does, in my mind, mean that the most important person in this situation - the victim - has come to terms with the assault.<p>That does nothing to abate the public need to vilify and condemn the perpetrator, which serves a communal imperative to recognize and distance ourselves from perceived monsters. But because our anger is impotent against the person it is directed at, we instead have to satisfy ourselves with making monsters out of each other. There is not one person who has said it's okay that Polanski raped a 13 year old. There are many people who have equated watching a Polanski film as condoning child rape. This is insane.<p>I have an ethical problem with Polanski. If I support his films, am I implicit in his crime? If I deny myself enjoying his films, am I righteous? I don't know. There is no easy answer, which the Talkback seems determined to prove otherwise. Can I live with myself, watching his films, enjoying them, then feeling conflicted about it, because I have incidentally supported an artist through supporting his art?<p>Yes. So far. It may change. I like to believe that Polanski is not actually evil, but a man who committed a despicable act - and compounded it with cowardice, self interest and implicit denial of full responsibility. These are all human traits that can be understood - not applauded or supported, but at the very least understood.<p>Hysterical Talkbacks are good for the soul but ultimately lack nuance and humanity. I don't know if I will ever feel comfortable watching a Polanski film, but I do know that I will continue to watch them.<p>Polanski will make this easier on everyone when he's dead.
-
No, he's trying to diminish and excuse the crime by comparing it to groupies, or talking complete horseshit about sexual morality in the 1970's, or unbelievably James Fucking Bond. <P>This is not about passage of time, this is about excusing the original action. <P>The cunt.
-
This is revolting apologism. <P>The judge "being at fault" is not fact. It's your fucking opinion, and it's completely erroneous. Firstly, Judges have to approve plea bargains. This one did not. Secondly, and far more importantly, I happen to think Polanski was at fault for, erm, DRUGGING AND RAPING A 13 YEAR OLD. <P>There is absolutely nothing in that post that could be called a fact- there is a lot of perjorative and defamatory shit like calling the judge demented, and the only fact I have seen regarding you is that you do indeed love goat cock.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 8:28 a.m. CST
"Again, the dogmatic nonsense keeps on prevailing against reason
by Lost Jarv
Perhaps, dipshit, the only proven fact is that POLANSKI DRUGGED AND RAPED A 13 YEAR OLD, and reason would prevail against dogmatic nonsense if sycophantic cunts such as yourself would stop trying to excuse a man you believe to be special of a dreadful crime. <P>Just out of curiosity, because I do believe that people can reform, has the cunt ever shown any contrition or remorse? I don't think he had.
-
when he's dead."<p> There's one talkback I'm taking a raincheck on. It'll make those Jacko-backs look deserted.
-
Whats your deal with Asimov and how does it relate to goats? I don't care either way but it should be good for a few laughs.
-
AsimovLives is one of those guys Chris Hansen tells to have a seat. After the arrest they find duct tape, rope and chloroform in the back seat of his car.
-
And that is despicable. <p> Asi, I take back what I wrote about you simply attempting a balancing act. I think you are attempting to justify Polanski's actions (or lessen them), and then blaming the justice system for imposing a fair sentence on him, when he pleaded to a lesser one - mostly because the prosecutors let him off by virtue of his fame - when a non celebrity would have had the book thrown against him. <p> There is no justification for what Polanski did. And that James Bond ' no means yes' bullshit you brought up is truly despicable. She was a child. Not a woman. And as I have stated before, a child does not have the maturity or experience to understand the consequences of their actions.<p> I was wrong about you Asi. I thought you were just trying to be 'fair'. But you are much worse, you are an apologist for crimes against children.
-
It will be an interesting read.
-
talkback to take a virtual piss on that grave. Jacko "may" have been a pedo. Was he weird, absolutely. However, it was never proven he did anything. If you can prove it, I'll be the first person to take a swing at him.
-
Seriously, is no one on here going to talk about the movie??? <P> You know what, I am going to side with Asimov on this one, at least he wanted to talk about the movie not just Polanksi.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 8:34 a.m. CST
still don't like beaks "derail this talkback" comment
by Miyamoto_Musashi
-
Extremely well said.
-
Asimovlives is the reincarnation of a revolting and hypocritical asspickle called originally BladeRunnerUnit, but then Memories-of-murder. <P>He's a self important, obnoxious, overinflated, hypocrite with a penchant for questioning the intelligence of others if they happen to have different taste to him, and a none predication for goat rectum. <P>The goat rectum thing actually comes from Noted Sage Xiphos, who has been to Almada (where the dickhead is from), and said that the women there look like someone shaved the front half of a wookie, so the local men bugger goats. <P>He is a stunted mental dwarf with a grossly exaggerated opinion of himself (based in nothing more than hubris), and I can't stand him. <P>Famously, he once (right in the midst of calling everyone stupid for liking Rush Hour 3 or something) said "This Christmas I'm booking a ticket for Mr. Alien, Mr. Predator and lots and lots of Mr. and Mrs. Dead People"- proving once and for all that his nebulous rules only apply to him and no-one else. <P>He's lowlife.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 8:35 a.m. CST
Here's a quote from a movie I saw the other day
by Grammaton Cleric Binks
that applies to this situation. "Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, and beat you with their experience."
-
It's attitudes like that that obfuscates the truth and make people believe hysterical nonsense based on bullshit.
-
Spot on. <P>It's one thing to like the man's films, it's another to excuse the crime. It will be easier when he's dead. <P>Like Michael Jackson (Yeah, I said it).
-
... 40 years old lies and misguideness don't go down easy without a big fight to the death.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 8:39 a.m. CST
"It's attitudes like that that obfuscates the truth and make peo
by Lost Jarv
Here you go again. I'm not letting you away with this one. This is like arguing with Branerobot or that other cunt about Fascism. <P>1)Did he rape that child? <P>Just answer yes or no, and stop it with the bullshit apology crap. <P>You fucking loathsome little clown. If Bay had done what Polanski did you'd already have your fucking pitchfork and burning torch out.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 8:40 a.m. CST
"... 40 years old lies and misguideness don't go down easy witho
by Lost Jarv
And again. Where was the fucking lie? <P>You are such a cunt- he drugged and raped a 13 year old.
-
I'm with you, Blackwood. To be fair I've never been a rabid fan of Polanski's work. I liked the films i saw, but they aren't in my top ten. <p> I'm pretty sure Michael Jackson fiddled kids. There are lots of arguments that he did or didn't but, as an adult, it's harder to see how a man could behave so stupidly and leave himself so vulnerable unless he was trying to get away with it. But I still love his music and listen to it all the time. <p> Hell, if he was still alive I'd probably send my kids to go stay with him, if it meant he'd make another album with Quincy Jones. Nobody wants to sacrifice their first-born, but some things are simply worth the sacrifice. <p> Polanski did a bad thing- he was a powerful figure and abused his position in the industry to fuck nice looking girls. He was doing spreads for Vogue and things at the time. The victim's parents had an idea of the danger they were putting their daughter in when they left her in his care. You can be sure of that, we can blame them first, but they obviously felt they were giving their daughter a headstart to a glamorous career. They probably knew she wouldn't come away from these experiences as innocent as she had been (and she wasn't all that innocent, even before she met Polanski- read her interviews) but i imagine they felt it was a sacrifice worth making. <p> I don't mean to suggest that her parents knew she would be fucked by Polanski. I'm not saying that, but it's pretty clear why children in showbiz are contracually obliged to have chaperones these days. For insurance reasons, actually. <p> We all know there are a lot of cases, not a majority but a high frequency, where silly girls do something they're ashamed of and cry 'rape' unfairly. <p> This is not one of those cases for two clear reasons* <p> 1: the girl was given alcohol (and qualuudes? source required) <p> 2: She was Thirteen, and a low level worker in the industry. <p> Polanski was an adult, and fucken shoulda fucken known better. He may have agreed a plea with the prosecution, but it isn't up to you how long you serve in jail. It's not just a crime against an individual when a man fucks a child, it is indeed a crime against humanity and an example OUGHT to be made of men who do it. Particularly the famous ones. Celebrity is a fickle bitch, and it is only reasonable to expect that celebrities who set a bad example ought to be punished at least as much as anyone else would be. <p> It's a very sorry state of affairs that anyone believes it is acceptable for a celebrity to be let off lightly for a crime in any way. <p> Now, who wants to turn this conversation into an attack on Muslims, because i'm spoiling for a fight.
-
Funny thing is the little Binkses got this greatest hits CD for Christmas. I can appreciate his music, but pedo or not the guy was a freak
-
Strident, repetitive, and b-b-boring. Cheers!
-
I saw that documentary that stirred this all back up, and I found it pretty convincing at the time. However, after hearing a lot of the arguments against it, I find it less so... and once I read the victim's account of the crime (which Polanski agreed to in his plea), I really couldn't take that documentary seriously any longer. It *far* underplayed the crime in question, to the point where it lost all credibility in my eyes as an objective piece.<br><br> As to whether one can admire the art made by a criminal, I would say the answer is yes. However, there is a distinct difference between admiring existing work and supporting the creation of new work rather than demanding the artist face justice, and a further distinction to campaigning to shield said artist from justice in order to get new works from him.<br><br>Still, the ultimate distinction, as pointed out above, is between talk about Polanski raping a 13 year old girl (whichever side one falls on in the debate) and actually being the rapist. I find it disappointing to see people enthusiastically defend the man, but that's all. Personally, I'd like to see him brought back to face the justice system and resolve the issue, whatever result that may lead to.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 8:44 a.m. CST
No, Asi. The lesson to be learned is that rape is a crime
by toadkillerdog
And raping a drugged child, is even worse. <p> Those attempting to justify it, are despicable. <p> While I think you go way overboard on your movie likes and dislikes, I find it amusing.<p> But this justification and /or attempt at lessening Polanski's crime, is a new low for even you. <p> If that had been your 13 year old child, how would you feel about what a grown man did to her?
-
the movie then?
-
They always give a really interesting insight into people, probably because it is so incendiary. <P>I'm with Blackwood- I was never a rabid fan of Polanski, and can separate the films from the crime, but to try to pretend that the crime either didn't happen or can be excuse on tenuous bullshit is fucking evil and loathsome. <P>Nightlife in Almada must be a fucking riot for barely pubescent girls.
-
"Polanski will make this easier on everyone when he's dead." Word.
-
...who likes to accuse AICN of refusing to touch "sacred cows", AssLives is doing a pretty good job of making Polanski one. <p> Polanski drugged and raped a child, end of story. I suppose AssLives, being the admitted bestiality freak that he is, somehow sees Polanski as a kindred spirit.
-
we are talking about the movie, but first we have to ask ourselves whether we can pay money to see it in good conscience. <p>
-
By taking apart your evil and fallacious load of bollocks? <P>That's not trolling. Trolling is infesting every fucking TB for 6 months with shit about "Jar Jar Abrams" regardless of subject. <P>You fucking disgusting rape condoning tapeworm. <P>I seriously disliked you before I saw this, but now..... <P>I suppose you think "All women are asking for it" don't you?
-
Did Polanski drug and rape (I think he sodomised her, but I will stand corrected on that) a child? <p>Yes or No.
-
I think you just described half the users of the internet! I have no idea where Almada is but it sounds like the nightlife is awesome. I look forward to the enlightening debate between you and Asimov on the merits of Polanski's latest movie. I hear it's a thriller!
-
Especially not yours. <p>Forget about the judges mistakes. <p> Focus on the crime. <p> Did he drug and have sex with a 13 tr old girl, which is legally defined as rape? Yes? Then END OF STORY.
-
Now that I've made my position about Polanski clear (I'm against him and his kiddy fiddling ways) does this movie have anything to offer? Or will I be thinking about how Polanski raped a little girl and tried to blame the muslims (there you go mynamesdan!) if I was to watch it?
-
Fuck you all. Do you have kids? I doubt it. Because if you did you would not be sitting her blaming everyone else in the world for what this pedophile did instead of laying blame where it belongs...on Polanski. Blame the judge, the victim, whomever you want. The fact remains that this fucker raped a fucking 13 year old girl. 13 fucking years old. I don't give a fuck how you want to spin it, he was wrong and deserves to be in jail. The victim is petitioning for this to be over? OF COURSE, SHE DOES NOT WANT TO RELIVE IT ANYMORE. She isn't saying what he did was ok, or she "forgives" him. She wants it to be done, over, to move on. Don't mistake the victim's actions for anything else except a desire to put this bullshit behind her. It's easy for people without kids to try and defend this fucker. Let's see how you would feel if your 13 year old daughter had sex with a grown man. You sure would not be defending this fucker. But I am gonna guess his defenders are going to tell me that I am biased because I have kids and that their point of view is more rational. Bullshit. Fuck that. Even when I didn't have kids and I heard about shit like this it made me sick to my fucking stomach. Grow men having the sick need to fuck a child....A CHILD. I don't know what is worse, Polanski or the people who try to defend him, make him seem like some kind of victim.
-
Has he ever been contrite or expressed any remorse?
-
and at no point will I think about Polanski or his crimes. <P> Why? <P> Because I care about watching the movie, it looks good, it is a great book and Brosnan is always worth watching in my opinion. <P> Maybe the difference is, I can seperate a movie from reality.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 9:19 a.m. CST
"Maybe the difference is, I can seperate a movie from reality."
by Lost Jarv
So can most. If I watch it (which is unlikely- the presence of Kim Cattral puts me off) then I'll be thinking about the film. <P>
-
I would love to talk about the movie. unfortunaly i know nothing about it other then what was posted above. Though i'm intrigued. Any new Polanski movie is good news. And the man was always very good making thrillers. Colour me interested.
-
piece of shit. <P>So, you going to answer the question? Or just do what you usually do, you amoeba-spined lowlife, and ignore it as it will place you in a difficult position.
-
I agree his movies are usually pretty good quality. <P> I have read the book, and it is really good.
-
But a Republican? You have managed to offend me.
-
It's just a shame that as a human being he is a monumental piece of shit that should be raped himself. Sick fucking pedophile.
-
His plea bargan with the prosecution which meant spending months in jail, community work and regular psychiatric avaliation. That was the actions of a man willing to pay for the wrong deeds he did. If you weren't so fucking retard, you would actually read what i posted above and not the stupid bullshit that crossed your retard mind like the fucking mindless lowly bacteria you are. Fucking ass!
-
He'll think he'd been fucked by a freight train.
-
American justice baby.
-
Good to know the source novel is good. Polanski is usually very good in making adaptations. Most of his best movies are adaptations of novels.
-
"That was the actions of a man willing to pay for the wrong deeds he did." <p> Those are the actions of a man who knows he is guilty and knows that if he pleads not guilty he will get a shitstorm of punishment. Its about self-preservation, not contrition.
-
I'll be watching it and thinking to myself 'You know that Roman Polanski guy is alright. Sure he raped some little girl but the way he uses the light in this scene makes me think that maybe I've misjudged him.' I think most of us can separate reality from fiction Drsambeckett1984 but in this case the reality taints the produced art enough so that some people have a difficult time supporting this movie in anyway. You know if it wasn't for Muslim countries nobody would be watching his movies? Fact. (There you go mynamesdan!)
-
Until I know where Zooey stands.
-
Fuck me. Are you stupid? <P>Plea Bargains are not acts of contrition- they're an attempt to serve less fucking time. I would argue that the existence of a Plea Bargain actually is the opposite of what you are inferring. <P>And I have read all your posts, and am frankly sickened by you. This is a new low even for you. <P>You haven't read any of mine, obviously, or you would answer the yes or no question.
-
Christ. I almost need the fucking Rosetta stone to translate some of your chimp-like ramblings into coherent English.
-
What are you talking about Muslim countries for? <P> I think I will be able to watch a well acted, slick political thriller without thinking about kiddie rape.
-
I seriously doubt that a lowly human beings as you paint Polanski to be would had made the movies he made. And just look at the sheer amount of people who have worked with him and who abide by him. Are you telling me all those are also lowly motherfuckers who are unto his act? I don't think so.
-
MJ was not sexual. Angels cry when you guys attack him. Leave him be.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 9:40 a.m. CST
"I seriously doubt that a lowly human beings as you paint Polans
by Lost Jarv
What the fuck? <P>Are you canonising him? You are aware that it's possible to be a great artist, mere mortal, and despicable shitbag all at the same time? <P>He's not fucking Heracles or something. <P>Now answer the fucking question- yes or no.
-
Deny all you want, but at the very least it was pretty fucking dodgy.
-
No slack for Der Fuhrer? <P> http://quazen.com/arts/art-history/10-paintings-by-adolf-hitler/
-
Dude writes English pretty well for a second language, you ask me. But I kind of wish he'd left this particular talkback alone, 'cause I don't think he's really doing Polanski any favours.<p> And I'll second V'shael, please chill on the whole, "He repeatedly thrust his Roman warrior inside her---" shit. I get that you're trying to keep what he did in perspective, but no one in their right mind wants to spend that long focusing in forensic detail on child rape.
-
plainly state he molested them. His actions were weird and all, but his accusers either recanted or failed to prove ... leading to a presumption of innocence that still stands. <P> True, his behavior was odd by any standard, but he's no rapist.
-
I'm not focusing on forensic detail- that's nasty. <P>Probably turns Asimov on a bit. Well, if it's a kid (BOOM FUCKING BOOM!)
-
Are you comparing Polanski to Hitler? Cos that is kinda unfair.
-
No, just being deliberately provacative. Don't mind me.
-
But to call him a great painter is to undermine the whole medium (not that I know all that much about painting to begin with). And yeah, you can dig his paintings all you want, just s'long as you don't go tattooing a swastika into your forehead and go looking for different coloured people to bash.
-
I meant dodgy as in "highly fucking suspicious" <P>Anyway, I'll come back to MJ later- in all honesty I'm not really interested in him as he is dead, once I've finished thrashing that odious goatfucker.
-
I know I said I was a goner here but Jesus, I know you didn't just try to compare Roman Polanski to Adolf Hitler, did you? No, you couldn't have. I must've either read that wrong or else you were completely joking, right? We're not even talking about a quantum leap there. You'd need to make a quantum leap just to get within a few light years of a valid comparison. You must've been kidding. Must've been.
-
Now I'm staying out
-
Give em hell!!
-
I can't believe you idiots are giving him shine!
-
Ok, fair enough. At least you admit unlike others.
-
Just messing around. Of course Pononceski is no Hitler.
-
Hitler may have been a lot of things, but at least he wasn't a pedophile.<p> (Heh, sorry... It's fun to write like some of the hicks on this talkback sometimes).
-
I was going to make a joke about Muslims here but its too late and I don't care enough. Also I'm glad that you'll be able to divorce the actions of the movies director from the finished movie itself, it speaks well of you and your ability to admire a piece of art for its own merits. I personally couldn't divorce my own personal feelings of disgust for the director from any positive feelings I may have for the movie itself. I feel like I should at least give the movie itself a chance but I just can't. Maybe after he's in jail. Maybe.
-
That's a good line yo.
-
Adults are talking here. Reduce yourself to your own insignificance, troll.
-
I can indeed detach myself from the director, and to be honest I do just want to enjoy the film adaptation of a book I really liked. <P> Personally I think this whole talkback has gotten a bit too heavy, and incendiary for me.
-
You can hate your boss and still work for him.<P>You can have little to no respect for your boss and still work for him.<P>You can think your boss is a fucking prick and still work for him, I know, I have had plenty of bosses who were complete assholes, but I still did my job.<P>I don't condemn those who have worked with Polanski, his name is still, unfortunately, prestigious when it comes to films so if people want to work for him, that's fine. It's a job. I personally could not work for a pedophile, but if others can separate that and just see it as a film with a prestigious director, more power to them. I don't see them as sick fucks.<P>A plea bargain is a cop out. It is a way to avoid maximum jail time. It is done, most of the time, when the criminal knows that if they go through a trial, they will most likely end up serving way more jail time then if they just plea guilty and cut themselves a deal. That is not accepting your responsibility in what you have done. It's a fucking cop out for a guilty criminal.<P>What I am saying is no statement on Polanski the film maker. It's on the person. He hasn't had a movie released in the US since, what 1999? I'm pretty sure that the only reason he has one coming out now is because he finally decided to fess up to the charges. Again, his motivation is professional, not to atone for his crime, but to clear the way to make more films in the US.<P>There is nothing you can tell me to make me think this is an ok guy, that he was wronged in some way, or is some kind of victim. He raped a child. Period. Anyone else, you or I, would have never gotten away with this. It is his name and his profession, oh and the fact that he fled to another fucking country to avoid answering for his crime, that has kept him safe thus far.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 10:05 a.m. CST
JARV, ASI - YOU GUYS MORE ENTERTAINING THAN KIDDIE PORN
by BringingSexyBack
I kid!!! <P>
-
It's not a hard question.<P>All you've done is spout the most ridiculous nonsense that I've seen in ages. We've had some sort of bullshit cultural excuse, the utter irrelevance of the judge, deification, and a whole host of shit, but you haven't had the moral bravery to answer the yes or no question. <P>This is giving a really unpleasant insight into the inner workings of your fractured psyche. Inside your head is a deeply unpleasant place, and as you're Portuguese even the soundtrack will be shit.
-
yeah, sure, two sides to every person. but really, are you going to convince me that a complete motherfucker as people are painting Polanski to be would make the movies he made? I'm sorry, but the work of a filmmake,r evne an hack, is an extention of who he is. And all of Polanski's movies have been pretty personal affairs. i seriously doubt a monster human being would make the movie he did. I really doubt that. I don't buy that. He's a man with flaws, yes. He once comited an unexcucable crime, yes. But would a mosnter do the movies he made? I really doubt it.
-
Say Ratner or Abrams had done what Polanski did would you be defending them in the same way? <P>Yes or No will be sufficient. <P>If you can't manage that, I'll take 1 baaa for yes and 2 baaas for no.
-
History is littered with Great artists that did horrible things. I may stand to be corrected on this one, but I'm pretty certain that Carvaggio was a fucking MURDERER!
-
You could say that Repulsion, a movie about a woman who goes insane because she was raped by her father as a child, and is almost forced upon later in her life by her landlord, might have presaged a few of the things that happened later on in Polanski's life.
-
The obesity crisis among the youth in America is a terrible thing. There's a one in three chance that the kid you're grooming may be a fatty.
-
I ain't grooming no kid. You take that back.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 10:13 a.m. CST
AsimovLives is a goat loving, apologizer for child rapists
by The_GoatFucker
Yes. I...Am...AsimovLives. And I am a loathsome excuse for a human being. <p> But goats love me and I loves them! Yes I do. Yes I do. Yes I do!
-
Don't let him away with this. Look at the content of that post. He's placing Polanski on a plinth because of his films, but is unable to separate the man from the work. <P>This is at the root of his horrendous apologism- he cannot stomach Polanski as scumbag, because Polanski is one of his idols, ergo he has nowhere to go but find tenuous, nebulous, and even downright loathsome excuses for the crime.
-
AssLives is actually using Polanski's movies as proof that he's not a child-molester. <p> A new low.
-
I owe Yack a Christmas present. Yeeks
-
Good point.<P>I hate to say this Asimov, but Jarv has a point, in the fact that if it were Abrams or Bay in this exact situation, you would most likely not defend them because you hate them. You have a admiration for Polanski as a film maker. You hate those other guys, can you honestly say you would defend them in the same way seeing as you hate them? I am just trying to understand your line of thinking.
-
a few milfs and barely legal shaved asian teens, but no kids
-
There's nothing in any porn that I've ever owned that equates to drugging and sodomising a 13 year old. <P>What the fuck is wrong with you?
-
Never realized what a sick fuck I am.
-
he won't respond to me, because I'm handing out a good old fashioned AICN TB beatdown. He'll respond to everyone else, but will ignore either of the two yes or no questions. <P>He's a worm, and he's painted himself into a ludicrous corner with this. His position is utterly indefensible, and the longer he keeps throwing out absurdities the more vile he's going to look.
-
Does that count?
-
in 15 years people will have a fetish that involves fucking an open wound, "get those stitches out bitch!"
-
could easily be a movie that he would make and it would be celebrated.
-
.. what a xenophobic motherfucker you are. Thank you, thank you very much. Cunt face!
-
What a deluded fool!!!! That shit is hillarious!!! Retard, thy name is Lost Jerk.
-
Just trying to figure out the thinking of people who defend this fucking guy and why.
-
you are a fucking worm that won't answer either of the 2 questions? <P>Answer them, coward.
-
Throw out random insults at me because you've fucked up, and you know you've fucked up. <P>Answer the questions, maggot.
-
Defending? Well, for my part, i'm not defending, i'm trying to have a balalnced view, based on facts. And also my notion that i seriously doubt the career of Polanski and the movies he made are the result of a monstrous personality. You know what i'm saying? Can you tell me with absolute certainty that a monstrous motherfucker would make such humane moving movies like TESS, DEATH AND THE MAIDEN or THE PIANIST, to name a few?
-
It would be very easy for you to prove Jarv wrong. Just answer his questions. Let's see if you have a spine or not.
-
Lost Jarv vs AsimovLives is always one of the funniest things that goes on in these talkbacks. Fight! Fight!
-
No you're not. That's the very opposite of what you're doing. What you are doing is trying to find any excuse regardless of how feeble to defend someone you idolise for a dreadful deed. <P>Answer the fucking questions, scumbag.
-
That poster takes the word "photoshop" to a whole new level.
-
...Ezra Pound's poetry would have procluded him from ever being a fascist. The brilliant novels of Knut Hamsun obviously made it impossible for him to be a big fan of Hitler. <p> Not being to separate the art from the artist when necessary is the sign of a feeble, one-dimensional and amoral mind.
-
And the second one he can easily lie for. <P>This is loathsome: <P>"And also my notion that i seriously doubt the career of Polanski and the movies he made are the result of a monstrous personality. You know what i'm saying? Can you tell me with absolute certainty that a monstrous motherfucker would make such humane moving movies like TESS, DEATH AND THE MAIDEN or THE PIANIST, to name a few?" <P>He's completely unable to separate the man from his work. It's disgusting that he effectively excuses and condones the crime because otherwise he cannot allow himself to like the films. <P>Not to mention that this argument doesn't make sense- I can't see any reason at all why a monstrous motherfucker COULDN'T make great films.
-
etc etc etc. <P>This is simple-minded gimboid thinking.
-
And eats babies for breakfast.<p> It's true.
-
when necessary is the sign of a feeble, one-dimensional and amoral mind."<p> You could say the same thing about you, Paz- with the possible exception of the amoral part- in regards to your hijacking of the Leni Riefenstahl obituary talkback in order to bring the pain to anyone who liked her movies. I don't reckon Asimov is the only one unable to separate the art from the artist in this talkback...
-
But you have been defending him and in your wayward thinking have been simplifying his crime.
-
I hear Asimovlives arse-rapes supine goats.
-
Did Polanski drug and rape a child?<p> Yes or No.
-
I said he was a sick person. Let me give you an example, from personal experience.<P>Years ago I had a stepfather. Everyone liked him. Seemed to be a genuinely nice guy. Caring, although maybe a bit odd. Well I find out that when my sister was 15, until the age of 18, he was fucking her. My sister. In the house I lived in with him and my mom and sis. Everyone was shocked. My sister was obviously very damaged by this and it took her many years to recover. <P>So i say to you, yes it is possible to be a sick fuck and yet seem to not be one to other people. Yes, Polanski can make the films he has made and still be a pedophile. Who knows what he has done since then. He just happened to get caught...once. We don't know and most likely never will if he has in fact done more since the initial offense. Chances are he has. Pedophiles arent a "one time and done" type of people. Lifestyles can be hidden, quite easily. Just because Polanski gives the appearance of a sensitive individual does not mean he is not a sick fuck behind closed doors. You don't know him personally you can only judge him by his public persona and by his films, and that can be VERY different from the private one.
-
What Polanski did is another matter, but the amount of insufferable, faux-self-righteous 'outrage' that erupts whenever his name is mentioned is tiresome. AICN alone is not guilty of this; it's an online phenomenon where people use their anonymity as a bully pulpit, despite some of these folk being either extremely ignorant or unpleasant individuals their own damn selves. See also any mention of Michael Jackson, Woody Allen, John Landis (Twilight Zone accident), etc. <p> Was/is Polanski a great filmmaker? - yes, and anyone who denies that is bullshitting themselves. Does that excuse what he did? No - but it has absolutely NOTHING, in my opinion, to do with the films themselves, and whether anyone should watch them/own them. Some of these clowns seem to be insinuating we should burn every copy of Chinatown or Repulsion. Fucking bullshit. Even if the guilt of the director was intrinsically tied to them, those films aren't just Polanski films - what about the work of the other artisans who starred in or worked on those films? Are they to be penalised too, by proxy? Don't be ridiculous.<p>Another thing that's worth pointing out is this - half of the 70's crew who hung around Polanski probably fucked under-age girls, too, whether knowingly or unknowingly. You can bet Nicholson or Warren Beatty or any of that lot also were 'guilty' of some crime or other. They just didn't get caught, therefore you don't know about it. Therefore you don't condemn. Out of sight, out of mind. Doesn't make what Polanski did right, but realistically, it's all got little to do with morality, and everything to do with media scandal and public notoriety. Polanski should have served his time back in the 70's, even though the judge was corrupt. I wonder, though, if that would have truly made any difference in the eyes of his critics. I've got a feeling no, and I think,ironically, he might have been even more reviled.
-
Are you also familiar with cases of murderers who were wholly nice people, volunteering at church and serving the community? Don't tell me monster human beings aren't capable of doing nice things like that! <p> Like I said, two sides to every person. Just bc Polanski is an artist doesn't mean he's not capable of some very. Dark. Shit.
-
"FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!"
-
You remember what DocPaz said back in 2003? Insanity!
-
I can't spoeak for Abrams, because despiste his failure as a filmmaker, and his tireless quest to promote himself as a genious, the truth is that he does gained devoted and loyal colaborators, both crew and actors. So, while i think Abrams is a shit filmmaker and an obnoxious self-promoter, there has to be soemthing right about him that comands such loyalty. Michael Bay, however, is an obnoxious a motherfucker, and everybody knows that. He has absolutly no friends in Hollywood or elsewhere. And his movies are attrocious unhumane piece of shits that demonstrate a disturbed hateful mind. Nobody knows of any sexual wrong-doing from him. but if Bay was ever involved in a sexual scandal like Polanski's, i wouldn't be too suprised. And then he's a terrible filmmaker. He has everything going agaisnt him. Polanski, however, from all acounts, is a well mannered, intelligent and culture man, and his mvies betray an great talent at filmmaking and agreat respect for audience's intelligence. Am i biased in favour of Polanski? You could say that. but the mor eimportant thing is, the facts point to a situation where a corrupt fame hungry judge comited an injustice toward Polanski's and the former minor too, with his unjust actions. That's the point. And really, i'm really, really suprised and this is all turning out. Seems people don't want facts to be in the way of their preconceived notions.
-
Tell me whewre in my posts i have said that Polanski didn't comited the crime and that is was not a shameful act. Tell me what posts i did that. Pleas,e friend, read what I REALLY POST, and not the deturped lies from Lost jerk, OK? Can you do that for me? Tell me where i ever defended the crime. Tell me where that is to be found.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 11:11 a.m. CST
So Asimov, its true, you can't separate art from the artist?
by D.Vader
You wouldn't be surprised if Bay was in a sex scandal bc his movies are so bad. Come on now, dude.<p> Besides, you missed the fact that Bay *does* have a loyal crew too.
-
Did Polanski drug and rape a child?<p> Yes or No.
-
You gotta keep sharp if you're gonna do battle with him.<p> But yeah, it is a special kind of sad that I remember some old talkback from 7 years ago, but if you asked me WHO I dated in 2003 (if anyone) I'd come up with nada.
-
And actually KNOWING they did it is two different things. Does that make the people who did it and did not get caught any better? No of course it doesn't, but how can you condemn someone on speculation, because that's all it is, your just assuming that others around Polanski in the 70's were doing the same thing. You don't know for sure. Polanski got caught. Until someone gets caught speculate all the hell you want. It means nothing until there is proof. It is is ever found out that Nicholson did it, yea i'd call him a sick fuck too. Why should I condemn someone for something that I cannot be certain they did? I should just ASSUME they did based on circumstances, and condemn them on that basis? That's narrow minded thinking, sorry.
-
He has long talklback memory. One fellow talkbacker got banned back in 2008 bc Beaks held a grudge against something the man said at least 6 months earlier. Then I was accidentally banned too bc I was in the conversation as well.
-
...I know you dislike me as much as I dislike you, but how about you post something that actually makes sense? I've never attacked Riefenstahl's artistic merit, only tools who, like AssLives, can't enjoy the art without having to make excuses for the artist, whether it's Riefenstahl or Polanski.
-
At work and gotta head to my next destination....see you all shortly....play nice now...LOL
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 11:16 a.m. CST
there has to be soemthing right about him that comands such loya
by Lost Jarv
You know that the Kray's loved their mum don't you? <P>Fuck's sake.
-
Right on.
-
By implying this is all the judge's fault and by saying lots of Rockers do the same thing and yadda yadda yadda. I don't think this is a case where you can successfully do this "balancing act" you claim to be attempting. Everything you say comes across as a defense. Just sayin'.
-
Just pause while I get some more.
-
Has McGregor given a good performance since Trainspotting?
-
"Am i biased in favour of Polanski? You could say that. but the mor eimportant thing is, the facts point to a situation where a corrupt fame hungry judge comited an injustice toward Polanski's and the former minor too, with his unjust actions. " <P>All you're doing there is trying to deflect away from the original crime. Answer the question, maggot.
-
But more to the point, if a gang of men rape a woman, is the crime less because it spread out amongst several, or is it just as severe? <p> Of course it is just as severe, perhaps even moreso.<p> Only those looking to justify such actions will bring up 'everyone did it' as an excuse.
-
Usually can't be arsed with these type of tennis-matches but Jarv and the Doc have a point: Roman as a man is pitiful, pathetic, damaged goods (backstory etc) and did something truly awful. Maybe several things, this is the only one he got nailed for. End of. As a moviemaker, he's capable of amazing things. But just because you love his professional output, Asimov, and the humanity displayed therein, you can't simply find excuses in that for his personal behaviour. Doesn't work. It's a split: good work, bad man. Never the twain.
-
Did Polanski drug and rape a child?<P> Yes or No.
-
I've actually been quoting YOU!
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 11:25 a.m. CST
What are you talking about, rogueleader66?
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
I said nothing about 'condemning' anybody else who 'allegedly' did anyhing - I simply pointed out that this sort of thing went on constantly in the decadent Hollywood of the '70's. I was using examples - I've no idea if ol' Jack or anyone else was actually also guilty of this. And I certainly didn't condone Polanski's crime. That's not the point. <p> The point is this - what Polanski did has been magnified and villified way out of proportion, so much so that it has ceased to become a matter of morality, and more a matter of sensationalism - especially among the hordes of online finger-waggers who seem to know very little of the case (not saying yourself), and appear to be little more than blood-thirsty morons who really couldn't care less about 'justice' or a young child wronged, than simply jumping on the bandwagon like a group of nutty religious fundamentalists to cast stones.
-
"Nothing worse than geeks who can't separate the artist from the art. Riefenstahl was indeed one of the most brilliant filmmakers of all time, but why must one therefore see fit to glorify the artist as a person? Somehow projecting your own values onto the persona of an artist whose wortk you've taken a fancy to truly is about as insecure as you can get." <p> That's from the Leni talkback.
-
...from the art? <p> Come on, that's a no-brainer. <p> We humans compartmentalize. It's what we do. That's why the guy who dotes over his children can guard the deathcamp where other people's children are being murdered. That's why the guy who treats his mother and wife like saints can also be a rapist. These people aren't pretending (usually). They have made a break. Do the captains of finance who have gutted companies and hollowed out our entire economy think they're evil? Nah, they think doing what they do is justified, and righteous, and they have swallowed that belief whole. I mean really, could a man have intentionally defrauded investors and also given millions to charity? Yeah, apparently so. <p> So no, there's no problem with a real monster also being something else entirely, and one of those things can be an artist, good or bad. Anyone remember In The Belly of The Beast? That moving, beautiful account of life in an American prison? Anybody remember what that guy did after he got out? <p> Yeah, Polanski is capable of making a damned fine movie. I am also sure he is capable of purely altruistic thoughts, holds philosophies about life that any of us could agree with, even puts down the lid after he's used the toilet. But he also did something extraordinarily vile, something that, had it been done to a child of mine, I would have traded my freedom to ensure he suffered for. <p> And the thing is, no matter how you compartmentalize or rationalize, no matter what value you may have as child, parent, executive or artist, you own everything you did. <p> Trying to excuse him for ownership of what he did is wrong. And it is an injustice that he has successfully fled punishment for it. It doesn't matter what films he's made. Doesn't matter what personal tragedies he's endured. And although one would expect Polanski to rationalize and compartmentalize what he's done, and perhaps even accept it, to some degree, from those who personally know and care for him... <p> ...to do it just because he made some movies you like is kind of pathetic. That was a real human life the great man Polanski damaged and interrupted and changed the course of forever just to fulfill some ephemeral moment of lust or empowerment. Making good movies doesn't buy him a pass. Personal tragedies don't either. <p> Really, if you think it does, you're missing some kind of important things.
-
Bookmark this talkback, dude. By hook or by crook I'll find an example that'll bring you down to Chinatown. Oh yes, even if it takes me another seven years!
-
He drugged, raped and perhaps sodomised a 13 year old child. Please tell me how what he did has been magnified beyond that extreme.
-
He admited as such, so yes he did. and he subjected himself to punishement. He made a plea bargain with THE PROSECUTION. He willingly submited himself to a prision sentense with psychiatric avaluation. A fame hungry corrupt judge decided to be harsher then the prosecution sanctioned bargan because he wanted to be in the spot-light at the expense of the misery of the former child and the fame of Polanski, who actually got woldwide famous more because his wife and unborn baby was murdered and cut to pieces in his own home then because of his own movies. The prosecution itself though the judge did a great wrong to Polanski and advised him to leave the country.<br><br>If you are trying to make all this deal a black and white affair, you are doing a wrong. This is reality, not a movie. And this is the point that i'm trying to make. And the sanctinomious asses are trying to turn and disturt it into something it's not. If you want to see all this merely as a black and white affair, that's your deal, i cna't do anything about it. But you are doing a wrong, and you are helping perpectuating a lie. Me, i can't see all this as merely as a black and white situation, because it isn't. I don't need to be a supporter of Polanski or the crime to see the wrong-doings done to him by a crazy corrupt judge. TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT.
-
Like: DRS (drugged, raped, sodomized). Reading that over and over again is making me a feel a little woozy.
-
If you are going to use argumentation based on emotionalisms, then there is nothing to discuss about. By that you automatically kill it. So, what's the point, really?
-
I didn't know about Jack Henry Abbot's (In the Belly of the Beast) crime after he was released. I liked the book, but yeah, I just read about that on wiki...good illustration of your point of a talented artist being criminal. I read that Susan Sarandon supported him even after he was caught for murder after his release...that's kind of messed up. Though I'd still fuck her 60-something year old pussy just to watch her googly eyes bulge out...and her titties are still hanging nicely.
-
I think he came to his senses is more like it.
-
Outstanding post, sir.
-
Why is this so difficult for you? <P>It's a yes or no question. The following paragraph is apologist nonsense. <P>But, for the sake of completeness, here we go again: <P>1)"He made a plea bargain with THE PROSECUTION. He willingly submited himself to a prision sentense with psychiatric avaluation." <P>This is the act of someone that is guilty but wants a lesser sentence. <P>2)"A fame hungry corrupt judge decided to be harsher then the prosecution sanctioned bargan because he wanted to be in the spot-light at the expense of the misery of the former child and the fame of Polanski, who actually got woldwide famous more because his wife and unborn baby was murdered and cut to pieces in his own home then because of his own movies. The prosecution itself though the judge did a great wrong to Polanski and advised him to leave the country." <P>I've already told you this, but the judge has to approve plea bargains- The rest of your attack on him is opinion and bullshit. Secondly, Sharon Tate has nothing to do with the price of onions, and you only bring it up to attempt to cadge sympathy for Polanski. Thirdly, What the prosecution did, I would term corruption rather than Polanski being wronged. <P>3)It is a black and white affair. He DRS'd the girl and hasn't shown any remorse that I know of (please correct me if I'm wrong) and furthermore hasn't been punished in any way. <P>You are a fucking maggot that attempted to weasel out of a fairly simple question. <P>Now try for question 2.
-
By the way.
-
You are the one using emotionalism. Your highly emotional defense of Polanski, is spread throughout this TB. <p> Your accusation that the judge was corrupt and did something wrong, because he correctly threw out a far too lenient sentence -that only a celebrity would have received, is proof that you can not separate your emotional love of Polanski's films, from the cold blooded truth of his crimes.
-
to bring up Sharon Tate. <P>Foolish youngling.
-
A corrupt judge had ulterior personal motives other then aply law and justice, so Polanski was never subjected to a fair trial. Polanski did not pay for his crime. The victim didn't got the satisfaction to have the wrong-doing done to her punished by law. Justice was not served. Everybody lost. And all because a corrupt judge decided to abuse his powers and his position to get self-promoted and fame. Yeah, in all this affair, justice was never done. AND THAT'S THE WHOLE BLOODY POINT!
-
Isn't it a bit odd that AssLives finds the fake sex between two computer-generated individuals in Avatar to be more offensive than Polanski DRSing a real 13-year-old girl?
-
and he's been absolutely thrashed in this TB. He's still utterly incapable of making the distinction between the man's body of work and his criminal actions.
-
Yeah, because he LEFT THE COUNTRY before one could be set up.
-
Incorrect. If you have read my posts, i go for a balanced view. I go for the facts, and not the lies and myths that have been perpectuated. If there's any passion in my words, is my passion to not go for black and white easy bullshit, but to go closer to the truth as possible. And my complete bewilderment that people still cling to fallshoods because that's the bullshit they have believed for years and years and have no interest to know the truth.
-
Yes, that's the whole point of extraditing him and giving him a trial. Do you disagree or agree to that, AsimovLives?
-
Which "fallshoods", exactly?
-
Set up is the right description of what the judge was about to do him. So, yeah, he left... as the prosecution advised him to do. THE PROSECUTION. How many more times do i need to say that? IT WAS A SET UP INDEED. For a corrupt judge to get famous at other's expenses. Set up indeed.
-
Let Roman Polanski's name be Raul Jackson and lets see if you guys wanna give him a free pass for raping a young girl. Hypocritcal fucks.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 11:51 a.m. CST
Gotta agree Jarv, that last post of his was 'round the bend
by toadkillerdog
Just a tad emotional there Asi? <p>
-
What falsehoods is everyone clinging too around here? I'm confused what you're referring to.
-
You're accidentally right there. Justice was never done in this instance, but I'm going to have to do it again, I suppose: <P>"A corrupt judge had ulterior personal motives other then aply law and justice, so Polanski was never subjected to a fair trial. Polanski did not pay for his crime. The victim didn't got the satisfaction to have the wrong-doing done to her punished by law. Justice was not served. Everybody lost. And all because a corrupt judge decided to abuse his powers and his position to get self-promoted and fame. Yeah, in all this affair, justice was never done. AND THAT'S THE WHOLE BLOODY POINT!" <P>1)There was never going to be a trial. It was a plea bargain- arguably, what the judge did meant that a trial was more likely. <P>2)Once again, please provided some proof for this assertion that the Judge was corrupt. This is your opinion, and I'm getting tired of kicking you for it. <P>3)The whole "bloody point" is that you have spent all day defending and excusing the DRS, when clearly in the wrong and you keep going back to spurious and emotive reasoning to protect one of your sacred cows. <P>You, sir, are a cunt.
-
Load the jury box with friends and family who would do what he commanded? That's not how it works here in America...
-
...for AssLives. First he gets outed as someone who finds Zoe Saldana as repulsive as dogs, horses and donkeys (but not goats) in the Massa TB, and then he gets outed as a molester-defending fabulist who can't despise anyone whose art he loves because he thinks it will reflect poorly on him.
-
Many people who meet the judge of Polanski's case know and testified he was a mean spirited person eager to get famous. It's not my opinion, it's fact based on testimony from people who knew him, including the reporter on the case, who once meet the judge in a hotel room, reported that he made a pass on her, and then small taked to her and asked what sentense he should aply to Polanski. The man was crazy and an immoral corrupt creep. He was a disgrace to his profession and to Justice.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 11:56 a.m. CST
"I go for the facts, and not the lies and myths that have been p
by Lost Jarv
Christ, you're bloody NOT going for the facts. I could just as easily argue that Polanski's celebrity and money enabled him to buy off the corrupt prosecutor and receive a too lenient sentence. <P>That's an argument that has as much, if not more, validity than the tripe you keep repeating. <P>It doesn't matter how many times or how loudly you scream it, you are in the fucking wrong. <P>Maggot.
-
Check it out.
-
Regardless of the judge, jury or punnishment he still RAPED A FUCKING CHILD. Nothing changes that. <P> Supporting/promoting his movies is supporting/promoting a child rapist. The artist cannot be separated from the art in this case because he directly gains from it. <P> If you're happy supporting a child rapist fine. That's your problem.
-
and I think he was right to throw out the plea. <P>What is wrong with you? It must be something major. You don't happen to have an extra chromosome or something, do you?
-
Fleeing the country was still ILLEGAL.
-
and if it's made by a biased source, then I'm going to come back and metaphorically beat you into a TB coma.
-
But far more importantly, JUSTICE WAS NEVER SERVED.
-
"What would you do if this happened to your little girl or baby sister?" Well, I'd be incredibly sad that it happened, and I'd want Polanski in jail for a spell, just so's it didn't happen to anyone else. But I would not, under any circumstances, go all Death Wish on someone- even in my head- for doing something to my loved ones. This thirst for vengeance is just adding one base desire onto another. Justice, for me, is detaining a criminal so that he can no longer harm others. It is not wanting to fuck them up until they beg for mercy. If seeing someone cruelly punished makes you feel better because they harmed you and your own, then I'd say you're surrendering to your inner-sadist, which is what the criminal did when he committed the crime to begin with. All these crazy revenge fantasies on this talkback would be pretty concerning if I wasn't so used to AICN.
-
I've just looked at the IMDB page, and it doesn't look good for you using that as proof. You may as well cite Fahrenheit 911 as proof that Bush was behind 9/11
-
" But it also severely underplayed the severity of the crime by excluding much of the witness's grand-jury testimony while playing up Polanski's personal pain. "
-
"Was the judge illegally influenced? Most likely. Was he obsessed with celebrities? Who cares? Polanski a talented man with a difficult past? Of course. But that doesn't change the crime. And as far as rape and criminal cases go, there is a lot less ambiguity here than most. "
-
Yes. But I don't buy into the idea that you are supporting his crime by seeing his films. The two can be separated, and I will gladly watch his films because he's a talented artist. If you boycott his films, will you also boycott those actors who choose to work with him...the list includes Johnny Depp, Harrison Ford, Ewan McGregor, and many more?
-
Really a thoughtful, balanced post. Still, while I condemn what Polanski did, I can't help but love Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby and his MacBeth. Now I'm not misconstruing your argument. It's just that there several people who condemn Polanski and insist you reject all of his work. Sorry, I can't do that. Jack Kerouac was likely an accessory to a murder, but I'll still find time to revisit On the Road or The Dharma Bums. An artist's work becomes its own thing, and this is perhaps even more true of a film, where one person's vision may drive the enterprise, but the work of many others brings it to fruition.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 12:02 p.m. CST
SOME POOR SCHMUCK KISSES HIS GIRLFRIEND AT NEWARK AIRPORT
by BringingSexyBack
And Senators are calling for his head. Had he DRSed a little girl he might have been given a medal.
-
with the morals of a sewer rat. <P>Christ on a fucking moped. I'm now actually getting bored of this.
-
molesting stuff as their only weapon agaisnt Polanski." What sort of fucking comment is that? You think that isn't the worst thing a human being can do??
-
"Perhaps the most fascinating fact (and this was something I did not know) came in the reveal that, when a new judge was assigned to the case in 1997, he agreed to throw out the charges if Polanski were to return to the States -- on one condition: that the hearing be televised. Because of that, Polanski decided against coming back." <P>Biased, unbalanced, manipulative and not good for your argument.
-
origin of name.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 12:09 p.m. CST
I'm surprised no one's talking about the faulty premise
by Coughlins Laws
of this movie... I'm not going to relive the debate, but I think it's funny that with all the hysteria about closing down Guantanamo Bay, some of the terrorists are complaining that they don't want to go to an Illinois prison, they'd rather stay there!!! It's hilarious...
-
Polanski in the throat sometime soon.
-
... it doesn't agree with you, of course. Can you actually have an open mind about this, though? As in, a really open mind as in critical though and not just swallow any bullshit thrown at you? There are facts that well knows: A crime was comited, the crminal admited to his crimes, a plea bargain was set up and agreeded by the prosecution so that the crime would be sentensed, and the whole affair was presided by a judge with a shaddy reputation and a desire to get well publicited cases about famous Hollywood people. The judge was Laurence J. Rittenband, and he also preside over Elvis Presley divorse among other high profile cases. Those are facts and known circunstances about Polaski's affair. To dismiss or over-look them is ignorance at best, intellectual dishonesty at worst. You do not need to agree with the documentary, but at the very least you can realise there's more to this affrair then just the black and white case of a monster running scott-free around the world.
-
Asi started to use it, but wisely abandoned it. Since then, I've seen it appear in 2 other posts. <P>Look, just because *insert x number of famous people* were doing it at the time, it doesn't condone Polanski doing it. <P>Christ, I know mentioning the Nazi's is the fastest fucking way to lose an argument, but if it did excuse the action then there would be a shit load of camp guards saying "everyone else was doing it". That sort of shit doesn't wash when kids try to use it as an excuse, why would it pass muster for an adult?
-
1.) Great talent is not a legal defense. Yes, Polanski is talented, but it doesn't mean he should be treated any different than anyone else. <br><br> 2.) Who cares if he is classified as a pediphile or not? He raped a child. He has a history of dating teenage girls. He is scum any way you look at it.<br><br> 3.)the famous HBO documentary is slanted and contains a lot of incorrect facts and one of their most damning interviews on the court process that supposably made Polanski a victim was a bunch of BS and recanted. <br><br> 4.) The victim not wanting to pursue the case any longer is irrelevant. Most rape victims just want to put the whole thing behind them and are willing to drop the case. Add the fact that the European press has been brutal to her over the years and done what the US press rarely if ever do, out the victim without her consent; it has been an incredible burden to her and her family. I don't blame her for wanting to move on, but it isn't her decision.
-
...I could scarcely agree more.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 12:12 p.m. CST
Coughlins Laws, that's because they're afraid of meeting Linc th
by FamousEccles
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 12:12 p.m. CST
Coughlins Laws, that's because they're afraid of meeting Linc th
by FamousEccles
-
them mentioned it. <P>And look at the quotes vader threw up. <P>Find something else. If you can say for certain that your accusation is true, there must be something out there. <P>Not to mention that neither the Judge or Polanski appear in that film.
-
I am sure that every actor and crew that works with Polanski are familiar with his case. If they choose to work with Polanksi, they must risk suffering the consequences of backlash for working with him.
-
If anything, that makes my argument, that the judge wanted, above all else, fame for himself at other's expenses. That's not the way to aply justice. Cases like this are ot be trialed at closed doors. The judge wanted to make a circus out of it. that's not the way to aply justice, that's a fucking circus. If anything, that alone tells what a shameless self-promoting dishonest creep that judge was. That a judge even would come up with such a bullshit is proof enough of how mentally unballanced he was.
-
Don't let this cunt off the hook with this. <P>He's a mendacious goatfucking, kiddie-diddling supporting cunt and needs a solid beat down.
-
It was a DIFFERENT FUCKING JUDGE. <P>I'm certain you've got an extra chromosome. It's the only possible explanation.
-
I'm wondering if I could get it through his thick skull if it was in a language he understood. <P>And that's a hilarious piece of self-pwnership in that judge rant, by the way.
-
As I have posted before, it is entirely up to the judges discretion to accept or reject a plea, and the defendant who does not know this is a fool. <p> Polanski negotiated a plea that was given to him soley on the basis of his celebrity A non-celebrity would have never been given such a deal. The judge, regardless his past, correctly threw it out because it was an insult to justice. <p. I gave the M.Vic example, where he negotiated a 1 year plea, but the judge gave him 2. Did he fell the country? No. Your argument is totally without merit. <p. And to anyone who thinks that just because a group of people commit a crime it is somehow less criminal like I said before, just because a group of people commit a crime, it does not lessen the their guilt. If a woman was gang raped, does that mean that the individual rapists are less guilty because all of them participated? hell no. So please drop this 'rock and rap artists' have sex with underage girls defense. That is bull.
-
Unless you're saying that Asimov is goatse (you know, the site with all the tubgirls and stuff). Goatse is the same in Portuguese as it is in English.
-
you could also boycott: <p> Every cinema or TV channel that has screened Polanski's work for the last few decades <p> Everyone on the petition to free him (Including Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen) <p> The works of every famous Paedo artist (including Michaelangelo, Michael Jackson, Gary Glitter and Woody Allen) <p> Every religion that supports the idea that humans are property and children are sexual currency (Including Judaism and Islam) and EVERY FOLLOWER of those religions <p> and let's not forget the biggest Paedo in Aeons: <p> God (Christ's Father) Who statutory raped the virgin Mary (recognised by leading biblical scholars to be anywhere between nine and sixteen) without her KNOWLEDGE and impregnated her with a messiah. <p> It doesn't matter how famous these paedos and their sympathisers are, let's boycott the lot of them. It's the only way they'll learn.
-
The "injustices" against Polanski have nothing to do with the crime he committed. <p> So what exactly is your point in bringing them up? To make us feel sad for the guy?
-
Did he flee the country? <p> No. <p> Your defense is totally without merit on this point, Asi.
-
13 yo balloon knots for everyone
-
....I am sorry to interject this here, considering the topic being discussed, but before I go I have to say how much I love the source material from which you've drawn your name.
-
Pretty much what I was trying to say.<p>Also, these arguments are a waste of time. By and large, most people here don't seem to properly read other people's posts. That's true of the TB's in general, but is worse here when people are actually trying to have a discussion about a serious issue. I've seen several postings here (including my own) taken out of context and mis-represented in the points they were trying to make. What is the point in trying to have a rational discussion for once when it becomes a case of who bellows the loudest or who has the biggest agenda to push? The only thing that's certain is that people will believe whatever they want to believe.
-
You really don't want to be on the side of defending Polanski. I know Europeans are generally in support of him. But the main interviewee in the documentary on which the whole "Polanski got railroaded" position is based has come out and publicly admitted he lied about the case and about the judge.
-
You sir, are a scholar and a gentlemen. I mean that. You post on Polanski, was one of the finest posts I have read in a while. The fact that you also appreciate The Black Company, makes you a gentlemen of the highest repute! <p> I truly love those books. I stumbled across the Annals of the Black Company, in a second hand store, way back in my Marine Corp days. Glen Cook is a shamefully under- appreciated talent. His fantasy and his science fiction, are some of the best I have ever read. <p> Have you read his Dragon Never Sleeps?
-
I'm focusiong on justice, nothing wrong in that. And yes, even if you comited a crime but you do not get a fair trial, that's an injustice done which help nobody. TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT.
-
I'm sure there's a six degrees of Roman Polanski thing going on somewhere. Harrison Ford supports Polanski so let's boycott all Ford movies. Spielberg is friends with a padophille supporter so let's boycott all his movies too. And of course Scorsese as well. <p>Burn 'em all! Heresy! Padophilles and child rapists are everywhere! I'm going to gouge my own eyes out with a rusty spoon because I once watched Polanski's mega-flop Pirates movie! I am therefore an indirect supporter of this vile man! The horror! The horror!
-
and your source is whom?
-
I'm battling for a baalnced view, and what i got is accusation of being pro-Polaski, and worst, pro-crime he comited? Do you even understand the insanity onf that? That's fucked up! Tell me wehre i ever said that Piolasnki never comited the crime. Tell me where i ever said that. I'M PRO-JUSTICE, which was something that was never served in Polanski's and his victim's case. DO YOU GET IT NOW? does that makes me a so-called "pro-Polanski"? What kind of fucked up bulslhity is that? To say i'm a so-called "pro-Polasnki" says mroe about the dogmatic extreme of close-mindedness of people then anything i have ever said in here. In fact, i'm getting pretty scared by the minds and opinions of some in here. Very fucking scared. reason and informed opinions thrown to the trash can in favour of rampatn over-emotionalism based on ignorance thrist for blood. Night Of The Long Knives have crossed my mind more then once about all this talkback.<br><br>And the implication that europeans are more accepting of child rape is beyond insulting, it's very fucking stupid. If anything, we are far more harsh and punishing about it. Tell me which country in europe ever had a law whicha allowed 12 years old girls to marry adults. Fuck's sake, the bullshit some people say about europeans! Talk about extreme crass ignorance! Fuck's sakes!!
-
Boycotted. No more Marion Cotillard until she PUBLICLY DENOUNCES paedophilia. And no more croissants.
-
Forget it, dude. I'm sure if he had paused before he had wrote that, he wouldn't even had dared.
-
Hope the movies good.
-
Since Polanski was born there.
-
With Sigourney Weaver and Ben Kingsley....brilliant. *adds it to instant netflix queue*
-
Thank's for watching my latest movie America. I hope you enjoyed it. I'm a bit pissed off at you lot though - if only I'd been born Michael Jackson, that way I could fuck all the little kids I wanted and you Yanks would still love me. What do you mean, I'd have to be dead first? Are you crazy? How can I get my dick up some childs asshole when I'm dead? You fuckers are insane. That's it! You can all go fuck yourselves. And I was lying about hoping you liked my movie, I couldn't give two shits what you think. Next time I'll just film a plate of my shit and give you that instead. Vive La France. P.S. can I photograph any of your daughters? I promise I'll go easy on them.
-
One of Sigourney's best performances.
-
I'm a court clerk, in the criminal section. That means that ocasionally (thankfully, quite rarely), a criminal process about a child abuse and child rape passes through my hands. Because as a court clerk, i have to implement the necessary mechanisms for the conducto of the process to trial and afterwards for aplying the sentense. And i tell you, you have no idea how fucking disgusting, irritating, upsetting, revolting and soul-destrying it is to to have to read the police report descriptions of those crimes. Because i have to do that for my line of work. You have no diea how.... well, words escape me. None of you here know how it is. None of you here know better then i do about this sorry, soul-destroying subjects. Adn this is why it's imperative that TTEU JUSTICE is served in this cases. And it doesn't get done with the kind of attitude that the corruipt judge that presided Polasnkis' case, or the revenge blood-lust attitudes that many demosntrate in here, with little knowledge of the truth of what really happened. To know what realy, happened, to know the truth, and to implement the most isempt means and enviroment for this type of trials is beyond a necessity, it's imperative. Justice will not be done otherwise. And the best way to fuck all this is to turn such a sensitive case into a media circus. That way does not lie justice. Justice and imparciality are the first things out of the window when that happens.<br><br>a terial about such a thing as child melestation and child abuse and child rape is a soul-dammage business for everybody involved. It's ugly by it's own nature. Adn this is why it's imperative to be the most level about allt his. This is the type of cases which impartiality is of the uttermost importance. It's in cases like that that we as humans need to rasie to our highest self we can. This is such cases where, as Lincoln said, the angels of our nature need to win out over the animal in us. And really, justice is only served for the victim this way. Justice has to win. And it doesn't win if things are handled like in Polanki's case. You can bet on that.
-
Polanski should be brought to trial for his crimes so justice can be served, right?
-
Goat in portuguese is "Bode". The doe is called "cabra". "Cabrito" is the kidding.
-
All of you engaged in this rape debate, there's a movie most of you probably haven't seen, but should. It's called "Tape", a Richard Linklater film from about 9 years ago starring Ethan Hawke, Robert Sean Leonard, and Uma Thurman. It all takes place entirely within a hotel room, yet it's totally captivating, as these three old high school chums reminisce, and then Ethan's character forces them to discuss a date rape which may or may not have occurred. Great film, and those of you who spend hours debating this sort of thing will especially like it.
-
for giving us Polanski's tragic childhood. <p> Nobody had better watch Pacific.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 1:07 p.m. CST
D.Vader, fuck's sakes, that's what i have been saying....
by AsimovLives
... since there fucking begining!!! Why the fuck people kepp on not reading the posts? Fuck's sake!!! Do you know how fucking insulting that shit is?<br><br>My whole point sicn ethe begining is that JUSTICE WAS NEVER SERVED! How fucking hard is that to understand? Really,how hard is that to understand? Did I by mistake wrote all my previous posts in Portuguese? Really, what the hell, man!! God dammit!!!
-
I have heard of that movie, and it is highly praised indeed. I even read a review which praised bvery highly the movie and everybody's performances, specially Ethan Hawke, by a reviewer who usually hated his guts.
-
Just for the record, I never accused you of "pro Polanski's crime" that would make you a disgusting person. I am trying to understand your point of view but am having a hard time doing so.<P>Polanski served 42 days of a 90 day psychiatric evaluation when he was released. 42 fucking days for raping a child. THATS IT. You are right in your notion that justice was not served. 42 fucking days for the rape of a child? Do not try to say that ANYONE else in the same circumstance would be treated the same. If it was a normal non celebrity person like you or I, they would have been in jail a hell of a lot longer than Polanski was. So, what exactly was wrong with a judge deciding that 42 DAYS was not enough for the crime committed? You say he was corrupt and trying to get famous. But in all seriousness, are you really saying that the 42 days he served was a sufficient punishment? Was the judge a putz in the fact that his initial sentence was way too lenient and that he should have given him more jail time? Absolutely. But the fact remains that when he discovered he was not gonna get off as easy as he first thought, Polanski fled the country to a place where he could not be extradited.<P>This other notion being put forth (not by you by others) that the 70's were decadent and everyone was doing what Polanski did is just flat out insane. So because you ASSUME that others were doing it, makes it ok? Because there may have been teenage girls posing as older to fuck celebrities (of their own free will) makes what Polanski did ok? The justification that "everyone else did it" is bullshit, it doesn't make it ok, for those who did it and didn't get caught as well as Polanski.<P>Turd - I cannot denounce Poland, first off, that's just dumb. It's like denouncing Germany and everyone in it because Hitler was born there. Besides I'm Polish LOL. I also do not call for boycotts or any of that other stuff, I just don't understand anyone making Polanski out to be some kind of victim, that's all. He served 42 days for the rape of a child, no one else would get away with that if there are not a famous person, no one.
-
You've never said once, as far as I can tell, that Polanski should be brought back to face justice. In fact, what you argued VERY early on, was that we should just let him be bc the victim dropped the charges. <p> Its EXTREMELY hard to understand that your point from the beginning was that "justice was never served" when you say things like the following: <p>"if people keep on harping about Polanski as a child molester, they do it out of their own deliberate ignorance." (which suggests he did not molest a child) <p>"The victim already dropped the charges. In fact, everybody involved with the trial have witness in favour of Polanksi, the former minor and her mother too. All have petioned, the former child and the prosecution, in favour of Polanksi. That's really very telling. Very, very telling." (sounds like you think he should be let go) <p>"The real context of the situation is that a corrupt judge with a great desire to get famous abused his powwers to incorrectly aplied the law and completly by-passed the joint plea bargan made by the prosecution and Polanksi to serve his own self-interests." (sounds like you're defending him). <p> Really, nowhere do you ever suggest Polanski should be brought back so justice can be served. In fact, you make it sound like he was served a great injustice. THAT is why its so fucking hard to understand you.
-
Death And The Maiden is one of those stories that, i think, only a chiliean could had writen.
-
Just read one of your posts that you made while I made my last one. So you agree that he needs to be brought to trial to pay for his crime? Is that what you are saying? If so then my apologies if I misread what you said, it seemed as if you were saying he had already served his proper sentence.
-
... is that there's no justice for Polasnki to face. Because there was never judtice done. Because of the hypocrite shennigans of the corrupt demented judge. There is no justice for Polasnki to face. and that's why he has refuseecd to return to USA. It's why he has escaped USA. It's why THE PROSECUTION EVEN ADVISED HIM TO GET OUT OF THE CROUNTY. Because JUSTICE WAS NEVER SERVED. And as such, a crime is still unpunished because a fucked up judge comited an injustice. His injustice allowed another injustice to never have met it's due punishement. GOT IT NOW? Try to udnerstand this, there's more ways to comit injustice. there's the injustice of the criminal act, andthere's the injustice of a judical wrong of the very judges who should aply justice and not their own personal desires for ulterior motives other then justice. GOT IT NOW? TWO WRONGS WERE COMITED. YOU CAN'T MAKE A RIGHT ON A WRONG BY DOING ANOTHER WRONG. JUSTICE IS ABOUT DOING RIGHT ABOUT A WRONG. GOT IT NOW?
-
You work as a court clerk? God I hope your spelling is much better than it is here. Otherwise, the jury may find the defendant giulty.
-
Steppin on my own damn punch lines...
-
The whole pot, kettle, black thing. But good joke.
-
Of course that's what i have been saying. A FAIR TRIAL. A FAIR TRIAL. Let me repeat that again, to sink this in: A FAIR TRIAL. Which Polasnki never got, because of the fucking fame hungry judge that presided it.<br><br>again, i'm going to repeat this: A FAIR TRIAL. A FAIR TRIAL. A. FAIR. TRIAL.<br><br>You know what i don't understand? What's so fucking hard to understand about all this VERY OBVIOUS POINT i have bene making since the very begining. Really, man, what the hell? Really, what's so hard to understand about this concept of FAIR TRIAL?
-
I'm court clerk, i don't pass sentense. That's a judge job. D'UHHHH!! You aren't that ignorant of the judical system, are you?<br> And my spelling in my native language is much better, thank you for asking. How's yours in your second language?
-
It's Porto, you ignorant ass. If you are going to mock, at least do it right and try to learn enough not to make an ass of yourself. Even in mockery you need to be smart about it, you know?
-
So i'm fine, thanks for asking.
-
Ok dude, calm down, I have not been yelling at you or calling you names. Obviously I have not understood your point, or else I would not still be going on about this. Sometimes the way you say things comes across way differently then you may intend it to, that's all I am saying. Justice is not about winning or losing, it is not about the guilty getting their "just punishment", justice is judgment of persons or causes by judicial process. So I guess you could say because there was no trial, justice was not served if you go by that definition. But in all honesty, I don't care what the prosecution said, he should not have fled the country, asked for a different judge and put this mess behind him and everyone else instead of dragging it out for so long. I still think he is a sick pedophile. Whatever the circumstances, there is no excuse for the rape of a child.
-
So... bringing Polanski back for a trial would be a wrong? An injustice? Dude, seriously, you need to bail out on this. You are not making very good points, or you are not making them very clear at all.
-
...to agree that drugging and ass-raping an underage girl is bad yet?<P>The debate rages on?...really?
-
I admire a person fluent in gibberish, pretty hard to master.
-
My answer: D'UUHHHH! Besides, this a geek plac,e not a jocks place. It's the jocks who love to drug the girls for their malfeasance acts. We are geeks, we have standards.
-
starring Audrey Hepburn. <p> Why are all you people in my lounge?
-
You never said ANYTHING about a fair trial until recently.
-
How many times do i have to say the same thing? Please, read my previous posts. But really read them this time, OK? Can you do that for me?
-
I always been talking about fair trials. I never thoughi i would had to make it VERY FUCKINJG OBVIOUS. You know, like in a fucking Michael Bay movie. Me, i follow the Christopher Nolan school of thought, that i don't need to OVER-STATE everyting, specially the very fucking obvious.
-
And they're all confusing. It looks like you changed your viewpoint a few times in the course of this talkback.
-
Am I the only one who got a hard on after reading the entire transcript? I don't know about you lot but I had to change my pants and go stand outside the gates of the local school just to cool down.
-
That those choice quotes from you that I reprinted up above weren't confusing and made it look like you were defending Polanski?
-
and got lynched for his trouble.
-
You cannot ask for different judges. Judges are not apointed for your pleasure. You would need a far more convincing argument then just "harsh sentense" to get a mistrial. And you have to remember, a plea for mistrial is apraised by the very judge that sentensed you. This means, he would had done everything in his power to block it.<br><br>Let me put this clear to you: it's the responsability of the state, IN REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE, to indict and brign the trial anybody accused of a fellony or crime. It is their responsability to see the aplication of the law. The judge's job is to hear the prosecution and the defendant and find guilty or innocent depending on the evidence. And there is a fundamental principle in criminal law: sentenses are not real punishements per se, but a way to rehabilitate a person back into the fold. When the prosecution and Polanski made that plea bargan, they did exactly to the law's demands and requirements. The prosecution was completly satisfied and thus went foward with the plea as a means to make justice. Polanki would had served a penance, he would had to be constantly avaluated psychologically, and he would still be indicted for a shamefully crime. He was not getting off on anything. He was to serve jail time. Indicted, found guilty, served jail time under psychiatric scrutiny.<br><br>Justice would had been done. The victim got his rapist sentensed and thus, jsutice would be doen to her. The people would pusnihs a rapist and justice wouldbe done. A crime would had been punsihed and justice would be done. Polasnki as the rapist would had served sentense and justice would be done.<br><br>But nothing of this happened. Becasue a fucked up judge over-streatched his powers, had hoc declared Piolanski's guilt without even hearing and conducting a fair trial, and dismissed the plea bargan out of hand because he wanted to put Polanski in jail no matter what since the very begining. What he judge did was the very definition of wrong conduct. A mockery of justice. No jsutice whatsoever. He jsut went with his onw deranged way to make for the most spectacular over-abusinve use of his powers, so he could make a spectacle of his trial and make himself famous. And as such, justice was not served. The judge hismelf said, OUTR OF COURT and for everybody yo hear, that he was going to condemn to jail Polanski to matter what.<br><br>The prosecutuion when they learn this, they warned Polanski's lawters and advised them to tell their client to escape out of the courtry and never come back.<br><br>So, what was the result of the judge's wrong-doing?<br>1- A crime was not punished<br>2- a victim didn't got her satisfaction of having the person who raped her get sentensed and pusnihed.<br><br>3- A rapist was not condemned for his crime and served due punishement.<br>4- The people didn't served punishement to a crime comited.<br>Basically, everybody lost. Even Polanski. He still has this albatroz hanging around his neck. But more impotant of all, a crime was not punished. Proper judical procedure was not brough to fullfuillment. There was crime but no punishement. Frankly the wrong-doings of that judge are shameful, and due to him justice was not done. JUSTICE WAS NOT DONE. From soemthingthat happened 40 YEARS AGO!! That's the true misery of all this affair. There was no fair trial, no due process, nothing! Polanski's affair is a failure of justice. A shame, a real shame!<br><br>Justice is not just about punishing crimes, abut about fair trial. The later is even more important the the former, believe it or not.
-
I'm confused by his write up. He is praising it, but I'm not seeing where he says he actually saw it.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 2:17 p.m. CST
This is the kind of Hollywood horseshit I would expect...
by Snake Foreskin
you guys on AICN to eat up. Tony Blair BAD! Guantanemo Bay BAD. Physical Contact with and low-level emotional distress of terrorists in order to garner vital information BAD! Drugged Sex With A Minor GOOD! Roman Polanski BACK! You guys suck.
-
seen his movies either (Had an English teacher once who tried to show us that MacBeth (even though we were studing Hamlet) but we had a riot in class over the rape issue. That teacher was a fucking weirdo too) and I am a movie fan. Never seen The Godfather either because the book sucked. More pages were devote to some bitch's vagina than to gangsters.
-
Me being lynched for making good points is the great constant in here. I should even take that for granded by now. Teach me right to try to be a rationalist in here.
-
You missed out a great movie, possibly the best Macbeth movie adaptation ever made. And the near riot in your class again proves the extreme ignorance and it's knee-jerk reactions that still is going on about the Polanski's affair. Very sad.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 2:26 p.m. CST
Let's get off the subject of Polanski being a bad man...
by Snake Foreskin
let's get on the subject of how much of a left-wing BS story this movie is! They don't like that Tony Blair supported Bush. I get it. But they are so filled with hate toward Bush and his supporters that they make Tony Blair out to be a fiend who had his previous ghost writer murdered! Can we say "wackadoo"? And of course Roman Polanski would eat up the opportunity to make a movie in which America is the bad guy and so is jolly ol' England, while he's at it. After all, Blair probably would have supported the idea of Polanski's extradition back to the US to stand trial.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 2:28 p.m. CST
"Physical Contact with and low-level emotional distress"
by AsimovLives
Is that the new euphemism for "beating the shit out of somebody"? I love this technocratic bullshit nomeclature to disguise torture under another "inocuous" name. It's insanity right out of BRAZIL!
-
My feelings about the subject aside, I agree that no matter what, everyone deserves a fair trial, despite any overwhelming evidence, or public outcry or whatever, all those accused of crimes deserve a fair trial. I will not argue specifics of the case as I am not fully aware of them and therefore cannot truly make a good argument. Going on what I have read about it, I still see Polankski as being more in the wrong. Although I have to say, I find it very difficult to believe that the prosecution, the guys trying to convict Polanski of the crime, were telling him to leave the country and never come back. I don't know where you got that information, but I find that very hard to believe. Not saying you are lying, just saying the notion of what you are saying happened is hard to believe. I have never heard of prosecutors telling criminals stuff like that. I suppose it happens, but still, seems kinda unbelievable. If the did in fact do that, I am betting it was for their own selfish reasons, and not because they were trying to help Polanski. I just cant see it.
-
Pleas are recommendations and a judge must accept it no matter what. Judges have the power to not accept any plea, most don’t, but they can. And even if he does accept it, he still has the right to apply the max sentence no matter what the prosecution recommends. Roman admitted to everything, EVERYTHING. He made a plea on the advice of his lawyers and the prosecution. However the judge wasn’t going to hear it. So there wasn’t a chance for a trial, because Roman ran and the judge made it a point to say that Roman will stand trial for this. There are loads of cases that happen this way in the legal world (if you have time, I have a ton of books and info I could send you). Usually what happens is that the plea is modified or a trial date is set. Now Roman's lawyer took the judge's actions as Roman was going to get screwed over, which he may have, who knows. Justice may not happen all the time, but you cant fight for justice if you run to France. Also you said the prosecution told roman to flee, now if I even thought about saying that I would be put up for review and probably disbarred. You are completely in the wrong on this one.
-
Because he pled guilty and skipped town before sentencing! Them's the facts. <P> He was better than convicted because innocent people get convicted. He admitted to the crime but didn't do the time. <P> The only injustice here is that he was never punished for the crime he admitted to. The only victim here was the one who got a dick shoved in her arse.
-
Funny you accuse Polanski of left-wing BS, when in fact this is the same guy who run out of Poland back inthe day when it was a communist regime, and he found himself right at home in the middle of American's capitalism.<br><br>Might it never corssed your mind that the wrong-doings of a government is a matter that above political party lines, left or right? a government, any governement,t hat acts shamefully, should be denounced by both right and left. If only the left does the criticism, then it's only he left who is doing it's job, and the rigth is in fault. If you want to support the right, it's better you really start thinking what you are going to say, or you just might risk making your side look evenwrost for wear.<br><br>Criticising the wrong-doings of a government IS A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE, not a matter of political party lines.
-
You just brough two facts, you forgot a few other important facts.
-
THe judge sdauid from day one that Polasnki was going to serve jail and he had no interest in accepting pleas. The judge had his mind fixed on a spectacular sentense. Whjy? to make himzxelf famous. there was no fair trial involve,d just the satisfaction of an ego. The judge's ego. Polanski's flight from USA can be seen as him avoiding an injustice done to him by a biased corrupt judge who was using the trial to gain notariety. Adn this is th sad thing about all this, because of the judge's partiality and ego, justice was not served. Had the judge been an honest man, had he accepted the plea bargain, jsutice would had been aplied and a crime would had been punished. A crime wa snot punished be cause of the judge's actions. And justice was thrown in the mud of shame, for the sake of that judge's ego.
-
"Another fact: the "child" in question has been campagning for more then 30 years now to end this situation. The very person who was "raped". If that is also not telling, i don't know what is." That is also untrue, she just settled with Roman in 93 and just recently said she would rather have this situation end.
-
going to give him, versus whatever he pled for?
-
Has nothing to do with Polanski running.
-
would we forgive him? Even if his next movie sucked?
-
Just poking a little fun, not calling you a goat-iphile or anything like that. Thanks for the geography lesson, though I still think Port of Call: Oporto has a better ring to it. <p> Aside from the few instances of people equating support of the art with support for the artist's crimes, this has been a real interesting talkback.
-
sequel.
-
sequel.
-
sequel.
-
I might be inclined to overlook his crimes. But since he didn't, let him BURN.
-
Judges have that right and Roman didnt want a trial. That is the reason he made a plea. Now if the judge sentenced him too harshly, that is where the appeal process comes into play.
-
you gave Polanski a gun and put him in a room with Charles Manson? Then give him the choice of shooting Manson and face the court on rape charges or not shoot Manson and continue making his precious movies.
-
so that he can experience first hand what it is like to be raped and get a dick up your arse.
-
About how there was a plea bargain in place, the Judge didn't go along with. So fucking what? People who rape kids shouldn't get a slap on the wrists anyway, good call Judge. What the fuck made anyone think it should be ok for this sick fuck to plead guilty to RAPING A CHILD IN THE ASS and get away with minimal punishment? People who are trying to play down what he did and make the Judge out to be the villain of this story are fucking deluded beyond belief and need to be examined for child-raping tendencies of their own.
-
You skipped The Godfather because the book sucked? You, sir, are doing yourself a disservice. The book fucking blows, yes, but the movie is incredible. Part II is even better. Part III never happened.
-
I recommend Welles' batshit version, as well.
-
As in, I was describing the whole scenario surrounding the "torture" of Guantanemo Bay residents in a humrous way. I mean, come on, the lefties made the whole thing sound a lot worse than it ever was. America's teeth have been pulled a long time ago. We didn't torture, we inconvenienced. We bothered. We annoyed. What the Japanese did to American soldiers during WWII was torture. What the Vietcong did to American soldiers was torture. Waterboarding is pussified torture. Sleep deprivation is torture? Ask any mother of a newborn about that. Puh-lease. Labor pains are a lot more akin to real torture than what those guys went through. Passing a kidney stone is torture. Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al are doing a lot of things right now that should be denounced. They are subverting our system day after day. Transparent? Have these healthcare discussions happened in full view for the American people to witness? No, they have been seedy, closed-door deals filled with what amounts to bribery and blackmail. Now THAT is something far more impactful to Americans. THAT is something that rightly should be denounced, decried and despised by the American people.
-
Waterboarding is featured prominently in Cambodia's torture museum. If Cambodia of all places can recognize waterboarding as torture, then we should fucking be able to. <p>Furthermore, U.S. agents started torturing KSM after he was already giving valuable intelligence to the FBI. They tortured him even without the phony, loophole-ridden authorizations doctored up by John Yoo and company. They were clearly torturing KSM and others--even ones whose links to terror may have been dubious or nonexistent--to get them to give up just enough "evidence" to justify an invasion of Iraq. You torture someone enough and they'll admit anything.
-
Asimov, you are fucking scum my friend. You are making excuses for a child rapist....let that sink in. <p> You're blathering on about a fair trial when Polanski himself is the one he ruled out that option. The judge knocked back the plea bargain - as they are allowed to do - and the dirty, miserable child fucker fled the country to hide from punishment. HE DID THAT, NOT THE JUDGE!!! He could have requested a different judge if he felt he was biased, but he didn't.<p> A normal child raping, disgusting, perverted bastard wouldn't have the option of a plea bargain in the first place, why should Polanski? Because he's famous? Bullshit! He should have been chemically castrated and institutionalised for however long it takes to reduce his urges. You don't think of that do you Asicunt?? The fact that he still has urges to fuck children...they all do. Many say the urges are impossible to control, but they all have them. They (paedophiles) also state that if the opportunity arose they would probably offend again. <p> Polanski is the same, just because he can point a camera does not mean he isn't a sick fucker. And yet you continue to make excuses for him, you are a truly disgusting human being. I've read many of your posts and laughed, and agreed with many of your comments. Little did I know just how vile you are. There are certain lines that aren't to be crossed, and fucking kids is definitely one of them...and yet here you are defending the indefensible because you like his work. <p> No movie or other art-form is enough to justify something as sick as fucking a minor. You'll no doubt say you aren't justifying, but you are, you even had the gall to use the "everyone else was doing it" and "young girls try to seduce adults" excuses.<p> So fucking what if that happens?? A normal person would tell that little damaged whore to fuck right off, not jump in the sack with them. The ones that would are sick, and cannot be cured. And those that justify and excuse because they like their movies, they're sick too. You're a sick fuck Asimov, you need fucking help. Some issues are black and white, fucking children is one of those issues...YOU JUST DON'T FUCKING DO IT.<p> Polanski did it, and ANYONE that's paid money to see one of his movies, think about this. Would you give money to any other rapist of children? "Here ya go buddy...good job on fucking up those kids lives forever". Would you even allow your food to be handed to you by one of those sick fuckers while your kid brother/sister stood next to you? Would you be OK with a rapist even living 5 minutes from your house? Of course you fucking wouldn't, so why is it OK to allow this sick bastard to have a career by seeing his work?<p> I've rambled long enough...Polanski defenders, you're fucking scum and I'm disgusted that such attitudes are prevalent on this site.<p> Harry, promoting his movies in any shape or form is a terrible idea...the man is filth, talented, but still fucking filth.
-
My reference is an article from CNN.com. I will post the link when I have a chance to look for it. Asi, just because someone supports/defends Polanski does not mean that they support/defend pedophilia. In my experience, most people who fall on Polasnki's side of the issue are ignorant of the facts.
-
As a filmmaker, i'll always support Polanski.
-
You've got to be fucking kidding me that anyone is supporting let alone reporting anything that piece of garbage makes? I don't care who he is, he's a goddamn child-rapist. Fuck him, and fuck you too if you see this.
-
Are you trying to prove to teh world you are a fuckign retard? Becasue if that was your intention, good job, you proved it without a shadow of a doubt. you also proved you are an illiterated fool. Go learn reading again, the first time you tried failed miserably. Fucking ass! Good lord, are you a retard idiot! Wow, just, wow!! Unbelievable!
-
to not extradite Pedanski for chrissakes. Don't tell me that Europeans don't support him. Obviously, I don't mean EVERY European!
-
I know enough about humour to know when something is unfunny.
-
But, that does not mean that I don't want to see Polanski face justice as he should.
-
But I'm cool about talking movies.
-
That jumbled, garbled mess of jibber jabber about someone else being "illiterated" was SUPPOSED to be ironic, right? Just checkin. BTW, fuck you you're an apologist for a child rapist you stupid sack of pigshit.
-
"Basically, everybody lost. Even Polanski. He still has this albatroz hanging around his neck." <p> What the fuck is wrong with you?? He committed the fucking crime, he deserves to be labelled the sick fucker that he is! Again, you're whining about fair trials when Polanski himself is the one who didn't want that to happen by copping a shitty plea bargain with a spineless prosecutor. <p> Your arguments have no basis in logic or fact and are based purely on the fact that you are so pathetic that you cannot accept a hero of yours is a fucking child rapist. <p> Lost Jarv had you nailed you little shit, you're despicable.
-
Speaking of Europeans taking Polanski's defense, kudos to Luc Besson for being one of the only ones to publicly speak against him, when almost every politicians in the country where feeling "outraged" and getting on their high horses. Also, Polanski is overrated as a director.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 4:05 p.m. CST
Ah, but Stabby, if Chinatown is even one of your top
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
movies of all time, and you've watched it/own it on DVD,despite the fact that you don't condone the personal crimes of the man , then you are a supporter of child rape by default! At least - according to the gibbering self-righteous nutballs with no sense of perspective or common sense. Burn those books, fascists!
-
And we can go back to talking movies again. Granted, this site was never very good at that in the first place with practically every talkback being derailed by one persons vendetta or another. Going back to movie talk, what this site is supposed to be about, I just watched the trailer for this film, and although it's clearly a very slow movie, it looks impeccably well acted! Can't wait until it's in the states!!
-
is that ignorance? You are one strange twisted little cunt.
-
You have been slapped down in this talkback more than any person I have ever seen in this sites history. After your last quote that "as a film maker, i'll always support polanski" just shows how ignorant you really are. Seriously, don't let facts get in the way retard. The depth of your stupidity has GOT to be a prank. You have GOT to be the most successful troll this site has ever seen. You can't really be this much of a delusional idiot.
-
And it's been excuse after excuse, beginning with the doozies about the 70's being full of this shit (as if it makes it ok), then the corrupt judge denying a fair trial (even though Polanski was trying to avoid trial completely) despite no evidence of corruption, then saying the victim doesn't want him charged (implying that that settles the matter), then stating that justice was the real victim (again, Polanski's fault for running rather than facing real punishment for his crime). <p> It's been one long, worrying glimpse into the psyche of a seriously fucked up person who seemingly cannot accept the fact that Polanski is scum, and that a normal person who committed this crime would be vilified and jailed for a long stretch. The fact that Polanski ran and removed that possibility, then proceeded to make a great living in Europe while apologists fawn over him tends to piss people off a bit. <p> All rapists - child or adult - should be put down as they're of no use to society. Fuck them all, and fuck you Asicunt for supporting one.
-
What Polanski did was WRONG, period. The fact that Assimov refuses to acknowledge this in a clear, definitive way speaks volumes about what a degenerate piece of shit he is.
-
RedJester...every other talkback on the site has a movie discussion going on I believe. BSB, I agree with you most of the time, your sense of humor is top notch. That said, why do you tar the entire country of Portugal because of the lunatic ranting of one asshole? Portugal is a beautiful place...would probably even better if Asimov dropped off the face of the earth.
-
Would you pay a non-famous paedophile for doing what they did? Would you reward them in any way? Why allow this cunt to have a career and a swanky lifestyle then?? <p> Or do you subscribe to the view that it's less evil because he's famous?<p> Off topic, but Chris Benoit was my favourite wrestler for years, then he murdered his wife and choked his 7 year old son to death before killing himself. I can no longer bring myself to watch a match featuring him, it just felt wrong.
-
I'm curious, how many posts do you have to make to be happy that you've gotten your point across before letting those of us who want to talk about the film, go back to doing so? 1? 5? 10? 20? 100? Or do you feel it's your obligation to fill this talkback with so many hateful rants, those of us who would like to talk about the movie, never get to do so? I'm legitimately curious. In a perfect world we'd have two separate talkbacks. On for people to express their hatred of Polanski and one for people to express love of his movies/enthusiasm for his new film. Wouldn't that be nice? Although in all likelyhood, the haters (and trust me, I do see your reasoning for doing so), would overflow their Polanski hate into the movie appreciation talkback anyway, so the attempt to keep everyone happy would be futile.
-
the movie? I like vag as much as the next guy, but that fucking story was pointless. I can hardly believe that the guy who wrote that shit also wrote Superman The Movie.
-
Just someone proclaiming "she was the greatest piece of ass I've had!" and a brief scene of Sonny banging his mistress against a door. NO VAG STORYLINE. Now go watch it.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 4:25 p.m. CST
AsimovLives, I think it is funny how you accuse someone
by FamousEccles
of illiteracy and yet seem unable to spell correctly yourself. Dickhead.
-
"Are you trying to prove to teh world you are a fuckign retard? Becasue if that was your intention, good job, you proved it without a shadow of a doubt. you also proved you are an illiterated fool. Go learn reading again, the first time you tried failed miserably. Fucking ass! Good lord, are you a retard idiot! Wow, just, wow!! Unbelievable!" <p> Excellent, not a single rebuttal to anything I said just a string of insults which don't even make sense. You're a gem. Seriously though, we need some real details about you so we can warn your neighbours...you are seriously disturbed, and just immature enough to be dangerous despite your obvious deranged attachment to film over basic human feeling.<p> You make my flesh creep.
-
cock does not make Europe a supporter of rape.
-
I'm sorry man, I just cannot bring myself to even consider an action that would allow that animal Polanski to make money. He is vile, and even seeing one of his movies on TV for free would be too much.<p> I feel the same about murderers too, I can't understand why people would read the books they put out. Polanski doesn't deserve a career, he certainly doesn't deserve the support he gets from those like Scorcese and Asicunt.<p> Again, he crossed a line and was never punished for it thanks to his own actions, his talent doesn't deserved to be recognised.
-
first widescreen TV (that story is far too long to tell). Upon your recommendation, I shall, very soon, turn my attention to The Godfather. On the chance that we might not encounter each other after I have seen I shall simultaneously thank you for changing my mind and tell you that you suck for wasting my time on tripe. Cheers
-
campaigner for an Irish children's charity. Clearly the twat can't see the forest for the trees.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 4:43 p.m. CST
"Or do you subscribe to the view that it's less evil because he'
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
No, but where do you draw the line exactly? Boycott all his films? Boycott the works of his celebrity supporters also? Refuse to even watch his films on TV or download even if he's getting no monetary benefit from them? The man and his works are two separate things. Not a single person here has said Polanski is not guilty, nor denied that he should be punished, not even AsimovLives as far as I can tell. <p>What I take umbrage at is the hysterical notion that his films, which others have starred in/worked on, and which can be publicly viewed, have to be boycotted in any shape or form. This is a ridiculous notion and actually unworkable in reality. It would also neccessitate the boycotting of the art of a great many people if this decree were to have any consistency, since many other artists have done equally unpleasant and even criminal things. These histrionics also lack any integrity since I bet even the most vocal critics of Polanski have probably watched at least one of his movies, even after learning of his crime.
-
movies that involve people who work with this fuck.
-
So you refuse to watch Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Brosnan Bond movies, Scorsese movies, etc, etc?
-
I was never going rewatch the Brosnan 007 anyway. What right thinking person would do that?
-
connection between Scorsese and Polanski?
-
No, I won't boycott those who've worked with him, they didn't fuck a young girl. How they could work with the man is something I can't understand and something for they themselves to live with. <p> But films he was in charge of, featuring his creative vision, and finally he'll make money off...then no, I will not watch them regardless of quality. Like I said in my Chris Benoit example, it felt wrong to watch him wrestle knowing what he did. Even if I downloaded it from torrents, it wouldn't feel right to me.<p> The only movie of his I've actually seen is The Ninth Gate, and that was before I'd ever heard of his kiddy raping past ( I was pretty ignorant to behind the scenes movie stuff then). Since I found out, I've avoided his stuff like the plague. I was channel surfing and came across Rosemmary's Baby...flicked straight off!!
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 4:59 p.m. CST
Woody Allen movies, all movies with Johnny Depp
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
all movies with Jack nicholson. Adrain Brody worked with him - so I can't watch the King kong remake either - hell, I won't even be able to watch the upcoming Predators! Ben Kingsley - can't watch Ghandi either! Sigourney Weaver in Death and the Maiden - I'll have to boycott Avatar as well! And countless others. Do you realize how fucking ridiculous that notion is?...guess you won't be watching many movies at all.
-
Scorsese has signed the petition supporting Polanski. So you're telling me, in your bizarre moral view, that its only people who have starred in his films, but his supporters are OK? You may think my posts are ridiculous, but they illustrate a point - if you're going to make absurd moral judgments, then have the courage to stand by your convictions.
-
Scorcese was a very vocal supporter of Polanski after his arrest, saying how disgraceful it was etc.<p> When that all kicked off, I couldn't believe the number of people saying how terrible it was....I just can't fathom why it's apparently OK for him to get away with what he did just because he can line up a fucking camera. If McG had done the same he'd have been in the prison showers getting fucked by Bubba faster than Speedy Gonzales with the taco shits.
-
Not watching the Kong remake again could be a blessing in disguise. :)
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 5:14 p.m. CST
'Again' implies you watched it once before
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
And I'm pretty sure you knew Brody was in the film and had starred in Polanski's 'The Pianist'. <p>As for Famous Eccles - he's either full of shit,which means he's a hypocrite, or if he's telling the truth, then he's equally mad. Scary fanaticism, and that kind of skewed thinking is equally as screwed up as anything polanski did.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 5:16 p.m. CST
Turd, of course I don't think is supporters are "okay"?
by FamousEccles
Are you actually retarded? Excuse me for crediting you some intelligence and not feeling the need to point out the obvious. And there are a damn fine lot of movies to watch that in no way smell of child rape.Brody is fucking tool. I don't watch remakes. Or Star Trek The Next Generation either, so Kingsley is no loss either. :P
-
child rape supporters is the same as raping a child? I see that you are indeed actually retarded. You fucking dick.
-
boycott the work of those who worked with Polanski. Learn to read. Tool.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 5:25 p.m. CST
No, I'm not retarded, and you are clearly a fanatic
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
You should join the fucking Taliban, pal. Then you can stone people to death if they don't meet your lofty standards - and I'm not talking about Polanski, but everyone who has ever been tangentially connected to him, which includes some of the finest filmmakers and actors who have ever lived. What a damn fool you are.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 5:27 p.m. CST
Was never talking about Pdennet316, I'm talking about YOU
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
Learn to fucking read your own damn self.
-
...I can understand people wanting to see his movies...what I can't understand is people paying to see his movies. It's just giving money to a child rapist. Would any of you buy the product of any other child rapist? Didn't think so. Just because it's classed as art doesn't make it any different. <P> I don't think anybody advocated burning all his work...but people seem perfectly happy to continue giving this sick fuck their money...as for the people that work with him...they're either deluded that artistic talent is greater than moral courage or are complete twats.
-
child rape in particular, so doubtless they too are fans of Polanski. IIt does not take "lofty standards" to be opposed to the rape of a child. It just takes plain, common humanity. If you are seeking to offend me, you'll not succeed, because you are the supporter of a rapist.
-
referenced his comments on seeing the Kong remake "again". As I said, learn to read, dicksplash.
-
He's simply demonstrating the considerable gray area of this whole thing. It's not as black and white as a lot of you seem to think. Oddly, no one gave a shit about this issue until Polanski was arrested recently. I'm not sure why it's suddenly some huge deal. The man has been paying his whole life for what he did, and he continues to pay for it. That's not to say what he did wasn't wrong... it was fucked up beyond belief.
-
wager there are none in the house. If this be the case, I'll be back in about ten minutes or so. Twenty, if the shop has been robbed again.
-
his whole life"?
-
He's generally hated, he's been living in exile, and he was just recently was arrested for it. It keeps coming back to haunt him (which he totally deserves, btw). At the same time, I think the hate here is a bit shocking, considering some of the things talkbackers make fun of, and some of the remarks regarding Hit Girl.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 5:43 p.m. CST
"because you are the supporter of a rapist."
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
No, I'm not, and neither is anyone else here. As I said, you are clearly a troubled fanatic (and likely a hypocrite as well), and like all such people, accuse others of things they haven't said or put words in their mouths. The 'if you aren't with us, you're against us' fundamentalist crap.<p>Again you lack the ability to discern context of what is written - I was speaking hypothetically when I referenced pdbennet's comments.<p>BTW, I have already succeeded in offending you - your tone makes that obvious. You are exactly the type of online moral crusader I referenced way above. There is little 'humanity' in your faux-outrage and hypocrisy - its soapboax sloganeering, plain and simple. Go spin on the end of Polanski's disease-ridden cock.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 5:45 p.m. CST
Is it okay to watch his movies released prior to the rape?
by schadenfreudian
Since some of you guys are equating watching his movies with supporting a rapist, is it okay to watch The Tenant, or Chinatown, or The Fearless Vampire Killers, or Repulsion, or Rosemary's Baby, etc because they were released prior to the incident? Or is this boycott retroactive?
-
The Hollywood Bullshit Bandwagon that supports him are of the same fucked up thinking that got Heath Ledger that Oscar. They don't really give a shit, they just need to think people love them.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 5:46 p.m. CST
"Oddly, no one gave a shit about this issue
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
until Polanski was arrested recently. I'm not sure why it's suddenly some huge deal"<p>That about hits the nail on the head regarding this whole issue. Bandwagon jumping mouthpieces.
-
He's far from been "paying" for it, he's enjoyed a healthy career and unfathomable respect, all the while sticking two fingers up to the US justice system. <p> The issue of whether or not to watch his movies may not be black and white, but the nature of his crime and his evasion of justice is. He ran because he feared trial...fact! He fucked a minor after drugging her....fact! If he wasn't a big shot director, he never would have had the option of a plea bargain....fact! <p> Asicunt can whine about corrupt judges and lack of fair trial all he likes...the facts are that Polanski has escaped justice all this time because he couldn't make the case go away, so chose to run. And his arrest was bound to spark all this up again because it reminded people of the odious little cunt's existence...out of sight out of mind for most, hectic lives etc.
-
Exactly. It's just a lynch mob at this point, and I don't think many of them actually give a shit about the girl in question (who herself just wants this to go away).
-
Blue ray coming out soon, it's a flipper disc with Presumed Innocent on the other side (insert joke here). I've always snubbed the DVD for years because it was fullscreen only, but looks like this one will get it right. <P> If you want Presumed Innocent, but decry all things Polanksi, I guess you're stuck. But before you do anything like complain to Warner, please wait until after the disc streets, so I can at least buy my copy.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 5:58 p.m. CST
Turd, yes you are. and AasimovLives is a big supporter too.
by FamousEccles
That makes two. Which pretty much means that your first sentence is wrong. Nothing wrong with being a "fanatic". That is is why we visit this site after all. But I'd like you to point out where my "hypocrasy" is. If a person isn't "with" one side, then they are "against" it. You were NOT speaking hypothetically, you just fucked up. Admit it. No, you haven't offended me. If by "my tone" you mean the name calling, I do that all the time. It's just my way. Again, where am I being a "hypocrite"? Where is my "faux-outrage"? And, finally, unless you can provide evidence that Polanski's penis is afflicated with a malady, I suggest you retract that. Let's just stick to the facts.
-
I don't label all those who watch his stuff as rape supporters, just personally saying I wouldn't do it and can;t understand why people would. Asicunt supports rape as he's tried to excuse the pricks actions via bullshit reasoning. And yeah, it's retroactive for me.<p> Turd, you're right about the band wagon thing...even I did it, but like I said, it's because we get on with our lives and try to forget that pieces of shit like Polanski exist. <p> I'm not comparing the two, but I hadn't thought about Bin Laden for years until I saw his face on an old episode of Mock the Week. No-one spends their life obsessing about all the evil bastards in the world, but seeing Hollywood sycophants rushing to defend him after his arrest made me sick.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 6:01 p.m. CST
MattmanReturns, I care about that woman. And unless she
by FamousEccles
is a reader of AICN, I doubt very much that this talkback will do her any harm.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 6:04 p.m. CST
pdennett316, it is people like you that give me hope for the
by FamousEccles
future of the human race. cheers.
-
"Exactly. It's just a lynch mob at this point, and I don't think many of them actually give a shit about the girl in question (who herself just wants this to go away)."<p> Oh I do give a shit about the girl (now a woman), and I understand why she wants it to go away. Someone close to me recently admitted they'd been sexually assaulted, young girl when it happened. She initially didn't want the police involved because she new it'd dredge up all those memories of what the sick fuck did to her. I'd imagine it's the same thing here.<p> I'd also argue that Polanski deserves a lynching since he's gotten away with it for years. As soon is guilt is established in rape or murder cases, take them to a slaughterhouse and bolt the fuckers in the brain...if it's good enough for cattle, it'll do those fuckers.
-
I believe you do. I just think most of this is bandwagon. The funny thing is I actually agree he did a horrific thing, but I think a lot of this is just over the top. And having a successful movie career doesn't mean he's not paying slowly for his mistake. I do find it odd though that he is so supported in the Hollywood community and just seems to get a free pass. I mean, I won't say I've never watched his movies... I have... in fact I have a hard time believing any movie buff hasn't seen a Polanski film... but that doesn't mean I have to like what the guy did.
-
I see where you're coming from.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 6:09 p.m. CST
FamousEccles, have you got something to hide?
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
Usually the most vocal opponents of something (sans reason and logic) certainly do. Kind of like the anti-gay evangelists like Ted Haggard, who get caught with their pants down sniffing the coke off of some rent boy's ball sack. Are you a kiddy diddler yourself? You seemed to be awfully obsessed with the subject.<p>And my first sentence is wrong because it contradicts something completely fabricated you pulled out of your ass? Okay dokey, then.
-
..just sayin'...I won't kid myself, the guy's got a rap sheet, but the rest of the resume is pretty strong.
-
You make some strong points about supporting the art as opposed to the artist and where to draw a line with regards to boycotting. As a member of the boycotting side of things (I LOVE THE SINGALONGS AROUND THE BOOKBURNING BONFIRE AS WE TOAST MARSHMALLOWS!) I don't think anyone is suggesting that people boycott all of those involved in making the films with Polanski but rather that Polanskis personally created films not be supported in anyway. He's a child rapist and doesn't deserve any accolades or financial recognition until he has paid for his crime.
-
Damn this 20th century technology...
-
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/16145/-ghost-writer-poster-mangles-ewan-s-face
-
I don't see how he's paying for what he's done - still making movies, large bank account, living in France, no show of regret or remorse beyond the fact he was charged, able to avoid trial for decades. I think he's doing fine TBH.
-
You haven't got a leg to stand on so you resort to the "you must be a chomo since you are so interested in chomos" insult. Really disgusting, it shows you haven't got two brain cells to rub together.
-
" I don't think anyone is suggesting that people boycott all of those involved in making the films with Polanski but rather that Polanskis personally created films not be supported in anyway."<P>Ah, but FamousEccles was, hence my problem with him. He was basically decrying every film that had even the faintest connection to Polanski as carrying 'the whiff of child rape'. Which is simply hysteria in my book, like the old salem witch trials. But no, I don't believe Polanski's own movies should even be boycotted. How do we even know if he gets royalties from say, DVD sales? And even if he did, does that really count for anything in the end? Does his crime have any real tangible correlation to profit points or career awards?
-
I'll scratch his name off the list.
-
I think he was making a sarcastic point about Eccles assertion that he was supporting a rapist by watching his movies.....I think. If not that is a pretty shitty insult to sling.
-
instead of paying to see his movies, download them illegally. That way, you'll actually be hitting the guy in the pocketbook. See that? Justice is served, and i can still watch Chinatown!
-
Oh, I've got a very solid footing to stand on all right. Sorry that I don't see things in the absolutist terms of you and the moral majority.<P>Once again, for the slow people - I do not deny that Polanski has commited a criminal act or that he should face punishemnt and serve his time. I've never even mentioned those facts - which are indisputable. What I HAVE been talking about is the ignorance and chest beating of morons quick to stick the knives in to fulfill their own agendas, and also the absurd notion that the viewing, ownership, and even admiration for the art created by such an individual has anything at all to do with his crime or the support of it by default.<p>If you wish to indulge idiots like FamousEccles, then that's your problem.
-
I'll be honest, it has no correlation really...it just galls me that the prick has a career and can still make money despite not being punished for what he's done. <p> It's not like he made money referencing the crime in any way but still, it's rewarding him in the sense he still gets paid to do what he loves despite being a nonce.
-
I'm glad someone can properly discern the context of other's posts. If he can accuse me of being a supporter of child rape, without a shred of evidence, then I can only offer him the same courtesy.
-
I'd rather hit him in the balls with a rusty knife. :)
-
by having sex with Natasha Kinski when she was a child and he even met his current wife when she was underaged. Yeah, not only has he not payed for his crime, but he did not learn from the error of his ways either. The man is contemptible and has no respect for the law. And he is beyond a doubt a pedophile. His actions during and after his crime prove it. Fact! End of story. There is no gray area unless you believe the bullshit his apologists spew about the girl being a slut and asking for it.
-
As you say, there were facts you didn't mention; you are correct that they are indisputable. IMO that puts you on the "right" side of this issue. For the record, I have no interest in any boycott (haven't seen one of his movies since "Pianist" due to lack of interest, won't see new one for same reason).
-
What is it about the talent these people have that drives them all mental? Mel Gibson - Alcohol loosens tongue; Polanski - Scum; Van Gogh - Hates ears.<p> Sporty types too... Tyson - Rape, general rage issues; OJ - "Didn't" kill wife and her lover; That guy with the dog-fighting thing; Diego Maradona - Drugs vacuum. <p>
-
Yup, paedo's have those urges all their lives and so far cannot be cured. I've seen/read interviews with paedo's and they admit that given the opportunity they would offend again.<p> Polanski is not sorry for what he did, he sees nothing wrong with it because something in his brain tells him it's OK.
-
“Would you rather be a prisoner in Abu Ghraib, or a young girl in Roman Polanski’s hot tub?”
-
No, Whoopie, it was rape rape. The girl said "No" and Pedanski fucked her in the ass anyway. No means no, hence "rape rape." Even if she did consent, which she did not, it would still be statutory rape, which is what Pedanski pled guilty too, because she was THIR-FUCKING-TEEN. It's still rape, Whoopie, you stupid cunt!
-
It has taken a while to sink in, but I truly believe that AsimovLives is a fraud. There are times when his written English is absolutely flawless, then inexplicably, the mangled and malaproped english appears. But beyond that, Asimov is not a stupid person. And regardless ones predilection, an intelligent person can see reason -even if they still disagree with it. <p>Small points of difference - ones that will not alter a persons preference, but still show that they are open to reason, are accepted in a give and take. <p> But Asimov, just plows right through even when the point he is making is patently ridiculous such as this claim, repeated over and over that prosecutrors told Polanskis lawyers that he should leave the country<p> "The prosecutuion when they learn this, they warned Polanski's lawters and advised them to tell their client to escape out of the courtry and never come back."<p> He now claims to work in courts, and yet he can make and believe such an assertion? No. He is either a moron, or a put on. <p> I say put on. <p> I think there are a few other 'put on's' out there like Media Messiah. <p> Asi has fooled quite a few people for quite a while, but he over played his hand this time.
-
"Roman Polanski is back in a big, big way"? I don't care what you wrote in front of that, you are a sad, pathetic sack of shit.
-
Brosnan 007 is awesome, at least he wasn't afraid to be JAMES BOND unlike that McClane/Bourne clone nowadays.
-
...that some of us can read the minds of others. <p> Because pretty much whenever Polanski's name has surfaced, with the release of every movie he has made since the incident, this controversy has erupted anew. Maybe you weren't aware of it. Maybe you didn't care. But other people did. <p> I have a great deal of sympathy for Polanski over the tragedies that have marked his life. And the man has made a handful of movies that number among the greatest of the last half century. <p> But those things in no way mitigate or excuse his crime. And the undercurrent from AsimovLives and several others in this talkback, and certainly the petitions that cropped up at the beginning of this current round of this controversy, spoke directly to that point. Mattman, above, has spewed the same gibberish, about Polanski having to pay for his crime. <p> Mattman, I would gladly accept tomorrow the "punishment" Polanski has suffered, even though I haven't committed his crime. Condemned to live in luxury in Europe, insulated from those who hate me and surrounded by sycophants and admirers, free to pursue my career and sheltered from prosecution, and for this my punishment is being unable to return to a country full of bad memories where I spent just portions of less than a decade of my life. So that is just nonsense. <p> Similarly talk about the unfairness of Polanski's prosecution are nonsensical. He was offered the sort of sweetheart plea bargain that seems to be the exclusive prerogative of the rich and powerful, and when the judge in his case seemed unlikely to accept the agreement Polanski fled justice. <p> There is no gray area here. There is only the case of a powerful man, albeit a powerful man who had led a life with much tragedy, victimizing a helpless child. <p> Some here have decided to champion the cause of the powerful man. <p> You know, Chinatown, for all that Syd Fields and his disciples did to use the screenplay to murder originality in Hollywood, is one of the hundred greatest American films ever made. But in regard to what Polanski did to that girl, that accomplishment, just like the tragedies he suffered, means nothing. <p> I can still admire the films Polanski made. But I won't take a conscious action that would put a dime in his pocket and I believe he should pay for his crime. Just as Charlie Manson and his mob, who had plenty of personal tragedies scattered through their backgrounds, paid for their even more heinous crimes. <p> The only difference is the movies. That's the only real "gray" area here. And it's only gray to people who squint their eyes to avoid the truth. <p> Rosemary's Baby was one of the handful of movies that helped shape my love for film as a child. <p> Still isn't a get out of jail free card for one of the most abhorrent crimes a human can commit. <p> You want to talk about his films? Great. I'll talk about them with you. <p> You want to suggest he's "paid enough for his crimes" or that there's some "gray area" or that we should just forget about bringing him to justice? Well, you're free to say whatever you like, but you're revealing a chilling lack of empathy, an inability to judge right and wrong when it conflicts with your most trivial enthusiams and the sort of dangerous disregard for maintaining a society based on law that most of you expressing these opinions likely abhorred when it enabled fiends from Washington to Wall Street to evade justice for their actions. <p> I pity Polanski for the tragedies that have marked his life. I admire many of the films he's made. But he should have paid for the horrific crime he committed more than thirty years ago, and the passing of all those years without punishment has constituted a second assault on his victim, a denial of closure that Polanski did receive, both for the assault he suffered in Poland and the murder of his wife.
-
...in answer to your earlier question, yes. And seeing your name delighted me. You don't run across a lot of people who even know about Cook, much less love his work. <p> I also discovered the Black Company when I was very young. And I read that first cycle of books enough times that I had to buy replacements.
-
Thanks for the compliment ... but twasn't me who said anything about Portugal ...
-
But when you post things such as the following, you must realize that it gives the appearance of diminishing the act - which is what apologists of/for Polanski attempt to do. <p> "The point is this - what Polanski did has been magnified and villified way out of proportion, so much so that it has ceased to become a matter of morality, and more a matter of sensationalism "<p> And which prompted me to respond - He drugged, raped and perhaps sodomised a 13 year old child. Please tell me how what he did has been magnified beyond that extreme.<p> Your subsequent posts have clarified your position vis-a-vis the despicable acts he committed, but I am sure you can understand why the above item you posted, raised some questions.
-
from now on I'll just keep lurking and wait for you to show up and express my point of view. :^)
-
Must have been Lost Jarv. You are excused. Why are you so mean to Portugal Jarv? One asshole does not a country make.
-
I think he's a moron, the spelling mistakes crop up when he's flustered and unable to defend a position, so resorting to insults as he did to me and Jarv. <p> Red Ned Lynch, bravo...far more eloquent than I managed. A shame he's had tragedy, but haven't we all?? As you say, no excuse.<p> Well, I'm off to bed. Goodnight all. Except Asicunt, hope he drowns in his own drool.
-
You make some valid points however I think you are wrong when you say "and also the absurd notion that the viewing, ownership, and even admiration for the art created by such an individual has anything at all to do with his crime or the support of it by default." I agree that art should be admired and viewed regardless of the artists history but to actually buy or own said piece of art AFTER knowing the artists history is to financially reward somebody who has committed great harm and subtly condoning that persons acts. If you paid for a piece of art and then found out that the creator was a mass murderer after you had bought it then I could understand keeping ownership of it because you've paid good money and what's done is done, but in this case most people know that Polanski has been convicted of DLR and are still going to see his movie because he's a 'great artist'. Regardless of his artistic merits he's still an unpunished kiddie fiddler who shouldn't be given a dime regardless of how good people think his movies are. Once he's paid for his crime I'll be willing to give the guy a break until then though I'm giving his movies a miss.
-
I say it again - outstanding post sir. <p> As for Glen Cook, after I read the Annals of the Black Company, I made it my mission to seek out every book I could find of his. I haunted quite a few second hand stores over the years. <p> Truly love the BC books, although he did go off the rails a bit with the 'boo-boo' storyline. I think he was getting tired of the boys -he kept killing them off. <p> But still, at it's height, it was epic and gripping fantasy. And extremely well written. <p> Very nice to meet a fellow enthusiast. You are not by any chance an Alfred Bester fan are you, or perhaps a Cerebus fan?
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 7:09 p.m. CST
So, I oppose the rape of a child, making me a paedophile?
by FamousEccles
In that case, I don't boycott Polanski movies either. Which, in turn, means you do the opposite of what you say. You don't watch Polanski movies and you think all who work with him should be boycotted too. In fact, if this be the case, and we are voicing the opposite of our actual beliefs, then you don't actually mean that comment about me "protesting too much". If this is what you believe, then why are you posting at all. Twit.
-
A little off topic, but how are the Garrett, PI books? I have an omnibus edition of the first 3 but haven't read anything by Cook yet. Is it akin to Fritz Leiber? That is the impression I get from the synopsis....maybe Leiber crossed with Python?
-
next guy, and I don't look to movies for realism, but I draw the line at 007 having an invisible car. Storywise, they were tripe. Craig's Bond is closer to the books, so he is not "afraid" to be 007.
-
...the guy who wrote The Stars My Destination and the Demolished Man? Yeah, a little. Stryzinski (whose name I'm sure I've misspelled)won a permanent gold star from me when he named the evil head telepath in Babylon Five Bester. <p> And yeah, the second cycle wasn't quite as good as the first and there were parts of the last one that did seem like he was going through the motions. But everything with the Dominator and the Lady was just grand. I think I may dig them up and read them again just based on this talk.
-
for Silent Witness. I love me some Emilia Fox. Nice.
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 7:22 p.m. CST
and people say Lucas raped their childhood????
by NomoredirtyjokespleaseweareYanks
it's just a personal thing, so please don't view this as taking the moral high ground..... Fuck Polanski. If someone had of shot him in the head 30 + years ago it would have been fitting. <p> I'm not judging anyone for watching his films. I just think rapists should hang.
-
Deadly Quicksilver Lies. <p> I just checked the vast Toadkiller library, that is the only reason why I know I have it. <p> I have a general impression of liking it, but not loving it. <p> I certainly would have bought more if I had loved it.<p> Perhaps I was just disappointed it was not the Black Company, or any of his science fiction. I may have to give it a re-read.<p> For a light hearted comic/fantasy/detective story, have you tried the earliest Robert Asprin M.Y.T.H books? Before he had the breakdown that is?
-
...I'll be interested to read what Toadkillerdog has to say. I like them a lot, from the tip of the hat to the conceit of Russ McDonald's, using precious metals instead of colors to the light tone of the books themselves. <p> But I'm not sure if I had picked up one without having the experience of having read The Black Company I would have gobbled up all the others the way I did. I'm sure I would have liked it, but I'm not sure I would have felt a great need to get and read them all.
-
...yeah, what he said.
-
The Dominator and the Lady and the Forsaken was just a tremendous storyline. And lets not forget -Toadkillerdog. <p> I am putting the first series back on the fast track for a re-read. <p> Bester is my all time favorite science fiction author. The Stars my Destination is the finest sci-fi book I have ever read. <p> Have you read Cyteen, by Cherryh?
-
Hang them by their balls until dead. Doubtless, Turd will have something to say about that.
-
Knee-deep in Neal Stephenson's last trilogy....will take a look when I emerge sometime next year lol
-
But, I just felt no overwhelming urge to buy them all. But anything that says Black Company - is mine.
-
I would start with Another Fine M.Y.T.H.<p> Then read the first five books after that. I think his breakdown happened around the sixth book, and they take a much darker turn, and he loses his comic edge, and the books take themselves way to seriously after that until he just stopped writing altogether for a number of years.
-
After this Stephenson, I was *finally* going to tackle the George R.R. Martin "Ice and Fire" thing before the series next year. Any more good picks, and I might never catch up. As far as Cook, after looking on Amazon, Black Company might be more my speed than Garrett. We'll see...at some point!
-
"Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful." -Nietzsche <p> Of course, I don't trust rapists, either. But at the end of the day, whether you ever watch a Polanski movie again or not... no one here has done anything to actually support the rape of a minor, or protected any innocents from such a crime. All we've done is derail a movie talkback. And unless it's a Scriptgirl or GONE! talkback, it accomplishes nothing but killing some time on the internet. Nash out.
-
The first three books of that series, are in my estimation the finest adult epic fantasy ever written. The fourth book was almost pointless though. Not horrible, but it did nothing to advance the plot.
-
...and I might need to dig up those Alliance books again. I must admit to my shame I haven't read the one that came out last year yet. Much of my reading time is now used to see if novels about warrior cats or teenage vampires are getting into the hands of my daughter. <p> Have you read Mike Resnick's Inner Frontier books? If you haven't I suspect you might like them given the books you've mentioned.
-
I am signing off, but I wanted to say hello before I said goodbye!
-
If you guys want a good laugh, check out this guy's re-titling of some famous fantasy series... http://tinyurl.com/5wkl9u
-
...sadly I think Martin has frozen up a little. But as someone who loves dark books...man. Hey, if you ever get a chance to read an old (and probably out of print) book of his called Fevre Dreams you should snap it up (assuming you haven't read it already). It's a fantasy set on a riverboat that I remember really loving.
-
Whats up man! I was eavesdropping on your book conversation, I never knew where you got your AICN handle but after checking out the wiki page for those books you referenced, I think I'm going to have to give them a read. I've been waiting for the next Martin book to be finished, but that could be forever, and the Black Company stuff sounds too good to miss. So thanks for the inadvertent tip!
-
After all, they acted in movies made by Polanski (post rape), so they're just as at fault as anyone!: Harrison Ford, Hugh Grant, Kristin Scott Thomas, Walter Matthau, Sigourny Weaver, Ben Kingsley, Johnny Depp, Frank Langella, Adrien Brody, Mark Strong, Ewan McGregor, Pierce Brosnan, Timothy Hutton, Kim Katrell, Olivia Williams, and Tom Wilkinson.
-
...stuff I kind of liked the first couple Thieves World books. Although it's possible I more loved the idea of what they wee doing than the books themselves. <p> Been a long time since I read those.
-
I enjoyed the chat, and I will check out the Resnick books. I always like a good recommendation.
-
This lot might have not acted in a Polanski film but they did publicly support him!: Woody Allen, Wes Anderson,Darren Aronofsky, Monica Belluci, Alfonso Cuaron, Terry Gilliam, John Landis, David Lynch, Michael Mann, Martin Scorcese, and Tilda Swinton,
-
that is how I felt about Martin's "Wild Cards" books. Only made it through the 1st two. And Fevre Dream is GREAT would be a SHAME if that were out of print! Amazing it hasn't been adapted yet....and it is a book I would love to see filmed. to close, anyone looking for something fun and different...check out VURT by jeff noon.
-
...it was fun. <p> By the way, the him in that last post was Asprin.
-
...The Thieves World books are the same sort of thing, getting a bunch of writers to share the universe. <p> And yeah, I sort of suspect my feeling for them was based on the novelty.
-
Summit, Universal, Artisan, Sony, and others!
-
Jan. 21, 2010, 8:16 p.m. CST
And if you're not going to boycott those I've listed above...
by RedJester
I say f*ck off with the outrage at Beaks for posting a friggin movie review, and at us for wanting to see it! Because you are posers, nothing more, nothing less. For those who actually have or will cease seeing any of the aforementioned peoples and studios films, I applaud you! We might not see eye to eye, but at least you don't live a life of hypocrisy. Congrats to you!
-
Go back and read some Polanski talkbacks from before the arrest and I think you'll find that people in fact, did give a shit then too.
-
attention in the slightest. Well done, young man!!!
-
on this talkback. I doubt he ever pays attention.
-
Those guys definitely fucked little kids.
-
So you are going to watch this film knowing that an admitted kiddy fiddler is going to profit from it? Is it because you think that its going to be a good movie or because you are making some kind of stand in his defence? And I'm not calling for a boycott of all those who have worked with him in the past and present, I'm saying that he personally should be targetted and should not profit from his films until he has paid the legal price of his actions. The fact that Beaks and others are trying to promote this movie is in my opinion in bad taste.
-
Oh for sure! I'll fire up the bonfire and you can bring the marshmallows! BOOKBURNING IS AWESOME!
-
... is really just half the story. It was originally intended to be of a whole with the fifth book, A Dance of Dragons. What the fuck is taking so long with that one, I have no idea.
-
that walked or crawled. I can't read Greek, anyway, so I guess by never learning, I am boycotting it.
-
Definitely kid fuckers.
-
just lets it happen. Such is the way of things.
-
despite what the text of a law may say
-
Judges don't have to accept them. Criminal defendants are told that when they enter pleas. In the end, the judge has the authority to impose less or more than the plea bargain contemplated. The judge is limited by the law, not the plea bargain.
-
— I agree. Here is someone who knows a thing about child endangerment and the horrors faced by the victims of these type of heinous crimes but also DOES something to help them:<br><br>http://tinyurl.com/ydk4nle
-
—there is NO debating that. The transcripts of the hearing are public record. Polanski committed rape. No equivocation is needed in describing what he did.
-
Just because he's making movies and you can post about them doesn't mean you should. Have you ever had to be awakened by a child victims's night terrors? Have you ever seen a child cringe in terror at the sight of their father because they see their attacker in the form of the man? Until you understand the scope of the harm rape can do a child, until you talk with an adult child rape victim, or the parent of a victim, you should not promote a child rapist. Just because you can doens't mean you should. I love aintitcool, but won't be back if I see you promote a child rapist. I've held a child as they sob in terror from what's happened to them. You need to think about those children, not about the art the rapist produces.
-
"consenusal sex with young women is not "rape"<p> 1) This wasn't consensual.<p> 2) Because of that, it would STILL have been rape even if she was thirty years old.<p> 3) Even if it WAS consensual, it's considered rape because a child can't give informed consent.<p> There's no reasonable argument that doesn't have Polanski deserving jailtime.
-
My point is that Beaks is very low on the totem pole here of people who should be blamed for supporting Roman. The only person lower perhaps is "regular-Joe-moviegoer" who still watches his films. Now I've heard some here pronounce that they were so upset by this article, that they would never frequent AICN ever again!! Others made various other threats and insults at the AICN staff as well as those of us who would dare want to see a Roman Polanski movie. Now, truth be told, I understand where everyone is coming from, but if those of us this low on the totem pole are being held to this type of scrutiny and other hate filled rants, what about those at the top? And, yes, the studios who have financed his films, the actors who have worked for him, and the other celebrities who have otherwise supported him would be right below Polanski at the top of the totem pole. What of them? Do they get a free pass just because you like their films? I'm sorry, but that's hypocrisy. At the very least they should get the same hate filled remarks directed towards them in talkbacks of their movies that has been directed at us in this talkback forum. But, using the logic that the further up the totem pole you are the harsher the consequence, would dictate at the very least a boycott of their films. I mean according to you they're directly aiding and embedding a known criminal so, where's the hate!?? And that's why I'm calling those of you hypocrites :)
-
I'm arguing to separate him from the crime, and that the crime was despicable and Asiholegoatfucker is trying to excuse it. <P>Mattman, there is no Gray area here, and AsimovLives is not balanced. Don't support him, he's wrong and is posting truly despicable shit. <P>In all honesty, if it wasn't him posting this shit, then I wouldn't be bothering, but now that I know that he drugs his fleecy victim before sodomising it.