comment #1

Hardy says ...

A Bad Person? How pathetic and shameful.

comment #2

Hardy says ...

*shameless

comment #3

Breedlove says ...

The 'Dreamgirls' gals singing each other's songs seems odd. Beyonce must be jealous of all the love Jennifer Hudson got and is insisting that she sing 'And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going.' This smells like some kind of power play on the part of her camp.

comment #4

Eddie says ...

I dunno, Jeff. Not to set off a big argument here, but it's kinda funny you call Eddie Murphy a bad person in the same column where you praise Polanski.

comment #5

Jesse Perry says ...

So, because Eddie Murphy's made a lot of crappy movies, his sub-par attitude makes him a bad person, whereas a child rapist is super-cool as long as he makes movies that Jeff likes. How is that thought process anything other than completely fucking stupid?

comment #6

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Polanski-haters (Hardy, Breedlove, Jesse Perry, et. al.): The Movie Gods watch over the making and celebrating of great, super-tingly, spirit-lifting movies and those who make them. Despite having once foolishly fed quaaludes to a seemingly under-age girl and then having his depraved way with her (which is something no God-fearing, Boy Scout merit-badge male I've ever known has ever once considered doing), Roman Polanski is a great filmmaker, and therefore beloved by the Gods. Eddie Murphy is a surly, unhappy, lowbrow entertainer (hee-hee-hee-hee) who's in it for the money, and is therefore tolerated (i.e., winked at) but certainly not loved by the Movie Gods. If you believe in the Church of Moviedom, you understand that Polanski is truly holy in a perverse sort of way, like John the Baptist wanking himself off between River Jordan baptizings. You must also understand that by Polanski's standard of holiness, Eddie Murphy is a wanker...a black Jimmy Swaggart looking to stuff his pockets...hee-hee-hee-hee.

comment #7

Balthazar says ...

To me the most revealing "spoiler" was about who is presenting the Best Director Oscar. That tells me, once and for all, that Scorsese has won, and the Academy KNOWS it. That should be a pretty damn cool scene on the stage.

comment #8

corey3rd says ...

So if all 4 guys are on the stage at once, do they have to admit who slept with Margot Kidder?

comment #9

Chicago48 says ...

Eddie should say, f*** this, I'm not attending. Send me my Oscar.
Them waiting until the END OF THE 4 HOUR SHOW IS A CRIME....everybody turn off your TV in protest.

comment #10

Sean says ...

Balthazar, I was about to say the exact same thing. Although now I'm tittering about how embarrassing it would be for them to all be up there with Paul Greengrass.

comment #11

Ju-osh says ...

Jeff, If you really believe that drugging and fucking an under-age girl is less offensive than making shitty movies and being a diva, you are gross and an idiot. I hope your kids didn't have many birthday parties while on their weekend visits with dad.

comment #12

corey3rd says ...

the biggest thing is going to be the press tent. Going 3 hours with only the Tech award winners? Well it's nice, at least by giving out the Supporting Awards early, it gave them plenty of time to chat about the moment with the press.

The Sound Guy better win so there will be at least some excitement.

comment #13

Ju-osh says ...

"Despite having once foolishly fed quaaludes to a seemingly under-age girl and then having his depraved way with her (which is something no God-fearing, Boy Scout merit-badge male I've ever known has ever once considered doing)."

This makes it official, Jeff. You lose. Poland has never said anything this offensive and/or disturbingly self-revealing. Not even close.

comment #14

Mike Schaefer says ...

The "tradition" of giving the Supporting acting awards early in the evening only goes back 10 or 15 years, if memory serves. For decades all the "big" awards always came in the last hour. In fact... didn't they change to the recent format because people weren't watching the *beginning* of the show?

comment #15

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Ju-Osh: You've never heard of guys using a substance of one form or another (alchohol is the most commonly used...for the last several centuries) as a way of loosening things up so that they can get into a girl's knickers? Are you utterly demented? Alcohol, quaaludes, you name it...different chemical constitutions, same strategy, same goal. And you're also telling me you've never heard of any guy being with a younger woman before? Do you think the girl who was with Polanski wore a sign around her neck that said, "13 years old -- males over 18 beware!"? Where are your synapses?

comment #16

chicbn872 says ...

I psuedo-agree with Jeff on this one. Polanski made some poor decisions once but he deserved that win for The Pianist. There are plenty of actors/directors/producers that have done some shady things, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be rewarded for creating something good.

Eddie Murphy? You want to tell me that he could possibly have his hands on an Oscar before Marty Scorsese? Even if it's 20 minutes before...it's all wrong. Give me Marky Mark or Alan Arkin please. Really...pleeeease!

comment #17

alynch says ...

OK, most of the time I am a Polanski apologist simply because he has made some great films. But to imply that drugging an underage girl and then having sex with her is no big deal is just inexcusable and reeks of comment-whoring.

comment #18

gruver1 says ...

Wells to alunch: Brilliant...really brilliant. I didn't imply that drugging an underage girl and having sex with her is no big deal. I said (a) that the practice of guys of all ages trying to have their way with girls (including younger ones) with the aid of an inhibition-loosening substance goes back to the days of the ancient Egyptians, and (b) that I strongly doubt if the girl whom Polanski selfishly and stupidly took advantage of made her age known (or wanted it known). Have you demanded two pieces of government-certified photo ID from every younger girl you've ever been intimate with (or wanted to be intimate with), to make sure she's not under 18? If you failed to do that even ONCE, then you need to please refrain from speaking on this subject any further. End of discussion.

comment #19

Hardy says ...

And now you're defending Polanski for his lack of responsibility? This is some truly disturbing stiff . . .

comment #20

Rich S. says ...

Uh-uh. No. Sorry. This was no case of "mistaken identity." Polanski, who was 43 at the time, well knew that the girl was underage. He had spoken with her mother about doing photo shoots with her. He did not pick her up in a bar. To be fair, he claimed that he was set up. But then he ran to France and has never returned to the United States to face the charges.

This is not a case of a 21-year-old college student wanting to get into the pants of a 17-year-old high school girl and buying her wine coolers to make her more agreeable (although that's pretty odious, too). Regardless of what really happened, Polanski should not have put himself in that position and, after he did, he should have dealt with the consequences of his actions.

I predict the Movie Gods will punish this last minute bit of equivocation and mendacity by handing the award to Murphy.

comment #21

Dubbs says ...

Rich S, I'm glad you brought Murphy back into this debate. After all, apparently it's worse being a black man with a bad attitude than it is being a white child rapist.

More to the point, Wells won't sympathize with Murphy in the least, even as he does mental acrobatics to justify Polanski's behavior. Something's not adding up here.

comment #22

Sean says ...

Jeff, let's turn back to the facts of the case.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

This wasn't some Raging Bull underage scenario. ("How'd they get in my bar? How'd they learn to kiss like that?") Granted, this is one person's testimony, but based on that testimony, the fact that the appointment turned to sex/rape seems fairly premeditated. (And the part of the deposition where this 13-year-old talks about him "performing cuddliness" instead of "cunnilingus" breaks my heart.)

Polanski made the photo shoot arrangements with her mom. He wasn't under any illusions about her age.

comment #23

Sean says ...

Rich, on the flipside, Polanski's flight wasn't quite like that. My understanding is that he had gone through a formal arraignment, had a plea bargain, etc., but then learned (correctly) that the judge was going to make an example of him and so fled. I'm not saying that makes it right, and I'm not saying that the plea bargain was proportional to the seriousness of the crime.

comment #24

Rich S. says ...

Sean, I agree I oversimplified. I was trying primarily to make the point you did that this was not a case where the girl's age was unknown to Polanski. I relied upon this article, which sets it out fairly well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski#Indictment_on_charge_of_rape_and_other_sex_offenses

comment #25

Sean says ...

Finally, to the larger question of the movie gods: We as a society have decided that what Polanski did is not a capital crime. So there's a level at which we have to figure out how to reintegrate him into society. If we had to nullify the oeuvre of every artist who was also a rapist and similar bad actor from the history of the world, our culture would be much smaller and worse for the removals. We the people get to vote with our dollars, mostly, as well as our recognition. But I also think that Polanski is truly sorry and that his victim has sincerely forgiven him.

comment #26

sutter kane says ...

I think you guys are missing the point. Leni Riefenstal made one of the great documentaries of all time with Hitler's money and blessing. The things surrounding the film may be despicable, but the film itself is beautiful.

Polanski may be a despicable person, but The Pianist exists totally outside of that as a beautiful, powerful film. Eddie Murphy could be mother theresa in his day-to-day life, but most of his movies blow, and he doesn't make them for anything more or less than $20 million.

It's the movie gods jeff is praying to, not the moral ones.

comment #27

storymark says ...

Polanski has made some great films. I hope he continues to. But Jeff defending the rape of a child, when polanski knew full well how old she was, by equating it to every guy who's tried to get a girl drunk, paints a fairly sick image of Wells.

Do you give your boys a box of ruffies before they go to parties? Cause you seem to think that type of behavior is normal.

comment #28

Rich S. says ...

Sutter, taking your argument to its logical conclusion, the piece of art exists apart from the baggage its creator brings to the table. That baggage would include, presumably, the other works by that same artist.

By that rationale, Murphy's performance in Dreamgirls exists apart from his performances in Pluto Nash, Norbit, Vampire in Brooklyn, etc. Judged on that basis, he should win.

But we all know the Oscars don't work that way. I'm just hoping that the Movie Gods create a "backlash to the backlash" and give Murphy the prize. (Plus, Jeff's reaction if he does win will be a corker.)

comment #29

Earl Hofert says ...

I am fairly certain that if the Movie Gods truly did exist, Wells would have been transformed into a pillar of salt long ago.

I'm with Rich--even though I'm betting that Arkin will win it (mostly out of sentiment because the best thing about LMS is that it is only the second-worst Best Picture nominee), a part of me is now hoping for a Murphy win just so I can imagine Wells doing his best impression of "Scanners"

comment #30

sardine says ...

jeff, francis ford c. cannot stand you.

i hope marky mark wins. this is a very weak catagory.

comment #31

Josh Massey says ...

I just became a charter member of Team Murphy.

comment #32

jeffmcm says ...

I agree Josh. Murphy might be a rich asshole, but Wells at this point is a bottom-feeding scum sucker with no talent at anything except feeding his own ego. And based on that, I hope Murphy wins.

comment #33

Ju-osh says ...

Jeff, why have you disappeared from the discussion now that multiple people have commented that Polanski DID indeed know the age of the girl he molested/raped? It's also odd that you view drugging someone the same as buying somebody drinks at a bar. FYI: It's not -- ethically or legally.

comment #34

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Polanski-haters: If Polanski really and truly knew she was 13, then he did a really callous and cruel thing. And yet he's still Polanski, still beloved by the Movie Gods, still an artistic giant compared to the vaudevillian creep that is Eddie Murphy. Being a great artist cuts an awful lot of slack in my book. He didn't kill her or beat her or harass her. Plus the girl in question has let it go and suggested others do the same. What do you think, guys? Wanna meet outside of town early this evening (8 pm, say) and burn a Polanski scarecrow effigy while chanting hymns?

comment #35

Ju-osh says ...

No one's debating the fact that Polanski is a great director. Like you, he's one of my favorites, too. In fact, I'd say he deserved to win the Oscar for 'The Pianist' more legitimately than Scorsese does for 'The Departed' (which I think is a make-up award for not giving him one for 'Taxi Driver', 'Raging Bull', 'Goodfellas', etc).
What I'm/they're saying is that the literal crimes commited by Polanski far outweigh the figurative "crimes" of Eddie Murphy (hell, even if we throw in picking up that transvestite hooker, it's still a victimless, state-ordained crime between consenting adults and not a moral one of predatory evil*).
By attempting to state Polanski's relative kindness in the crime ("he didn't kill her or beat her"?!), you continue to make light of a pretty awful act.

*think: Zodiac

comment #36

L.B. says ...

I hope when Arkin wins the Oscar he dedicates it to all the girls Eddie Murphy has killed and beaten.

Wait. I think I got lost in Wells' argument. Where were we?

Good thing Polanski never did anything just for the money or he'd have some explaining to do to these weird gods and their arbitrary rules. What? Pirates, what?