comment #1

BurmaShave says ...

Matthieu Amalric, with the aide of a good makeup artist, should appear in Polanski's place.

comment #2

MindlessObamaton says ...

Burma, he wouldn't need much makeup!

comment #3

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Nice, Burma, that would make a great centerpiece for a Charlie Kaufman-esque thriller

comment #4

PCP_Patriots says ...

The man should be in jail, period. What he did is pretty sick. No excuse and if he is not a criminal then he is mentally ill and should pay the price.

comment #5

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to PCP Patriots: That kind of talk could get you purged around these parts, fella. This is a Polanski-respecting site. Call Pirates a piece of shit, call Frantic a bore, call The Tenant a disappointment...whatever. Go to town. But try to show a modicum of respect for one of the cinema's greatest living artists. If you don't, you'll be tossed. My party, my rules.

comment #6

btwnproductions says ...

Agreed that it's time to bring this to an end, that Geimer is brave for speaking out, etc. But wasn't it you for who said, re: THE READER, words to the effect that adult males who seduce underage girls are worthless predators? Are we to excuse Polanski for his crime because the victim has made her peace with it?

Polanksi may be one of cinema's greatest artists. But like it or not that will always be prefaced by an *.

comment #7

Rich S. says ...

While I respect the victim's desire for privacy and closure, her forgiveness now isn't really relevant.

She was 13 when Polanski took sexual advantage of her. Thirteen-years-old. She did not have the ability at that time to consent to what Polanski did to her, especially considering that he drugged her, as well.

I would say, as an academic exercise, to go to your local middle school and look at the girls there and decide for yourself whether they have the the ability to consent to a sex act after being given drugs. Just the fact that you would probably be questioned or arrested for hanging around tells you what society thinks of this kind of thing. Prosecutorial/judicial misconduct does not alter the fact of what Polanski did.

Oh, and Pirates was a piece of shit, if that makes you feel any better.

comment #8

Calraigh Bracken says ...

Yes he's one of the greatest living proponents of cinema. Yes, he's an artist in the truest sense of the word, one of the greatest. Apart from Pirates , which is one of the greatest pieces of shit to have ever been produced by non-biological means.

But he's still a rapist, he'll always be a rapist and he's never served any jail time. He's unbelievably lucky he has (had?) the talent he did/does.

comment #9

Krazy Eyes says ...

My problem with the whole Polanski case is that people often try to paint the whole situation in black and white terms when it's not. People also try to paint him as some predatory scumbag (and I'm not excusing his actions) without putting the whole event into some sort of perspective.

As far as I know he's never claimed to be innocent of the crime -- he apologized and was willing to face his punishment. The problem was that he got caught in the middle of situation where a politicized and overzealous prosecutor wanted to make a name for himself. So Polanski fled rather than face the possibility of what most people thought was a unjust imprisonment.

comment #10

Mr. Muckle says ...

Are you kidding? I loved Pirates when I saw it, admittedly a long time ago. They start out floating on a raft in the middle of nowhere, get rescued, go through a number of ludicrous, avaricious pirate adventures, and end up exactly where they started, floating on a raft in the middle of nowhere.

It's a metaphor for life, man. Only you're lucky if you've got a raft.

comment #11

Mr. Muckle says ...

I did put a spoilers notice in there, ha ha, but I guess the symbols I use got it commented out. Well, sorry for y'all who're going to rush out to see it now. It was great, though.

Krazy Eyes is right. He was set to do his time, (according to the documentary) but the prosecutor had ambitions and did not hold to his agreement. But of course, having to live in France and not set foot in the U.S. any more is hardly a punishment, I would say. What a lucky fellow!

comment #12

Josh Massey says ...

Defend him, don't defend him - but the victim's apparent forgiveness has nothing to do with how the court system should treat him.

Truthfully, I think he deserves to go to prison for The Ninth Gate more than anything else.

comment #13

theultimatebiu says ...

He needs to serve his time. PERIOD.

comment #14

YRG says ...

@btwnproduction: We are to excuse him for the crime, because when a great director does it, that means it's not illegal...

I think there would be at least two asterisks before Polanski's name, one for the crimes he's committed, and one for the crimes committed against him (one of the most grisly crimes of the sixties).

comment #15

jbf81 says ...

WTF Wells? so because he is a great director he should be respected? the fuck hell no. He is a rapist. PERIOD. How long or how hard must be his sentence, thats with the law, but the man is a rapist and I will never forgive that, even if his films are good. Hollywood bulshit sometimes its too much, its ok for you to rape kids as long as you are talented man. THE HELL

comment #16

jbf81 says ...

I have a 13 years old sister, and the thought that someone may drug and rape her and not receive the punishment because he is a great and famous director or a celebrity would make me insane. You cant convince me that it will be ok or that he should be respected for his work. The man is a disgrace and none of his films will change that for me.

comment #17

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Some of you sound like Bible-belt Methodist ministers out of a Sinclair Lewis novel. Polanski's act was coarse and contemptible, but if the victim herself is willing to let it roll and let bygones be bygones, what's your fucking problem? 31 years ago, for God's sake. What if it happened 51 years ago? Or 61 years ago? Would you still be holding your pitchforks and torches and calling for Polanski's blood?

Hey, have you guys heard about Julius and Ethel Rosenberg? Traitors who sold nuclear secrets to the Russians! String 'em up! Oh, that's right -- they went to the chair in '53.

comment #18

DeafBrownTrashPunk says ...

Just because Polanski is a great artist, it doesn't mean he's a good person.

comment #19

Ryansi51 says ...

pardon my lack of all details, but if i remember correctly wasn't it her MOTHER who pretty much set the whole thing up and left her with him?

not saying that gives him the right, but those are some mixed messages to be giving a 13 yr old kid and also Roman.

comment #20

theultimatebiu says ...

Because he BROKE THE LAW AND DID NOT FACE A JURY OR TRIAL. Don't let your love for his art cloud your ability to reason.

comment #21

Jeffrey Wells says ...

How many of the Sinclair Lewis moral absolutists who've posted about this matter have seen Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired? If you haven't seen it, I think you should maybe think about shutting up because you're probably not fully clued in.

comment #22

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to DeafBrownTrashPunk: You wrote "just because Polanski is a great artist, it doesn't mean he's a good person." No! I refuse to believe that Roman Polanski or any other artist might be flawed in terms of their character or behavior or whatnot! They're all God's good men. Don't believe those horrible stories you may have read about the icky personal behavior of Geoffrey Chaucer, Samuel Johnson, Honore de Balzac, Vincent Van Gogh, Edgar Allen Poe, Oscar Wilde, etc.

comment #23

Devin Faraci says ...

Some of you guys don't seem to know that Polanski served prison time for this crime.

comment #24

nemo says ...

Polanski unquestionably deserved punishment. But everybody calling for his blood should remember that he pleaded guilty and even served 42 days in Chino State Prison. But the original judge and the prosecutor went back on the plea agreement. They were both politically motivated, and there's a lot of evidence that they both engaged in misconduct.

The victim's point is not just that a lot of time has passed, or that she has forgiven Polanski, or that he has suffered enough. Her further point is that the original judge and prosecutor perpetrated a miscarriage of justice, and that it is time to bring that miscarriage of justice to an end.

comment #25

dukedog says ...

Krazy Eyes: You summed it up better than anyone! Good on ya!

Mr. Wells: I agree 100%. Until you have seen the documentary, you don't really know what went down.

Unfortunately, the victim speaking out will probably not do any good as the prosecutors represent "the people" and not her. That is just the law, flawed as it is. Even though, the prosecutors can decide to use common sense and let this thing drop already, which is what they should do for the lady. She's been through enough.

comment #26

the400blows says ...

"@btwnproduction: We are to excuse him for the crime, because when a great director does it, that means it's not illegal... "

YRG: Sounds like what Langella said in Frost/Nixon.

comment #27

nemo says ...

Of course Polanski never faced a jury or a trial. Most people who go to prison (which Polanski was ready and willing to do) never face a jury or a trial. Most of them reach a plea agreement. The legal system would be swamped if everyone went through a full jury trial.

Polanski pleaded guilty. That's why there was no jury trial. In all of Anglo-American legal history a guilty plea means no trial.

Polanski was ready to go to prison for a reasonable amount of time, reasonable for the crime he pleaded guilty to, and in conformance with his plea agreement. A showboating prosecutor and a showboating judge decided to collaborate in tearing up that plea agreement and were getting ready to put Polanski away for a ridiculously long prison term in order to score some political points.

That's why the victim is calling for the present day prosecutor to bring an end to this farce.

comment #28

YRG says ...

@the400blows ;)

comment #29

theultimatebiu says ...

He still did not serve any reasonable time for such a crime. It does not matter whether her mother was in on it (I believe she was in on it) the guy committed a crime and ran off. Obviously the Judge/Lawyer motives have to be called into question but he still did not serve a sentence.

comment #30

Devin Faraci says ...

Yes, he did serve a sentence.

comment #31

Rich S. says ...

The problem is confusing the prosecutorial/judicial misconduct with the crime itself. The two must be looked at separately. What the judge and prosecutor did is wrong and punishment should be dealt accordingly.

But the fact remains that Polanski still has not served any meaningful time for his crime. If Polanski wants to set aside his plea and take his chances with the judicial system, that's his right. Or, if he wants to let the plea stand and get a new sentence issued by an unbiased prosecutor and judge, that's his right, too. I'm sure by now there are recommended sentence ranges for his crime and he could make such a sentence a precondition of his return.

What it sounds like, though, is that he wants to be exonerated for a crime he admitted to committing because the judge was about to impose an unfair sentence 30 years ago. That, and the victim apparently forgives him. That's where his argument fails.

They should do their best to make sure he gets due process. But they should not let him off the hook.

comment #32

arturobandini2 says ...

Furthermore, the victim is saying she will suffer if this case is re-prosecuted. The lynch mob out for Polanski's blood doesn't seem to care any more for her well-being than her mother did.

Not to make excuses for inexcusable behavior, but this was not an isolated incident in Hollywood in the '70s. The main difference in this case was that the perp's mother was killed at Auschwitz and his wife and unborn baby were hacked to death by killer hippies.

comment #33

Glenn Kenny says ...

Oh, I do enjoy how the mere mention of Polanski's name brings out the foaming-at-the-mouth torch-and-pitchfork holders, as well as chin-stroking concern trolls who'd like to point out that Polanski still hasn't done his time, and gosh, he really ought to, doncha think?

News flash: Polanski ain't gonna do time. As Doug Dalton said in CIeply's Times article on Jan. 6, "Roman Polanski has no plans to ever return to the United States." So wipe the foam off your face, fellas. These procedures represent, as the saying goes, a mere formality.

comment #34

Rich S. says ...

I agree with that statement 100%, Glenn. Polanski is 75 years old. I would imagine the mandatory minimum for sexual conduct with an under-16-year old in California is pretty steep, 10 years +.

The reason he wants the case dismissed outright is that if it's not, he would end up spending the rest of his life in jail. And even if he got out, at age 80 or above, he would have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his days.

comment #35

theultimatebiu says ...

As long as I am not being roped in with the 'foaming at the mouth lynch mobs' than I agree. I am just stating why people are mad at him. It's perfectly understandable why he run and he is obviously never going to return to the US or serve any time but it does not excuse what he did.

comment #36

DavidF says ...

Yeah, some people here are being really knee-jerk.

It seems pretty well-established that Polanski fled because they re-negged on the plea and not to avoid prosecution per se.

The victim has forgiven him and publicly stated to the courts she doesn't want this all this 30-year-old stuff dragged through the mud again. So, if you're "foaming at the mouth" about why he must go to jail, who are you doing it for? Justice?

comment #37

drbob says ...

We live in an unjust world. There are countless people that have been tried and convicted of crimes they didn't commit. There are thousands if not millions of young men serving long prison sentences which are grossly disportionate to the societal harm caused by the non-violent drug offenses for which they were convicted.

A million wrongs happen every day. If one wrong should happen to befall a man who indisputably drugged and anally raped a 13 year old girl, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

That being said, Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown are two of my favorite films.

comment #38

D.Z. says ...

"Respect, compassion and admiration for 45 year-old Samantha Geiner, the unwilling and way-underage recipient of Roman Polanski's predatory lust 31 years ago, for standing up and telling the Los Angeles County district attorney's office where to go yesterday."

It's the Stockholm Syndrome talking, Jeff, not her.

"Back off, enough already, stop your prosecutorial bullshit and bring this protracted case to an end."

If Polanski was black and/or on America's Most Wanted, his defenders would be saying something completely different, and they know it. Look at the way they still lord it over O.J.

"What if it happened 51 years ago? Or 61 years ago? Would you still be holding your pitchforks and torches and calling for Polanski's blood?"

Well, some of the Nazis raped children 70 years ago. Should we forgive them? Hell, they still talk about Fatty Arbuckle, so why not Polanski?

"Hey, have you guys heard about Julius and Ethel Rosenberg? Traitors who sold nuclear secrets to the Russians! String 'em up! Oh, that's right -- they went to the chair in '53."

They were innocent, though. That's the difference. Even if they weren't, at least they didn't hurt people.

"How many of the Sinclair Lewis moral absolutists who've posted about this matter have seen Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired? If you haven't seen it, I think you should maybe think about shutting up because you're probably not fully clued in."

It probably just tries to undermine the validity of the case based on the procedures, and not the actual evidence. Again, if the prosecutor's last name was Cochran, you'd be singing a completely different tune.

"Don't believe those horrible stories you may have read about the icky personal behavior of Geoffrey Chaucer, Samuel Johnson, Honore de Balzac, Vincent Van Gogh, Edgar Allen Poe, Oscar Wilde, etc."

At least what Poe did with a young girl was legal.

Krazy: "My problem with the whole Polanski case is that people often try to paint the whole situation in black and white terms when it's not."

Yeah, it's black and purple.

"The problem was that he got caught in the middle of situation where a politicized and overzealous prosecutor wanted to make a name for himself."

And don't you think Polanski is trying to make a name for himself by wasting the court's time with his stalling? "I'm innocent and the same guy you always loved, I tells ya! Now gimme funding for my new project, or you're no better than those prosecutors!"

Ryan: What mother would suspect a celebrity of being a pedophile?

Devin: "Some of you guys don't seem to know that Polanski served prison time for this crime."

Less than the average perp, though. A lot of the same defenders were screaming their heads off about Paris Hilton getting a short stay over her DUI.

nemo: "But the original judge and the prosecutor went back on the plea agreement. They were both politically motivated, and there's a lot of evidence that they both engaged in misconduct."

Their misconduct is still more preferable than his misconduct.

"Her further point is that the original judge and prosecutor perpetrated a miscarriage of justice, and that it is time to bring that miscarriage of justice to an end."

A miscarriage of justice is using your money to run away from a crime of assault.

"Polanski was ready to go to prison for a reasonable amount of time, reasonable for the crime he pleaded guilty to, and in conformance with his plea agreement. A showboating prosecutor and a showboating judge decided to collaborate in tearing up that plea agreement and were getting ready to put Polanski away for a ridiculously long prison term in order to score some political points."

And I should care, because...? The guy could have been out by now, and even sooner. And who the hell is he to complain about their manipulation of the situation to their benefit?

arturo: "The lynch mob out for Polanski's blood doesn't seem to care any more for her well-being than her mother did."

You should have kids first, before blaming the mother so easily. The fact of the matter is that he betrayed her trust. Thus, that makes it his fault. And if Polanski was a regular baby-sitter, you'd be saying something completely different.

"The main difference in this case was that the perp's mother was killed at Auschwitz and his wife and unborn baby were hacked to death by killer hippies."

So does that mean he suddenly earned a "Get out of rape sentence free" card?

Rich: "The reason he wants the case dismissed outright is that if it's not, he would end up spending the rest of his life in jail. And even if he got out, at age 80 or above, he would have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his days."

And that's bad, because...?

ultimate: "It's perfectly understandable why he run"

Because he hates responsibility?

David: "So, if you're "foaming at the mouth" about why he must go to jail, who are you doing it for? Justice?"

No, just for the victims who don't have the convenience of being raped by a white celebrity.

comment #39

D.Z. says ...

forgot to add "legal and consensual".

comment #40

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

you also forgot that nobody is ever going to read that rambling, lengthy, condescending B.S.

seriously, why do you even bother posting?

comment #41

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Trouble is, I have seen Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired and after viewing it my attitude was hardened considerably.

For 30 years, apologists like Jeff and Kenney having been spinning the "poor Roman" version of events to the extent that my perception was this went down in a drug-fueled Hollywood party and the victim was yet another LA brat pretending to be older.

Wanted and Desired shattered that illusion and left me wondering how anyone could defend someone who drugged up a 13 year old on a photo shoot and sodomized her. Polanski's damn lucky her father hasn't tracked him down in all these years - as father with daughters I would.

Perhaps Jeff has no empathy because he has sons. But I want to see him smugly laugh off 31 years if one of them suddenly confessed to being anally raped at 13 by some famous filmmaker.

Polanski's "sentence" was a joke. And the issue with the judicial misconduct does not change the fact of what he did. Apologists keep harping on it like that somehow was the reason Polanski raped a 13 year old girl.

The situation is complicated considering Polanski's personal history and humanizes him, but it doesn't absolve him of his crimes.

comment #42

Glenn Kenny says ...

See what I mean? I cite a simple statement of fact, and all of a sudden I'm an apologist who's been spinning a "poor Roman" version of events for over 30 years! (And my last name has gained an extra "e" as well.) Just like Colt 45—works every time!

comment #43

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Some Came Spinning

Actually Kenny, everyone can see the opposite of what you mean.

I was neither foaming at the mouth nor carrying a pitch folk when I wrote that and I defy you to point to the literary equivalent in either word or phrasing.

I did not stroke my chin when I pointed out that 42 days was not even close to a sentence, but a legal type of fiction cooked up by a judiciary afraid of actually going to trail and looking like national jokes should Polanski walk scott free. Again, show us the metaphorical equivalent.

I would point out the error of your literalist ways when it comes to the "all of a sudden I'm an apologist " deliberate misinterpretation, but why bother? Folks who are more concerned about extra vowels in their name than the gist of such a serious debate are clearly not worth the time.

comment #44

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Some Came Spinning

Actually Kenny, everyone can see the opposite of what you mean.

I was neither foaming at the mouth nor carrying a pitch folk when I wrote that and I defy you to point to the literary equivalent in either word or phrasing.

I did not stroke my chin when I pointed out that 42 days was not even close to a sentence, but a legal type of fiction cooked up by a judiciary afraid of actually going to trail and looking like national jokes should Polanski walk scott free. Again, show us the metaphorical equivalent.

I would point out the error of your literalist ways when it comes to the "all of a sudden I'm an apologist " deliberate misinterpretation, but why bother? Folks who are more concerned about extra vowels in their name than the gist of such a serious debate are clearly not worth the time.

Picking up the oranges before they attract rats to the yard suddenly seems more meaningful. In fact, so does scooping up a few of the dog turds that are supposed to be the kids' responsibility...

comment #45

Yuval says ...

What I find amazing is that Jeff and some other people here seem to be happy to have Polanski's name cleared but can't stop sticking it to Jeremy Piven.
Let's see, anal rape of a child 30 years ago using drugs or possibly lying about your health to avoid performing in a play causing severe financial repercussions. Which is worse? An interesting ethical question.
Jeff, do you think that in 30 years time, when people mention George Bush's name, they should only admire the good (let's assume there is). You know, they way you do with Nixon.
Glenn, "Polanski still hasn't done his time, and gosh, he really ought to, doncha think?" I don't know, if you were the judge, what do you think? I understand he probably won't do time, this is a theoretical discussion, so what do you think?

comment #46

Glenn Kenny says ...

Yuval asks: "I don't know, if you were the judge, what do you think? I understand he probably won't do time, this is a theoretical discussion, so what do you think?"

Here's what I think—there's something wrong with you. Why are you badgering me to come out and say that rape is a crime, that anal rape of a 13-year-old is beyond reprehensible as well as being a crime, etcetera? Do you think that because I'm not getting on a soapbox and beating my breast about what a scumbag Polanski is, I therefore approve of his actions? What I think isn't relevant. And what does any of the breast-beating serve, beyond some twisted sense of self-righteousness? "Look at me everybody! I'm against the anal rape of minors! I am morally correct, and brave!"

Here's the deal—I'm not a law enforcement professional. Law enforcement professionals handled this case, law enforcement professionals got it to the point where it is now, and law enforcement professionals are going to conclude it. They follow (or don't) law enforcement procedures that most of the commenters on this thread, myself included, are largely ignorant of. To hypothesize and theorize and whatnot is merely vanity.

But, since you ask, I think this: Rittenbrand should have abided by the recommendation of the probation board and the agreement reached by the prosecution and defense in the original case. But he didn't. Which goes to show.

And DeathTongue_Groupie (how'd you come up with that name, anyway?)—you are way too easy.

comment #47

Yuval says ...

You are a bigger douche than I initially thought. According to you there's something wrong with stating (as you did now, in a round-about, I don't really want to, you're making me do it way) that rape of a child is reprehensible since it is obvious. And thinking a person should be locked up for such a crime is vanity since I am not a "law enforcement professional". Well, although to me is obvious and I am not a Glenn Kenny professional either, I can tell you I think you should shut up.
I never claimed that you approved of such actions and I'm not badgering to say what you said about rape. I'm badgering you to say anything of substance that isn't a rip about the mental well being of other people here or the right to talk about rape and jail time without being called vain.
I would ask you if you really find it hard to contemplate what the "law enforcement professionals" think should be done (and how it differs from the opinions of the "foaming-at-the-mouth torch-and-pitchfork holders" soapbox standing people here) but I don't want you to slip into vanity, oh humble one.
BTW - you told me what you think should have been done 30 years ago (after great pains on your part, I understand). I actually asked you what you think should be done now. Was the situation then simple enough for a non-law enforcement professional to make a decision, but it's become too hard now for a humble guy like you?

comment #48

Glenn Kenny says ...

Since you're taking it to that level, Yuval, the only thing I have to add is that I think you're a "douche" too. Ciao.

comment #49

Yuval says ...

I see, so douche is taking it to another level, while "there's something wrong with you", "twisted sense of self-righteousness" and comparisons to lynch mobs is right on the level you're comfortable with.