comment #1

Travis Crabtree says ...

All of those people are artists. FAMOUS artists.

Suck on THAT, lynch-mob!

comment #2

Rob says ...

Woody Allen, huh? Shocker.

comment #3

Mark says ...

Hollywood talent has never shown itself to be overly intelligent or politically adept. Like Debra Winger's rant against American and Swiss philistines. WTF?! Show a little diplomacy instead of scored cheap points with those already on your side.

This is shaping up to be the biggest flawed group think output since the writer's strike.

comment #4

Mowkeka says ...

One only need to read the response from the Huffington Post readers (the Huffington Post!!!!) to understand how out-of-touch Jeffrey Wells, and every other child molester lover, is.

comment #5

Mowkeka says ...

Seriously, do you realize what an ass you sound like?

comment #6

Film Misery Alex says ...

Do you think there is any behind the scenes bullying going on here? Like sign this petition or else you'll find yourself being invited to a few less parties, getting a bit smaller budgets, and getting more uncooperative stars?

Probably not, but who knows.

comment #7

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

"More People To Hate"

Our hearts break for the oppressed Hollywood minority, bravely fighting the good fight against the savage hordes.

Pathetic.

comment #8

Jack South P.I. says ...

I don't hate any of these people. I just firmly believe that being a "genius" does not make you above the law.

comment #9

alan says ...

Pedro is such an ardent Polanski supporter, he signed it twice.

comment #10

Pinko Punko says ...

I don't hate them, Jeff. I'm just disappointed. What a pernicious documentary they've all seen, let's put it that way.

comment #11

drbob says ...

I don't think I would want Woody Allen vouching for me on child rape charges.

comment #12

LYT says ...

Woody Allen signing a petition to free a child-rapist...not exactly the back-up I'd be looking for if I were Polanski.

comment #13

btwnproductions says ...

Luc Besson disagrees, says a NY Times piece. And there's clearly a groundswell of disdain against France's celebrity elite in this matter:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/movies/30polanski.html?hp

comment #14

George Prager says ...

If Jerry Lee Lewis was a concert pianist who married his 13 year-old male cousin, GREAT BALLS OF FIRE never would've been made, even if Corey Feldman was available. Hollywood hypocrites!!!!!

comment #15

Jeffrey Wells says ...

For the 189th time, I didn't say that Polanski deserves a pass from his self-created troubles because he's a great artist, or "Art God." I said and believe that Art Gods have earned the right to be shown an extra measure of consideration when such matters arise. That doesn't mean "give them a pass" -- it means show a little compassion.

I also said that Polanski (a) has suffered more than half his adult life in terms of his career and income having been limited and because he's been psychologically living as a fugitive, exactly as he did as a child during World War II, (b) it should be over and done with due to the victim having pleaded with everyone to please drop it, (c) it's a discredited case due to a lack of prosecutorial honor and an element of corruption, and (d) that the LA D.A. pushed for his arrest in order to focus attention to his office and to address the long-slumbering issues brought to the fore by Marina Zenovich's documentary -- i.e., it's partly an attention-getting p.r. move and partly a way of responding to the doc.

The way some of you HE readers deliberately mangle and misinterpret words and thoughts that have been very clearly expressed is astonishing.

comment #16

Indeed says ...

"I said and believe that Art Gods have earned the right to be shown an extra measure of consideration when such matters arise."

No, they havent. Despite your warped world view and obviously nonsensical priorities, these folks are no different than you or I.

"(a) has suffered more than half his adult life in terms of his career and income having been limited and because he's been psychologically living as a fugitive, exactly as he did as a child during World War II"

So? Not that it matters one bit to those of us with an IQ higher than a toaster, but hes still made millions upon millions of dollars.

"(b) it should be over and done with due to the victim having pleaded with everyone to please drop it"

So? The legal system doesnt work that way, especially considering the man has already pled guilty. Hes only showing up for sentencing that is past due...not a trial.

"(c) it's a discredited case due to a lack of prosecutorial honor and an element of corruption"

No, its not at all.

"(d) that the LA D.A. pushed for his arrest in order to focus attention to his office and to address the long-slumbering issues brought to the fore by Marina Zenovich's documentary"

So?

comment #17

MeekArtiste says ...

Since you are so quick to group everyone together as if to say that we are all "projectionists" seeking vengenance, or "old testament" inspired mobs with pitchforks in our hands, rather than, say, many millions each with our own reasoned an varying opinions that have nothing to do with anything you have accused those of us who may share a different opinion than you, is it fair to say the same about you and those in support of Polanski?

I mean, if we all think alike on one side of this issue, surely the same could be said of you.

For example, BHL, the author of the letter refrenced above, has been quoted as saying that Polanski's crime of rape was little more than a "yothful mistake". Thats right. YOUTHFUL mistake. Yet, Roman was 43 at the time, And I hardly think this was simply a mistake, nor was it made due to some sort of youthful immaturity And he's supposed to be an intellectual? And you allign yourself with these folks? Because you clearly thnk like they do, you clearly think the exact same way as you accuse those who don't agree with you as all having the same brain. So, I guess you think the same as all his proponents do, too.

PS Showing someone a "a little (more) compassion" (IE believing that they are, aomehow, better human beings and should therefore be able to skirt the law) simply because they have created things of so-called value (you know, as opposed to all the rest of us plebes; the scientists, engineers, inventors, and the workers who helped them realize their creations that, you know, have ACTUALLY benefited humanity in the most literal sense of the word), as opposed to anyone else who hasn't is such a foolishly arrogant and despicable world view. I am surprised you are able to sleep at night given that you actually promote yourself as, and believe yourself to be, a liberal. This position is antithetical to a truly humanstic and progressive philosophy.

comment #18

dinovelvet says ...

What, no word from Victor Salva yet?

comment #19

MeekArtiste says ...

You know what philosophy your arguement is more akin to? Objectivism. That's right, Jeffrey. You're libertarian, your Ayn Randian, this is really your true (far from liberal, far from compassionate) world view.

What us they say? Sometimes if you go too far left you end up being right?

And yet, so WRONG at the same time.

comment #20

hardlanding says ...

Luc Besson's quote deserves to be made explicit here:

"This is a man who I love a lot and know a little bit," Mr. Besson said in a radio interview with RTL Soir. "Our daughters are good friends. But there is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone. I will let justice happen." He added, "I don't have any opinion on this, but I have a daughter, 13 years old. And if she was violated, nothing would be the same, even 30 years later."

comment #21

bmcintire says ...

When a world-class, legendary accountant finds himself in the same predicament, and a roster of other world-class, legendary accountants sign a document condemning his extradition, I will equally not give a shit about his welfare.

Imagine if this were happening to a lobbyist or Senator right now. And not even necessarily a Republican. Jeff would be wringing his hands with glee before posting his one and only entry about the whole affair.

comment #22

MilkMan says ...

I'm sorry, Jeff, but you are seriously deluded on this issue. A 43 year old man drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. That's not allowed. He was caught and he has to do the time just like anyone else would. And pointing to his Holocaust experience as some kind of mea culpa is really kind of low and slimy. Roman Polanski would've done what he did regardless of what happened to him as a child. The horrors of the Holocaust do not imbue the psyche with the impulse to fuck children. Polanski is/was/always will be a world-class sybarite. His bad behavior caught up with him. He fled and went to Europe and the first thing he did was shack up with a 15 year old Nastasja Kinski. He's a pedophile.

And Tarantino is the morally dubious one?

comment #23

DeeZee says ...

btwn: Finally a reason to like Besson, I guess.

comment #24

Gordon27 says ...

"I said and believe that Art Gods have earned the right to be shown an extra measure of consideration when such matters arise. That doesn't mean "give them a pass" -- it means show a little compassion."

Can you explain why? What is it about being an artist that makes you think that people should be sympathetic to them when they confess to horrible, unforgivable crimes?

"has suffered more than half his adult life in terms of his career and income having been limited and because he's been psychologically living as a fugitive, exactly as he did as a child during World War II,"

Roman Polanski did not live in a mansion in his own home country during World War II. That is quite simply a lie. And his career has not been limited to the point where he wasn't able to work with Harrison Ford, Sigourney Weaver, and Johnny Depp (to name a few huge stars he worked with) or win an Oscar. For all your talk of how you're better than regular Americans, you're basically saying "he was punished because he wasn't allowed to visit America for 30 years."

"it should be over and done with due to the victim having pleaded with everyone to please drop it"

But her plea would also be met if people didn't drum up so much about this story and constantly bring up the fact that she wants them to drop it. So you could also stop bringing up her name, and follow through on her wishes, if you actually cared about her wishes.

"it's a discredited case due to a lack of prosecutorial honor and an element of corruption"

That's debatable, but the only way to prove it is in court. That's how it works. You can't just flee sentencing and then say "Oh, but they were corrupt." That's stupid.

"that the LA D.A. pushed for his arrest in order to focus attention to his office and to address the long-slumbering issues brought to the fore by Marina Zenovich's documentary -- i.e., it's partly an attention-getting p.r. move and partly a way of responding to the doc."

I agree with this, but so what? Are you arguing that pursuing justice is only valid if there are no other possible motivations? Anytime a famous person is arrested, the DA will be motivated to prove that famous people are treated just like everybody else; does this mean famous people can never get justice? Of course not.

comment #25

Gordon27 says ...

I know everybody already made the Woody Allen joke, but what about that good ol' murderer John Landis?

comment #26

bitplayer says ...

I wonder if given the exact same circumstances and situation and the director wasn't an cool Oscar winner. What if it was say Uwe Boll? Would anybody write a petition for him?

comment #27

Gordon27 says ...

I'm kind of shocked that Brett Ratner, who constantly drops Polanski's name as a friend, didn't sign either of the petitions. But I guess he has no reason to care about what goes on at film festivals.

comment #28

lazespud says ...

Gruver --

It's entirely possible to think that Polanski was about to get a raw deal way back when, and not appreciate the way things went down, and ALSO be dismayed by the petition by Scorsese, Almodovor, et al. They barely even acknowledge the original crime of drugging and raping a child, which Polanski pled guilty to. They simply refer to it as a "morals" charge, which is language used in the 30s to describe someone going across state lines for someone who is not their wife... or something equally mild.

I hope that Polanski returns to the US and that new judge does what he seems to be alluding to: cut the guy some slack given the crap that went on during his original sentencing.

That said, it's really honestly disturbing to read that so many talented directors and artists are signing off on a letter that is so dismissive of the original crime. I mean a simple acknowledgment of the seriousness of the crime, coupled with a description of the duplicitous nature of the original judge and the time that Polanski already served in that hospital would have sufficed. As it is, it reads like a sanctimonious defense of putting "great artists" above the law.

comment #29

Chris Willman says ...

What lazespud said.

comment #30

bagelfilm says ...

Next time the US will issue warrants for Michelangelo, Caravaggio and Aristotle. My Gosh, they liked them young.

comment #31

Gordon27 says ...

laze - it's basic cognitive dissonance; the only way to sympathize with Polanski is to deliberately ignore the crime itself. They're trying to paint it as black-and-white, where the celebration of art should not be sullied with legal process, full stop, no matter what the crime in question is. I'd bet that almost anybody who signed that would not down in favor of Polanski drugging and anally raping a teenage girl; they'd hem and haw about how what they're protesting is more abstract, and has to do with "motivated prosecution". It's funny, because the majority of people in this country aren't rich or famous, and look at the justice system as something rich and famous people laugh at. But rich and famous people are really really scared, possibly because they have more to lose. Very few people (hopefully) can relate to Roman Polanski, but every director on that list can relate to John Landis. Now, based on the facts, I would say Landis was legally culpable of manslaughter. But every director on that list (except maybe Woody Allen) has been in a situation where, in the heat of the moment, they might have acted a little recklessly in order to get a shot. Everybody on that list knows the situation Landis was in, and sympathizes with him over it. And I'm sure many of them believe that it was a malicious prosecution, more symbolic of how "rich and famous people can't get away with crimes", and ignore the whole "killing immigrant children" part of the crime in question.

Basically, I think they're all afraid that they could make one simple mistake and it would destroy their entire life. This is why I go back to Landis, rather than Polanski, because Landis is a better symbol of what they're afraid of. It just happens that, in this case, it *is* Polanski, and they have to willfully ignore the crime itself in order to sympathize with him.

Does that make any sense? It's a bit late over here.

comment #32

hiviper says ...

good point MilkMan, I had forgotten how young Kinski was when she dated Polanski. (nice seeing you back btw)

I also recall a story that Polanski wolf-whistled at a woman's ass on the street, not knowing it was his own wife (Sharon Tate) at the time. Not saying this is a crime, but by Jeff's rationale, he was just as much a horn-dog philanderer as the judge was by dating a 20 year old

comment #33

Terry McCarty says ...

Has anyone read Steve (THE SOLOIST) Lopez' Hanging Judge take on the above in today's LA TIMES? Lopez rails about the filmmakers' petition, mentions his own daughter and fulminates that the original deal for Polanski was too lenient.