If you’re a celebrity defending Roman Polanski, you’re defending child rape. You’re endorsing a child rapist. Child rape? If you stand with Roman Polanski you are standing with a child rapist.
And if you’re Woody Allen while doing this, you’re even sicker in the head.
Our Dennis is probably OK with Roman Polanski, you know, because Ol’ Roman’s thin and has good skin. According to Dennis, the opposite is true of David Weigel, and that’s why (according to Dennis) you can’t trust anything Weigel writes. Decent people would judge Weigel by what he’d written, not on his appearance. But I guess Dennis isn’t Decent People, no matter what he says about himself.
Huh. Linx:
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/09/28/a-different-sort-of-take-back-america/#comment-181507
and
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/09/28/a-different-sort-of-take-back-america/#comment-181514
Stay klassee, Dennis.
My respect for Jewel has gone up and my respect for a lot of movie directors whose work I have enjoyed has gone way waaaaaaaaaaaay down.
Polanski is a twisted little fuck. Sad but true that a large percentage of our greatest artists are twisted little fucks.
I don’t know or give a damn about Roman Polanski.
The big question is whether the law was properly carried out in this case… which according to both the prosecutor, the defense, and even the victim… it wasn’t.
Can’t I believe that the law should be fairly enforced, without defending Polanski’s actions? My only concern is that he not be tried and sentenced for crimes that were already dropped in the plea bargain and where sentencing was already decided.
The simple fact is, by today’s standards, punishment in California for his crime was a cakewalk, to the point of being what most people today would view a travesty of justice. That doesn’t mean he should be tried and sentenced again for the same crimes, however.
“I don’t know or give a damn about Roman Polanski.”
I do. He plead guilty to raping a child. Fucker should be in jail regardless of his cinematic abilities.
Of course, is he was a Catholic priest Frank the Drunk and Dennis the Cowardly Little Bitch wouldn’t have a problem with it.
“My only concern is that he not be tried and sentenced for crimes that were already dropped in the plea bargain and where sentencing was already decided.”
There’s not debating this. He plead guilty to child rape. He was awaiting his sentencing, then he fled the country.
Polanski apologists keep trying to muddy the waters on this one, but it’s cut and dried. He needs to be brought back to America for his sentencing.
If you’re Woody Allen and defending this, you’re really f’ing stupid.
Roman’s wingmen have probably done the same thing
Yes, but comparing Polanski with Allen is part of the problem. No matter how creepy Allen is, he did not rape a 13-year-old. Lumping them together gives the apologists ammunition.
If he were a Democratic politician, Jaim the buttmunch would probably be arguing that he has suffered enough.
Jaim, you touchhole, why do you hate Polish people?
After all, you’ve done what he did dozens of times over there in Korea. Isn’t that why you went?
Rape is bad. Raping a child is really bad. Raping a child and trying to excuse yourself by claiming it was “consensual” is super bad. Skipping the country to avoid being held accountable for your super bad crime is cowardly. Which puts this guy one significant step ahead of Polanski on the moralityometer — but no one rallied to his defense, did they? I guess because his movies are terrible, and raping a kid is only OK if you’re a Great Artist. Or something. Yeesh.
Oh, by the way? I know I’m just an occasional commenter and this isn’t my blog and there’s no real reason why anyone should consider my preferences before they add to the discussion, but…Jaim, Frank, Indeed and Dennis? Any chance you could take a break from the adolescent flamewar for a while? I mean, I’ve got no beef with vividly expressed opinions, it’s just that they’re way more interesting to read when they’re relevant to the topic at hand. As opposed to “ur teh suk”/”nuh uh UR teh suk”, which I’m sure is tremendously stimulating to those in the line of fire, but which leaves others — or at least this other — bored and mildly disgusted.
Seriously. Try leaving the personal stuff out of it and just talk politics. I double dog dare you.
Felix: Seconded.
fine by me, Felix and Crusty… talk to the Bobbsey Twins
“If he were a Democratic politician”
Um, Polanski is a pretty liberal fellow in political terms. So once again, you’d be wrong you bloated, gin-soaked turd masquerading as a human being.
Sorry guys, it’s the internet. Get a helmet.
He started it.
To offer something constructive – let those great directors who anguish over the jail time of a pedophile share his cell. If they get out – eventually – they’ll be able to say they suffered for their art.
Woody Allen was accused by Mia Farrow, during their messy break-up and probably falsely, of molesting one of the kids they adopted. OW seems to have taken Farrow’s accusation, which was never corroborated in any way (by the ostensible victim or anyone else) at face value, which is really quite unjustifiable. Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi Previn, who was adopted by Farrow while she was married to musician Andre Previn, did not begin until Soon-Yi was an adult (Allen and Previn are now married).
So basically the “coming from Woody Allen” snark is completely uncalled for (the undeniable wrongheadedness of Allen’s defense of Polanski notwithstanding).
For the life of me I cannot understand how anyone can come to the defense of a child rapist. I mean, fuck… a 13-year-old? Really? Jesus tapdancing Christ. And then flee the country and live in exile rather than be sentenced. On what grounds are people supporting him? I’d love to hear their reasoning.
Maybe Woody Allen isn’t a paedophile, but it was damn unseemly for him to start having sex with his ex-wife’s child. And personally, I like many of Woody Allen’s films. And Polanski’s too. But he fled justice after pleading guilty to child rape.
He needs to do his time.
And not just a 13 year-old, but a thirteen year-old that he drugged and forcibly sodomized. That might be OK in the Catholic Church, but it shouldn’t be, ever.
The Woody Allen stuff is not the same, and not fair to Allen, even if he is wrong to defend Polanski.
Remember, when Mia Farrow was younger than Previn, she was married to Frank Sinatra, with a bigger age gap than Allen and Previn. Allen and his wife remain married, whilst Farrow moved on. You could argue that Previn was emulating her adopted ma.
Piece about how the documentary on Polanksi (”Wanted and Desired”) was pretty much a hit-job on the victim:
http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/victim-blaming-roman-polanski-documentary
Kudos, Oliver, for throwing this out there. Any defender of Polanski seems so far off the rails to me, that I’d never care to hear that person’s opinion on anything, ever again.
I find it ironic that the people who want to protect “our children” are trying to bring Polanski back to the US for justice.
The fact is, Polanski was given a plea-bargain to the least serious of all the offenses he committed, because the mother of the child in question — and the child herself — did not want to go through the court case, which would’ve inevitably meant having to be grilled about her sexual past, her willingness to drink, take pills, and hot tub with Polanski, etc.
Yes, it’s ugly. That’s life in the court system. Frankly, it would be unprofessional of the defense attorney not to do everything possible to damage the reputation of the woman in question.
I completely understand the anger of people who want to protect “our children” from pedophiles. However, the thirteen-year old in question wasn’t your child. It was her mother’s child. That is why her mother took steps to protect her. Recently, she made a statement to the effect that she as an adult *still* didn’t want to have to get dragged into an embarrassing, brutal court trial… which she would inevitably be dragged into, because the defense has a right and obligation to make the best case possible.
There’s absolutely no defending the act of a rape of a minor. But is it worthwhile to defend the Constitution? The right to a fair trial? Is it worthwhile to defend the victim from being further victimized against their will?
And what of the right of *ANY* defendant to get a fair trial?
If you want to protect “our children”, I would hope you would consider the fact that your desire to do so should not override the right of a mother to defend her child, or of a victim to defend herself. If you want to defend *AMERICA’S* children, then you should consider the wisdom of bringing Polanski back in this country.
By the admission of both the prosecution and defense of the case, it was badly flawed. Both admit there was a plea bargain approved by the victim’s parents, that the judge refused to honor… along with serious judicial misconduct.
Are you *SURE* you really want Polanski to return, where he will have both the prosecution, the defense, and even the victim of the trial urging for either “time served”, a mistrial, or a quick plea agreement and a slap on the wrist… after which time, Mr. Polanski will be free to go anywhere in America he wants…
Yes, he was guilty of sex with a minor. He admitted that fact himself, thereby avoiding all the really bad charges such as rape he was equally guilty of. Those charges were tossed forever and can never be prosecuted, due to our laws. You can say he deserves worse… and I’d admit it. But the fact is, what he deserves isn’t what he’s going to get. What he’s going to get, most likely, is vindication the freedom to walk amongst us… while the victim goes through hell all over again. Your anger won’t change this fact, and ultimately won’t matter a whit.
Sleep on that, if you can.
Thank you Oliver, for not going the HuffPo route.
He. Drugged. And. Raped. A. 13. Year. Old.
End of discussion.
Are you *SURE* you really want Polanski to return, where he will have both the prosecution, the defense, and even the victim of the trial urging for either “time served”, a mistrial, or a quick plea agreement and a slap on the wrist
Here’s the thing: he’s already pleaded. There will be no trial, at least for the rape charge. There *MAY* be a trial for fleeing the country and obstructing justice, but the family wouldn’t be involved.
If you believe in the rule of law, you can’t allow people to skip out of the country on sentences if they don’t feel like serving time, then claim you’ve already suffered hardships so the punishment should be waived. Sorry, Justice doesn’t work like that. And if you *DON’T* prosecute this instance, you’re only empowering the next flight risk who doesn’t like how their case is going.
This is probably one of the few times when Jaim and I will agree on something.
WTF was it with Whoopi Goldberg and her “It wasn’t rape-rape” explanation?? And then seeing all of people whining about poor Roman getting detained on the way to receive an award. The horror!
For the first time, I read the girl’s grand jury testimony in full and it turned my stomach. Any person who defends Polanski should read that testimony aloud and see how they feel afterward. Go ahead. Read about how he gave her drugs. Read about how he gave her alcohol. Read about he started kissing her despite saying her saying no. Read about how he performed oral sex on her despite her saying no. Read about he raped her. Read about he anally raped her. Then say with a straight face it was a “so-called crime.” That last bit was a quote by Harvey Weinstein. Polanski never denied any of this and it was only due to his fame as a director and that it was only a few years removed from when his wife was brutally murdered that he was able to plea to a charge of statutory rape.
Here’s another take down of the documentary ‘Wanted & Desired’:
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2009/02/19/roman_polanski_documentary/index.html
At my beloved husband’s request, I watched “Manhattan” for the first time a few months ago. Now, I’ve never been a Woody Allen fan, but after watching this movie…I can honestly say I’m REALLY not a Woody Allen fan now. While it may have been cutting edge in 1978, it is just downright creepy now.
I simply do not understand a middle-aged man’s penchant for young, YOUNG girls. But that’s just me, ya know.
Mark, your entire defense of Polanski falls apart because he already pled guilty to the crime in question. Polanski and his lawyers have a spun a nice tail claiming the 42 days Polanski was in jail was supposed to be his “sentence” but that was merely for him to be observed by psychiatrists. He claims the judge was going to sentence him to “50 years” but that was not possible under the sentencing guidelines for the crime he pled guilty to. He was however, staring at 1 year in state prison in general population where ironically enough, he probably would have had performed on him the same act he performed on his victim.
Both admit there was a plea bargain approved by the victim’s parents, that the judge refused to honor
How can anybody make that claim with a straight face when we know Polanski SKIPPED TOWN before he was ever sentenced?
Remember, when Mia Farrow was younger than Previn, she was married to Frank Sinatra
Yes, but Frank hadn’t been shacking up with Mia’s mother since Mia was a third grader. And this wasn’t Woody’s first close encounter with pubescence. He needs to shut his pie-hole on this issue.
WTF was it with Whoopi Goldberg and her “It wasn’t rape-rape” explanation??
Excellent coverage of that tidbit here.
Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, David Lynch, John Landis, Jonathan Demme, and Terry Gilliam (one of my favorites, damn!) are all coming to Polanski’s defense. Bunch of sick bastards if you ask me.
Luc Besson, director of ‘Leon’ (aka ‘The Professional’) and ‘The Fifth Element’ did not sign on to that absurd petition. He said:
“I have a lot of affection for him, he is a man that I like very much but nobody should be above the law. I don’t know the details of this case, but I think that when you don’t show up for trial, you are taking a risk.”
Finally. Some sanity from that bunch.
“I have a lot of affection for him, he is a man that I like very much but nobody should be above the law. I don’t know the details of this case, but I think that when you don’t show up for trial, you are taking a risk.”
Doesn’t seem like that would be so hard to utter.
Rule.
of.
Law.
No one should be above the law. Not even Vice Presidents, bogus lawyers, torturers, hugeass telecom companies. No one.
And so we have it: It takes the topic of child rape to bring (most of) us together on this site. Well, that’s something.
Instapundit notes:
Uh, what is “Indeed” referring to? Weird.
Did you notice , Indeed , that it appears that the left has the moral confusion?
I was just about to ask, “Now that we are pretty much unanimously agreed that Polanski is not a good guy, the question remains: Why is that these people are defending him? And is there any significance to the fact that they are denizens of the Left?”
Did you notice , Indeed , that it appears that the left has the moral confusion?
You missed the point, Frank.
Why is that these people are defending him?
That is very difficult for me to figure out.
And is there any significance to the fact that they are denizens of the Left?
No, I don’t think so. I think it probably has more to do with the fact that he’s a giant in their industry and that they are blinded by this fact. If Polanski was a lawyer or a construction worker and did these terrible things, I don’t think that you’d see Woody Allen and company coming to his defense.
From the Wonkette link:
Indeed: Amen.
If Polanski was a lawyer or a construction worker and did these terrible things, I don’t think that you’d see Woody Allen and company coming to his defense.
Agreed. Is that the same as saying, no liberals would come to his defense?
Agreed. Is that the same as saying, no liberals would come to his defense?
No, but fewer would. Maybe his construction buddies, or the partners in his law firm would.
I don’t think you can claim this as a left vs. right issue, Frank. There are countless examples of the right defending abhorrent behavior in their congress critters and presidents, etc. Perhaps not with respect to the subject of child rape, but I think that has more to do with the relative infrequency of that particular crime.
Bottom line: People sometimes defend those who are close to them, no matter the crime, no matter the political affiliation. It has more to do with ancient tribal tendencies than with any kind of liberal vs. conservative bent.
I am agreed with mambochicken on this one. This case is heinous beyond the realm of political ties.
13-year-old? Really? Jesus tapdancing Christ-
What mambo said:)
There is a cold place in hell reserved for rapists and especially child rapists. The in’s and out’s of his case are really don’t matter. He should be punished for raping alittle girl and on top of that(like jay mentioned)the justice system cannot give him a pass or you set a terrible precedent.
The in’s and out’s of his case
There must be a better way of putting that.
I have a very hard time understanding why we, as a society, allow special dispensation for people in the movie business.
Would Polanski be treated differently if he was a Catholic priest? Probably. He would also be treated differently if he was an NFL wide receiver, a politician, an auto mechanic, a doctor, or a guy living under a bridge. It’s only because he works in the movies that this is even a topic of discussion.
I am tempted to say that the reason Polanski is getting so much attention/condemnation from Hannity, Glenn Reynolds, and the rest of the right-wing is not because he’s a fugitive child-rapist but because he’s a filmmaker, so the Polanski case gives them an opportunity to vent their spleens about “Hollyweird.” You don’t see Hannity et al. praising Michael Moore for being a churchgoing family man who’s been happily married to the same woman for 18 years, do you?
The difference between the two sides of the Polanski case is that only some of the condemnation of Polanski is for tribal reasons and most are based on outrage at the crime and support for the law, while all of the pleas to let Polanski go free are tribal. Kudos to Luc Besson for resisting that tribal siren song.
“I have a very hard time understanding why we, as a society, allow special dispensation for people in the movie business.”
True a lot of times, but remember Fatty Arbuckle. Celebrities get breaks. On the other hand, when they mess up, it’s front page news. Michael Vick didn’t get too much dispensation.
The difference between the two sides of the Polanski case is that only some of the condemnation of Polanski is for tribal reasons and most are based on outrage at the crime and support for the law, while all of the pleas to let Polanski go free are tribal.
I don’t disagree with this.
I suspect one thing that’s fueling the “free Polanski” apologists is the powerful odor of “setup” the whole situation gave off from the very beginning. Apparently, this girl’s mother sent her to Polanski, alone, not once but twice, the second time after the girl told her he’d done things that made her ‘uncomfortable.” And, let’s not forget, they settled a civil suit against Polanksi for what must have been a tidy sum.
All that said, I’m not one of the “free Polanski” crowd. Just because 13 year old bait is dangled doesn’t mean you’re allowed to take it. But the girl’s mother ought to have been in the dock from the beginning.
Agreed. Even if it’s a couple of twenty-somethings dangling the 13 year old bait. The WORST thing to do is attack the messengers or attack the victims.
One would think.
I believe that “Free Polanski” comes from a couple of things. There is a natural instinct of people to believe that they are a good judge of character, that the people they are friends with are thus good people, they themselves are good people, and don’t associate with criminals, and thus Polanski, their friend, cannot possibly be a criminal: going to jail is what happens to “other people.” This willful denial and closing-of-ranks happens everywhere.
Also, I am sure there was lots of sex with underage teenage girls going on at the time (Polanski also had an affair with a teenaged Nastassja Kinski) and I am sure many of Polanski’s colleagues believe that any sins he may have committed were only differences of degree compared to what they did themselves, and no one wants to believe that they, too, are as bad as Polanski.
Finally, don’t discount propaganda. Polanski supporters have been telling themselves for years that Polanski got shafted. It does not matter that this belief is not based in reality. They have just been repeating it to themselves so much that they are impervious to reason on the matter. They have created their own reality.
I’m curious why the victim doesn’t want to press charges. If it were me, and I was 90 and a day from death and they caught the guy, I’d say ‘lock him up!’
There must be a better way of putting that-Quaker
Um..yeah… Didn’t think about that too much:( Sorry, how about the minutia(mispelled?)of the case?
Celebrities get breaks. On the other hand, when they mess up, it’s front page news. Michael Vick didn’t get too much dispensation.
He shoulda gone into movies instead of football.
Parthenon: I’m curious why the victim doesn’t want to press charges.
It’s far better than it was, but victims testifying in a rape trial tend to get victimized all over again. Even if they aren’t facing a particularly nasty defense attorney who tries to make them out to be a slut with a history of sleeping around who asked for it, regardless of how demure their sexual history may be, they have to get up on the stand in front of an audience and recount exactly what happened to them in painful detail.
It is not a pleasant experience and it’s quite understandable that many would prefer to just try to forget it all, even if it means someone goes unpunished.
Especially after decades have passed.
There is one aspect of the Swiss arrest and possible extradiction that I don’t understand. While interviewed before the date of the original sentencing hearing, the judge in the case said that, since Polanski was not a US citizen, he would ty to get Polanski thrown out of and permanently banned from the US. So, if Polanski had stayed for sentencing and the judge had gotten his way, the result would have been exactky what happened – Polanski left the country and never returned. Which makes the idea of him being brought back to the US for sentencing pretty stupid.
Wow- read two posts. Agreed with Oliver twice. Hope and Change, Baby!
Michael Vick didn’t get too much dispensation.
He’s got a job now, don’t he? He didn’t suffer enough.
I say that it was Polanski that did the stupid thing, if that was the case. Now he has to pay for that decision.
“If you believe in the rule of law, you can’t allow people to skip out of the country”
I actually believe that he should be charged for this. The problem being that he’s going to basically walk on that charge, leaving a lot of people very unhappy with the state of justice… if he’s even extradited at all, which is still to be determined. There are some good arguments on why he shouldn’t be extradited.
I’m not saying that he shouldn’t go to court. I’m just saying that this is one of those times where it is likely to be better if he hadn’t, as at least he was kept out of Hollywood.
“How can anybody make that claim ( that a plea bargain was approved) with a straight face when we know Polanski SKIPPED TOWN before he was ever sentenced?”
Because both the prosecution, the defense, and the victim admit that a plea bargain was in existence for the sentencing hearing that sent him to Chino, which amounted to the time in Chino + a slap on the wrist… only to have a media-hungry judge who was trying to make a name for himself break the agreement he was a party to.
Polanski doesn’t deserve mercy… but our legal system could certainly use a little. I certainly wouldn’t like to see that kind of “justice” applied to American citizens.
Carl Martin: Which makes the idea of him being brought back to the US for sentencing pretty stupid.
Criminals don’t get to set the terms of their sentencing. They get forced to show up in court and get the sentence from the judge. They don’t get to run and then declare “See, I’ve suffered. So you don’t get to do anything further.”
It doesn’t work that way. Nor should it.
Mark Kraft: Because both the prosecution, the defense, and the victim admit that a plea bargain was in existence for the sentencing hearing that sent him to Chino, which amounted to the time in Chino + a slap on the wrist… only to have a media-hungry judge who was trying to make a name for himself break the agreement he was a party to.
If (if) that was the way things ended up happening, which we won’t know because Polanski took it on himself to break the law and run, then there are legal means available to deal with it. The criminal does not get to say “I don’t like the way the judge is looking at me, I don’t think they’ll be fair.” and use that as a justification for skipping out on sentencing.
Sean, I think you missed Carl’s point. I don’t think he was offering a defense of Polanski so much as noting the absurdity of how the legal system works. Carl was saying that the judge intended to throw Polanski out of the country. However, Polanski left the country, so now we have to bring him back….so we can make him leave again?
It’s kind of like saving a death row inmate from suicide.
OK, so Polanski is guilty — he had admitted as much, or he wouldn’t have been accepting a deal to plead down. OTOH, it seems more than a little coincidental that this happened only after the HBO movie which discredited the work of the prosecutor’s office and the judge. Seems to me it is a combination of CYA and “I’ll show you, mofo” on the part of the California state prosecutor.
But Jesus H. Christ on a cracker — enough with the Woody Allen shit already. Facts of the matter, for those of you apparently unfamiliar with them:
– Soon-Yi Previn is NOT the daughter, adoptive or otherwise, of Woody and Mia Farrow, nor (to state the obvious) is she biologically related to either of them in any way.
– André Previn is her father by any real meaning of that word. Among other things, according to statements from the various parties, he was the one who bought her Xmas presents, and the one she called “Daddy”.
– Woody and Mia were not married, nor were they “shacking up”. It was stipulated in court by both parties that Woody did not so much as spend the night at Farrow’s apartment.
– Unless we have vastly expanded the definition of “underage”, this does not apply either. Depending on whose account you belive, Soon-Yi was either a freshman or a senior at Drew when her relationship with Woody began; in either case, she was older (22) at the time of its discovery than Mia was when she married Frank Sinatra (and, of course, there is nothing odd about a 21-year-old marrying the most famous swinger of the 20th Century when he was 50, is there?)
– Woody and Soon-Yi’s relationship was obviously serious. They have been together for at least 17 years now, and married for 12 years — which, interestingly, is longer than any relationship, marriage or otherwise, of Mia’s has lasted.
– The accusations of child molestation against Woody were completely fabricated and dismissed by the judge presiding over the custody hearing.
The relationship between Woody and Soon-Yi may have been unconventional, inappropriate (given Woody’s previous affair with Mia), shocking (at least to Mia), and (obviously) fodder for all sorts of nonsense, including — unfortunately — the utterly ridiculous and offensive comparison here of Woody’s actions with Polanksi’s.
The relationship between Woody and Soon-Yi may have been unconventional, inappropriate (given Woody’s previous affair with Mia), shocking (at least to Mia), and (obviously) fodder for all sorts of nonsense, including — unfortunately — the utterly ridiculous and offensive comparison here of Woody’s actions with Polanksi’s.
Agreed 100%.
Quaker in a B: . Carl was saying that the judge intended to throw Polanski out of the country. However, Polanski left the country, so now we have to bring him back….so we can make him leave again?
It’s kind of like saving a death row inmate from suicide.
Sure, the law is ridiculous at times. But my point is that, while bringing him back to throw him out (if that’s what the result would be) seems illogical on it’s face, it’s necessary to prevent allowing the criminal to decide for himself what the punishment will be and carry it out.
What next? Criminal decides to stay in a 10×8 room in their own house for 90 days and claim it’s the same as staying in jail? “But I made sure it only had a cot and I only left it for 30 minutes a day for exercise. So why drag me down to court to do the same thing someplace where the state has to pay for my meals?”
it’s necessary to prevent allowing the criminal to decide for himself what the punishment will be and carry it out.
Yeah, I don’t think anyone was arguing that should be allowed. Carl can speak up if I’m wrong. I took his comment as just an ironic observation.
Agreed 100%.
Ditto.
What next? Criminal decides to stay in a 10×8 room in their own house for 90 days and claim it’s the same as staying in jail?
Well, gee, that seems like it would save the state a shitload of money. Personal responsibility to boot. What’s not to like?
Duros62. Well, gee, that seems like it would save the state a shitload of money. Personal responsibility to boot. What’s not to like?
I’m going to go with assuming you’re joking.
J.D., I don’t understand your post. Are you actually suggesting that Polanski’s victim’s mother WANTED her daughter to be raped by him?
I’ll be damned, I actually agree with the general sentiments expressed here. What are your opinions of those who defend the child buggerer Polanski?
the utterly ridiculous and offensive comparison here of Woody’s actions with Polanksi’s.
Woody dated actress Stacey Nelkin when she was still a fifteen year old high-school student. She was at least one of the inspirations for Woody’s multiple storylines about romances between middle age putzes and underage teens, beginning with Mariel Hemingway’s role in Manhattan and continuing with Juliette Lewis in Husbands and Wives and Evan Rachel Wood in his latest.
Bad as Polanski? Hardly, but he still needs to STFU about this, IMHO.