Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland on foot of 1978 warrent

mike65

Just seen it on a newswire, I guess there was always a chance his past would catch up with him even staying outside the USA.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRnW_PP9RtYpGgoc5KZiwY84hjrQD9AVJN680

The Sparrow

About time. I don't understand how anyone can take him seriously with that charge hanging over his head. I hope they extradite him to the States and throw the book at him.

L31mr0d

I wonder who will play him in the movie that will inevitably be made about his bizarre life.

It was about to happen eventually. The list of countries that wouldn't extradite him has been getting increasingly smaller.

Karl Hungus

The Sparrow wrote: »

I don't understand how anyone can take him seriously with that charge hanging over his head.

What do you mean by take him seriously though? Personally, I think he's an extremely good director, and has made some absolutely fantastic films, but that doesn't mean I approve of what he did.

Galvasean

The Sparrow wrote: »

About time. I don't understand how anyone can take him seriously with that charge hanging over his head.

Sometimes you have to seperate the artist from the man.
For example, I have a very different political ideology to Charlton Heston, but still appreciate him as a fine actor. Matthew Broderick ran over and killed some guy because he was speeding and Ben Stein is an advocate of teh creationism movement, but I will still watch Ferris Bueller's day off. Christian Bale acts like a prick on set, but American Psycho is still a classic. John Travolta is a Scientologist, but I still like him as an actor. The list goes on.
If you were to boyccott the work of every artist who did something bad there would be very little left to watch.

seclachi

Galvasean wrote: »

Sometimes you have to seperate the artist from the man.
For example, I have a very different political ideology to Charlton Heston, but still appreciate him as a fine actor. Matthew Broderick ran over and killed some guy because he was speeding and Ben Stein is an advocate of teh creationism movement, but I will still watch Ferris Bueller's day off. Christian Bale acts like a prick on set, but American Psycho is still a classic. John Travolta is a Scientologist, but I still like him as an actor. The list goes on.
If you were to boyccott the work of every artist who did something bad there would be very little left to watch.

Its very true. On the other hand the BBC said the following of the film convention in zurich he was attending:

"A special ceremony is planned for Sunday night "to allow everyone to express their solidarity for Roman Polanski and their admiration for his work," festival managers said in a statement."

Admiration for his work is fine, but solidarity ? the man broke the law of the land, and the ran, there is nothing to be supported or respected there. I also think the fact he was collered while going to a lifetime achievement award was quite ironic.

All that being said however, the whole case seems very messy, with original victim saying she doesnt want it pursued and dropped. I think hes going to be in deep water now though, even if he was innocent of the crime they will probably throw the book at him for going on the run.

krudler

Chinatown aside never been a fan of his movies, prolific director or not he's a paedophile so they should throw the book at him

The Sparrow

The Sparrow wrote: »

About time. I don't understand how anyone can take him seriously with that charge hanging over his head. I hope they extradite him to the States and throw the book at him.

As has all ready been said when dealing with artists you have to separate the artist from the art. There are numerous examples of terrible people who have created amazing pieces of art. Were we to simply refuse to enjoy their work because of their beliefs and actions would make the art world a much smaller place. Victor Salva sexually molested a 12 year old boy while making Clownhouse, knowing this didnt stop me enjoying the film.

L31mr0d wrote: »

I wonder who will play him in the movie that will inevitably be made about his bizarre life.

All ready been done. Damian Chapa wrote, directed and starred in the film. So cheaply done was the film that the trailer used music ripped directly from the film Sunshine complete with Cillian Murphy's laboured breathing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgmxp4FFKjY

lostexpectation

Galvasean wrote: »

Sometimes you have to separate the artist from the man.

try that with
cathal o searcaigh, who's always writing about sexual encounters with 12yr olds boys

mike65

I guess thats the line isn't it? When art is inspired by the artists illegal/immorral activities in real life

funlovintapir

he's not a paedophile, that's ridiculous. he's a rapist though.

FruitLover

What a dumbass. If only he had started a pop career, learnt to moonwalk and gradually changed the colour of his skin from white to brown over a decade or so, he would have gotten away with it!

Galvasean

lostexpectation wrote: »

try that with
cathal o searcaigh, who's always writing about sexual encounters with 12yr olds boys

Does Roman Polanski make films about having sexual relations with underage girls? No.
Ergo, your point is moot.

ConsiderThis

The only lesson we should all learn from this is to avoid visiting Switzerland. It's a grubby little country and, apparantly, America's streetwalker too.

MagicMarker

ConsiderThis wrote: »

The only lesson we should all learn from this is to avoid visiting Switzerland. It's a grubby little country and, apparantly, America's streetwalker too.

....erm.... evidentially not?

Meeja Ireland

ConsiderThis wrote: »

The only lesson we should all learn from this is to avoid visiting Switzerland. It's a grubby little country and, apparantly, America's streetwalker too.

I think we should all consider your advice if we ever rape a child and flee before sentencing. That seems to irk the Swiss no end.

Nevyn

But yet he travelled to and from Switzerland with out any impediment over the last 30 years and indeed owns property there.

Meeja Ireland

Thaedydal wrote: »

But yet he travelled to and from Switzerland with out any impediment over the last 30 years and indeed owns property there.

I'm glad they have finally done the right thing. The fact that they may have dithered, even for decades, shouldn't get him off the hook.

The issue concerning Polanski isn't that his arrest may have violated his expectations. The issue is that he raped a child and fled the country before he could be sentenced. Getting away with it for so long doesn't make it any less wrong.

I know nothing about the Swiss policy on extradition, but it seems the Americans have only "sought his arrest around the world since 2005".

Cool_CM

The reaction in Zürich is beyond ridiculous. He was supposed to receive a lifetime achievement award at the film festival last night and has been travelling freely between France and Switzerland for ages. Now everybody is in uproar about it, his arrest was openly condemned by the French Ambassador at the ceremony. There's been a lot of bad blood between the US and Switzerland in the last few months over bank secrecy and tax evasion and people seem to think that the fact the government has only acted now to arrest him is an effort to get the country back in America's good books.

It doesn't matter what he has done for the world of film or how talented he is, (not even bringing the alcohol and drug/rape factor into it) he still openly admitted to having "consensual" sex with a 13 year old and has avoided the charge since 1978. If he was anybody else people would be screaming for his head. This isn't any different, the fact that he makes good films is irrelevant.

The Sparrow

I couldn't disagree more with many of the posts here. I have never watched a Roman Polanski film because I am disgusted by what he did both committing the crime in the first place and skipping the country to escape facing justice.

Everybody deserves a second chance but only after they have faced up to their crime. And it was a pretty heinous crime. All this separating the artist from the crime is bollocks imo. Especially when they haven't faced up to the crime.

L31mr0d

The Sparrow wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more with many of the posts here. I have never watched a Roman Polanski film because I am disgusted by what he did both committing the crime in the first place and skipping the country to escape facing justice.

Tell me do you make it a habit to read up about the personal lives of every director, actor, producer, writer... etc behind a film before you go to see it?

What is being reasoned here is not that what he did, in anyway, was right, but that his work should not be judged by his crimes, and should stand alone.

The Sparrow

L31mr0d wrote: »

Tell me do you make it a habit to read up about the personal lives of every director, actor, producer, writer... etc behind a film before you go to see it?

What is being reasoned here is not that what he did, in anyway, was right, but that his work should not be judged by his crimes, and should stand alone.

No. Just as I don't do full back up checks on everybody that I come into contact with. But if I was about to hire a plumber and I found out that he had committed statutory rape on a 13 year old, pleaded guilty and then skipped the country so that he would not do time, I would not want anything to do with him.

So tell me do you think that a plumber's work should be separated from any terrible crimes that he may have committed? Or is it just artists and directors that get a free pass to commit terrible crimes and not face justice?

Meeja Ireland

The Sparrow wrote: »

No. Just as I don't do full back up checks on everybody that I come into contact with. But if I was about to hire a plumber and I found out that he had committed statutory rape on a 13 year old, pleaded guilty and then skipped the country so that he would not do time, I would not want anything to do with him.

So tell me do you think that a plumber's work should be separated from any terrible crimes that he may have committed? Or is it just artists and directors that get a free pass to commit terrible crimes and not face justice?

Wow. That is one compelling analogy. I think you may have just changed my mind about this. I suddenly feel guilty for buying that Chinatown DVD while the purchase could still do Polanski some good.

Could someone restore me to my pre-moral slumber, please? I still want to get Knife in the Water.

Whiskysticks

Saying that he "raped a child" is a bit of an over-exageration! He was drunk and had consensual sex with an underage girl whom he didn't know was underage, over 30 years ago. Get over it. Mans a genius!!

Morlar

Whiskysticks wrote: »

Saying that he "raped a child" is a bit of an over-exageration! He was drunk and had consensual sex with an underage girl whom he didn't know was underage, over 30 years ago. Get over it. Mans a genius!!

Leaving aside the substance issues for a moment you can't have consensual relations with children as they are not at the legal age to give consent, so no none of it is an exaggeration. 'Get over it, Mans a genius' is pretty sickening to be honest. I think his sentence should reflect the severity of his original crime and also the fact that the fled and avoided the jurisdiction for the last 3 decades.

The Sparrow

Meeja Ireland wrote: »

Wow. That is one compelling analogy. I think you may have just changed my mind about this. I suddenly feel guilty for buying that Chinatown DVD while the purchase could still do Polanski some good.

Could someone restore me to my pre-moral slumber, please? I still want to get Knife in the Water.

TBH I coouldn't care less what you think or not and I certainly was not trying to change anyone's mind.

Whiskysticks wrote:

Saying that he "raped a child" is a bit of an over-exageration!

Nope.

From Wikkipedia:

According to Geimer, Polanski asked Geimer's mother if he could photograph the girl for the French edition of Vogue, which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, "Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him." She added, "It didn't feel right, and I didn't want to go back to the second shoot."

Geimer later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the Mulholland area home of actor Jack Nicholson in Los Angeles. "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there." She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. "I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No!", and then I didn’t know what else to do,” she stated.

Geimer testified that Polanski performed various sexual acts on her after giving her a combination of champagne and quaaludes.

L31mr0d

The Sparrow wrote: »

So tell me do you think that a plumber's work should be separated from any terrible crimes that he may have committed? Or is it just artists and directors that get a free pass to commit terrible crimes and not face justice?

Well I'm not going to get into hypotheticals here, as it's a rather subjective matter.

Let me just say, if the plumber had "done the time" would you still hire him? It seems to me you have more of a problem with Polanskis avoidance of jail time rather than the act he committed. Will you still not watch Polanskis films if he is put in jail?

Whiskysticks

He's clearly a genius, one of the best filmmakers ever, regardless of what he's done! Pretty much every rockstar that toured in the 70's is guilty of statutory rape but no one cares about them.....

Flamed Diving

The rich and famous are better than us, hence, they should be allowed to break the odd law while coming up with genius works. We should not judge them by our own lowlife standards.

Peasants.

The Sparrow

L31mr0d wrote: »

Well I'm not going to get into hypotheticals here, as it's a rather subjective matter.

Let me just say, if the plumber had "done the time" would you still hire him? It seems to me you have more of a problem with Polanskis avoidance of jail time rather than the act he committed. Will you still not watch Polanskis films if he is put in jail?

I think that the crime is horrendous. Much worse then avoiding jail time. But I do believe that everybody should get a second chance. However, I could not even begin to consider that as he has cowardly avoided his sentence for so long.

I don't understand how anyone can watch any of his films and therefore support him financially. Disgraceful imo.

Mr. Presentable

Thaedydal wrote: »

But yet he travelled to and from Switzerland with out any impediment over the last 30 years and indeed owns property there.

Yeah, that's odd. Do I smell shenanigans? Could it be someone wants him to go through process and be cleared/discharged so he can make a movie in Hollywood?

Meeja Ireland

Whiskysticks wrote: »

Saying that he "raped a child" is a bit of an over-exageration! He was drunk and had consensual sex with an underage girl whom he didn't know was underage, over 30 years ago. Get over it. Mans a genius!!

I don't know whether you have read up on this one. It's grim reading. You can find the child's testimony here, for example. Even more disturbing, if that's possible, was the account of his most recent biographer of his stark refusal to take any moral responsibility whatever for what he had done.

What had he done? In short, he tricked a 13-year-old child into taking most of her clothes off by pretending to be photographing her for Vogue. He gave her champagne and quaaludes. Despite her discomfort, fear, confusion, disorientation and, yes, her repeated pleas to stop, he had sex with her.

That is not consensual.

I would normally be content to accept the plea-bargained version of any case, I but think Polanski lost the right to that kind of legal fiction when he skipped the country. Even if you think the age of consent should be lowered, and even if you think fugitives should benefit from a time limit on their convictions, this man does not deserve your sympathy.

But there is an easy way to decide these questions which doesn't put the onus on you and me to slug it out. That is by his returning to America to face sentencing or a retrial.

Meeja Ireland

The Sparrow wrote: »

TBH I coouldn't care less what you think or not and I certainly was not trying to change anyone's mind.

That may be the most churlish response I have ever had to agreeing with someone. I still think you're right, but now I'm a little scared of you.

EDIT: I just re-read my original agreement in a different tone of voice, and it sounded sarky as hell. I genuinely did agree with your point, and think it was very well made. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

The Sparrow

Meeja Ireland wrote: »

That may be the most churlish response I have ever had to agreeing with someone. I still think you're right, but now I'm a little scared of you.

EDIT: I just re-read my original agreement in a different tone of voice, and it sounded sarky as hell. I genuinely did agree with your point, and think it was very well made. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

Oh yeah sorry:o

I think I misunderstood the tone in your original post. I assumed you were being sarcastic. Still a bit asleep here!

JP Liz

It's about time he was caught. He drugged and sodomized a 13 year old child. He pleaded guilty and skipped town.

Galvasean

The Sparrow wrote: »

All this separating the artist from the crime is bollocks imo. Especially when they haven't faced up to the crime.

I would disagree, as per my previous post, in that most films probably have at least one cast/crew member with a dubious history.

As for not wanting to back him financially buy paying to see his films, that is a reasonable point. However, in my case I had seen/purchased Polanski films before knowing about his creepy past. To that end, the damage is done and there's no point in trying to dislike his films retrospectively because of his foul actions.

All that said, I still think he deserves to be punished and no amount of fine works should excuse him from that.

JP Liz

JP Liz wrote: »

It's abut time he was caught. He drugged and sodomized a 13 year old child. He pleaded guilty and skipped town.

Yet if he died tomorrow I'm sure yourself and everyone else on here demanding his head on a pike would be the first to comment on what a loss it would be. Polanski is like the opposite of Michael Jackson who went from a pedophile in the eyes of the media and public to the reincarnation of Christ over night.

What he did was wrong but it pales in comparison to what others have done and gotten away with. Is seeing Polanski pay a fine or serve a few months in jail really going to do anyone any good? Polanski admitted that what he did was wrongand while he did skip the country so would most people who in the same situation had the opportunity to do so.

Samantha Geimer recently said "I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever - besides me - and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it." Surely the media frenzy over the arrest is only going to stir up memories that she has spent years getting over.

SLUSK

I hope he gets justice by the lynch mob

CliffHuxtabel

I wonder did he finish 'The Ghost'...i was looking forward to that.

Its a shame they decided to pursue him all the way. Very few directors come close to him.

His crime was pretty heinous but the guy went through a succession of monumentally traumatic experiences. His mother and his wife were murdered in separate circumstances.

I know that doesnt justify what he did but its obvious he must have had mental imbalances. Also, its enough personal punishment for several lifetimes.

SLUSK

CliffHuxtabel wrote: »

I wonder did he finish 'The Ghost'...i was looking forward to that.

Its a shame they decided to pursue him all the way. Very few directors come close to him.

His crime was pretty heinous but the guy went through a succession of monumentally traumatic experiences. His mother and his wife were murdered in separate circumstances.

I know that doesnt justify what he did but its obvious he must have had mental imbalances. Also, its enough personal punishment for several lifetimes.

Would you think that of the average rapist?

CliffHuxtabel

SLUSK wrote: »

Would you think that of the average rapist?

Yes a little understanding of the context of a rape case from 30 years is beneficial regardless of who the person in question is.

Although judging by your last post understanding context may be beyond you

SLUSK

CliffHuxtabel wrote: »

Yes a little understanding of the context of a rape case from 30 years is beneficial regardless of who the person in question is.

Although judging by your last post understanding context may be beyond you

He raped an underaged girl in the ass and skipped the country to avoid a jail sentence, what mor "context" do I need?

SLUSK

SLUSK wrote: »

He raped an underaged girl in the ass and skipped the country to avoid a jail sentence, what mor "context" do I need?

He sexually assaulted an underage girl and while his subsequent actions confirm that he knew he was going to face serious consequences for his actions the context in which the rape occurred has nothing to do with what happened after. Can you or anyone else say what mind frame he was in? Was it a premeditated incident, was the victim more involved than she let on?

You may want to get off your high horse and think about this in a wider sense than just "He put his pee pee in her bum". Polanski's crime was disgraceful but it was also 30 years ago and in the years since the victim has put it behind her. All the arrest has down is make her relive every moment of it. Polanski isn't a repeat offender, he made a mistake once and while it was despicable holding it against him 3 decades later will do no one any good.

SLUSK

Deleted User wrote: »

He sexually assaulted an underage girl and while his subsequent actions confirm that he knew he was going to face serious consequences for his actions the context in which the rape occurred has nothing to do with what happened after. Can you or anyone else say what mind frame he was in? Was it a premeditated incident, was the victim more involved than she let on?

You may want to get off your high horse and think about this in a wider sense than just "He put his pee pee in her bum". Polanski's crime was disgraceful but it was also 30 years ago and in the years since the victim has put it behind her. All the arrest has down is make her relive every moment of it. Polanski isn't a repeat offender, he made a mistake once and while it was despicable holding it against him 3 decades later will do no one any good.

So drugging and ****ing an underage girl in the ass is a "mistake" to you?
I hope he gets send to a pound you in the ass prison and see how he likes it when Bubba and Tyrone does the same "mistake".

SLUSK

SLUSK wrote: »

So drugging and ****ing an underage girl in the ass is a "mistake" to you?
I hope he gets send to a pound you in the ass prison and see how he likes it when Bubba and Tyrone does the same "mistake".

Yes he made a mistake and while it was a serious one I doubt that he is the only one to do so. Retrying Polanski now is going to achieve nothing, he has paid for his crimes and the whole sorry incident should be let die. Living in exile for three decades and missing one of the defining moments of your life should be punishment enough. Does Geimer really have to relive the ordeal again, even after she herself in her own way has forgiven Polanski.

SLUSK

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes he made a mistake and while it was a serious one I doubt that he is the only one to do so. Retrying Polanski now is going to achieve nothing, he has paid for his crimes and the whole sorry incident should be let die. Living in exile for three decades and missing one of the defining moments of your life should be punishment enough. Does Geimer really have to relive the ordeal again, even after she herself in her own way has forgiven Polanski.

Until he faces the justice of an angry mob he has not been punished enough. :mad:

keefg

Deleted User wrote: »

You may want to get off your high horse and think about this in a wider sense than just "He put his pee pee in her bum". Polanski's crime was disgraceful but it was also 30 years ago and in the years since the victim has put it behind her. All the arrest has down is make her relive every moment of it. Polanski isn't a repeat offender, he made a mistake once and while it was despicable holding it against him 3 decades later will do no one any good.

What the hell does the timeframe of 30 odd years have anything to do with it?

I'm not trying to compare the crimes here but as a Jewish person who was persecuted and lost family members during the Holocaust, I am sure Mr. Polanski never had any objections to Nazi war criminals being tracked down 30, 40, 50 years after their crimes to face justice.

I can't see any difference here, no matter how long the crime was committed it shouldn't be just forgotten about.

I can't believe he was able to remain "on the run" for so long.

Handsome Bob

I'm finding it hard to give Polanski the benefit of the doubt here. I saw the picture of the girl aged 13 in the papers yesterday and there's no two ways about it, she looked way underage. Also is it a fact or just alleged that he plied her with drugs and alcohol in Jack Nicholson's house? If it's a fact then this is long overdue for Polanski.

EDIT Just thinking about it a bit more, it is comparable to what happened to Jake La Motta. For any of you who have seen Raging Ball the girl in his club was certainly portrayed as looking over 18, however she undoubtedly looked like a kid in her school photo. Admittedly in the photo I saw the girl was dessed as a kid, but she was apparently a model so I have no idea how she looked the night Polanski had his way with her. It's a tough situation, it really depends on what prior knowledge Polanski had of the girl.

The Sparrow

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I'm finding it hard to give Polanski the benefit of the doubt here. I saw the picture of the girl aged 13 in the papers yesterday and there's no two ways about it, she looked way underage. Also is it a fact or just alleged that he plied her with drugs and alcohol in Jack Nicholson's house? If it's a fact then this is long overdue for Polanski.

EDIT Just thinking about it a bit more, it is comparable to what happened to Jake La Motta. For any of you who have seen Raging Ball the girl in his club was certainly portrayed as looking over 18, however she undoubtedly looked like a kid in her school photo. Admittedly in the photo I saw the girl was dessed as a kid, but she was apparently a model so I have no idea how she looked the night Polanski had his way with her. It's a tough situation, it really depends on what prior knowledge Polanski had of the girl.

There are three things really. Firstly, Polanski drugged raped a girl. Secondly, that girl was 13 and underage. Thirdly he skipped the country instead of facing justice.

Even if you make the argument that he may not have known her true age (which I don't buy for one second) the fact still remains that even if you give him the benefit of the doubt on that, he still drugged and raped a young woman. And pretty horrendously too.

It's ridiculous the way that ppl are making excuses for him because they happen to like his movies and it was 30 years ago. If someone raped your 13 year old sister or female cousin do you think that you would be so forgiving because he made some films that you like?

The fact is that we have laws against this for a reason and it doesn't matter what others may have done. If you are caught doing something horrendous like this and you then skip the country, you deserve to get punished to the full extent of the law no matter what else you have done.

I would be ashamed if I was a French citizen to hear my country supporting Polanski.

L31mr0d

The Sparrow wrote: »

It's ridiculous the way that ppl are making excuses for him because they happen to like his movies and it was 30 years ago. If someone raped your 13 year old sister or female cousin do you think that you would be so forgiving because he made some films that you like?

I don't think anyone here is saying he should get off scot free. Rather, they are capable of separating the man from his work.

Listen, if someone gave me some ice cream and I liked it. Then if I was told a rapist made that ice cream it doesn't change the fact that I still liked it. You seem incapable of being able to acknowledge this.

What the man did was wrong, I agree wholeheartedly, and he should be punished for it. But what the director is doing has been amazing and he should be applauded for it.

mike65

L31mr0d,

If this were a Roman Polanski Film Studies thread that would be a fair comment. Its not.