I know one thing about this guy: he raped a 13 year old.

Based on that one fact I refuse to watch any of his movies for 2 reasons:

Number one being the obvious reason of upholding my personal integrity.

Number two, branching off from number one, being that I don’t want one red cent of my money going into this creature’s pocket (whether or not he still gets any of it while he’s hiding in France is unknown as well as irrelevant to me.)

That said, why does everyone kiss his ass so much? Maybe if he apologized, accepted his punishment, and died a few hundred years ago we could look at his artwork objectively now, but he’s hiding out in another country, and for all we know he could be raping other children.

What the FUCK is the story on Roman Polanski’s shiny golden ass? I must admit I’m 100% baffled.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. As far as I can tell, both of them drunk and on drugs, it was consensual. Being as she was 13, it was therefore statutory rape. I don’t condone what he did, and I believe it was wrong, but it was not forced rape, as the victim has stated. The victim has expressed her wish for it all to end, and Polanski allowed to return to America.

As for running, I would do the same thing. Cowardly? Perhaps, but few things can compare to the horror that is prison. However all of the things that do (losing parents in front of your eyes during the holocaust as well as the Krakow liquidation, having your pregnant wife murdered while she screams for the life of her unborn baby and having messages written in her blood on the walls), Polankis has experienced.
The man is an absolute genius filmmaker.

To clarify my first paragraph, the victim has stated that it was not forced.

I don’t think he is a pedophile.

I have my doubts about consensual when the victim at the time said she didn’t resist out of fear.

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

Genius or not he deserves to have his balls cut off.

It was most certainly NOT consensual Ilsa_Lund, even Polanski himself admitted that in an article I read about 10 minutes ago (lost the link and the boards are going extremely slow but I would be glad to post it later if you need the cite.)

There’s a term for guys who are attracted to post-pubescent minors - hebephilia? I’m not sure of that word, because I’ve seen it applied to people attracted to teens of both sexes, but also applied to those attracted to teenage males only. Anyway, he’s probably one of those.

The girl did look underage, but I’ve seen pics of her from the time it happened and she did look older than 13 - I would have guessed her at anywhere between 15 and 17 (and I’ve known a few adults who looked younger).

I think I see your problem, there:

Jonathan, I have doubts, too, but it also seems possible that she might say that out of a misguided wish to avoid getting “in trouble” with her mum. I was sexually active with adults at that age and at great pains to keep it from any authority figures in my life, so I can hardly see ruling out consensuality altogether. Polanski seems to have taken it for granted that she was sexually active, since he asked if she was using birth-control pills.

Consensual or not, he did a stupid thing and should have accepted responsibility for it – but avoid his films? Not a chance. Maybe that would make sense if there were a surplus of brilliant filmmakers, but that just ain’t the case.

Oh, ok. Well that’s all you had to say.

See you guys later, I saw some 13 year olds on the way home and I think I’ll go break their legs. Because, hey, they looked about 15 or 17.


Lay off the friggin’ cough syrup, dude.

Your analogy is airtight, Cisco since breaking the legs of people over 18 is perfectly legal.


And raping people is perfectly legal too?

You seemed to have missed the point of my analogy.

In case anyone is wondering, I guess the OP, like some other people, has taken exception to Ilsa_Lund’s CS thread on Chinatown, generally agreed to be one of the finest films of the 1970’s.

Re: the OP:

How is your personal integrity upheld by not viewing any of Polanski’s films? Do you think, for some reason, that there is material advocating the statutory rape of minors in his films? Even if you could compose an argument justifying the suppression of any of the films Polanski made after the incident in question, what is your basis for doing the same to films made before the incident?

Furthermore, what is your basis for objecting to the mere discussion of his films?

What about the hundreds of other persons, actors and production personnel, who worked on films made by Polanski throughout his career? Should none of them “get a red cent of your money” simply because they had the misfortune to have worked on a film made by Polanski before the criminal act occurred? Should we boycott all the films of Paramount because they continue to market Chinatown on DVD? Should we boycott, the films of Harrison Ford because he agreed to star in Frantic?

I’d be very interested to hear the answers to any of these questions.


So an adult (any adult, not necessarily a cinematic genius) is considered to simply have exercised “poor judgment” or something by having “consensual” sex with a 13-year-old?

In this circumstance, doesn’t the adult bear the burden of judgment, regardless of what the adolescent did or didn’t want to do?

Or it’s OK from the viewpoint of folks here if the perpetrator had a hard life?

Or is it OK because he’s good at making movies?

Is the term “consensual” valid when one of the parties has not reached the age of “consent”? Not both parties, mind you… just one.

Just askin’, is all…


Seems to me that some of the same people who laud Polanski as such an artist–and that’s all that matters, of course, darling–would be pretty quick to vilify Elia Kazan and Leni Riefenstahl.

El Kabong, you assume I’m taking some bleeding-heart moral highground. You’re wrong. I’m merely disgusted at what this guy did and confused as to why people seem to smother him with affection and ignore the fact that he did something incredibly wrong to another person.

The only way I can currently express that disgust and confusion is by not watching his movies, and continuing to wonder why he is so celebrated.

If people choose to look at his art objectively - which is an arguable position to take - I feel that the least they could do is say “This guy is a reeeal piece of shit, but boy what a film.”

Instead, people choose to completely ignore what he did and kiss his ass not only as a filmmaker, but as a person. That absolutely disgusts me.

It’s been 30 years, he’s admitted what he did was wrong, yet he still won’t accept his punishment. What a great guy.

Yeah, some people can be really unreasonable, that way.

She has also said that she hopes he will be pardoned.

Quite a few of my early sexual experiences were “statutory rape,” and many, many more would have been “statutory rape” if they had taken place in, say, California. I drank with most of them and drugged with a few, too. I guess my disinclination to howl for Roman Polanski’s blood may come in part from my recognition that I would feel terrible if any of that caused harm to the women that I had all that lovely sex with.

According to Samantha, “the shit hit the fan” when her mother overheard her talking on the phone to a friend about what happened.

Ilsa_Lund wrote

You really really should read that court transcript cited above, and try that again.

The drugs and booze were from him, and the drugs she took at his insistance over her saying “no”.
The girl said “no” to sex many times before and during the act. She never once indicated she welcomed his sexual advances. She said she didn’t fight because she was afraid of him. She cried afterwards. He was 43; she was 13.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed. You should be ashamed spreading lies like like that.

Cisco, I understand your indignation and think that you have chosen a path that upholds your personal integrity. Certainly, I can respect that.

I have similar reasons for never setting foot on Andrew Jackson’s property, The Hermitage, even though I’ve lived in Nashville for forty years. It’s about what he did to the Cherokees. It’s a matter of principle.

But each person has to decide where to draw the line. I’m sure that many Native Americans have taken the tour and not made a big deal out of it. Meanwhile, I’m not aware of having Indian ancestory, but I just can’t abide the thought of that kind of cruelty.

Some of us can remember a time when Roman Polanski just about went crazy with grief. The murder that gave everyone else in America nightmares happened in his home and to his wife and friends and unborn child. The man was screwed up for a while.

That doesn’t excuse what he did. (And there is no way that it can be “consentual” when the female is thirteen – I don’t care how active or drugged she is.)

Perhaps it is because you have not seen The Pianist that you are lacking an insight into Polanski that some of the rest of us share now. The movie is about terrible pain and survival and there is much of Polanski’s heart in it. I cannot imagine that an evil man could have made that film.

I don’t get the confustion here. It doesn’t matter whether his work advocates anything suspect. It’s the man himself that Cisco doesn’t want to support. If Fred Phelps started cranking out award winning movies, I wouldn’t see them either. And to answer the inevitable response to this - I’m not saying that Polanski is going to use my money to fund pro-rape rallies. Just the fact that it flows from me to him in some form is enough.

I’m with Cisco all the way this time.