i'm pushing out another writethru with some more background details before press conference.Various bloggers have posited just such a theory. As the Guardian notes:
no surprise, new york is really hot on this.
they particularly want to know why now. (has he never set foot in switzerland before?) sheila, theorizes that's because they're under intense pressure over ubs and want to throw the U.S. a bone, but can yo ucheck with justice department sources there?
Many rumours are circulating, but one theory is that the Swiss agreed to arrest Polanski as part of a quid pro quo deal relating to UBS, the Swiss financial services firm. UBS admitted in February that it helped thousands of American citizens evade paying taxes and is still in negotiations about handing over details of secret accounts to the IRS.
Polanski's friend, the writer Robert Harris, has told the Guardian that he thought there was "something very odd, very suspicious" about the timing of the arrest. In Paris, the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, called the arrest a "bit sinister".I won't discuss in public every bit of scuttlebutt I've heard about the original 1977 incident. However, I can say that when I first learned the news, I was so infuriated that I wanted to track Polanski down and treat him the way he treated Jack Nicholson in Chinatown -- only worse.
And yet Roman Polanski was and remains one of my favorite directors. I wish today's over-caffeinated movie-makers would rent Rosemary's Baby or Macbeth in order to receive lessons in pace, atmosphere, blocking and camera placement.
The victim in the 1977 case, Samantha Geimer (then Gailey), does not want the law to pursue Polanski any further, and I feel that the authorities should accede to her wishes. She has her reasons.
Incidentally, the original judge in the case once stated that chasing Polanski out of the country was his intent.
One little-discussed aspect of the episode is the odd behavior of Anjelica Huston, daughter of John Huston, later well-known for her roles in Prizzi's Honor and the Addams Family films. She lived with Jack Nicholson at the time and was at home when Polanski and the girl came over for the "photo shoot." If Anjelica Huston had no clue as to what was going to happen, she must have been stoned out of her gourd.
The whole sorry affair had one valuable legacy: The nation-wide shock-waves abruptly ended a quasi-tolerance for pedophilia which had begun to infect the larger cities in the mid-1970s. At the time of Polanski's arrest, major book stores prominently displayed "art books" featuring photographs of young girls. Such volumes offered predators the all-purpose "photo shoot" excuse. The bolder street newsstands sold outright kiddie porn alongside Playboy and Penthouse. I recall being shocked beyond words by what I saw at a general-interest open-air magazine rack on Victory and Van Nuys in the valley, located a short walk away from the courts and the cop station.
Quite a few people speak of the Polanski incident as a case of "Hollywood" protecting one of its own. In fact, "Hollywood" -- which is hardly the conspiratorial monolith some rubes make it out to be -- did no such thing.
Decades earlier, a major studio did act in a protective fashion when a gifted 27 year-old hell-raiser of a screenwriter, the son of a famous actor, struck a female pedestrian while driving. The actor's studio helped the driver -- John Huston -- escape the attention of both law and press. He later became one of the greatest directors of all time, even though he never did quite figure out how to be a human being.
14 comments:
The man belongs in jail. All the rest is irrelevant. Rosemary's Baby is a particularly ugly movie, much like this man's crime. He paid off his victim and she no doubt would like to forget her own involvement in the "counter culture" but he broke the law and fled the country to evade sentencing. Who cares why the Swiss are finally cooperating. This all should have happened years ago, if anyone in this country cares about wrongs done to women and children.
The victims grand jury testimony was that there was a housekeeper present when she and Polanski arrived. The housekeeper left before anything happened.
The victim said she was being raped and sodomized in the bedroom by Polanski when Anjelica Huston came home and knocked on the bedroom door.
Polanski stopped sodomizing the victim, went to the door and spoke briefly with Huston, and then came back and finished sodomizing her.
The victim saw Huston briefly as she was leaving but did not recognize her. She stated she sat outside in Polanski's car crying for about 15 minutes while Polanski chatted with Huston.
Huston later told the police she thought the victim seemed sullen and rude.
There is always the possibility (probability to criminologists) that this creep was doing or trying to do his thing in Switzerland. The first thing authorities and law enforcement do when presented with a pervert is see if they can move them down the road on a prior. It is cheap and easy. The idea that he is a lifelong predator seems to be beyond the comprehension of the creative class. It makes you wonder if they would give a shit if it was their own 13 year old being assaulted by an artiste.
Anon 5:51 (and I wish you were not an anon), your theory is interesting, but two factors work against it: 1. He did not live in Switzerland and visited the place only briefly; and 2. He's an old man now. Probably hasn't been laid, or wanted to get laid, in ages.
Also, I see no evidence of multiple victims. Without the pattern, it's hard to use phrases like "lifelong predator." I guess you could make the case re: the affair with Kinski, but she claimed to have been older than was the case. (Actually, her year of birth remains foggy.)
Anon 5:24 -- and I do wish you would choose a nick -- bloggers keep saying that she was paid off, but unless you can cite evidence tot hat effect, you are being terribly unfair to Samantha.
Again, if you are so concerned about the victim, why don't you pay any attention to her wishes? Don't they count? Her words:
"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."
In other words, Samantha herself says that all of this talk about him being a "lifelong predator" is pure fantasy. So why should I presume that you know more about the matter than she does?
And if you don't like the way Rosemary's Baby is directed, you simply have no appreciation of good filmmaking. I bet you are one of those people who is aware only of the story and does not know what a director actually does.
One other thing...
"The idea that he is a lifelong predator seems to be beyond the comprehension of the creative class. It makes you wonder if they would give a shit if it was their own 13 year old being assaulted by an artiste."
There it is again. The presumption that Hollywood (aka "the creative class") is One Big Conspiracy. Dubya got a lot of votes in Texas by running against what he called "Big Hollywood."
This is pure codswallop.
In this case, Polanski was always something of an outsider in Hollywood -- most of his work was done in Europe. You've probably never seen the films that brought him to international attention, such as Knife in the Water and Cul-de-Sac. Only Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown were made for Hollywood studios, and only Chinatown was made in Los Angeles.
Do you know how many people in town rose to his defense? None. Zippo.
So stop pedaling fantasy. Save that cornball shit for the Dubya voters.
Your reference to parenthood is of course very germane. Alas, some parents can be downright unfathomable.
And more than that I cannot say.
The victim filed a civil suit against Polanski and received an "undisclosed" settlement.
It wasn't until after she received the settlement that she said she forgave him and asked for the case to be dropped.
Was there a quid pro quo? Only the parties involved know for sure, but Polanski could afford to buy her silence.
BTW - Polanski owns a place in Gstaad where he often stays during the winter.
.
Well then I stand partially corrected -- certainly on the Switzerland thing, which was news to me. But I still think there's a difference between a civil suit and a pay-off. Would you say that OJ gave a pay-off to the Goldman family?
Your point leads toward an alternate reading of the case, which I cannot discuss here, although I've alluded to it in private communication.
Rosemary's Baby is a singularly stunning movie, as are Chinatown and Knife in the Water. Also don't forget The Pianist--the best Holocaust movie ever made, one that kicks "Schindler's List" in the ass and down the hall six ways from Sunday. OK-- I admit it, I'm a huge Polanski fan (I even forgive him for "Frantic"), and if I let my opinions of artists' personal lives or moral standing interfere with my enjoyment of their work I'd be reduced to...well, I don't know, maybe the Muppets? (Don't tell me, Jim Henson was a kitten killer???)
As to this case, if you read the victim's statement--and many who've commented on it have not--it's clear that she wants no part of any public spectacle and has consistently held true to that since the original crime occurred in 1977. Long before the civil suit. People who say her wishes should be ignored and stampeded over or talk about a "payoff" (that's how our justice system works, people are compensated for the wrongs done them, and the measure of compensation is money), seem intent on forcing her, against her will, to be the standard-bearer of purity and vengeance. Understandable why she wants no part of it, and I wonder why they do.
I'm frankly tired of the vindictiveness and hysteria meted out to offenders in this country, while the real monsters (Dubya, Cheney, the Enron and Wall Street guys) not only go scot free but great jobs in the federal govt. and a lifetime of luxury.
Polanski IS a real monster. He drugged and raped a child, even while she was resisting. Just because Bush and Cheney, etc. are monsters does not mean Polanski is not one also.
The Goldmans got a civil judgment against OJ. It is my understanding Polanski settled his suit. So, yes, he paid her off. Also, he admitted guilt. OJ never did.
And who knows what the woman really wants? Polanski dead, would be my guess. Her childhood back, probably. More publicity? Maybe yes, maybe no. More money from Polanski? Who really knows? The pressure on her to let him off the hook, though, must be tremendous.
Query: Has there ever been an instance in which a pedophile stopped being a pedophile? It seems that it has always been - and will probably always be - impossible to stop, even with castration.
A great film-maker. Rosemary's Baby one of the scariest films ever. Chinatown, one of the creepiest. Perhaps it would elevate his film-making even more, however, if, in his old age, he underwent the experience of being an unwilling receptacle of a too large penis in his anus.
DancingOpossum,
I just can't agree with your perspective. For me I cannot separate the artist from the art. It is a package deal. If I don't like the artist then I don't partake of the art no matter how astounding the art may be. I won't knowingly buy art that is made by people who abuse women, abuse children, promote misogeny, promote drug abuse, promote crimimnal behavior, promote violence or hate, etc.
I will purchase art made by people I have a different viewpoint from as long as it is good art. Chuck Norris is a good example. If he ever made a decent movie I'd purchase that in a second though I don't agree with his politics or his viewpoints on life.
The victim's wishes have nothing to do with whether a crime should be prosecuted or not. They are sometimes considered during sentencing. If you made child rape contingent on pressing charges it would encourage those rapists to either kill their victims or exert greater intimidation than they now do. Drugging children in order to have sex with them is indefensible and it doesn't matter how many wonderful movies you make. I was around during that time period and no one wanted to try to defend his actions because sex with children is abhorrent to normal people but a great many people at the time felt sympathy for him because of Sharon Tate's murder. He was well known because of that association, if not for his career yet.
He has already been tried and convicted. He pled guilty to the assault of a minor child. He escaped punishment by fleeing the country. Any respect for the law demands he be apprehended, and serves his sentence. Escaping justice by fleeing the country is a slap in the face to our justice system. Let him serve his sentence while he appeals the case, but either way he needs to serve his sentence, pay for his crime, settle his debt to society, just like every other sex offender is expected to do. And this man, I don't care what kind of brilliant movies he makes, IS a sex offender.
Take the pop quiz:
Should brilliant people get a pass for doing minors up the ass?
Y/N
I'm with you, Dancing Opossum--and it'll be a very long time before I get over the shock of watching my favorite "liberal" blog turn into Free Republic, a well-known criminal defense attorney mocked and derided apparently for just being a criminal defense attorney (though lord knows she's turned out to be a total asswipe in pretty much all other respects)--and anyone who dared raise even the mildest objection to the prevailing bloodlust shouted down and then banned for being a "promoter" and "supporter" of child rape.
And Joe, it's way worse than "cornball shit" IMO. There was an appalling amount of support for the idea that Polanski should be locked up for what he might have done (since 1977) and for what he might still do--with the aid of Viagra, of course.
Well hell, let's just dump this damned bleediinheartlibrul system of justice--you know, the one based on English common law?--and adopt the good old Napoleonic Code. Maybe those Frenchies aren't so bad after all, eh Myiq?
just found this L.A. Times article on another blog:
"Roman Polanski’s attorneys may have helped provoke his arrest by complaining to an appellate court this summer that Los Angeles prosecutors had never made any real effort to arrest the filmmaker in his three decades as a fugitive, two sources familiar with the case told The Times.
"The accusation that the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office was not serious about extraditing Polanski was a small part of two July court filings by the director’s attorneys. But it caught the attention of prosecutors and led to his capture in Switzerland on Saturday, the sources said.
Polanski, 76, was taken into custody at the airport in Zurich, where he was scheduled to headline the city’s film festival. Details of his appearance were widely available on the Internet. Variety also reported his planned attendance in August, the month after Polanski’s attorneys had filed two separate documents with the 2nd District of the state Court of Appeal asking for a dismissal of the 32-year-old child sex case against the filmmaker.
In both, the lawyers alleged that the district attorney’s office in effect benefited from Polanski’s absence, because as long as he remained a fugitive, officials could avoid answering allegations of prosecutorial and judicial wrongdoing in the original handling of the case.
Can't seem to link to the full article, but Googling "Roman Polanski Attorneys May Have Provoked" will take you there.
In any case it's an interesting new wrinkle, innit?
Post a Comment