Hollywood stars flock to causes. An A-list name can boost the profile of a charity, highlight a far-off tragedy or reverse a grave injustice. So when Oscar-winning director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland on the way to a film festival, it is perhaps no wonder that the great and the good of the film world rushed to plead for his freedom.

 

The list of supporters giving Polanski their impassioned support read like a Who's Who of the cream of the movie-making world. It included, among many others, Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Harvey Weinstein, Pedro Almodóvar and Ethan Coen.

 

But rather than rallying mass public support for the beleaguered film-maker – director of such undoubted classics as Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby and The Pianist – they have provoked an extraordinary backlash.

 

Led by a handful of outspoken female voices, a rising tide of opinion has instead applauded Polanski's arrest for unlawful sex with a 13-year-old back in 1977. They have turned the focus on the crime itself, calling the director an accused rapist who abused a child.

 

That, they say, should be the focus of the story and of Hollywood's ire, not defending an old man who pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a young girl then went on the run for 32 years to avoid prison. The backlash – not only against Polanski, but also against the Hollywood clan that rallied round him – has begun in earnest.

 

"Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected," wrote feminist and author Kate Harding in an impassioned column in Salon. That article then went viral across the internet, gaining tens of thousands of page views and seeming to herald the reaction to come.

 

Harding, a liberal feminist, found herself being asked to appear on rightwing talk radio shows. Soon editorial after editorial, from the mighty New York Times to the smalltown Lowell Sun in Massachusetts, followed suit, welcoming Polanski's arrest as a case of long overdue justice for a serious crime.

 

It seems that the consequences of the dramatic development could now spread wider than just Polanski. Already some early supporters of the director, such as actress Whoopee Goldberg, have had to backtrack and clarify their positions. More are likely to follow suit in the weeks to come. Could it be that Hollywood – whose very existence rests on accurately predicting the public's taste – has made one of its gravest misjudgments? "The disconnect between Hollywood and the rest of the country seems enormous," said Anthony Mora, an author and founder of a leading Los Angeles-based public relations firm.

 

There is little doubt that the case is extremely complex. In many ways both sides are dealing in black and whites and not the shades of grey that too often more accurately describe reality.

 

For Polanski's defenders, that has meant ignoring the act that took place in 1977 and instead focusing on judicial wrongdoings that have plagued the case and Polanski's own tragedy-tinged life.

 

They point out that the director pleaded guilty only as part of a deal, which he then feared was being reneged upon. That is why he fled, they say. They also refer to his past – as a Holocaust survivor and a man whose wife, Sharon Tate, was brutally murdered by followers of Charles Manson – as evidence that he has already borne much suffering in his life.

 

Finally, his sterling record as a film director is held up as evidence of why he should be celebrated as a leading artist, not arrested for a crime where even the victim has asked for him not to be pursued after such a long time. Perhaps it is no wonder that many in Hollywood have described his plight in terms that make Polanski himself the martyr. Weinstein said the arrest was a "terrible situation". Actress Debra Winger said the Swiss had been involved in "Philistine collusion" in allowing the arrest. Goldberg, in now notorious remarks, said: "I don't believe it was 'rape-rape'."

 

But, as the outrage has grown, especially in the wake of Goldberg's remarks, the sheer scale of Hollywood's misjudgment in rallying so enthusiastically to Polanski's cause has begun to be exposed. One of Goldberg's fellow presenters on the ABC TV show The View, Sherri Shepherd, condemned Polanksi outright. Details of the victim's testimony in 1977 have been published and widely circulated through the media and via the gossip website The Smoking Gun. It makes for grim and unpleasant reading.

 

The girl graphically described being given champagne and a quaalude, a popular recreational drug in the 1970s, by Polanski before he had sex with her. She testified that she repeatedly said no but that he did not stop, committing numerous sexual acts as she protested.

 

Not surprisingly, it is feminists and women who have led the charge against Hollywood's support of Polanski. The Feminist Majority Foundation is in favour of his extradition. Katie Buckland, chief executive of the California Women's Law Centre, has pointed out the difference between Hollywood's attitudes towards Polanski's long-ago crime and the unearthed pasts of elderly paedophile Catholic priests.

 

Writer Vicki Iovine has also been outspoken, making the same point. Even some women members of Hollywood have broken ranks as actress Kirstie Alley loudly condemned Polanski and those who defended him. Nearly all have accused him in no uncertain terms of being a child rapist.

 

The ramifications of that will be difficult to measure. Polanski now faces a long legal battle that will span two continents. But in the arena of public opinion his image has been shattered. The words many people will now first associate with Polanski will be all to do with the sexual assault of a young child, not his film work. Even if he goes free, Polanski could now be hurt where it really matters to Hollywood: the box office. "Sex with children was, and always has been, anathema to Americans... the 'anything goes' cultural excesses of the time do not excuse Polanski from society's expectation that adults should protect kids, not exploit them," said author and sociologist BJ Gallagher.

 

The Polanski backlash has spread far and wide. He was never popular at all on the right wing of America's culture, but now middle America is firmly in favour of seeing him in a Californian courtroom. Talkshow hosts, radio commentators and newspaper editorials from coast to coast have all insisted that the arrest was long overdue and that Polanski needs to be brought to the US.

 

"Hollywood people really don't see the world in the same way as average people... that is why there is a backlash," said Mike Levine, a Hollywood PR expert.

 

But it is perhaps no surprise that the gap between Hollywood and the rest of America has grown so large on this particular case. Because of his long and illustrious career, Polanski is a friend and colleague of nearly all the main players in the film world. They are his confidantes and his peers. His movies have made them stars and helped them to earn millions. They live in the same rarefied world of global fame. "Elite Hollywood culture is protecting one of its own," said Alexander Riley, a professor of sociology at Bucknell University.

 

It is also speaks to a certain type of Hollywood culture which appears to insist that its top stars are in some ways elevated above the law and should be treated differently to ordinary members of the public.

 

If Polanski was just an ordinary man instead of a world-famous film director, the bare facts of his case would be likely to elicit little sympathy – especially from the world famous. Hollywood stars seem to be arguing, in some ways, that Polanski's talent should allow him some sort of free pass for his past behaviour. "Hollywood... looks at the Polanski case and says, 'You have to make allowances for genius'," said Gallagher.

 

Hollywood's elite also functions as a kind of club and Polanski, seen by the elite as a great European auteur director, is a firm member. That requires a certain degree of success but also a great deal of ideological conformity. It is a cliche that Hollywood is uniformly liberal in its politics, but one with more than a dash of truth in it. It is certainly interesting to see the reaction to Polanski's case and compare it with the reaction to Mel Gibson, when he was caught mouthing drunken anti-Semitic abuse.

 

Gibson, a rare conservative in Hollywood, was brutally condemned by his fellow stars and sent into virtual career exile. Polanski, whose crime is far more serious, has seen a vast outpouring of sympathy. Being a member of the Hollywood club certainly seems to have its privileges.

 

"The difference between the reaction to Gibson and the reaction to Polanski has been just huge. Huge!" said celebrity interviewer Gayl Murphy. "That says a lot about what Hollywood thinks is important to them."

 

But, more importantly, it has also exposed a huge fault line between what Hollywood thinks of itself and what Americans think of Hollywood. No longer is it just the right wing of America lambasting "Hollywood liberals" for their permissive and overly Democratic ways. It is Democrats too. And feminists. And conservatives. Polanski seems to have united the different strands of America in a way that few other things have.

 

As Harding blogged after her column exploded across the blogosphere and she was inundated with emails and requests for press interviews: "Who knew being disgusted with Roman Polanski would turn out to be the ever-elusive common ground between rightwing dudes and liberal feminists?"

 

Source: The Observer

 

What are your views on Polanski, he maybe a brilliant film maker but at the end of the day, is he just another paedophile like Gary Glitter. Did he abuse his position back in 1977 and took advantage of a 13 year old, or is the girl's pushy parents partly to blame for taking her to Polanski to try and get her into the movies. By all accounts the girl(woman) has forgiven him now. There is no doubt his life has had tragedy and tears, success and wealth.

a very unclear case...the woman has seemingly no long term bad effects and has forgiven him... however he is certainly NOT the same as gary glitter who was a serial, unrepentant, predatory paedophile who preyd on LITTLE children...

 

tbh it seems abit late in the day to persecute him for seemingly 1 misdemeanour over 30 years ago.

The parents of the girl (as she was then...) disgust me probably more than Polanski himself frankly.. I think they basically "pimped out" their daughter to him like she was a whore, THEY wanted the fame and fortune a lot more than she probably did... But then, that's just typical of a certain class of American parents, you see it in these "kiddie" beauty pageants too.... Polanski should certainly have been punished at the time, he may have been suffering from a depression due to what happened to his wife and unborn child, but still, it's no real excuse...

 

I dunno about US law, but can a rape case even be brought after 30 years, I mean, what's the Statute of Limitations on such cases....? I dont really see how it actually helps anyone to dredge this up after such a long time, I think the woman herself just wants to get on with her life... Polanski, I dont believe, is a paedophile in the Gary Glitter sense (13 in terms of physiology isn't really the same as 10 or 11), he's not exactly made a habit out of it, and I think that he does regret his actions...

Wasn´t Polanski married to Sharon Tate who got killed by Charles Manson´s posse?

Wasn´t Polanski married to Sharon Tate who got killed by Charles Manson´s posse?

 

yes

It is also speaks to a certain type of Hollywood culture which appears to insist that its top stars are in some ways elevated above the law and should be treated differently to ordinary members of the public.

 

If Polanski was just an ordinary man instead of a world-famous film director, the bare facts of his case would be likely to elicit little sympathy – especially from the world famous. Hollywood stars seem to be arguing, in some ways, that Polanski's talent should allow him some sort of free pass for his past behaviour. "Hollywood... looks at the Polanski case and says, 'You have to make allowances for genius'," said Gallagher.

 

To be honest I don't know too much about the specifics of the Polanski sex case, but the quoted parts...

 

WHY THE f*** should allowances be made because he's a good film director? It's the Michael Jackson syndrome all over again, and on that particular case, it WASN'T just Hollywood who were putting him up on a pedestal and ignoring his wrongdoings. We're just as hypocritical as Hollywood.

 

To be honest I don't know too much about the specifics of the Polanski sex case, but the quoted parts...

 

WHY THE f*** should allowances be made because he's a good film director? It's the Michael Jackson syndrome all over again, and on that particular case, it WASN'T just Hollywood who were putting him up on a pedestal and ignoring his wrongdoings. We're just as hypocritical as Hollywood.

 

not the same as jackson though... he was never proven to have committed a criminal act, however like glitter, jackson was a serial offender (as in unacceptable behaviour)

 

im not defending polanski because hes a celeb, i care not... its just that 1 wrongdoing 32 years ago and the 'victim' has forgiven him... its hardly a big deal now is it. yes it was wrong, yes he should have been 'done' back then, but now?....

To be honest I don't know too much about the specifics of the Polanski sex case, but the quoted parts...

 

WHY THE f*** should allowances be made because he's a good film director? It's the Michael Jackson syndrome all over again, and on that particular case, it WASN'T just Hollywood who were putting him up on a pedestal and ignoring his wrongdoings. We're just as hypocritical as Hollywood.

 

The Jacko case was recent, this case is over 30 years old.. Making a case at the time would have been appropriate obviously, but I see no point whatsoever in dredging it all up 30 years after the fact, and I sincerely doubt the woman herself (now in her 40s..), probably with her own life and family, really wants this to be the defining point of her whole life... The facts are she and Polanski came to a private settlement years ago, so if she (and she IS the most important person here) can forgive him and move on, who are we to judge...? We may not like it, but we should respect her decision, as should all these so-called "Feminists" who apparently argue on the one hand that the individual woman should make her own decisions and be in charge of her own destiny, well "freedom of choice" means just that, whether you agree with the choice or not.. It would be a different story if she was the one actively pushing for this action.. The only people making a deal of this are the American authorities... And the only reason I can think of for them doing it is because they were made fools of when he slipped out of their jurisdiction... So, it's really bugger all to do with "justice", its sounds more a case of "vengeance"... And what does that have to do with justice or the rule of law....?

 

If Polanski is charged, then this woman's parents should be sharing the dock with him, because they're just as responsible for what happened as he is.... They pretty much dangled her out in front of him, probaby co-ercing her to "be nice" to him.... They're PIMPS...... <_<

 

 

He has committed a crime hasn't he?

 

If the crime was murder, wouldn't it be right that he was brought to answer the case against him? No matter how long ago it was?

 

Or robbery? Or any other crime?

 

It's obvious that he is not a paedophile but he still has a case to answer. This has nothing to do with his talent at all.

He has committed a crime hasn't he?

 

If the crime was murder, wouldn't it be right that he was brought to answer the case against him? No matter how long ago it was?

 

Or robbery? Or any other crime?

 

It's obvious that he is not a paedophile but he still has a case to answer. This has nothing to do with his talent at all.

 

technically yes he has committed a crime, but after this long and without the victim baying for blood is it really worth the hastle? its not like murder... its not even like a robbery both of which deprive perminantly the victim of either life or wealth, this 'victim' has clearly go over the ordeal.

 

if it was yesterday the crime was committed then yes, id say make him answer... but now?

What do you mean technically?

 

He slept with a minor which is a crime. It doesn't matter if it was 30 years ago or yesterday. No diffference.

 

It's not just about whether the victim has "got over it" but also about showing that no matter who you are or if you run away from the crime, then you get punished (eventually).

 

What do you mean technically?

 

He slept with a minor which is a crime. It doesn't matter if it was 30 years ago or yesterday. No diffference.

 

It's not just about whether the victim has "got over it" but also about showing that no matter who you are or if you run away from the crime, then you get punished (eventually).

 

You're totally missing the point Grebo, and being incredibly dismissive of this woman... Like those so-called "Feminists".. This is a woman who has, herself, CHOSEN to forgive Polanski and come to a settlement... You and the others are clearly not respecting her choices which she is perfectly entitled to make as a rational adult, even if YOU dont think she's making the right choice, you have no right to impose your will on her if she chooses to forgive and forget... If, on the other hand, she so chooses herself to press charges, then that is an entirely different matter, because, again, this is HER CHOICE.... But, thus far, there is absolutely NO SIGN of her doing so.... The victim's wishes (and it is clearly her wish that all this actually be forgotten about) are not being respected here, by a bunch of loudmouths who clearly dont know jack sh"t about the individual herself and her own circumstances, and I personally dont feel comfortable with other, outside actors forcing the issue ON her, have any of these people actually gone and ASKED HER what she wants to do....? Is that not like another form of mental "rape" in a way, forcing her to relive it all over again...? I care not for Polanski himself, I'm certainly not defending him, I care only about the wishes of the woman at the centre of this, and, like I say, she does not wish to make, literally, a "Federal Case" out of it.... Why dont people just leave her the hell alone and let her decide what she wants or doesn't want...? Has she actually ASKED any of these idiots to speak on her behalf...? I dont think so... -_- In the eyes of any kind of natural law, she is a rational adult and has already made a rational, informed choice about what she does or doesn't want done about Polanski, and really, that should be an end to the matter, IMO...

 

It's blatantly NOT like a case of murder... How can a murder victim "choose" to forgive their murderer FFS...? Through a bloody MEDIUM?????? :rolleyes: :lol:

 

if there was an arrest warrant for him then charges were brought originally which have obviously never been dropped either by the victim or the US Justice Dept.

 

He was charged and pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor and then skipped out on the punishment because instead of probation he thought he would get put in prison.

 

There's no issue of forcing her to do anything. The case is over. He now has to face up to the punishment which has been made worse as he committed a second crime by absconding.

 

I'm not the one missing the point here.

Edited October 6, 200915 yr by grebo69

sorry double post

Edited October 6, 200915 yr by grebo69

Agree with Grebo.

 

One of the main issues in all this, is also that he purposefully chose to skip out on his punishment at the time. What kind of message does that send to people? Hide away for a couple of decades and your sins will all be forgiven unpunished?

if there was an arrest warrant for him then charges were brought originally which have obviously never been dropped either by the victim or the US Justice Dept.

 

He was charged and pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor and then skipped out on the punishment because instead of probation he thought he would get put in prison.

 

There's no issue of forcing her to do anything. The case is over. He now has to face up to the punishment which has been made worse as he committed a second crime by absconding.

 

I'm not the one missing the point here.

 

Then charge him with absconding... Which actually would be a matter purely for the authorities... I think in a case where a private settlement has been reached and the victim forgives the offender, there is no case to answer for that particular offence... She's, in effect, waiving her rights to prosecute by entering into that settlement, which again, was a rational choice SHE made....

 

There is no need to prosecute - he pleaded guilty.