Roman Polanski Finally Arrested.

[Elfdart]

Why am I not surprised that Huffington Post has run three separate pro-Polanski articles? First there's Joan Shore, calling for a boycott of Switzerland because the Swiss collared this child fucker. Then there's Kim Morgan with the "but he made such great movies!" defense. And then there's John Farr, who picks up where Morgan left off, and then brings up Moby Dick-sized red herrings about how Polanski's mother and wife were murdered.

But then, Huffington Post has always been ground zero for star-fucking and promotion of child abuse (especially all the idiotic bullshit about vaccinations causing autism), so why wouldn't they combine the two?

[MarshalPurnell]

I had very little idea of the details behind Polanski's sex conviction, just the usual throw-away line about his being a fugitive for having sex with a minor. Even that she was thirteen wasn't necessarily mentioned that often. And he has the gall to demand clemency after fleeing the country and spending 30 years in luxury abroad feted for his artistic genius? The scum pleading on his behalf for no reason other than his success at evading justice and his privileged status as an entertainment icon are almost as despicable.

Though he is apparently appealing the extradition in the Swiss court system. I hope he can't spin it out forever, much less get away again. Not sure how likely that is, but there may be room yet for him to avoid that flight back to America.

[Glocksman]

Why am I not surprised that Huffington Post has run three separate pro-Polanski articles? First there's Joan Shore, calling for a boycott of Switzerland because the Swiss collared this child fucker. Then there's Kim Morgan with the "but he made such great movies!" defense. And then there's John Farr, who picks up where Morgan left off, and then brings up Moby Dick-sized red herrings about how Polanski's mother and wife were murdered.

But then, Huffington Post has always been ground zero for star-fucking and promotion of child abuse (especially all the idiotic bullshit about vaccinations causing autism), so why wouldn't they combine the two?

Jeez. Elfdart.
If this keeps up, you're going to have to turn in your 'anti-shep' title and all three of us will share 'The Three Horsemen of the Apocalypse'* title.


*Yeah, I know there are four horsemen, but why let the bible get in the way of some fun?

[Fire Fly]

Could a European enlighten us American posters on why there's so much support for Polanski in Europe? The French in particular (or maybe it's just a visible minority) seem to be quite loud on this issue. Is it that people are simply ignorant of what actually happened? Polanski's strongest support seems to be coming from the arts community as well.

[Elfdart]

Finally, someone in the star-fucker community calls a spade a spade:

Michael Seitzman (screenwriter for North Country)

Money Quote:

Some of the get-out-of-jail-free crowd thinks that the reason Polanski should go free is because he's a gifted artist. Okay, I'll accept the premise. Maybe you're right. Instead of an Oscar we should let the Best Director fuck your kids.

I love the way people bring up Polanski's movies, as if that had anything to do with whether he belongs in prison. If being an entertainer means a free pass, why not let O.J. Simpson out of jail? More people paid much more to watch him play football and those Naked Gun movies than ever paid to watch a Roman Polanski film. I know there was a lot of crap being slung around during O.J.'s murder trial, but even his most fucktarded supporters weren't assholish enough to bring up his movies, or his amazing football stats.

I hope they add one year to his sentence for every year he spent on the lam, and one month for every twit celebrity who makes excuses for this lowlife.

[Vympel]

More Polanski ass-licking, this time from an entertainment industry petition

[Anguirus]

I must say that the French perspective on this case is indeed downright bizarre. It is incredibly foreign to my system of values that artwork can make offenses of this nature less relevant. The length of time that has passed, now I can understand that being a limiting factor, though I think the heinousness of his crime (which most of these articles do an incredibly poor job of expressing) far outweighs that. Statute of limitations doesn't apply because he was convicted and then spent 30 years actively resisting arrest.

It is probable that the French and other protesters simply downplay the facts of the case in their own minds...if they are even aware of them. Reminds me of the diehard loyalty of many Michael Jackson fans--they can't separate the concepts of good artist/bad person, because they obviously wouldn't enjoy the music if he was a bad man. It is, regardless, sheer mental slovenliness to allow oneself to see the proper exercising of an extradition treaty as some kind of expression of American imperialism. There are plenty of real examples that they could be protesting and potentially doing a lot more good than acting on the behalf of one septuagenarian rapist.

(Only thing that makes me feel even remotely sympathetic for Polanski here is this idea that the judge was supposedly about to back off on a plea bargain, which is kind of a shitty thing to do, but I'm not very familiar with the facts in this case. Even the relatively pro-Polanski article doesn't offer any real evidence of this. And frankly, given what he did admit to it's hard for me to get worked up over it, sort of how I oppose the death penalty but don't really care what happens to the DC sniper duo.)

[Vympel]

The attitude of anyone who whinges "oh, it was so long ago, and the victim just wants to move on" pisses me off - my attitude to criminality is as a lawyer trained in the common law tradition - i.e. it doesn't fucking matter if the victim doesn't want to prosecute, it's the state versus the accused, not the victim versus the accused. What the victim wants, I'm sorry, doesn't enter into it. This is about the good of society as whole.

There's a very, very good reason for that, which I will illustrate by one example - it is commonplace for a battered women to plead with the police to drop the charges against the scumbag husband. Why? Because they're battered women. The police ignore these pleas as a matter of course. I shouldn't have to go into more detail as to why this is a good thing.

Needless to say, it is very bad for society for a convicted child rapist (and that's what the scumbag is) to escape justice purely because he happens to be rich, famous, and talented. Chase him to the ends of the Earth, for all time.

[PeZook]

Could a European enlighten us American posters on why there's so much support for Polanski in Europe? The French in particular (or maybe it's just a visible minority) seem to be quite loud on this issue. Is it that people are simply ignorant of what actually happened? Polanski's strongest support seems to be coming from the arts community as well.

Because he's a genius!

That's quite literally the line the media are drawing. There's no mention of the actual circumstances, of the fact he admitted to the crime, that he's already been sentenced...all media articles and shows go on and on and on and on about how he made these great movies and contributed and...

Add to this dislike of America (a very fashionable thing lately), and voila!

It's no big secret that the rich and famous can get away with more than Joe The Factory Worker, after all. Sometimes even heinous crimes go unpunished for decades just because the perp got an oscar or is a famous football player.

[Master of Ossus]

The thing that's weird about this to me is that it's not just fans of Polanski who are outraged over the arrest: it's French government officials. They can't understand why the US would have a legitimate interest in trying to put the guy in jail after he drugged and raped a kid, and then spent 30 years evading justice?

[Pablo Sanchez]

The thing that's weird about this to me is that it's not just fans of Polanski who are outraged over the arrest: it's French government officials. They can't understand why the US would have a legitimate interest in trying to put the guy in jail after he drugged and raped a kid, and then spent 30 years evading justice?

The answer is basically that the French officials concerned with administering this kind of problem are not trained to deal with the rare circumstance of an exceptional artist (as Polanki is, srsly watch Chinatown he is the shit) intersecting with a depraved criminal. It happens seldom enough that I doubt we can fault anybody about it, it's just a rare conjunction of justice, truth, and art, that nobody is really prepared to deal with. I mean, it's possible that Leonardo DaVinci fucked little boys in the ass, but we wouldn't hear about it. The entire issue is interesting because it penetrates beyond an between traditional political identities and strikes directly at what is true and indisputable in life, so that unapologetically liberal motherfuckers like myself agree more or less precisely with MoO; indicting the French government for basically agreeing to Child Rape in support of some overrated filmmaker (for truly, what filmmaker is important, rated high enough to excuse blatant rape on his behalf?)?

[CaptainChewbacca]

They can bitch all they want, but the US isn't going to back down. Why? Because somewhere in the decision-making chain of whether or not they drop the charges against Polanski is an elected official, and I'm betting he (or she) wants to get re-elected. Polanski's movies may be good (honestly, I can't name a film he's done) but I don't think there's anyone willing to sacrifice their careers for him.

Maybe he can teach a film class in Attica.

[weemadando]

I just saw a piece on SBS news where someone made this argument:

"It's like a political dissident who flees their country to save themselves. And then makes films about the oppression in their country. This sets a precedent where such people would no longer be safe from extradition."

Umm no.

One of those people is a refugee.

The other is a child rapist.

And btw - to whoever that French idiot was who made the quote, on the off chance they ever read this: you can see an example of how I personally and we as a board have voiced support for a political dissident film-maker facing oppression: here

[Edi]

Kate Harding from Salon had a great piece on this:

Link

Monday, Sept. 28, 2009 06:29 PDT
Reminder: Roman Polanski raped a child

Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in "exile" (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never -- poor baby -- being able to return to the U.S.). Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

Can we do that? Can we take a moment to think about all that, and about the fact that Polanski pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, before we start talking about what a victim he is? Because that would be great, and not nearly enough people seem to be doing it.

The French press, for instance (at least according to the British press) is describing Polanski "as the victim of a money-grabbing American mother and a publicity-hungry Californian judge." Joan Z. Shore at the Huffington Post, who once met Polanski and "was utterly charmed by [his] sobriety and intelligence," also seems to believe that a child with an unpleasant stage mother could not possibly have been raped: "The 13-year old model 'seduced' by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies." Oh, well, then! If her mom put her into that situation, that makes it much better! Shore continues: "The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California. (It's probably 13 by now!) Polanski was demonized by the press, convicted, and managed to flee, fearing a heavy sentence."

Wow, OK, let's break that down. First, as blogger Jeff Fecke says, "Fun fact: the age of consent in 1977 in California was 16. It's now 18. But of course, the age of consent isn't like horseshoes or global thermonuclear war; close doesn't count. Even if the age of consent had been 14, the girl wasn't 14." Also, even if the girl had been old enough to consent, she testified that she did not consent. There's that. Though of course everyone makes a bigger deal of her age than her testimony that she did not consent, because if she'd been 18 and kept saying no while he kissed her, licked her, screwed her and sodomized her, this would almost certainly be a whole different story -- most likely one about her past sexual experiences and drug and alcohol use, about her desire to be famous, about what she was wearing, about how easy it would be for Roman Polanski to get consensual sex, so hey, why would he need to rape anyone? It would quite possibly be a story about a wealthy and famous director who pled not guilty to sexual assault, was acquitted on "she wanted it" grounds, and continued to live and work happily in the U.S. Which is to say that 30 years on, it would not be a story at all. So it's much safer to focus on the victim's age removing any legal question of consent than to get tied up in that thorny "he said, she said" stuff about her begging Polanski to stop and being terrified of him.

Second, Polanski was "demonized by the press" because he raped a child, and was convicted because he pled guilty. He "feared heavy sentencing" because drugging and raping a child is generally frowned upon by the legal system. Shore really wants us to pity him because of these things? (And, I am not making this up, boycott the entire country of Switzerland for arresting him.)

As ludicrous as Shore's post is, I have to agree with Fecke that my favorite Polanski apologist is the Washington Post's Anne Applebaum, who finds it "bizarre" that anyone is still pursuing this case. And who also, by the by, failed to disclose the tiny, inconsequential detail that her husband, Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski, is actively pressuring U.S. authorities to drop the case.

There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.

There is also evidence that Polanski raped a child. There is evidence that the victim did not consent, regardless of her age. There is evidence -- albeit purely anecdotal, in this case -- that only the most debased crapweasel thinks "I didn't know she was 13!" is a reasonable excuse for raping a child, much less continuing to rape her after she's said no repeatedly. There is evidence that the California justice system does not hold that "notoriety, lawyers' fees and professional stigma" are an appropriate sentence for child rape.

But hey, he wasn't allowed to pick up his Oscar in person! For the love of all that's holy, hasn't the man suffered enough?

Granted, Roman Polanski has indeed suffered a great deal in his life, which is where Applebaum takes her line of argument next:

He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski's mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland.

Surviving the Holocaust certainly could lead to an "understandable fear of irrational punishment," but being sentenced for pleading guilty to child rape is basically the definition of rational punishment. Applebaum then points out that Polanski was a suspect in the murder of his pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, a crime actually committed by the Manson family -- but again, that was the unfortunate consequence of a perfectly rational justice system. Most murdered pregnant women were killed by husbands or boyfriends, so that suspicion was neither personal nor unwarranted. This isn't Kafkaesque stuff.

But what of the now-45-year-old victim, who received a settlement from Polanski in a civil case, saying she'd like to see the charges dropped? Shouldn't we be honoring her wishes above all else?

In a word, no. At least, not entirely. I happen to believe we should honor her desire not to be the subject of a media circus, which is why I haven't named her here, even though she chose to make her identity public long ago. But as for dropping the charges, Fecke said it quite well: "I understand the victim's feelings on this. And I sympathize, I do. But for good or ill, the justice system doesn't work on behalf of victims; it works on behalf of justice."

It works on behalf of the people, in fact -- the people whose laws in every state make it clear that both child rape and fleeing prosecution are serious crimes. The point is not to keep 76-year-old Polanski off the streets or help his victim feel safe. The point is that drugging and raping a child, then leaving the country before you can be sentenced for it, is behavior our society should not -- and at least in theory, does not -- tolerate, no matter how famous, wealthy or well-connected you are, no matter how old you were when you finally got caught, no matter what your victim says about it now, no matter how mature she looked at 13, no matter how pushy her mother was, and no matter how many really swell movies you've made.

Roman Polanski raped a child. No one, not even him, disputes that. Regardless of whatever legal misconduct might have gone on during his trial, the man admitted to unlawful sex with a minor. But the Polanski apologism we're seeing now has been heating up since "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," the 2008 documentary about Polanski's fight to get the conviction dismissed. Writing in Salon, Bill Wyman criticized the documentary's whitewashing of Polanksi's crimes last February, after Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza ruled that if the director wanted to challenge the conviction, he'd need to turn himself in to U.S. authorities and let the justice system sort it out. "Fugitives don't get to dictate the terms of their case ... Polanski deserves to have any potential legal folderol investigated, of course. But the fact that Espinoza had to state the obvious is testimony to the ways in which the documentary, and much of the media coverage the director has received in recent months, are bizarrely skewed."

The reporting on Polanski's arrest has been every bit as "bizarrely skewed," if not more so. Roman Polanski may be a great director, an old man, a husband, a father, a friend to many powerful people, and even the target of some questionable legal shenanigans. He may very well be no threat to society at this point. He may even be a good person on balance, whatever that means. But none of that changes the basic, undisputed fact: Roman Polanski raped a child. And rushing past that point to focus on the reasons why we should forgive him, pity him, respect him, admire him, support him, whatever, is absolutely twisted.

The original article has links and I probably missed half the italics and other emphasis in it, but it really does put things in perspective. Just burn the fucker at the stake already.

[Darth Hoth]

They can bitch all they want, but the US isn't going to back down. Why? Because somewhere in the decision-making chain of whether or not they drop the charges against Polanski is an elected official, and I'm betting he (or she) wants to get re-elected. Polanski's movies may be good (honestly, I can't name a film he's done) but I don't think there's anyone willing to sacrifice their careers for him.

I think he made "The Fearless Vampire Killers". Not that that changes anything, of course.

Could a European enlighten us American posters on why there's so much support for Polanski in Europe? The French in particular (or maybe it's just a visible minority) seem to be quite loud on this issue. Is it that people are simply ignorant of what actually happened? Polanski's strongest support seems to be coming from the arts community as well.

One must wonder if the French government is intentionally out to fulfil every American stereotype and prejudice there is about an arrogant, morally decayed nation of frog-eaters. That Minister of Culture quoted sure does come across as a fucking asshole. Is mindless anti-Americanism all there is behind it, or is the public sentiment there really that idiotic? Even here in Sweden the media have the decency not to put quite that abhorrent a spin on it.

[Broomstick]

Granted, my experience in France is nearly a quarter century old now, but they've had a love/hate relationship with the US since... well, since the US Revolution, really. There is significant cultural friction between the two countries that I don't think is going to go away due to differences in the two societies.* I think the hate side of it contributes to the sheltering of someone like Polanski.

* It is no small thing that, by French standards of behavior, Americans really are rude barbarians. Many customs that Americans see as friendly and outgoing strike the French as rude, boorish, and intrusive. On the flip side, of course, are the American held stereotypes of the French, which I don't really care to list right now. It's like the two countries want to be friends, but keep annoying the shit out of each other.

[Broomstick]

Are you saying that Broomstick is not 'downgrading' in this post? She straight up says she feels it is just rape, not pedophilia.

Rape is an action. Pedophilia is a state of sexual desire.

She merely said that this particular rape (which, due to the young age of the victim, was also an act of child molestation) was probably not motivated by pedophilia.

In other news, words mean things.

Isn´t it obvious that there´s a misunderstanding here? Broomstick is using the term pedophelia in the medical sense and the others are using it in a legal sense. Continuing to argue without sorting that out before is pointless.

Right. The above two quotes get my point.

I think there is continuing confusion on the difference between chronological age and physical maturity.

I also object to the phrase "just rape", which has been used several times here. Rape is a horrible and objectionable act regardless of the age, gender, or any other aspect of the victim.

No one here disputes that Polanski is scum for drugging and raping someone.

What people are saying is that under american law, he would be a pedophile and a rapist to boot.

The words of the court were “lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14.” That speaks only about a criminal action, not about a diagnosis of psychiatric disorder. The court does not and cannot diagnose mental illness. Under the law he is a rapist and aggravated the crime by choosing a child under 14 as his victim. That makes him a “sexual offender” but in no way gives him a legal status of “pedophile”, which a psychiatric diagnosis and not a legal status.

Uhm, no. She specifically said that she could have been mistaken for an older woman. Learn to read.

Put her in the right clothes and add make up she's going to look like a woman, and older than she does in this picture.

YOU learn to read - the right clothes and makeup she'll look older than 13 - perhaps 16 or 18. You make it sound like I was declaring she'd look middle aged or something, which is a bullshit distortion of what I said.

[FSTargetDrone]

Any "respect" I may have had for the following supporters of Polanski before this is dropping, dropping, dropping:

Release Polanski, demands petition by film industry luminaries

Woody Allen, David Lynch and Martin Scorsese are latest to add their names to a petition urging the immediate release of the director from detention in Zurich

Catherine Shoard and agencies

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 September 2009 15.24 BST

Woody Allen, David Lynch and Martin Scorsese today added their names to a petition demanding the immediate release of Roman Polanski from detention in Zurich. The director was arrested on Saturday over a three-decade-old underage sex case when he arrived to receive a lifetime achievement award at the city's film festival.

"Film-makers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision," says the petition, which is co-ordinated by the Société des Auteurs et Compositeurs Dramatiques (SACD), a film industry organisation which also represents performance and visual artists.

"It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary film-makers, is used by police to apprehend him," it adds.

The petition has now been signed by more than 70 film industry luminaries, including Polanski's fellow directors Michael Mann, Wim Wenders, Pedro Almodóvar, Darren Aronofsky, Terry Gilliam, Julian Schnabel, the Dardenne brothers, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Wong Kar-Wai, Walter Salles and Jonathan Demme. Actors Tilda Swinton, Monica Bellucci and Asia Argento, as well as producer Harvey Weinstein have also put their names on the petition. Yesterday, Weinstein stated he was "calling on every film-maker we can to help fix this terrible situation".

The five members of the jury at the Zurich film festival, headed by the actor Debra Winger, yesterday released a statement protesting that the event "had been exploited in an unfair fashion".

At least one jury member, producer Henning Molfenter, has now boycotted the festival, with others expected to follow suit. "There is no way I'd go to Switzerland now. You can't watch films knowing Roman Polanski is sitting in a cell 5km away," he told to the Hollywood Reporter.

France's Society of Film Directors joined in the chorus of disapproval, voicing concern that the arrest "could have disastrous consequences for freedom of expression across the world".

Polish film-makers called on their government to prevent a "judicial lynching", while over 100 Swiss artists and intellectuals have signed a separate petition demanding Polanski's release.

Words fail.

ADDENDUM:

The contents of the petition:

Petition for Roman Polanski

We have learned the astonishing news of Roman Polanski's arrest by the Swiss police on September 26th, upon arrival in Zurich (Switzerland) while on his way to a film festival where he was due to receive an award for his career in filmmaking.

His arrest follows an American arrest warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals.

Filmmakers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision. It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him.

By their extraterritorial nature, film festivals the world over have always permitted works to be shown and for filmmakers to present them freely and safely, even when certain States opposed this.

The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no-one can know the effects.

Roman Polanski is a French citizen, a renown and international artist now facing extradition. This extradition, if it takes place, will be heavy in consequences and will take away his freedom.

Filmmakers, actors, producers and technicians - everyone involved in international filmmaking - want him to know that he has their support and friendship.

On September 16th, 2009, Mr. Charles Rivkin, the US Ambassador to France, received French artists and intellectuals at the embassy. He presented to them the new Minister Counselor for Public Affairs at the embassy, Ms Judith Baroody. In perfect French she lauded the Franco-American friendship and recommended the development of cultural relations between our two countries.

If only in the name of this friendship between our two countries, we demand the immediate release of Roman Polanski.

No no no and again NO. This has nothing to do whatsoever concerning the "friendship" of countries.

The abovementioned signers of the petition.

Fatih Akin, Stephane Allagnon, Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar, Wess Anderson, Jean-Jacques Annaud, Alexandre Arcady, Fanny Ardant, Asia Argento, Darren Aronofsky, Olivier Assayas, Alexander Astruc, Gabriel Auer, Luc Barnier , Christophe Barratier, Xavier Beauvois , Liria Begeja , Gilles Behat, Jean-Jacques Beineix, Marco Bellochio, Monica Bellucci, Djamel Bennecib, Giuseppe Bertolucci , Patrick Bouchitey, Paul Boujenah, Jacques Bral, Patrick Braoudé, André Buytaers, Christian Carion, Henning Carlsen, Jean-michel Carre, Mathieu Celary, Patrice Chéreau, Elie Chouraqui, Souleymane Cissé, Alain Corneau, Jérôme Cornuau, Miguel Courtois, Dominique Crevecoeur, Alfonso Cuaron, Luc et Jean-Pierre Dardenne, Jonathan Demme, Alexandre Desplat, Rosalinde et Michel Deville, Georges Dybman, Jacques Fansten, Joël Farges, Gianluca Farinelli (Cinémathèque de de Bologne), Etienne Faure, Michel Ferry, Scott Foundas, Stephen Frears, Thierry Frémaux, Sam Gabarski, René Gainville, Tony Gatlif, Costa Gavras, Jean-Marc Ghanassia, Terry Gilliam, Christian Gion, Marc Guidoni, Buck Henry, David Heyman, Laurent Heynemann, Robert Hossein, Jean-Loup Hubert, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Gilles Jacob, Just Jaeckin, Alain Jessua, Pierre Jolivet, Kent Jones (World Cinema Foundation), Roger Kahane, Nelly Kaplan, Wong Kar Waï, Ladislas Kijno, Harmony Korinne, Jan Kounen, Diane Kurys, Emir Kusturica, John Landis, Claude Lanzmann, André Larquié, Vinciane Lecocq, Patrice Leconte, Claude Lelouch, Gérard Lenne, David Lynch, Michael Mann, François Margolin, Jean-PierreMarois, Tonie Marshall, Mario Martone, Nicolas Mauvernay, Radu Mihaileanu, Claude Miller, Mario Monicelli, Jeanne Moreau, Sandra Nicolier, Michel Ocelot, Alexander Payne, Richard Pena (Directeur Festival de NY), Michele Placido, Philippe Radault, Jean-Paul Rappeneau, Raphael Rebibo, Yasmina Reza, Jacques Richard, Laurence Roulet, Walter Salles, Jean-Paul Salomé, Marc Sandberg, Jerry Schatzberg, Julian Schnabel, Barbet Schroeder, Ettore Scola, Martin Scorsese, Charlotte Silvera, Abderrahmane Sissako, Paolo Sorrentino, Guillaume Stirn, Tilda Swinton, Jean-Charles Tacchella, Radovan Tadic, Danis Tanovic, Bertrand Tavernier, Cécile Telerman, Alain Terzian, Pascal Thomas, Giuseppe Tornatore, Serge Toubiana, Nadine Trintignant, Tom Tykwer, Alexandre Tylski, Betrand Van Effenterre, Wim Wenders.

[General Zod]

YOU learn to read - the right clothes and makeup she'll look older than 13 - perhaps 16 or 18. You make it sound like I was declaring she'd look middle aged or something, which is a bullshit distortion of what I said.

In what reality do you define 16-18 as a "woman"? That's still jailbait by any reasonable definition and a retarded defense regardless of how much you spin it.

[loomer]

Don't want to get involved in the actual debate here, but I'd like to note that here in Australia a 16 year old is not jailbait, nor in most US states (with the important exception, in this case, of California).

[General Zod]

Don't want to get involved in the actual debate here, but I'd like to note that here in Australia a 16 year old is not jailbait, nor in most US states (with the important exception, in this case, of California).

The girl's parents can still press charges if they really want to and completely fuck someone over. It's entirely dependent on parental permission.

[Vympel]

Don't want to get involved in the actual debate here, but I'd like to note that here in Australia a 16 year old is not jailbait

Except in two states, where the age of consent is 17, not 16 (South Australia and Tasmania).

As for that petition, now that I know who's signed it, I lost respect for anyone on that list. Too bad.

[AniThyng]

YOU learn to read - the right clothes and makeup she'll look older than 13 - perhaps 16 or 18. You make it sound like I was declaring she'd look middle aged or something, which is a bullshit distortion of what I said.

In what reality do you define 16-18 as a "woman"? That's still jailbait by any reasonable definition and a retarded defense regardless of how much you spin it.

16-18 isn't a "child" either, which is the whole point of noting that there *is* a difference between being prepubescent and being a teenager. No one is actually saying that it makes Polanski any less guilty, just that he wants his victims to be both helpless and pubescent, as opposed to helpless and prepubescent. I don't see why acknowledging that should be seen as "defending" him.

In any case, I would agree emotional maturity is a more reasonable measure then actual appearence, given that even 20-something year old Asian women can look a hell of a lot younger then some American 15 year olds... (of course you can get a gauge from other cues - body language, braces, the awkwardness of teens versus adults, etc.)

[General Zod]

16-18 isn't a "child" either, which is the whole point of noting that there *is* a difference between being prepubescent and being a teenager. No one is actually saying that it makes Polanski any less guilty, just that he wants his victims to be both helpless and pubescent, as opposed to helpless and prepubescent. I don't see why acknowledging that should be seen as "defending" him.

How is "she's not a child" relevant to pointing out that the "she could look like a woman" defense is retarded? Oh wait, it's not.

[Simplicius]

The petition is so fundamentally dishonest ("a case of morals," indeed ), that it all boils down to "But we are auteurs, and therefore were are special!" I really can't see it as anything but a lot of people who are used to having some kind of status as 'artists' excuse their own personal eccentricities or foibles trying to preserve that blanket for themselves by hiding a real, confessed crime behind it.