This guy fled the country to escape sentencing after agreeing to a plea. He's been a fugitive from justice since 1977, and he's nominated for the Best Director Award, and the Best Movie Award.

Opinions please, should child molesters/fugitives from Justice be rewarded with accolades for their artistry?

What should be done with Polanski and why?

Read the particulars here if you are unfamiliar with the story.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/doc_o_day/doc_o_day.shtml

-- Modified on 3/11/2003 5:00:48 PM

Made one of my all-time favorite films: "Chinatown".

Should child molesters/fugitives from justice be rewarded with recognition/profit?

Thanks,

HPG

But not because he doesn't do great work.  He shouldn't have the opportunity to get the recognition, because he should be somebody's girlfreind in prison.  Anyone care to chip in for a bounty hunter??

good director.  The oscar nomination was for his work as a director.  The nomination did not reward him for being a morally reprehensible person.  If I were a member of the Academy who is involved in determining nominations (which I'm not), and I thought "The Pianist" was one of the five best directed films of the year, I would nominate him.

We know what the nomination is for, what I'm after is an opinon as to whether or not he should profit from it, and be rewarded while he is still a fugitive, and has stipulated to a plea with DA's office.

Thanks,

HPG

works by a director.  (Martin Scorcese's work on Gangs of New York are not up to par.)  Given the choice of deciding who of those two should receive the honor, it is easy to pick Rob Marshall for pulling off the near impossible.  (I hope Peter Jackson will get his due next year when Return of the King finished the trilogy;  Somehow the Two Tower is bit lacking in emotional draw due to the flow of the story itself.)

Just read part of the transcript in the Smoking Gun.  Polanski was a sick individual indeed.  Drugging and pressuring sex on a near 14 years old girl was sick enough.  Forcing Greek on a girl like that (No doubt that was her first time) was just sickening.  There is no way to claim that it was simply a statutory rape.  No matter what the now 39 yrs old woman said, it was definitely a harmful and traumatic event for her and her family.  I doubt that was the first time Polanski had done that given the prevailing attitudes in Hollywood in the 70s.  In no way the pre-bargain was justified.

Fortunately, there are worthwile candidates alongside Polanski in various award ceremony.  I am not sure BAFTA would reward Polanski with the award if the transcript was widely released a couple of months ago.

However, to answer your question, if everyone else is obviously far inferior to his work, it is hard to deny him the award.

BTW, it is another bad mark on France for their denial of extradition of child molesters.  In general, Western Europe's casual attitude towards pedophiliacs is just abhorring.

I fully expect the Hollywood leftist crowd to reward him for his work, and to bitch and moan about the government’s eagerness to lock his molesting ass up. If there were ever a group that would stand up for a low life like him I’d guess it would be them. I haven’t seen a topic discussed in a long time where the self-absorbed elite and I agree. I don’t figure it’s going to start now. Personally, I just want those line readers to shut up and stop acting / feeling like their opinion matters to Joe Public. I’m embarrassed for the people who can be swayed because Susan, George, Martin, etc, etc appear on the screen. I mean you know that somewhere in America there’s some dumbass, ignorant citizen who hasn’t taken the time to form a thought of their own who will take President Sheens` word for anything simply because he’s a “star”. Oops.... sorry. Got a little off topic.

Yes, he should profit from it, and be rewarded while he is still a fugitive, and had stipulated a plea to the DA's office.

Clear enough for you?

Asking a question and eliciting a particular response are two different things.  He answered your question the same as I would have three seperate times.  The fact that it wasn't the answer you were hoping for is unfortunate, but doesn't make it any less of an answer.  BTW, I agree.  Polanski can win as many awards as the academy sees fit.  Whether he displays the statues on his mantle or in his cell is not relevant to the question posed.  The question you should have posted is, "Do rich pedophiles deserve to avoid capture by American authorities and continue to make Oscar-winning movies overseas?"  No, he doesn't; however, once made, the movie stands on it's own laurels.  A movie deserving of best picture should be given the award regardless of your personal feelings toward any one person associated with the project.  The director of the movie which is deemed the best directed should also be given the award.  It has nothing to do with anything other than his talent to direct a film.  The award is Best Director, not Best Human.

-- Modified on 3/11/2003 6:34:56 PM

me from voting for him if I thought he did the best directing job of the year.  Do you have a point?

Is there a statute of limitations on this crime?  I don't mean any disrespect to the victim, just curious.

Not looking for he's bad or he's not bad, looking for specific answer to a specific question, which you answered in your question.  If you look at my responses, I am asking him to be specific because I want to know what his opinion is.  Opinions are neither right nor wrong. They're opinions.

It is indeed unfortunate that you're unable to see that I'm asking to get to a base position, then a supporting reason. I'm not critiquing his opinion. I am digging into it because I want to know.  

You mistake persistent questioning for trying to manipulate an answer; I'm not trying to do that. I asked him if he had daughters, and subsequently if he would let them spend time alone with Polanski because I'm curious about his response. Does his conviction about artistry extend to a situation that would involve his own blood-kin? That's all.

As far as what I should or shouldn't have posted, please post your questions as you see fit and I'll be more than happy to respond. I’m fully capable of posting my own questions.

Thanks for your response.

HPG


-- Modified on 3/11/2003 7:16:13 PM

I agree about the Two Towers. I am anxious to see how the Return of the King turns out.

I hadn't read the transcripts of the Grand Jury testimony until earlier today. Creepy stuff.

After the threads about the French, and the Food for Thought string it seemed like a good subject because the others had some good posts and responses.

Nothing like a little hearty debate!!

Hypothetical only, just wondered.

Hiproglo:

Folks are answering your question!! Obviously you don't like the answer you are getting.. so don't ask the question. People are saying to seperate the work from the man. The acadamy awards are about the work.. If it is the best directed film, it should win period. If you consider that rewarding the man then I guess people are saying he should be rewarded. Personally, I think he should win best director, and be rewarded with a prison cell after he collects his award if he were to show up.

By the way, he is not by far the most reviled person to ever direct pictures. For my money what Elia Kazan did during the McCarthy Witchhunt was far worse. He destroyed many more lives.

Mr. Polanski is a very sick man. He personally suffered through the Holocaust, which would traumatize anybody... he then had his wife butchered by Manson along with his unborn child... not to say that I excuse his behavior, but I don't think he is fully their.  The Pianist is a remarkable film worthy of the nominations it has received.

Is he really any worse then Woody Allen?

Footnote:  Put another check mark by France for allowing this fugitive to stay in their country...

Give it a break!!!

-- Modified on 3/11/2003 8:04:19 PM

Statutes of Limitations place a limit on how much time may pass before a criminal case may be brought.  Polanski is convicted, the case has already been brought.  He is a fugitive from justice on a conviction.  Until he serves his time, he will always be a fugitive.  Just like the Max Factor kid.  That is unless you give a lotta money to a lame duck president and he gives you a pardon.  And in answer to the question, artistry or lack thereof, I do not believe a fugitive from justice should receive accolade for his work unless it brings about social change.  My two cents, although I am sure the author will tell me I didn't answer the question....

Which lame duck president would that be?? LOL

Gotta admit, you fooled me into thinking you were a person worth treating seriously.  My bad.

Hey, why shouldn't we award Mr. Polanksi a few trophies?

We elected a president with far more crimes up his sleeve.

(note sarcasm about awarding Polanksi, but no sarcasm when I speak of the prez)

I do have a valid question though; does anyone know why Polanksi hasn't been extradicted? I'm no lawyer, but don't they have to bring him back to the US? I am sure they'd do that to any OTHER child molestor who fled the country now-a-days. NO?

A

between France and US don't allow for extradiction of persons involved with that be sent from France to US, he was allowed to stay there.  Actually I don't think there was an active effort to extradict him at all.  Otherwise, he could be captured when he travelled to other countries.

I totally disagree with your depiction of the current president.  However, there is no point in arguing with you on that at all.  I will just leave it at that.

-- Modified on 3/12/2003 4:18:23 PM

I saw the victim on an televised interview.  She is now an adult and a mother herself. She said the media damaged her much more than Polanski did and that he is a great director and what he did to her should not be an issue.  She also said that after what she went through, she would think twice about reporting it if it happened to her daughter.


Here is the question I have...why the hell wasn't her mother arrested for child endangerment?  I am not a mother but cannot comprehend any adult leaving their child alone with an adult male who is not a family member.  Oh sure, just send her to a private residence with an adult male unchaperoned!  Can't fathom it.  What was the mother thinking?

Your question is a good one.  

I agree with the victim of Polanski's sexual assault, that his work should be judged on its merit not his crime.
Wasn't Charlie Chaplin into underage girls himself?  While I do not condone such behavior, one's sexual activity has nothing to do with talent.

R Kelly is an alleged pedophile.  He married Aaliayah when she was underage (she lied on her marriage certificate)  The police have videotapes of him allegedly engaging in sex with underage girls.  Does that mean he isn't a great artist?  Will people stop buying/listening to his music?

I hate what Michael Jackson has done in his personal life with children and do believe he is guilty of inappropriate conduct.  I still love and listen to his music.  He is brilliant and a fantastic performer.  I separate the artist from the person.

I don't understand why parents who allow their children to sleep in the bed of a man his age, aren't held accountable also.

If it were discovered that Shakespeare or Chaucer, Plato, Socrates, Einstein, Rembrandt, Van Gogh, Monet, Rivera, Bracque had sex with underage girls, would it make their work any less great?   Should their work not be celebrated just because they had faults of character?  

I know this question was not directed at me but if I had a young daughter I would not drop her off at a private residence and allow her to spend time with an adult male unchaperoned.  I probably wouldn't even let her sleep over at a friend's home.  Several of my adult NON-provider friends have told me stories from their teen years when their friend's dads would act inappropriate or cop a feel.  Sadly this inappropriate behavior is not unusual.  

If Polanski had stayed in this country and faced his charges he would have been in jail.  The whole point of being punished for a crime that you committed is that most of your "rights" are taken away (that's why people in jail are confined to a jail).  Therefore, I do not think that Polanski should be able to profit as a free man in this country after the crime he committed, because he is NOT a free man.  He is a fugitive...everyone, please get this through your heads!

after agreeing to a plea - he agreed to a plea, and at the last minute the DA tried to double-cross him. He fled because he believed (rightly so) that the DA was gonna hang him.

Whether he should have been hung is another matter - child molesters are slime. But let's at least be factual about his reason for running.

I have boycotted Halle Berry, Polanski and others.

He entered a plea bargain, it was accepted, which means he is still facing sentencing. Which also means that he has been convicted by plea agreement. Did you follow the link to The Smoking Gun website?

There are certainly troubling, even aggregious things that other "great" artists have done in their time. Unfortunately most of them are dead, the history has a way of editing out the unfavorable given that the one's that write it are the winners in conflicts, etc.

Obviously I have much better things to do with my life than keep a running tab of who I should and shouldn't boycott.  Bottom line is some acts are so reprehensible that they completely overshadow any positive accomplishments. There are exceptions, but I am an imperfect man, and some things I cannot and will not overlook, no matter the diatribe of the media, nor the supposed contribution to the enrichment of the arts.

Cheers,

HPG

From the Smoking Gun Website:

"Following his indictment on various sex charges, Polanski agreed to a plea deal that spared him prison time (he had spent about 45 days in jail during a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation). But when it seemed that a Superior Court judge might not honor the deal--and sentence Polanski to prison--the director fled the country."

-- Modified on 3/12/2003 3:52:06 PM

However,

Polanski is still a fugitive and should be made to answer for his crimes.

This is a good discussion.  

I'd have to agree with Talisa regarding the victims mother.  The girl should never have been aloud to be in that situation.  The girl may not know what some adults are capable of but the mother should.  The mothers duty is to protect her child and she failed miserably and should be punished.

That's what George II would've claimed.

Hey Doc,

Thanks for the other two direct responses up the thread. Basically I was looking for a yes or no, then some supporting reason.

Thanks,

HPG

Could you point me to that information, I haven't been able to track it down myself, and I'm really curious to see what they did to spook him.

None of the detail that I've read really goes into what they did, just that he felt the Judge was going to screw him.

Thanks dude,

HPG