Roman Polanski, or pardon me but your poll is in my neck.

I think they're just acknowledging that being able to make movies is a privelege (as opposed to, say, a god-given right, or something that everybody does)

surely they can't mean "we, who make movies and should therefore be treated differently"?

^i believe that this is what they mean.

I think they're just acknowledging that being able to make movies is a privelege (as opposed to, say, a god-given right, or something that everybody does)

― the taint of Macca is strong (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, September 30, 2009 6:55 PM (45 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

how is that relevant to their point though?

I'm starting to think they're just idiots.

it's not relevant, they're just self-absorbed and feel compelled to mention how special (and of course, how GRATEFUL) they are

when one person who makes movies is imprisoned, ALL people who make movies are imprisoned DO YOU SEE

So many gays I'm banning.

Why are you banning people, Eric?

Where's the thread where I request to see how many people I've suggest banned?

― boring movies are the most boring (Eric H.), Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:51 PM

If you can't even keep up with the number, wouldn't taking a break from the board be better?

xpost, good question

Banning gays, at that.

"an anathema"

see upthread request to use a different thread to gangpile with moral indignation on his crime when the thread was created to celebrate his movies

That said, suggest bans suddenly got fun. They're like a bowl of candy in the next cubicle over.

dude you lost that one, let it go

Have I really not suggest banned you until now?

Do moderators/administrators here have the ability to split threads like they do on other forums?

see upthread request to use a different thread to gangpile with moral indignation on his crime when the thread was created to celebrate his movies

― boring movies are the most boring (Eric H.), Wednesday, September 30, 2009 2:20 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

you're a moron.

I'm sure he suggest banned you for that.

can't we all just agree to suggest ban polanski and make peace with one another

No no this thread is ONLY for celebrating his movies. Any other purpose is verboten!

I'm sure Eric didn't suggest ban-suggest ban anybody

not even "gays"?

So is Pirates! any good? I've been afraid to check that one out.

I'm sure Eric didn't suggest ban-suggest ban anybody

Check with Dan.

I find this whole scandal great if it gets everyone to watch The Tenant.

You mean the Polanski-rape scandal or the Eric H.-Suggest Ban scandal?

agreed, or if it just gets his lawyers to declare him the King of Pop.

xp

My question about Pirates! was serious btw.

Check with Dan.

my your prickly

thread title is not "Roman Polanski - Share Your Feelings of Adoration and Awe"

OK, I can dish it out. To show I can take it, I SB-ed myself.

xpost I've seen Pirates, but it was a long time ago and I don't really remember it but I'm pretty sure it was crap. There seems to be a curse on Polanski's post-rape moviemaking, has he really made a good one since then? I haven't seen Tess. I have seen The Pianist, but I didn't find it as good as everyone said it was.

Anne Applebaum doubles down

more like anne rapelebum

anne applemoron

I'm really kinda flabbergasted at the people saying he should be let go. really does not compute.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaeldeacon/100011795/roman-polanski-everyone-else-fancies-little-girls-too/

“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”

Oof. I'm a bit of a hardass about the "law is the law" in this case, but I did feel bad for him in a lot of respects--that comment is a bit hard to stomach though.

when he gave that interview i'd guess he was blapping the 15-year-old natassja kinski. it was consensual and all above board and who could possbily object, etc., but you know, "you certaily have a type, romes."

Jerry Lee Lewis and Errol Flynn fans to thread

Some good lolz:

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/09/polanski.php

Dr Morbius to thread

Jerry Lee's creepy cousin marriage isn't even in the same league as Polanski.

Yesterday evening I had a very heated debate about this case with my best friend. In all honesty I nearly stood up and walked away. Instead I was practically shouting. She kept giving alternatives: "she probably looked 25, why did her mom let her to the house with adults, it's Hollywood!" I kept repeating that he DRUGGED and RAPED teh girl. I asked her if she ever needed Qualudes to be fucked with her permission (does that make sense in English?) She kept saying where did I read this. I asked her where she got her information and I found out she knew NOTHING about this except "that his wife was brutally murdered." Like what? But ath end of the arguement I actually excused myself for being so verbally aggressive. It's not really worth it. In this case my friend's the idiot but who am I? In other cases I'm probably an idiot.

I think a lot of people (read: me three days ago) have no idea about the details of the case and assume it was sex with an underage girl who had given consent. this doesn't excuse woody and whoopi and anne rapelbaum et al, but it does excuse civilains saying dumb stuff. My gf didn't realize how bad what polanski did was until actually reading the grand jury transcript.

I couldn't get my head around why there's even been an argument over all this, but that makes a lot of sense, 'hmmmm'. It's like, having got the word 'rape' out of the plea, the focus should now be on justifying every word of that - so 'unlawful sex with a thirteen-year-old girl' gets answered by 'wouldn't be unlawful in europe', 'she looked older' and 'she was promiscuous therefore a woman'. Whereas if you approach from first principles such as, I don't know, by looking at the facts, it doesn't look like that at all.

I just assumed - considering how rape laws in the '70s were all 'she asked for it' and that the Hollywood hills are alive with career sex often egged on by a certain type of parent and tacitly accepted by anyone who relies on the industry - that for the incident to come to light at all, much less go to trial, spoke volumes about what Polanski did to the girl.

It's more the catch-all term "statutory rape" means you can't tell the 'drugged-up' from the 'young/curious'

You can make a few strong hypotheses if the older perp is in his 40s and the younger victim is 13.

Can you?

I'm not saying either is 'right', it's just that (I'm presuming) the majority of cases are "She wanted to" rather than "she got fed drugs".

So, that ends up being the default hypothesis.

There are no default hypotheses in rape cases. Since my uncle was a vice detective in the '70s and '80s I'm pretty au fait with what passed muster as a winnable case in the eyes of law enforcement, what's consensual or obscene, and what gets swept under the rug, often from sneaking looks at his case files when I was the same age as the girl - stuff like that made me a feminist in the first place.