MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Should Roman Polanski be forgiven?

Should Roman Polanski be forgiven?

posted 3 years ago by TheMan18 (12697)
141 replies | jump to latest

Hi. Now I know this is an extremely hot and real-life disturbing topic for some or even a lot of people. And it is also something that can, will and often IS laden with controversy. But anyways...

Now, of course I am NOT saying that what he did back in the 1970s against Samantha Geimer, and it was proven that he was guilty, was in any way excusable let alone "acceptable", it was horrible and wrong as well as a criminal offense. Yes, it was also wrong and cowardly of him to escape prison sentence. And also yes, his situation has also touched a nerve in many people who rightly thought he shouldn't get away with it and that although money and fame should NOT buy prosecution for guilty people from the law like that, it sadly has worked, much to the DISfavor of a lot of normal, civilized and rightfully concerned citizens among us.

On to the other side. I have to declare, I am still an admirer and an appreciator of a lot or even most of his movies and I consider many films of his like Repulsion, Cul-de Sac, Rosemary's Baby, Death and the Maiden and many others to be great films of which I am a huge fan of and yes I recognize the skills and craft as well as talent of the figure Polanski behind him.

And also, I am aware that to some extent at least, OK its still inexcusable and right to make people including ME angry and whatnot, that what happened was over 40 years ago. Also, in interviews, Geimer herself has claimed that she forgives him for it and no longer wishes to pursue a legal course of action. As intelligent, normal, well meaning and civilized beings, should we take it into account, as well as also the fact that Polanski himself is incredibly old, around 88 years old for sure and well, no longer hold too great a grudge against him or must we despise him for his deed like that until the day he dies? (It is also rumored if not confirmed that both before and after it was not his first sexual offense although I am not privy to all the details.)

What do you think, and please let's not get too carried away here, cheers.

P.S. What even IS the deal with a lot of FAMOUS or at least a certain amount of wealthy and famous and even talented and seemingly respectable individuals in life committing the kind of deeds both criminally offensive and morally unforgivable? Does fame and money NOT buy stuff like peace of mind, conscience and also the desire to be good and well and also LIMITED when it comes to making choices that may greatly infringe upon the rights of others and cause social disharmony?

[–] Kowalski (63764) 3 years ago

FORGIVEN IS THE WRONG WORD...THE CORRECT WORD IS FORGOTTEN...HE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN HIS "DAY IN COURT"...HIS DECISION TO TAKE FLIGHT AND HIDE OUT SHOULD HAVE BEEN WHEN THE FORGETTING SHOULD HAVE BEGAN...GOOD MOVIES OR NOT.

[–] AndyKing1967 (35061) 3 years ago

No he should not.

[–] TheMan18 (12697) 3 years ago

Also, OK we all agree that he should have been to prison and that what he did was unforgivable. He was essentially a child molester, right?

But then even if he fled to avoid prosecution, since his case may have been known, couldn't police from his country have alerted authorities all across the world and also notified say the film companies, Oscars etc that he works for and then just arrest them there and then on the spot, given that what he did was, in minds of many, a particularly heinous and dangerous crime?

Or are laws really NOT that well organized and tied to MORALITY WHETHER at the time or otherwise?

And couldn't say film production companies have BOYCOTTED him if no arrest was possible, regardless of how much fame, money and connections he has/had?

[–] TheMan18 (12697) 3 years ago

And on the other side, what caused him to go out of the way and commit such terrible deed (or deeds since it may not have been his only offense) in the first place? Was he mentally ill? Was he by nature a pedophile? Why couldn't he have gone to seek medical and psychological help instead with all the money than settling down for the terrible option? And how did he ever hope that such things about him would not be found out (imagine also if the internet has existed in the 1970s to the degree it does today, would that deter him?)?

[–] TheMan18 (12697) 3 years ago

And on a related minor note - does discovering what you did about Polanski in any way affected your appreciation of his movies?

And also...

How do you feel that apparently, some or maybe even lots of famous people, including those involved in movies, have turned out to be in some or other ways guilty of terrible and also criminal deeds including but not limited to, ones of a sexual nature?

I mean, think of people like rock music stars, actors, film directors etc etc etc. Heck, in some cases, the offending parties may not have even been male although I also confess I am not often fully aware of all the details (what did for instance Asia Argento do? And was director Bryan Singer also guilty?) although in at least some I don't see reasons to disagree, well...

[–] AndyKing1967 (35061) 3 years ago

"on a related minor note"

No pun intended, right?

[–] TheMan18 (12697) 3 years ago

No (means) no(pe). No - no pun intended. )

[–] moviechatterer (14160) 3 years ago

So theres two pages of replies mainly about how doing that sort of thing with a 13yr old minor is reprehensible. (and it is - obvs)

Yet in various 3rd world countries 13 year old brides are sold off to be married to dirty old men 4 times their age , in some kind of business arrangement.
Given the scale that that is happening on shouldnt we be more concerned about that?

[–] TheMan18 (12697) 3 years ago

We can perhaps look at those issues separately.

[–] TimMC (9143) 3 years ago

He ran and hid after drugging and raping a young teenage girl.

Has he ever, AT LEAST, apologized for doing this?

Should we forgive him and not others?

Why is he special?

[–] TheMan18 (12697) 3 years ago

Also, has it in any way hindered your appreciation of his work - movies? Judge the art, not the artist, sort of way?

And also, if Polanski dies, maybe in 10 years time... What do you think, thanks.

[–] jriley555 (7239) 3 years ago

he pleaded guilty. so there's that.

the sequence of events is a bit complicated. he served a 90-day in-prison eval and been given a finding by the judge that he would be given probation. but the day before sentencing, he caught wind that the judge had been pressured to give him prison time (he was never sentenced, so we don't know how much), and he, taking the view that he had been double-crossed, skedaddled.

he's into his 80s now. great director. i don't know why he would ever feel a compulsion to leave europe for the US, anyway.

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 3 years ago

One set of rules. No exceptions, please. However, the exceptions for the rich, famous, and politicians stretch for as far as the eye can see.

No forgiveness from me. Had he been penitent and served his time back then, I could have forgiven ... but not forgot.

[–] Jason46 (337) 3 years ago

He went through alot! He survived the Nazi Holocaust, lost family members during the war and his wife was murdered by the creepy Manson family cult. Give the guy some slack.

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 3 years ago

Rape slack?

[–] TheMan18 (12697) 3 years ago

Child molestation slack also apparently...

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8959) 3 years ago

Not until he faces justice and takes his lumps.

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

Considering how many criminals in America are allowed back on the streets in no time so they can commit more crimes, I am inclined to give Polanski a break, especially since the victim forgave him long ago.

[–] TheMan18 (12697) 3 years ago

And by criminals, you include, not, say, just thieves and the lot but the more grievous bunch, right?

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

Of course. Most of them are liberals. Obviously.

[–] TheMan18 (12697) 3 years ago

Is that in itself a bad thing, them being liberals? And do liberals really forgive even the most heinous and guilty of offenders (that they also know and believe are guilty) just like that with little regard to public safety?

Also, don't conservative people do that a lot as well if not more so?

[–] TheMan18 (12697) 3 years ago

(And yet, ahem ahem, *cough* *cough*, whispering silently, not that its necessarily a "bad thing" or "wrong" etc but - that does not stop OTHER people, maybe somewhat liberal or somewhat conservative or both or neither etc, at least in theory, condemning such guilty individuals and believing they deserve either life imprisonment or a horrible death of some sort, and understandably so.

EVEN IF, sadly I might add, their positions often do little let alone in practice to influence either stricter laws, or, even better, to get people who even DO have a problem with "stuff" like conscience, empathy, law, human rights, a desire not to abuse power and abuse others, and not engage in activities frowned upon by civilized people, to simply - NOT DO their wrong and evil and even criminal offensive deeds IN THE FIRST PLACE, to treat others FAIRLY like they themselves would like to be treated etc.

Imagine how much better our world would be if the right thoughts and opinions found their OWN POWER to defeat and counteract the many WRONG ONES.

Perhaps then our world would become a much better and more convenient place to live etc.)

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

Yes. Being a liberal today is a very bad thing.

[–] TheMan18 (12697) 3 years ago

And what is being conservative then?

Also, what about certain bits and pieces in between like neo-liberal? Or neo-con? Liberal-democrat etc?

P.S. Online, are people who actually DO get angry and upset at the existence of certain evil criminals etc and who believe they should serve harsher sentences, to what (political?) party or position do they belong, also SJWs (Social Justice Warriors)? Are they even liberal or not? What about Human Rights Activists?

P.P.S. Speaking of Human Rights organizations and activists like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International etc, where do they currently place Polanski, in their mind, do they believe and actively fight even today for his life imprisonment?

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

Being conservative isn't the point. Not being a liberal is the point. They are insane.

[–] TheMan18 (12697) 3 years ago

Yes, but the question is, why and how are liberals "much worse" than conservatives in that sense and what do they have that others don't in order to think how they think and act how they act?

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

Why? Because they are insane. How? In every single way.

[–] TheMan18 (12697) 3 years ago

Yep, the PERFECT argument! More importantly, very sophisticated, intelligent, elegant, 100% effective and moral, the ultimate axioma, achingly beautiful yet totally accessible and understandable, Nobel Peace Prize worthy. :) :) :)

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

Calm down. Just trying to be succinct.

[–] TheMan18 (12697) 3 years ago

Oh, I am calm indeed. But being a little ironic. Although I will confess, I know very little about the mentality of modern day American liberal people in America.

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

Consider yourself lucky.

[–] TheMan18 (12697) 3 years ago

So that means liberals are likely to be up to not much good then, right? Or even worse. Maybe they also make MONEY that way and lots of them.

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

Exactly. Liberals are brainwashed zombies.

[–] TheMan18 (12697) 3 years ago

So basically, in a nutshell, what I sort of also meant was, with all that is known about this matter, and the fact that he is now about 88 years old etc is - Can you still watch and appreciate the movies he directed or do you personally hold the grudge to the level of being unable to?

Also, did you hear about how the incident actually took place in Jack Nicholson's house but was Nicholson at all aware of it and was he involved? Probably not but...

I remember how some 5 or 6 years ago on IMDb, a few users started threads on the order of how "Jack Nicholson watched..." (woah, where did you get THAT info?) and there were some clever people who directly responded with "As guilty as Polanski is, Nicholson didn't do ANYTHING and with LEARN YOUR FACTS" (ALSO, just NOTICE how a matter like this gets so INEVITABLY EMOTIONALLY TO SOME people that they almost tend to bring in OTHERS to it, as in, why not JUST blame guilty perpetrators as we know it?) and oh well...

And on to another painful side of controversy - why have some if not many people including famous celebrities have FORGIVEN him and others, including here (I am NOT criticizing!) and online, went out of their way to, errr, NOT, and still hold a grudge? Not saying one was necessarily right or totally wrong, just wondering why it is, thanks. Oh and does it make you mad? Or do you just agree to disagree? (Even if, yes no doubt, he was terrible for doing what he did and for that we should condemn him.)

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

Well he's got a permanent spot on *my* shit list!

But I'm not a judge or any part of the legal system, whether the courts should forgive him is entirely a legal matter. If the statute of limitations haven't expired on his crimes then he should be prosecuted in spite of his wealth and fame, because there shouldn't be one law for the rich and another for the rest of us.

[–] TheMan18 (12697) 3 years ago

2 Otter - even if, and it seems that sadly it may be the case and come to that, the courts have decided to let him go and there is in law a statue of limitation, does that mean it's right and this is the way it should be?

Also, around that time, in France for instance, sex and age of consent laws were even different to laws as such even around that time in the 1970s in America and Polanski apparently wasn't even bothered by it when he decided to violate Geimer like that.

So the question also is - what if it HAD expired, and plus, we as humans create laws anyway and rules for that matter. Would it then still be alright to let him go or not?

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

Well, rumor has it that one reason Polanski moved to France is because the age of consent was low there, and he could party with 14 year old models and invite his Hollywood pals like Jack Nicholson, who also like to part with 14 year old models.

Reading that is one thing that's earned Polanski (and Nicholson) a permanent spot on my shit list regardless of whatever the law says, if the rumor is true then Polanski has maintained a long-term interest in sexually exploiting little girls. He's dead to me!

[–] TheMan18 (12697) 3 years ago

Was NICHOLSON at all guilty here, I remember back in the golden days of IMDb message boards, someone made a post about how Nicholson witnessed the event and didn't report it but at least one user lazarillo went out of his way to state how Nicholson is totally innocent in this matter and that people need to "learn some facts".

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

I have no idea exactly what Nicholson did on that day 50-odd years ago, but there are some very nasty rumors about him and underaged girls, including a very young Drew Barrymore. If they're true, I hope she'll be able to talk about it someday.

As for the defenders, there are some real crackpots on this forum, who'll leap to the defense of any man accused of a sexual crime against a woman or girl. Why aren't they doing more to save Ted Bundy's reputation, I ask! It's shockingly inconsistent of them, to defend Polanski and Weinstein, and leave Bundy totally undefended!

[–] TheMan18 (12697) 3 years ago

Or better yet, why defend them in the first place? But with Polanski I also wondered, why there are FAMOUS people both male and people who DO defend him, whilst others don't.

And even if there is this inconsistency, perhaps, but I wouldn't want anyone defending Bundy either. But is it really this big a mystery, if you were to explain it, perhaps?

[–] TheMan18 (12697) 3 years ago

The thing is, in my childhood days, I've actually had people close to me who were ANGRILY AGAINST sexual abuse and even often thought that such guilty, mostly men and they MOSTLY referred to cases where women are victims but NOT limited, but point is, they thought they should be killed or at least, severely punished.

This is WHY I was also SURPRISED and SHOCKED to discover the existence of victim blaming and whatnot IN ADDITION to other factors of course, and even MORE depressed and disappointed that it continues in the MODERN day also with other factors like MRA and **** CULTURE, it became UNBEARABLY too much for me.

I also had to wonder, the mentality of some people, Russian (in my case), American (in yours and others, Otter) and just folks in general, and why SOME people find some things unspeakably outrageous and others LESS so, even WITH laws and whatnot present?

As bad and hurtful et all as it is on a basic level, it also frequently makes little sense, and I am surprised by how mean humans in general sadly can be. If only our world was better.