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

Should Roman Polanski be forgiven?

posted 3 years ago by TheMan18 (12688)
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?

[–] samoanjoes (52994) 3 years ago

No. He hopped on a plane and flew off before serving time.

[–] Stratego (29529) 3 years ago

This is my biggest problem with him. Yeah, maybe the sex was consensual, but what makes him so special that he doesn't have to face justice?

[–] samoanjoes (52994) 3 years ago

Or you could just be like Tarantino.https://variety.com/2018/film/news/quentin-tarantino-defends-roman-polanski-interview-1202688885/

[–] Stratego (29529) 3 years ago

I'm not going to make any assumptions about whether she "wanted to have it" because I wasn't there (her mother was clearly not right in the head, so who knows what was going on). But the girl was very clearly a minor and if Polanski chose to believe she wasn't, that mistake's on him.

[–] Keelai (32646) 3 years ago

A 13-year-old can't legally consent to sex. It was statutory rape. Besides, he drugged her.

Polansky should not be forgiven since he fled justice.

[–] Stratego (29529) 3 years ago

"It was statutory rape."

Uhm, never said it wasn't.

"Polansky should not be forgiven since he fled justice."

Uhm, that's exactly what I said my biggest problem with him was.

[–] Keelai (32646) 3 years ago

"maybe the sex was consensual"
and
"I'm not going to make any assumptions about whether she "wanted to have it" because I wasn't there"

I was addressing the above comments.

The irony is if Roman had stayed in France where an 11-year-old girl "consented" to sex, he would not have been charged with rape or at least would've been found not guilty which happened in a recent case.

France only recently added an age of consent (15).

[–] Stratego (29529) 3 years ago

Your comments were not relevant to what I said.

[–] Keelai (32646) 3 years ago

Your comments suggested a child could consent to sex. Not possible which is the reason Polanski is guilty of statutory rape.

[–] Stratego (29529) 3 years ago

In your own words: "A 13-year-old can't legally consent to sex"

I never suggested a 13-year old can legally consent to sex.

My complete comment was:

"Yeah, maybe the sex was consensual, but what makes him so special that he doesn't have to face justice?"

The post you replied to also said:

"But the girl was very clearly a minor and if Polanski chose to believe she wasn't, that mistake's on him."

No room for confusion there.

[–] Keelai (32646) 3 years ago

"maybe the sex was consensual"

There is no maybe. You're speculating about a possibility of consensual sex when that is completely impossible since a child is involved.

""I'm not going to make any assumptions about whether she "wanted to have it" because I wasn't there""

"I wasn't there" implies a doubt as to whether she consented.

[–] Stratego (29529) 3 years ago

A child can consent to anything, like the sharing of a toy. It isn't just a legal term. I'm referring to Polanski's claim that it was consensual sex and Geimer's claim that it was non-consensual.

I made very clear a crime was committed, so there should've been no confusion.

[–] Keelai (32646) 3 years ago

"A child can consent to anything."

LOL! No, they can't. Not sex. Not contracts.

We're talking about a crime, therefore it's obviously in the legal context.

[–] Stratego (29529) 3 years ago

Except that I wasn't talking about the crime of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. I already made very clear that's not debatable, anyone with half a brain cell can see that.

I was talking about Polanski's claim that Geimer willingly had sex with him and her claim she didn't, i.e. actual rape and not just statutory rape. If you've figured out how Google works, you can see for yourself how the term is used in this context in this specific case, by Geimer as well.

[–] Keelai (32646) 3 years ago

We both know you lost this argument since you're twisting yourself into a pretzel.

"maybe the sex was consensual"
and
"I'm not going to make any assumptions about whether she "wanted to have it" because I wasn't there"

I suggest you change your name to Smallego since you can't admit when you're wrong.

[–] Stratego (29529) 3 years ago

Thanks for conceding by not providing any argument and simply taking quotes out of context AGAIN. So are you saying Samantha Geimer lost the argument when she said: "What I will say is: it was rape. Not only because I was underage, but also because I did not consent"???

Let me repeat so it's clear to everybody how wrong you are:

"Yeah, maybe the sex was consensual, but what makes him so special that he doesn't have to face justice?"

"But the girl was very clearly a minor and if Polanski chose to believe she wasn't, that mistake's on him."

Your nickname for me is perfect, because unlike you, I definitely don't have a big ego!😆

[–] Keelai (32646) 3 years ago

"Yeah, maybe the sex was consensual"

It wasn't. That's the problem with your entire line of thinking. You should've just wrote, "What makes him believe he's so special that he doesn't have to face justice?"

"I'm not going to make any assumptions about whether she "wanted to have it" because I wasn't there"

You didn't need to be there to know that statutory rape is illegal. Polanski already admitted he had sex with her. Clearer: "Whether she wanted it or not is irrelevant since she was a minor."

You're very thin-skinned and doubling down on being wrong. Lighten up! It's only a movie website.

[–] Stratego (29529) 3 years ago

"You should've just wrote, "What makes him believe he's so special that he doesn't have to face justice?""

No, I shouldn't, because that wasn't my point.

"You didn't need to be there to know that statutory rape is illegal. Polanski already admitted he had sex with her."

One, that comment was in response to Tarantino apparently knowing "she wanted it". Two, I see I need to repeat myself once more:

Yeah, maybe the sex was consensual, but what makes him so special that he doesn't have to face justice?"

"But the girl was very clearly a minor and if Polanski chose to believe she wasn't, that mistake's on him."

Again, anyone with half a brain cell can understand what I'm saying here.

"You're very thin-skinned and doubling down on being wrong. Lighten up!"

Lol! Says "Bigego"!🤣🤣🤣

No, I'm still right and you're still wrong. I never suggested a 13-year old can legally consent. On the contrary, actually.

[–] Keelai (32646) 3 years ago

You showed lack of comprehension about the law. You should thank me for correcting your error instead of whining so much which makes you sound more whiney than Prince Harry.

[–] Stratego (29529) 3 years ago

You showed lack of comprehension about basic English.

Yeah, maybe the sex was consensual, but what makes him so special that he doesn't have to face justice?"

"But the girl was very clearly a minor and if Polanski chose to believe she wasn't, that mistake's on him."

It's clear as day that I understand the law just fine.

Should Polanski's victim also thank you for correcting her when she said:

"What I will say is: it was rape. Not only because I was underage, but also because I did not consent"???

She sounds like such a whiner, doesn't she???🙄

[–] Keelai (32646) 3 years ago

"Yeah, maybe the sex was consensual"

Explain why you believe it was consensual. If you didn't believe it was, then explain why you wrote the above comment.

Before you deflect to the latter part of your sentence, that doesn't remove your uninformed belief about consensual sex in the opening part of your sentence.

[–] AndyKing1967 (35046) 3 years ago

Tbh, I understood what Stratego meant, but I also understand the point you’re making. It’s all semantics though; we’re not legal briefs and this isn’t a court of law.

[–] Keelai (32646) 3 years ago

Agreed. I know what his overall comment meant, too.

My clarification was only on two minor phrases he used pertaining to consent, not anything else. I only brought it up to defend the girl who is 100% blameless. The possibility of consent blames her which bugged me.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 3 years ago

You definitely don't understand what his overall comment here. You're confusing legal jargon with actual words, and twisting someone else's words to make it look like they're claiming something heinous. Which is a really messed up thing to do here.

[–] BillySlater (4126) 3 years ago

You are straw-manning. From a neutral perspective, Stratego won the argument.

[–] Stratego (29529) 3 years ago

I didn't say I believe it was consensual, I said that it's possible it was consensual.

Polanski has admitted he had unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, but claimed it was consensual while Geimer has maintained she "did not consent". That is clearly what my comment refers to.

You can't ignore the latter part of my sentence just because it doesn't fit with what you want to believe I was saying.

[–] Keelai (32646) 3 years ago

", I said that it's possible it was consensual."

FINALLY!!!!
That's exactly what I said you wrote!! And I've repeatedly told you it's NOT POSSIBLE.

[–] Stratego (29529) 3 years ago

What do you mean "finally"? Did you once again miss the comments I made?

"I never suggested a 13-year old can legally consent to sex."

"A child can consent to anything, like the sharing of a toy. It isn't just a legal term."

If, like you so desperately want to believe, I suggested a child can legally consent to sexual intercourse, then why the hell did I even say he had to face justice? Hmm???

But you just go ahead and tell Polanski and Geimer that they are wrong. You don't seem capable of understanding that there are two different issues at play here. The first, unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. And the second, the act of rape, a initial charge against Polanski that was eventually dropped. When it comes to that accusation, "consent " is exactly the one thing both disagree on. So yes, it's completely possible to discuss consent in that context. So again, I'm right and you're wrong. Nice try, though.😂

[–] Keelai (32646) 3 years ago

Oops! You screwed up your entire argument in your last post when you agreed with me. LOL! 🤣

[–] Stratego (29529) 3 years ago

Oops, you can not read and I keep proving it!

According to you I suggested that a 13-year old can legally consent and you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Polanski's victim agrees with me.🙂

[–] Keelai (32646) 3 years ago

This horse is already dead therefore you can stop beating it especially since you messed up by already agreeing with me. LOL!

[–] Stratego (29529) 3 years ago

It was already dead before you even replied to me, because I never even suggested she could've legally consented. On the contrary, that's exactly the reason I said he had to face justice.

Your obtuseness is simply mind-boggling.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 3 years ago

I think the real reason Roman Polanski never went to trial is because of who else might have gone down with him for doing the same thing. As for the "young whore who felt she was badly treated" that Polanski sodomized most of the people who mattered "don't give a fuck".

The quotes are from Gore Vidal.

And no Polanski shouldn't be forgiven.

[–] jriley555 (7231) 3 years ago

michael jackson was forgiven.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 3 years ago

Not by me he wasn't. That screeching, prancing little ponce.

[–] jriley555 (7231) 3 years ago

wow - you nailed it.

[–] Eric56 (4580) 3 years ago

Except there was no evidence. Not the same as Polanski.

[–] jriley555 (7231) 3 years ago

???

In 1993, Michael Jackson was accused of child sexual abuse by a 13-year-old boy, Jordan Chandler. The abuse allegedly took place at Jackson's Neverland Ranch home in Santa Barbara, California. In January 1994, Jackson settled the lawsuit made against him for $23 million, with $5 million going to the family's lawyers.

[–] Eric56 (4580) 3 years ago

Nonsense. That isn't evidence btw. You need to dig deeper into the case. Chandler's father was on tape basically admitting extortion. Not to mention, the genital drawings did not match. Not to mention, MJ settled only the civil trial to ensure a fair criminal trial. Once the Chandlers got their money, they stopped cooperating with police and the criminal trial was dropped. What does that tell you?

[–] jriley555 (7231) 3 years ago

you're full of shit, defense attorney. 23 million to make it all go away. and that's just one kid.

Michael Jackson: A Quarter-Century Of Sexual Abuse Allegations

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/699995484/michael-jackson-a-quarter-century-of-sexual-abuse-allegations

[–] Kowalski (63626) 3 years ago

INNOCENT.

YOU SOUND DENSE.

[–] beavis (3249) 3 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BillHicksFan (10242) 3 years ago

are you referring to Bill Gates' association/friendship with Epstein?

[–] NGMI (1184) 3 years ago

The boy made a positive identification of Jacko's private parts with distinguishing marks. Jackson was prepared to flee to Bahrain (the kiddie diddling capital of the middle east) if his bribes werent going to help him win his case.

[–] Furienna (3330) 3 years ago

What a load of bullshit!

[–] NGMI (1184) 3 years ago

Sure thing. Stay in denial you pedo enabler and supporter.

[–] Furienna (3330) 3 years ago

Dude, you have no idea how wrong you are.

[–] PaladinNJ (20633) 3 years ago

Let him serve his time. Afterwards people can worry about whether to forgive him.

[–] abigolcwock (517) 3 years ago

yeah, the problem really is the no time serving, although that argument would be even stronger if the US justice system wasn't a joke. If it was in a Nordic country, he'd have been sent to jail for a reasonable amount of time and at least normal people wouldn't really care about his past deeds anymore

[–] TheMan18 (12688) 3 years ago

But then he is over 87 years old and incarceration can be health-wise or even life threatening to him and since he hasn't got long to live anyway, he wouldn't be able to serve a full sentence before he dies so in that case...

[–] ShogunofYonkers (73589) 3 years ago

Tough shit buddy
He abused a kid after doping her up

5x9 cement block cell, bread and water, one hour of fresh air a day

Bye bye

[–] TheMan18 (12688) 3 years ago

Well, I didn't say I disagree, just wondered if today with all those facts in hand, this is what the law may assume or maybe not?

[–] Furienna (3330) 3 years ago

But it happened back in 1977.
It is hardly like he still has the same health as he did back then.

[–] ShogunofYonkers (73589) 3 years ago

That doesn't matter, he did the worse thing a person could do and fled from the consequences

What sort of things has he been up to since then..?

[–] Furienna (3330) 3 years ago

It is very much a different matter if the man is old and frail now.
Besides, you should be able to move on after 44 years if the victim is.

[–] ShogunofYonkers (73589) 3 years ago

It seems we disagree, have a good day👍

[–] Jason46 (337) 3 years ago

I guarantee you if Roman was black, you wouldn't be asking this question.

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 3 years ago

Oh STOP IT! I'm SICK AND TIRED of the FUCKING RACE CARD!

😎

[–] ShogunofYonkers (73589) 3 years ago

That's a stupid statement

[–] Jason46 (337) 3 years ago

Is it? Whites tend to be more forgiven for their crimes. Look at the actor who played the dad on "7th Heaven". He got off way too easy.

Minorities tend to be judged more harshly for their mistakes or crimes. That is a fact backed up by scientific studies.

[–] ShogunofYonkers (73589) 3 years ago

I love statistics, the statistics are always so informative

Do you know that weirdos on the internet who excuse sex abuse are 100 times more likely to be loser douchbags in real life?

It's Science

[–] AndyKing1967 (35046) 3 years ago

Looks like we have a new troll in town 🤦‍♂️

[–] ShogunofYonkers (73589) 3 years ago

I was unaware there was an opening, the troll department seemed fully staffed

[–] AndyKing1967 (35046) 3 years ago

It’s like playing whack-a-mole 🙄

[–] TheMan18 (12688) 3 years ago

Says something uncomfortably disturbing about justice system and human nature, right Jason?

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

I guarantee you if Roman was black, you wouldn't be asking this question.

As long as he doesn't oppose Wokes.

Check what happened with Bill Cosby after his speech about how Blacks should stop playing the victim and take responsibility for their problems. He was chased non-stop until he finally went to jail. The crime? having brought Quaaludes to a sexual intercourse, something that everybody, fucking everybody did in Hollywood during the 70s.

[–] TheMan18 (12688) 3 years ago

"I guarantee you if Roman was black, you wouldn't be asking this question."
"Maybe" I wouldn't. But I dare also say that me asking such a potential question has nothing really whatsoever to do with his skin colour, regardless of how, unfortunately, in the USA or otherwise, there may or may not be a huge problem with the racial aspect to the justice system. And how incredibly sad though that it DOES happen, heck, I wondered if life could be more simple, and law could be more about good punishing evil etc etc and not all those unnecessary racial segregation division.

I would also, however unfortunate or not, wouldn't ask such as question if I sadly wasn't a fan of the vast majority of Roman Polanski's movies, and I for one wasn't even aware of this child molestation case around him until 2007 or so, happily watching and enjoying his films like great works of art of a talented filmmaker.

Plus, taking all those other factors in mind, him now being 87 years old and maybe unlikely to stand trial even if possible, the fact that it happened 40 years ago (still terrible no doubt) and the victim saying she forgives him and wanting to move on, me not fully being privy to all the details that happened and basically me wondering...

If we can still watch and appreciate his movies and not be TOO concerned with wanting to say sign petitions and take official actions to put him into jail for life etc, basically wondering if its OK to let it go and not lust for retribution. But if that's not the case, then fine, maybe we should fight for his life imprisonment with all the breath that we could muster.

And also the uncomfortable fact that many respectable including FAMOUS people actually DID forgive him and signed petitions for him not to be extradited to USA including filmmakers I'm a fan of, and you are too, and whether they were genuinely WRONG to do so. So yeah, a question of, even if WE DON'T forgive HIM, why do THEY do?

[–] ShogunofYonkers (73589) 3 years ago

No.
He should be in a prison

[–] Jason46 (337) 3 years ago

Hey now. He's been through a lot. He survived the Nazi Holocaust, lost family members during the war, his wife was murdered by the Manson family, etc. Give the guy a break.

[–] ShogunofYonkers (73589) 3 years ago

Hey now you!
None of that excuses drugging and sexually abusing a child

Piss on Polanski and everybody like him, certain crimes cannot and should not ever be forgiven

[–] Jason46 (337) 3 years ago

The "child" now has forgiven him and doesn't want to press charges. It's moot.

[–] ShogunofYonkers (73589) 3 years ago

I'm aware that the now adult has forgiven him for knocking her out with drugs and booze and sodomizing her... good for her for moving on with life

Yet, a clear message must be sent to psychos and abusers, There Will Be NO Forgiveness, Not Ever

[–] TheMan18 (12688) 3 years ago

So basically, on the "Geimer having forgiven him" issue - we believe, wholeheartedly, and not just because its traditional to do so, more pleasant in the minds of us as civilized beings to think so and the fact that LAW EXISTS, that even if the victim CAN and HAS somewhat or "officially" forgiven her criminal perpetrator, it does not necessarily mean WE should and just move on, even if the event, horrible as it was, took place decades ago, right?

And that outright forgiveness like that is liable to leave behind terrible and dangerous consequences for future offenders and this means we can't just sit idly by and move on, correct?

In that related sense I suppose, remember Abel Ferrara's film "Bad Lieutenant" (1992) and how the nun forgives those two guys who sexually abused her, and the lieutenant himself, played by Harvey Keitel, let's them go at the end and gives them 30,000 dollars? (At first by the way, I thought he gave them religious icons so that they can constantly ask God for forgiveness and hopefully never commit an offense like that again.) So we as human beings shouldn't forgive them.

And by related extension, not to forgive a famous figure like Roman Polanski either? OK.

P.S. All good and understandable. But its interesting how even with many of its inconsistencies etc, people respect and worship law. And we are even told that if Polanski served, however long (also, what if he were to be released after 10 years?) his sentence, people may even move on without holding too great a grudge, but as it stands, he remains a figure of hated notoriety? So I guess in that sense, laws and prisons DO make situations better, right?

[–] ShogunofYonkers (73589) 3 years ago

A guy who does something like that is likely to do it again

Lock those sorts up and toss the keys in the pond

[–] TheMan18 (12688) 3 years ago

Not to suggest it would've been "wrong to do so", but imagine if this did happen in the 70s, how many movies that he made afterwards would not have been made? Come to think of it, it turns out that talented famous people can be evil scumbags *too*?

[–] TheMan18 (12688) 3 years ago

But then, of course...
Its quite disturbing also that famous and acclaimed people can commit evil criminal deeds as well. Interestingly enough, I wasn't even aware of the accusations made against Polanski until the year 2008 or so. And apparently, it might not have been the only offense of his of that nature.

[–] ShogunofYonkers (73589) 3 years ago

Certain crimes tell us all we need to know about the offender

A guy steals a car or passes a few bad checks, those are simple property crimes, lock him up for 30 months and let him know his ass is grass if he repeats the offence

Drugging and violating a little kid, sex crimes in general, premeditated murder and many acts of arson indicate the offender should never walk around with the rest of us again

Too risky

[–] TheMan18 (12688) 3 years ago

And I suppose, given the related situation with Polanski, that can also apply to Nazi war criminals who committed atrocities during WW2 and who if discovered even if they are over 85 years old, they can still be arrested and prosecuted possibly for life imprisonment, right? And this is how it should be, right?

[–] ShogunofYonkers (73589) 3 years ago

I would happily lock those guys up even if they look like
walking corpses

If most of us follow the rules and behave decently why should we allow psychos and killers to run around free?

I don't want maniacs on the loose, I have a family and kids

[–] TheMan18 (12688) 3 years ago

Modern Day Night of the Former Nazi Guilty Ancient Living Walking Dead. Lol. :)

[–] ShogunofYonkers (73589) 3 years ago

sounds like something I'd watch!

[–] TheMan18 (12688) 3 years ago

Well I've seen quite a few Nazi exploitation films as well as also some Nazi zombie horror like "Shock Waves" (1977) and "Dead Snow" (2009), the original 70s one is a classic by the way. :)

[–] BillHicksFan (10242) 3 years ago

lol, nice try

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 3 years ago

No. He should be in prison.

😎

[–] Jason46 (337) 3 years ago

Hey now. He's been through a lot. He survived the Nazi Holocaust, lost family members during the war, his wife was murdered by the Manson family, etc. Give the guy a break.

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 3 years ago

That makes absolutely no difference. He should be in jail for what he did.

😒

[–] Jason46 (337) 3 years ago

Even the victim has forgiven him and doesn't want to press charges. So, it's all moot.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 3 years ago

What have Ents got to do with it ?

[–] ShogunofYonkers (73589) 3 years ago

An animal like that who does such things to a little kid should die behind bars, it's not 'moot' at all

Think of your family and your little nephews and nieces

[–] AndyKing1967 (35046) 3 years ago

Not moot, moo.
https://youtu.be/62necDwQb5E

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 3 years ago

No it's not. He should be in prison for his heinous crime!

😒

[–] Jason46 (337) 3 years ago

Same for OJ Simpson?

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 3 years ago

Yes! Exactly the same. That animal should be behind bars for murder! And you can throw in the "Tot Mom', who, like Simpson, got away with murder, or at least manslaughter!

😒

[–] Furienna (3330) 3 years ago

What is your proof that OJ Simpson is a murderer though?

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 3 years ago

The evidence of his guilt is overwhelming. He's as guilty as sin. He was just lucky to get a couple of
fuck ups for prosecutors, and a jury with its head up its collective ass.

😎

[–] AndyKing1967 (35046) 3 years ago

You mean it’s all moo.
https://youtu.be/62necDwQb5E

[–] Jason46 (337) 3 years ago

I didn't click on the link but I'm guessing it's a "Friends" reference. Joey?

[–] AndyKing1967 (35046) 3 years ago

Correct (it’s a 30 second YouTube clip, quite safe).

[–] nyctc7 (41964) 3 years ago

Ask Claude Hooper Bukowski