A More Complicated Polanski Accusation
I feel like we are too early into the Charlotte Lewis accusation against Roman Polanski to feel certain about how significant her claims may be. In fact, from her press conference, we don’t even really know what she claims.
However…
Unlike Samantha Geimer, there is a much more complex set of issues here… one that is a lot more reflective of how Hollywood works on a regular basis.
Lewis was a 16 year old in 1983. Well, let me start there and use her imdB page to start pointing out the complexities…
Right after her DOB, a seemingly legitimate informational publication is offering her measurements.
Tasteless, but instructive.
When Charlotte Lewis became famous in 1986 for Polanski’s Pirates and Eddie Murphy’s The Golden Child, she and Kelly Preston were competing to be The Body of the moment. For a long time, Charlotte Lewis’ name on a movie meant there was going to be a nude scene from the remarkably beautiful young exotic-looking actress… just 19 when those two movies broke in 1986.
By 1993, she was appearing nude in a Playboy celebrity pictorial…
She would never appear in a studio film or wide release film of any kind again, appeared on network television only in a Seinfeld episode, and has not worked in film or tv (according to imdB) since 2003.
So the Polanski supporters will surely claim she is an out of work actress who never seemed to be able to keep her clothes on, who slept with Polanski in order to get her movie break, and is now complaining only to get some attention after being out of the business for 7 years.
Possible.
But the question that is more likely in the industry overall – not necessarily in this case – is that the ambitious girl with womanly curves from an early age was taken advantage of and once down that path, made a career based on that abuse. And of course, in so many cases, the abuse starts long before an acting career.
Was her self-image shaped by this 50-year-old man who may have taken advantage of her 16-year-old naivete, leaving her thinking that her only value was in her sexuality? Did she sleep with other directors she worked with… and if so, was it in the name of ambition or as a result of self-esteem limited to her sexuality because of an earlier incident? Does a woman, in this culture, have the right to scream “molestation” after a long career of working in the industry as an object of lust?
As you might guess, I have opinions here. You may think you know them. But I am genuinely curious about what you all think…
Well, really, this is the obvious, knee-jerk reaction, but: Her timing is a bit odd. Not to say she’s lying. But still…
And, yeah, I do admit: There’s something a bit dodgy about the work record. You mean she couldn’t even land a gig in a made-for-video movie? Is she… well, unemployable for some reason?
I’m not sympathetic to Polanski at all, but I do find this curious at least regarding the timing. Why now? Beyond that I think it’s much too soon to say anything about this incident until the story gets hashed out. I’m not sure it has any bearing on the Geimer case and Polanski’s extradition. At least not legally. That should be resolved on its own merits (which is why the one case often is not admissible in court regarding the other case). More heat and smoke than light right now.
Joe, what she’s been up to is one of the things we need to learn more about. That could speak to her motivation. That’s why I say the story needs to be hashed out more.
Since pretty much anybody can post anything on an IMDB page, I don’t see how that’s relevant except as a portrayal of her place in the culture at large.
DP, any reason you left in the top part of her areola?
RAPE IS RAPE.
This could be good news for people who were hoping for an eventual R1 release of Pirates.
Kelly Preston over Charlotte Lewis one MILLION percent.
MISCHIEF POWER!
Maybe she couldn’t “land a gig” because the effects of being raped by the very person whom you have to be able to trust if you’re an actress are, well, devastating?
Chris: That is entirely possible. And, look, I also realize that some people are so traumatized by certain events that they can be in a state of denial for years, if not decades. But, again, why now?
On the other hand: What if she is the pebble that, once loosened, causes the avalanche? What if more women start coming out of the woodwork with their own long-repressed stories to tell?
The “why now” she has stated is that she feels that Polanski is getting away with creating a sense that he is a victim and that there was only one woman who has felt abused by him sexually, and she doesn’t want that to falsely sway public opinion.
But you don’t have to be satisfied with that answer.
On the other hand, if you think Samantha Geimer is right to want to be left alone, you would have to understand why – assuming she is telling the truth – another victim would be loathe to go public.
Moreover, a rape accusation would likely be the end of her career… especially if some people thought the charge was dubious. Her silence until her career was a non-issue probably shouldn’t be made into an issue here. One does not have to be so victimized that they MUST tell the truth in order for it to be the truth. No?
palmtree… I wasn’t really looking that closely… I will adjust the modesty block.
“One does not have to be so victimized that they MUST tell the truth in order for it to be the truth. No?”
I’m not sure I understand your point here. I’m not trying to snarky or sarcastic, I simply don’t understand. Are you saying that a victim in a case like this may not report what happened because they are traumatized? But we shouldn’t hold that against them? Sure, that can’t be argued.
You DO understand.
OK, I just wanted to be sure. Seriously. I had to deal with the sort of thing when I was a welfare worker — not often, but more times than I would wish on anybody. And, worse, I have had to deal with it while comforting two people close to me.
PLAYBOY isn’t the issue here — anyone who uses the “well, she posed naked later in her career so she had it coming” card is a sexist pig. More curious is the fact that, by Lewis’ own math, the alleged rape happened 2-3 years before she took the lead female role in Polanski’s PIRATES. Why would she willingly subject herself to the indignity of working with him after the fact if she was, indeed, so traumatized? So is this a case of rape or is it casting couch quid pro quo? And if it’s the latter, Polanski seems to have upheld his half of the deal, so what’s the real issue here?
Lewis aside, I so get tired of the “Why didn’t they report it earlier” argument. It is so facile and reveals such a limited knowledge of information where the entertainment industry is concerned.
Whether it is issues of rape, molestation, plagiarism, being ripped off etc. when one is in the industry and it is all about who you know and personal contacts; sometimes it is very difficult to say what has happened to you with regards to personal experience. Even moreso, if the person wroning you is an A-list director of international acclaim. Look at all the dumbasses signing petitions for Polanski…if you are new to the industry do you want to go against that?
I am always surprised at, given how much shit we – all – know goes on in the entertainment industry; how much abuse, lies, dodgy insinuations etc. we always, as a culture, default to believing the “artist”.
Kudos to Michael Douglas for not signing the petition.
I do not know about Lewis, but I know what my gut says. The entertainment industry is one where you never know who is on your side, what their motivation is and what they want. For Lewis, an up and coming starlet in the 80’s it makes sense why, from her perspective, she would not say anything.
I do not know the truth in this case. Only her and Polanski do. But I do get tired of the facile “why wait so long” argument when the reason is so obvious.
But Nicol: Twenty-plus years?
Nearly thirty. Must’ve been really traumatized, or in a coma.
You know, I have no issue with the time table tnat Lewis had. Who are any of us to decide how long it is that makes her account any more or less credible? That being said, I, personally find her claims to be less credible, not because she posed in Playboy but because of the company she keeps. Gloria Alrred is an ambulance chaser at best. That’s not to say all of her clients are liars but Christ, the women she repped during the Tiger Woods fiasco who were entitled to nothing. Yet Allred seemed to think a mistress scorned deserves a financial settlement. If Lewis wanted to be taken seriously as a victim and not someone with other motives, she would have been better off with a lawyer who isn’t such a notoriety whore. I’m not saying she is lying but Allred automatically reduces the credibility of anyone who would hire her.
You know, I have no issue with the time table tnat Lewis had. Who are any of us to decide how long it is that makes her account any more or less credible? That being said, I, personally find her claims to be less credible, not because she posed in Playboy but because of the company she keeps. Gloria Alrred is an ambulance chaser at best. That’s not to say all of her clients are liars but Christ, the women she repped during the Tiger Woods fiasco who were entitled to nothing. Yet Allred seemed to think a mistress scorned deserves a financial settlement. If Lewis wanted to be taken seriously as a victim and not someone with other motives, she would have been better off with a lawyer who isn’t such a notoriety whore. I’m not saying she is lying but Allred automatically reduces the credibility of anyone who would hire her.