It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
My take on Poland’s Polanski columns:
I wouldn’t pay attention to a man who kept writing about the case long after the actual victim had expressed that she moved on and considered the thing done (she went even further to say she forgave Polanski a long time ago but that’s too much for the purposes of the point I am making).
DP cares less about the feelings of that woman then he does about his own sense of “justice”. In my mind there is something very wrong with this take.
I wouldn’t even write what I wrote above if it wasn’t for cheap statements like this one:
“And honestly, if you have no problem with a great artist having anal sex with a drugged 14-year-old, stand up and say it proudly.”
It’s tastless, disqusting and, again, cheap. We know what a battery or rape is and Poland knows thar we know it. Yet he is choses to spell it out for us to invoke an immotional response.
And then he turns around and says that things like the second occusation should not affect other’s perception of the first case (i.e. disregard our feelings and think OBJECTIVELY).
What a scumbag and a hypocrite.
Well, “Pete,” does it bother you in the least that Geimer only started saying she wanted this to end after she got a settlement from Polanski?
Do you think that the state has no interest in prosecuting a rape case, regardless of what the victim says? You do know that in criminal cases, the offense is against the state and its laws, not the private victim, right?
I can only assume from your anger that you believe this should all go away… and haven’t really considered the crime much. That’s why I feel compelled to continue to point it out as what it is… not as some fanciful abstract created by people who have decided that Polanski is somehow the victim here.
If the description of the crime invokes an emotional response… well… you’re a human being. Sorry to remind you.
And if “own sense of justice” is that time does not make crimes go away in the eyes of the law, you’re dead right.
One can show compassion to a criminal. One can appreciate that someone has made a real effort to change and lives in a different way than they once did. But running away from the responsibility for a serious offense (I am curbing the legitimate repetition of what he did, so you might be able to hear my words) cannot be a good or moral answer to a crime.
I am curious to know whether you think it was okay for OJ Simpson to be publishing and making money off of “If I Did It” or whatever that thing was called. Pretty much the same deal. “I did it… I am beyond your reach… take your laws and moral judgments and shove them.”
How many abused women take their abusers back into their lives over and over and over again? Is that okay with you too?
I don’t know what you think my hypocrisy is. If you answer these questions, I might know what yours is.
Scumbag? Well, that’s your call, I guess.
What I think a second victim does is force people to confront the issue more in their minds. My guess is most people living in America had not, up until recently, any reason to think about Polanski and what he had done. For people under 40, their info most likely would’ve been filtered and reduced. Not saying that’s good or bad, but from a public perception pov, it really would be close to hand-me-down.
As a kid I knew vaguely of statutory rape (not really all the charges or even what that meant) and him fleeing the country and then his romance w/freakishly young teen Natassia. By the time I saw Bitter Moon and Death and the Maiden I had assumed things had been worked out for him legally, not that he was still a fugitive. I kinda knew he’d directed Rosemary’s Baby and was married to Sharon Tate but I didn’t really “know” him enough to run down a bio or readily rattle off all the pieces.
From a personal stand point I have wondered how have people been willing to work w/this guy. Wondered in the true sense of decision as in what, if anything, did they weigh in their heads that would sway them to get on a plane and fly over seas to be in one of his films? Was it forgiveness, empathy, fear of being labeled as someone not willing to play ball, his talent, possible career advancement, it was way in the past, an award, need the money, what??
I didn’t know he’d directed the Ninth Gate until I saw his name on the credits at the end of the film. The Pianist was the first time I really had to confront in my head whether or not I should “support” this guy and I chose not to. But it really wasn’t such a staunch moral decision like “this guy’s films should be banned from the US” kind of thing. It was more of a protest vote against “the system.” It could’ve been a CFO not reporting off balance sheet records to the SEC, an insurance company denying legit claims, or turning people away from voting precincts. Zero accountability towards bad behavior.
From my pov at that time it wasn’t that people had made the wrong decision to hire or work with this guy, it was that no decision was ever made. No interview of press clipping suggesting they struggled w/using him; they wanted to make a statement w/his inclusion; they thought their film was a bigger issue than the sum of its parts; had problems getting financing; nothing. Seemed like business as usual w/no mention of an apology or explanation.
Maybe “they” have been doing us a favor by not bringing it up. We Americans don’t want to see how our laws are made or how our bacon double cheeseburgers make it to us in the drive thru or what happens to the styrofoam popcorn after we pull the Wii out of the box.
A second victim tells us that we have to decide. It wasn’t that a first victim wasn’t horrible enough but now we have to say no (or yes) to the Ghost Writer and all subsequent films and not just on a basis of what we were or weren’t going to see anyway. And if I say no to Ghost Writer, I really have no business going back to watch Death in the Maiden. And so then… am I now going to get some internal nudge telling me I have no business watching this Academy screener lent to me by a friend of a friend who works with some guy? Am I really going to have to stop accepting songs burned onto a cd from some guy in IT who ripped them off a bit torrent site or parts unknown?
My point is not make comparisons of various offenses or delineate right from wrong. Sure, it’s easy to spot inconsistencies in other people’s lives but people don’t want to be faced w/discrepancies w/in their own. We are much more comfortable w/being dismissive. In our own defense, and true it could be a cop out, decisions generally require actions, actions that others might not be taking, and standing as an individual reminds us just how helpless and disempowered we truly are. A second victim forces others to act. Maybe it allows people to stand up and scream and not be alone. It also removes indifference as an option from the individual. Maybe some had no intention of standing before but a label would be assumed if not done so now.
Public opinion wasn’t going to be swayed. The only difference is now we have to live by it.
I’m not defending Polanski. Regardless of his crimes I think he should be put in jail for not laying low and chilling out somewhere. Instead he chose to be do media and interviews,etc. But these new allegations are just that. If he did a crime she should fie charges, if statue of limitation didn’t run out. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. So until this is legally documented as her statement I take it with a grain of salt.
Just the other day I was reading the Peter Biskend book about the 70s filmmakers…shit, I can’t even remember the title now. Anyway, there was a quote from Robert Towne…and remember, this book was published YEARS ago so this was just another quote in a book, not like it was going to have any bearing on a legal case. But Towne said it was really annoying when he was writing Chinatown with Polanski at Polanski’s house, that he would be trying to write but Polanski would always be running out to take photos of topless young girls in braces swimming in the pool. Of course per Hollywood, Towne seemed more annoyed that Polanski wasn’t paying attention to his genius than anything else.
“I can only assume from your anger that you believe this should all go away… and haven’t really considered the crime much. That’s why I feel compelled to continue to point it out as what it is… not as some fanciful abstract created by people who have decided that Polanski is somehow the victim here.
If the description of the crime invokes an emotional response… well… you’re a human being. Sorry to remind you.”
Poland, I assure you that my anger rests entirely with you and your shallow and manipulative methods of trying to persuade other people of the validness of your points.
“I can only assume from your anger that you believe this should all go away… and haven’t really considered the crime much.”
First of all, you wrote all that before any one of us had a chance to respond. And do you really honestly believe that your readers are so dumb that they don’t know what it is Polanski is occused of or need you to understand the implications.
You know pretty fucking well that we HAVE considered them and are doing your damned hardest
to guilt us into agreeing with you.
“That’s why I feel compelled to continue to point it out as what it is…”
Where do you get of on thinking that you are in position to do so in the first place? Your own sense of duty? Well I am here to tell you that it’s skewed. And just because you have a platfrom in this site… a sketchy proposition in a first place… moral judment calls like that is hardly what people come here for.
Stop trying to guilt people into hating other people. Let them make their own decisions and abandon the whole “Still Like Polanski? Really?”, “Well have you considered that rape means…”. You are not making the occusations concerete, you are just revealing yourself as really sick man.
And it’s not like this is anything new. You’ve written tasteless sentences before and were called on it, on these forums and not just by me. You have an agenda to sell and you clearly don’t care about how you go about selling it. Your moral superioracy is laughable.
And one more thing, I entirely object the notion that taking into consideration what happened to Polanski earlier in life makes me support anal rape. Neither does insisting that victim’s opinion in the matter is worth something.
The fact that you even maginalized Geimer so much that her feelings are completely irellevent is pathetic. I’d like to remind you of something, here, Bozo. Just because she “settled” hardly required her to be so vocal letting her move on with her life. She didn’t have to say those things. There is more in play here. But of course, let’s ignore that since listening to the victim might require you to abandon your crusade for your sense of what’s right is supreme. A scumbag is a scumbag.
See, normally I wouldn’t call Polanski a victim but I can’t help but wonder if columns like this one bring a new meaning to this proposition.
Well, listening to the victim sort of IS irrelevant. I mean, it’s a nice thing to do and all, but at the same time some victims, if they get raped, may say she wants the guy to get drawn and quartered. Okay, thanks for the input but that’s not going to happen either.
Or like DP says, the abused wife who goes back again and back again and always drops charges. Doesn’t mean no crime happened. I’m sure more than anything she doesn’t want to hassle with this shit from long ago, she wants to live in peace. And she could always tell the state she won’t testify, or if she does she’ll support Polanski on the stand so they better leave her alone.
I mean, I think DP is taking things WAY strong here…but he’s not wildly wrong in a lot of ways either.
Geimer’s willingness to forgive speaks well of her, I suppose, but it IS sort of irrelevant. I might forgive a guy who beats me and takes my wallet, but I’ll bet you won’t find too many people who think he should get away with it.
I’ve been part of this discussion before and it ended badly. You do wonder about the timing of all this other accusations, and I did wonder out loud in another thread whether this was his only ‘indiscretion’. But these new accusations should have no bearing on the Geimer case, or on Polanski’s sentence.
But to all those who just want this to go away and the state should just let bygones be bygones, I wonder how much of it is because of who Polanski is. When we hear that a cold case of 20 years was finally solved and some Joe Schmoe raped some underage girl or two or three, and was finally found and brought to justice after all these years, isn’t there a collective sigh of relief and that justice is finally done? That a debt to society is finally being paid? You can quibble about the length of the sentence all you want, but we’re generally glad that guy is off the streets and paying for his crime. And he doesn’t get to dictate what he should pay for that crime either. Self imposed exile in Europe is not a penalty, its an extended vacation.
Polanski did what any guy with resources would do, he had the ability to run, and he did. OJ had the ability to hire the best defense money can buy, and he did. Difference is, OJ never admitted his guilt, Polanski did, that was never in question. Doing the time is not an option, its the law. The only thing that should be up for debate is how much time.
I must say, “Pete Grisham,” I think you are a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
If your issue was with me being tasteful, I don’t think we’d be having the same exchange.
If your issue is, as you say it is, with me “trying to guilt you,” you have a right to feel that I am trying that. But I am not.
If you are offended that I am saying that if you support Polanski here, you are supporting an pedophilic anal rapist who gets his way by drugging children… well… got me!
I’m not saying that you, as an individual, are a fan of pedophilia, anal rape, or giving children drugs. It’s not unlike supporting abortion rights and not being “in favor” of abortion. Almost no one is “in favor of abortion.” But as a conscious supporter of a woman’s right to choose within reason (which for me means viability), I hsve s responsibility to be conscious that I am supporting women’s right to a procedure that does, in fact, involve the snuffing of a potential life that also often has little tiny hands and legs, etc when the procedure is done. It is not an sbstract… on either side.
And what I believe and why I keep pointing to the crime is that those who support Polanski have made this into an abstract… like an old debt that he never paid back to some rich guy… like a burden that, yeah, is due, but give the guy a break. And to my eye, that’s bullshit.
And you using Samantha Geimer as an excuse for your moral relativism is as ugly a choice as you could make.
There may be someone out there who really does care that Geimer is still going through this and sincerely wants it to end for that reason. But I don’t for a second believe you are one of those very few people. I believe you are enraged because I indirectly (or maybe directly… who knows who you are?) called you out for being on the wrong side of this ugliness.
Marina Zenovich is a talented filmmaker. And I am pleased she’s doing the Mark Harris book as a film. (I am less thrilled that she is unlikely to ever do an interview with me about it because of my position on Polanski.) But she has made this a cause… and she, like many others, are on the wrong side of morality, not to mention the law. For some things, there are no easy excuses…. and that’s all they have here.
Still, I am insanely ambivalent about the man’s work. I went to see his new film. I wrote about it. I praised his talent. I bought the Criterion blu-ray of Repulsion as soon as it was available. If I am a hypocrite in this, it is that I don’t choose to simply avoid all of his work.
But I don’t think he deserves a death sentence for this act. I think he deserved more time for the crime, but the system has failed before and it will fail again. I don’t think his case needs to be reopened. I just think he needs to come back to LA, face the court, and get the sentence he pleaded to and perhaps, a short sentence for fleeing and costing the government, certainly, hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result.
His art? It was colored from the start by death and many other horrors from his youth. It was later colored by the murder of his wife and coming child. And indeed, it has surely been colored by this event and the subsequent years. It has also been colored in a positive way by his long marriage and children. And on a smaller scale, the Oscar for The Pianist.
And by the way… the same thing was true of Bill Clinton. If you don’t care that he got sexual favors from a willing subordinate in the White House, good on ya. But let’s not pretend that defending the man who did that goes directly against long-held feminist dogma that was jettisoned in favor of him. Let’s not pretend that a president of any corporation would not have lost his job within weeks had he been caught in that situation. Let’s not pretend that getting a 20 year old intern to blow you when you are POTUS is a challenge that makes you a stud and not a pathetic lech.
You want to rage about Geimer’s “make it go away” position and are deeply offended by the mention of the act that was performed on her against her will? That doesn’t make you a scumbag… but it sure suggests you are an expert in denial.
Thanks to everyone else for your thoughtful comments, whether you agree with me or not.
Oh get off your high horse, you supercilious twat. (“Disgusting”)
I prefer it when you’re turning greener than the hulk over your envy of Nikki Finke.
always nice to have anonymous people proving my point about not taking responsibility for anything other than their raging whims.
the moment you deign to dictate what is moral, you lose all credibility…. your ‘opinion’ of what is moral is exactly that (an opinion) and nothing more…. that said, it’s not unusual for males of your ilk to feel entitled and omniscient….. but, that’s still not an excuse……
“males of your ilk”
really?
that is part of your credibility argument?
it requires a sense of entitlement and omniscience to feel that child rape is immoral?
really?
and when, exactly, should anyone deign to take a position on what is moral? never? is that what you see as a worthy path?
i find the idea of dismissing a discussion of morality by claiming there is some problem with discussing/”dictating” what you think is moral kind of lame.
i don’t question your right to disagree. but the idea that no stand is the only proper stand… can’t see that at all.
we’re not talking about whether someone is attractive or not… or if intentions are positive or negative… we are still, as best i can tell, discussing rape… no?
It’s baffling to me that people want to let Polanski slide on this. It’s also kind of pathetic how the substance of the dissenting comments here are things like, “David Poland is presumptuous for making a moral judgment.” Yeah, that has so much to do with the case. I’m sure Polanski’s lawyers have that argument all lined up, should this case ever get back into court. “But Your Honor, to make a moral judgment here is self-righteous!”
But it’s not surprising that criticizing the messenger is the best you can do, because the actual message is unassailable:
Fact: Polanski confessed to a crime. Fact: Polanski should be sentenced in a court of law for the committing the crime.
It is REALLY not any more complicated than that, however much people want to muddy the waters with such irrelevant observations as “It was a long time ago” and “The victim forgave him.” None of these are LEGAL arguments. They’re not even MORAL arguments. They are the emotional manipulation used to try adjust legal, ethical, and moral standards when they “feel” inconvenient to us.
As someone else mentioned, if this wasn’t about Roman Polanski but about some otherwise unknown person, the public discourse would be so very, very different. But he’s an artist we know through his work. Suddenly we have to confront the reality that justice applies to people we know more about than just what they’re charged with. If all we know about someone is that he’s “a rapist,” we’re okay with rendering justice. When we see more of the picture, justice becomes a harder pill to swallow.
But wake up, for crying out loud. There is ALWAYS more to the picture. People are never just “good” or “bad,” “sympathetic” or “unsympathetic.” The entire reason for having a justice system with fairness and integrity is that the rules AREN’T freely adjusted by how sympathetic a defendant is perceived to be. A fair legal system punishes people who break the law. Period. It’s not about punishing “mean” people, or letting “good” people off the hook. The day we empower the courts to make those sorts of general judgments about the relative worth and value of individual people will be a tragic day indeed.
I highly doubt any of you people defending Polanski here REALLY want to live under a legal system that would bend the rules for one person and not another. But that’s the logical end of your arguments. It’s also the logical end you incorrectly ascribe to the other side. No one, as some of you are suggesting, is calling for us to “hate” Polanski. Once again, it’s not about whether you love the guy or hate him; it’s about the necessity of our legal system rendering justice for a crime. Whether you love or hate him is a personal matter you are free to decide for yourselves. But that decision does not and should not have any bearing on the legal side of the matter. Even if you serve on a jury, your personal feelings should be set aside.
It boggles the mind that some people can’t make that mental separation — or, worse, recognize the importance of doing so.
Is anyone not disgusted and outraged when they hear about a priest molesting a young male or female, regardless of whether it happened last year or 30 years ago? If the priest is still alive and has escaped justice, should he be off the hook and allowed to live the rest of his life peacefully? I’m sort of at a loss to explain Polanski’s defenders and/or sympathizers. He drugged and raped a minor. There’s no disputing this. A grown man gave a girl drugs and then forcibly had anal sex with her. Sam says it well above (and Dave has been right on as well). It’s insane that some feel Polanski should not be suitably punished for what he did.
I don’t post comments very often. But it seems to me that this is about something larger and more important than most of the subjects you see on entertainment web sites. Simply put, should rich and famous artists be subject to the same law as the rest of us?
Roman Polanski drugged, raped and sodomized a child. She repeatedly asked him to stop. He didn’t. She asked to leave. He prevented her. He was interrupted while raping her, left, and then returned, removed her clothes for a second time, and continued. When she told him she was not using birth control, he switched from vaginal rape to sodomy. Later, he was arrested, spent slightly more than a month under psychiatric evaluation, and then, when he came to believe that the judge might reverse an earlier agreement and sentence him to real prison time, Polanski fled the country.
Whether the victim had a terrible stage mother, was previously promiscuous, or personally wants Mr. Polanski to escape punishment is both morally and legally irrelevant. Whether Mr. Polanski is a brilliant filmmaker who has himself suffered unimaginable personal tragedy is equally irrelevant. It is even irrelevant whether or not a second accuser has come forward, or whether he has a documented history of being sexually attracted to adolescent girls, although, clearly, he does.
He raped a child. He ran away. He should be brought back to face the bar of law, just the same as anyone else. There’s really nothing else to say.
Maybe crass to talk up his movies in such a thread, but vaguely on topic:
Is it just coincidence that suddenly CHINATOWN, of all massively popular (and chronically re-released) library titles is entirely OOP on DVD? As is BITTER MOON, as is THE TENANT.
Don’t really buy many DVDs anymore, so maybe they’ve been off the market for some time; But after (belatedly) checking out KNIFE IN THE WATER and CUL-DE-SAC lately, not to mention GHOST WRITER, wanted to pick up a couple of his other classics, only to find a curious number of his big-name movies are tough to find now.
Is it possible studios yanked some of these because Polanski’s back in the news, and didn’t want to be seen as profiting off the controversy?
Or is it just that a lot of old library stuff is going OOP because nobody buys SD DVDs anymore?
I don’t know why that is Lex. I think there was an issue with the Chinatown DVD being a poor transfer (washed out), so hopefully they’re planning a better version.
I’d hate to be Polanski’s current wife right now. I wonder if she’ll leave him or not.
Well, she married the guy knowing he was wanted, so probably not.
Only 11% of households have Blu-Ray players so yeah, a lot of people are still buying regular DVDs.