|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Jan 31, 2018 2:59:09 GMT
Child rapist and pedophile and rotten human being. The fact that he made a few good movies doesn't grant him any kind of immunity for his loathsome crimes (the current number of accusations against him is about 11 at this point). Many people have lived through the horrors of war and did not become perverts as a result. The fact that this is used as an excuse to condone Polanski's filthy behavior is an insult to other survivors. As for poor Sharon Tate, he treated her like dirt, controlling the way she dressed and wore her makeup, and forcing her into threesomes with other women to fulfill his sick fantasies, despite her protests. He refused to sleep in the same bed with her after she got pregnant and demanded that she have an abortion. When she refused, he flew to Europe and had an affair with Michelle Phillips. If she hadn't been murdered, she just may have ended up miserable, drug- or alcohol-dependent, or possibly mentally ill as a result of Polanski's cruel treatment of her. Besides the forcible rapes, he also had several "consensual" affairs with underage girls. Anyone who defends this creep as some poor tormented artist should be ashamed of themselves. Tell us how you really feel, Marianne. |
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Jan 31, 2018 6:34:09 GMT
MarvI have since edited my post as Carnage slipped my mind which is worth mentioning.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 31, 2018 11:45:07 GMT
I think it's easy to pity him for the one and condemn him for the other. He has had several decades to reconcile the two. What do you mean by reconcile the two? What is it exactly, that you want him to do? He could have paid for his crime and continued his career & life. It's not a case of because his life sucked, he gets away with a crime. That doesn't even make sense as a reason to pity someone. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jan 31, 2018 11:47:55 GMT
What do you mean by reconcile the two? What is it exactly, that you want him to do? He could have paid for his crime and continued his career & life. It's not a case of because his life sucked, he gets away with a crime. That doesn't even make sense as a reason to pity someone. I don't don't pity Polanski, but I don't condemn him either. You do! What kind of Christian are you? |
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Jan 31, 2018 11:58:18 GMT
He could have paid for his crime and continued his career & life. It's not a case of because his life sucked, he gets away with a crime. That doesn't even make sense as a reason to pity someone. I don't don't pity Polanski, but I don't condemn him either. You do! What kind of Christian are you? Like many of the other so called Christians... Thinking they are better than you. Some even equate themselves to God. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jan 31, 2018 12:03:52 GMT
Child rapist and pedophile and rotten human being. The fact that he made a few good movies doesn't grant him any kind of immunity for his loathsome crimes (the current number of accusations against him is about 11 at this point). Many people have lived through the horrors of war and did not become perverts as a result. The fact that this is used as an excuse to condone Polanski's filthy behavior is an insult to other survivors. As for poor Sharon Tate, he treated her like dirt, controlling the way she dressed and wore her makeup, and forcing her into threesomes with other women to fulfill his sick fantasies, despite her protests. He refused to sleep in the same bed with her after she got pregnant and demanded that she have an abortion. When she refused, he flew to Europe and had an affair with Michelle Phillips. If she hadn't been murdered, she just may have ended up miserable, drug- or alcohol-dependent, or possibly mentally ill as a result of Polanski's cruel treatment of her. Besides the forcible rapes, he also had several "consensual" affairs with underage girls. Anyone who defends this creep as some poor tormented artist should be ashamed of themselves. How is Polanski a pedophile? Are you just throwing that term around to get some credibility to justify your own hatred of Polanski? That is an interesting point you have brought up about other holocaust survivors; but people also deal with their own traumas in their own way. Yes, Polanski is arrogant and self-entitled and in spite of whatever went on behind closed doors with his relationship with Tate, she didn't have an abortion and Polanski's 8month yr old child was brutally and disgustingly butchered along with Sharon. I think that pretty much overrules and negates any other domestic issues they may have had. Hollywood marriages rarely last. Most are born out of personal agendas and narcissism. Tate was still a grown woman and it is typical of other women— like yourself—to blame on men for their own insecurities and naivety about men and how they think they should be treated, just for being "special" female. How is that empowering. That is being needy and anemic. I don't think Polanski even understood or knew what the fuss was about regarding his arrest for having sex with a minor. It wasn't an issue where he came from. People think that his "mature for her age", sexually experienced 13yr old victim who had an adult for a boyfriend, who lied about her age, was a doe eyed innocent child. She frickin' wasn't and she was a schemer just like her mother. Why was her tramp mother, whoring out her 13yr old child for a nude photo shoot with Polanski? She too, is a disgusting, perverted rotten human being. Or do you give her a free pass, just because she is female, huh! Yes! Shame on you! |
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Jan 31, 2018 12:06:47 GMT
The issue with him is that he did this to ONE "child" who, let's be honest, had a POS mother and learned a life lesson early and the hard way (you feel uncomfortable, don't go back, stupid!). SOOO NOT BLAMING HER and in no way okaying him... In the 70's there was an awful lot of "let's see how much I can get away with" in terms of free love.
At first I thought he was a coward for skipping back to France but now I see he was making arrangements for the inevitable... He thought they were going to kick him out of the country.
And even the victim pushed for psychiatric help instead of jail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jan 31, 2018 12:07:39 GMT
I don't don't pity Polanski, but I don't condemn him either. You do! What kind of Christian are you? Like many of the other so called Christians... Thinking they are better than you. Some even equate themselves to God. The term "hypocrites", comes to mind. |
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Jan 31, 2018 12:08:58 GMT
Like many of the other so called Christians... Thinking they are better than you. Some even equate themselves to God. The term "hypocrites", comes to mind. Is that another way of saying assholes? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jan 31, 2018 12:20:13 GMT
The issue with him is that he did this to ONE "child" who, let's be honest, had a POS mother and learned a life lesson early and the hard way (you feel uncomfortable, don't go back, stupid!). SOOO NOT BLAMING HER and in no way okaying him... In the 70's there was an awful lot of "let's see how much I can get away with" in terms of free love. At first I thought he was a coward for skipping back to France but now I see he was making arrangements for the inevitable... He thought they were going to kick him out of the country. And even the victim pushed for psychiatric help instead of jail. Part of me feels, that Polanski needed to stay and face the music, because I don't believe it would have been that detrimental to him in the long run. He may have ended up leaving anyway, due to perhaps being ostracized in his own movie circles. Yes, like you have commented, he just expedited the inevitable. He had already pleaded guilty to a plea bargain deal, and it was the judge presiding over his case, that reached over the bench and said he was going to change his mind and send him back to jail and then deport him. From what I have read about, this is legally unethical. From a legal pov of view, before he absconded, he did everything that was asked of him. These things would have had to have been brought to light by Polanski's legal team. He was sentenced to a 90day evaluation, he wasn't deemed a pedophile by the psychiatrists that examined him and they let him go after 45days. The "system" let him out, that is on their onus too, when they already had him locked up. I have mentioned in another post, that I also feel that Polanski exiling himself, worked in favor of the judge presiding over his case. It saved him face, due to his own corrupt and unethical legal behavior. They don't want Polanski back, it would open up another disgusting can of wriggling worms, especially after 40yrs. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jan 31, 2018 12:21:20 GMT
The term "hypocrites", comes to mind. Is that another way of saying assholes? They pretend to be so holier than thou, because they follow the word of the bible, but have Christ's messages and what he really stood for, all arse about face. |
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Jan 31, 2018 12:41:29 GMT
What do you mean by reconcile the two? What is it exactly, that you want him to do? He could have paid for his crime and continued his career & life. It's not a case of because his life sucked, he gets away with a crime. That doesn't even make sense as a reason to pity someone.
I don't feel sorry for Roman Polanski because "he got away with a crime". I feel sorry for RP because of the Holocaust and Sharon Tate. The fact that he escaped further persecution actually makes me feel good inside. It's about time terrible things stopped happening to him. And I chalk it up to karmic justice.  |
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Jan 31, 2018 12:44:40 GMT
Marv I have since edited my post as Carnage slipped my mind which is worth mentioning. I thought "Carnage" was great! Many of the classic Polanski elements are here. So nice to see a great director not slipping while he moves into his later years. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 31, 2018 13:10:25 GMT
He could have paid for his crime and continued his career & life. It's not a case of because his life sucked, he gets away with a crime. That doesn't even make sense as a reason to pity someone.
I don't feel sorry for Roman Polanski because "he got away with a crime". I feel sorry for RP because of the Holocaust and Sharon Tate. The fact that he escaped further persecution actually makes me feel good inside. It's about time terrible things stopped happening to him. And I chalk it up to karmic justice. Which goes back to what I said in the first place and which you seem to fail at. I can pity his life experiences without connecting to the fact he's a on the lam for rape and my lack of desire in making a criminal richer. He is not be persecuted just because he faces the same charges that every other rapist does that doesn't have his money or connections. |
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Jan 31, 2018 16:37:31 GMT
Child rapist and pedophile and rotten human being. The fact that he made a few good movies doesn't grant him any kind of immunity for his loathsome crimes (the current number of accusations against him is about 11 at this point). Many people have lived through the horrors of war and did not become perverts as a result. The fact that this is used as an excuse to condone Polanski's filthy behavior is an insult to other survivors. As for poor Sharon Tate, he treated her like dirt, controlling the way she dressed and wore her makeup, and forcing her into threesomes with other women to fulfill his sick fantasies, despite her protests. He refused to sleep in the same bed with her after she got pregnant and demanded that she have an abortion. When she refused, he flew to Europe and had an affair with Michelle Phillips. If she hadn't been murdered, she just may have ended up miserable, drug- or alcohol-dependent, or possibly mentally ill as a result of Polanski's cruel treatment of her. Besides the forcible rapes, he also had several "consensual" affairs with underage girls. Anyone who defends this creep as some poor tormented artist should be ashamed of themselves. How is Polanski a pedophile? Are you just throwing that term around to get some credibility to justify your own hatred of Polanski? That is an interesting point you have brought up about other holocaust survivors; but people also deal with their own traumas in their own way. Yes, Polanski is arrogant and self-entitled and in spite of whatever went on behind closed doors with his relationship with Tate, she didn't have an abortion and Polanski's 8month yr old child was brutally and disgustingly butchered along with Sharon. I think that pretty much overrules and negates any other domestic issues they may have had. Hollywood marriages rarely last. Most are born out of personal agendas and narcissism. Tate was still a grown woman and it is typical of other women— like yourself—to blame on men for their own insecurities and naivety about men and how they think they should be treated, just for being "special" female. How is that empowering. That is being needy and anemic. I don't think Polanski even understood or knew what the fuss was about regarding his arrest for having sex with a minor. It wasn't an issue where he came from. People think that his "mature for her age", sexually experienced 13yr old victim who had an adult for a boyfriend, who lied about her age, was a doe eyed innocent child. She frickin' wasn't and she was a schemer just like her mother. Why was her tramp mother, whoring out her 13yr old child for a nude photo shoot with Polanski? She too, is a disgusting, perverted rotten human being. Or do you give her a free pass, just because she is female, huh! Yes! Shame on you! Yes, Sharon Tate was a grown woman, but she was still a product of her time--a wife who had to obey her husband, no matter how bullying and depraved he was. That's what wives did half a century ago. And of course the 13-year-old girl was likely set up by her conniving mothe.a But a child of that age still bears little responsibility for this, and your accusing her of being a "schemer just like her mother" shows that you have little understanding of children (or for some reason are trying to justify pedophilia). Polanski was (and probably still is) a sexual predator and decided to take advantage of a child just because the opportunity was there, and probably reasoned, like you have, that it was okay to drug and rape her because she'd already been "broken in." Just like he went after another girl, a 15-year-old, because she'd been raped by her father, and he probably decided it was okay because she was "damaged goods" or one of those other sick phrases that these deviants use to prey on minors. No, I don't give the mother a free pass just because she is female. And I don't give scumbags such as Polanski a free pass just because he is male and, as Polanski himself claimed, in his own words, "Everybody wants to f*** young girls!" Maybe he's too depraved to "understand...what the fuss was about," but in fact, most men don't have these sick cravings for children. Polanski and his defenders shouldn't try to give decent men a bad name. Shame on you and everyone who tries to rationalize what he's done. |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jan 31, 2018 18:09:34 GMT
Used to be a time when it was just the movies from the 70's.
And its terrible what he's endured in life. Victim of Nazi persecution. Sharon Tate/Charles Manson.
But the molestation charges... Bottom line? He never paid for that crime. He's not exempt because of previous suffering.
But I have to ask... exile? From where? From Europe because of the Nazis, or from the US because of the molestation charges? If its the former I have no sympathy. He spent the last few decades evading US law while living with all his money, making movies and having Hollywood actors flock to his locations. That's not exile. That's freedom outside of countries with extradition.
My point of view says that yes, he gets a free pass. I feel sorry for him. I think he's had a haunted existence. And the girl wasn't, apparently, all that traumatized. She says so all the time. If she can forgive him so easily, it shouldn't be so hard for others to do the same. You're right about my incorrect use of the word exile.. I should have said "self-imposed exile", or "fleeing the country". Good for him. He has self-preservation instincts. So basically you don't have a problem with an older man raping a 13 year old girl. Ok, got it. |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jan 31, 2018 18:33:17 GMT
Used to be a time when it was just the movies from the 70's.
And its terrible what he's endured in life. Victim of Nazi persecution. Sharon Tate/Charles Manson.
But the molestation charges... Bottom line? He never paid for that crime. He's not exempt because of previous suffering.
But I have to ask... exile? From where? From Europe because of the Nazis, or from the US because of the molestation charges? If its the former I have no sympathy. He spent the last few decades evading US law while living with all his money, making movies and having Hollywood actors flock to his locations. That's not exile. That's freedom outside of countries with extradition.
Errrrr! How hasn't he paid?  ?
Uhhh.... How HAS he paid? Was he in jail for the crime? When he does time for what he did then he'll have paid. Until then he's evading the law. What's hard to understand about that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jan 31, 2018 19:00:33 GMT
Errrrr! How hasn't he paid? ? Uhhh.... How HAS he paid? Was he in jail for the crime? When he does time for what he did then he'll have paid. Until then he's evading the law. What's hard to understand about that?
Yes, Polanski was in jail for a crime he pleaded guilty too. THEY LET HIM OUT. Are you only hearing what you want to, because of your own hate and displaced feelings of anger and aggression, for something that you refuse to look deeper into? |
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Jan 31, 2018 20:04:50 GMT
? Uhhh.... How HAS he paid? Was he in jail for the crime? When he does time for what he did then he'll have paid. Until then he's evading the law. What's hard to understand about that?
Yes, Polanski was in jail for a crime he pleaded guilty too. THEY LET HIM OUT. Are you only hearing what you want to, because of your own hate and displaced feelings of anger and aggression, for something that you refuse to look deeper into? Actually, if I remember correctly,it wasn't jail bit 90 days in a psychiatric hospital for evaluation. They did indeed let him out at 42 days. That's on them, he can not be judged on what the hospital decided. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jan 31, 2018 21:16:44 GMT
Yes, Polanski was in jail for a crime he pleaded guilty too. THEY LET HIM OUT. Are you only hearing what you want to, because of your own hate and displaced feelings of anger and aggression, for something that you refuse to look deeper into? Actually, if I remember correctly,it wasn't jail bit 90 days in a psychiatric hospital for evaluation. They did indeed let him out at 42 days. That's on them, he can not be judged on what the hospital decided. I think it was still a wing of a correctional facility. Regardless, it was still an incarceration. From a legal perspective, Polanski, his lawyers, and the DA, agreed to the terms of conditions of the deal. That is legally binding. They perhaps also thought it would just soon wash all over, over something that wasn't that much of a big deal in the scheme of things. It was Rittenband, whose unethical actions as a judge, made it go all pear shaped. Polanski would not plead guilty to a rape charge. Even the DA knew that if this went to trial, Geimer, her mother and all their previous exploits would have come to light and with the conflicting evidence provided, it would have been very difficult to convict Polanski. It was supposed to have been in the best interests of all involved. |
|
?