March 13, 2003

The weekly MCN Oscar column is here.  Because the THB webmistress is traveling today a morning load isn’t an option, so I’m just going to allow the Geimer transcript conversation, that started on MCN (with an update)  and moved to the THB ROTD section yesterday, to continue here today:  There is some dicey language, and no discussion of rape is going to be completely appropriate for all readers, so please be warned.  I am a little uncomfortable as well because I do believe that there is more to the appearance of the documents than coincidence and I don’t want to be acting as a shill for the badly intended.  But THB is a forum for serious discussion and this is certainly that.  In any case, I’ll see you tomorrow…

READER FOF THE DAY:  ORBISON’S OBSESSION writes: “i noticed in 'deep... south's' assessment of the polanski/geimer thingie, he/she (i'm guessing he) goes to lengths to detail samantha's lack of good judgment and behavior during the incident, but fails to include the fact that samantha said 'no' (at least from what i've read) more than once when polanski was trying to have sex with her, which should have been the end of it.  since when does a rape victim have to be an innocent virgin who has never drank alcohol in order for her to be a victim? 

i'm seeing a young girl who was being a tease to a famous director, drinking alcohol and taking drugs (all very sophisticated to a teen, no doubt) and probably realized to late what she had gotten into; when it came down to it, she said no, probably unable to do much about it in her drug induce haze (have you ever seen a young girl on a Quaalude? i have, and there's not a lot of fight in that puppy). polanski was a grown man, and he should have known better.  he is the one solely at fault, not samantha.  samantha was foolish, but that's what 13-year old's do best.  a forty year old man, on the other hand, has no excuse.

should this have any bearing on a stupid oscar race? who cares.”

THE BOOKWORM (NOT LA TENIA) writes:  “Naturally, I'm forced to begin my rant with the disclaimer that I'm neither a Puritan nor a prude. That said, I'm struck by Hollywood's moral hypocrisy. They're willing to embrace a kiddie raper like Polanski - I don't care how culpable the girl was, she was 13 and the law's the law - or the incestuous Woody Allen (I don't care if it was "only" his step-daughter!) simply because they make good films. Being a fine director doesn't give you a license to do anything you want! They're not above the law. There are a lot of talented people rightfully behind bars because their obligation to pay for their crimes supercedes their artistic skills.

Hollywood is willing to forgive - even to celebrate - any actor or director no matter what their crime is - drug busts, wife-beating, murder/manslaughter, rape, incest - provided they are 1) good at their profession and 2) their politics skew to the left.

Tell me, who do you think Hollywood would rather fete right now? Roman Polanski or Charlton Heston? Heston's big crime is to be a vocal proponent of gun ownership and the NRA. As far as anyone knows, though, Heston has never raped a girl, married his step-daughter or killed his wife. And yet Heston's transgressions are apparently far worse in Hollywood's eyes. I  don't hear George Clooney making cracks about Polanski or see Michael Moore making a film about child rape and interviewing him. Heston would never get a standing ovation now at the Oscars but they'd all be on their feet applauding Polanski despite what these court papers suggest.”

THE NUDGE writes:  “How the fuck can you post that idiots comments about how Polanski didn't rape that girl?

If that fucking asshole had any intelligence and read the deposition SOBER, he would know that when someone says no and you cum in her, that's rape. SHE'S 13 and WAS SCARED!  Who gives a shit if she's she had sex twice and took off her blouse and took a Quaalude.  Wow, it's the 70's and everyone knows about sex -- BRILLIANT POINT YOU STUPID FUCK.  It's disgusting and he should burn in hell for what he did (let alone picking up girls two days after Sharon Tate's Murder). So I guess when an 8 year kid takes off his clothes for a child molester that makes him a willing participant?  If someone knocks on the door and they don't scream for help that allows someone to want to fuck a 13 year old girl in the ass?

I want DEEP DOWN SOUTH's phone number so I can find him and kick the living shit out of him.  Who gives a shit who wins the oscar?  You want Roman to win, fine.   But please don't so that this girl wasn't raped, because she was.  She was drugged and he got her drunk and had sex with her.  You're a real man Roman!  It wasn't consensual in the least bit.  I'm assuming that's how Deep Down South gets most of his tail, when he's not stringing up minorities and killing gay people.”

EXTRA EXTRA L writes:  “If Deep South is in any way a reflection of the belief system of the U.S., we are truly a sick, diseased nation. A 13 year old is a CHILD. This particular 13 year old may have been a precocious child, the product of  irresponsible parenting, worldly beyond her years, etc., etc., but none of those things made it legal for Roman Polanski to take advantage of the situation. The fact that we are in any way discussing whether or not he should get an award (or be allowed into the country, has suffered enough, etc.) is directly related to his status as a movie celebrity. Just last week, a teacher was arrested for having sex with some of her male students. There are no allegations that she drugged her students to gain their submission. Yet, there is virtually no one who would suggest that her actions, if true, are not criminal in nature. Catholic dioceses and clergy around the world are having to deal (in some cases criminally) with the consequences of actions similar to Polanski's. Any suggestion that that 13 year old child deserved what happened or that its criminal nature is diminished because she wasn't sufficiently innocent reflects nothing less than evil. As to the suggestion that Polanski "has paid" for his crime, he has not. He fled the jurisdiction in order to avoid paying for it. It sickens me that we seem to be in a time in our nation's history when any atrocity can be justified when the person accused is sympathetic enough or holds the "correct" political view. The AMPAS may very well bestow an Oscar upon Roman Polanski, the quality of the work may even merit the honor. However, there should be no question in anyone's mind that when they ship that Oscar to Paris, they will be shipping it to a man who deserved to suffer the consequences of his actions but showed himself a remorseless coward and ran.”

THE HOBB-ETTE writes: “What planet is this person from?  I guess he must have read some other grand jury testimony than I did, because what she (Samantha) said sure sound like rape and sodomy to me.  Why is it that if women do not scream right at the moment that someone else in the same position feels they would scream, is it then by that same person considered consensual?  And how has Roman Polanski paid for his crime?  He’s lived overseas, which is where he was born anyway and had a pretty productive career.  How is that punishment?  Most other “regular” people, accused and convicted of the same crime, fleeing the jurisdiction would be strung up for it and wouldn’t be so easily forgiven.  How should that affect the chances for The Pianist?  First I think the film should be judged on its merits, not the criminal history of the director.  But I am so torn about it.  First why do people work with someone like Roman Polanski in the first place, I can’t see how it would be prestigious to work with someone who is a pedophile?  I feel the same way about Woody Allen, rightly or wrongly.  They make great films, so it is okay to forget what other things they have done in their life.  And yes, Roman Polanski lost his wife and unborn child in a way I wouldn’t wish on anyone, but that still does not justify his actions with that girl or give him a freebie.  Back to The Pianist, I don’t think Adrian Brody or any of the other nominees should be punished by not winning because of Roman Polanski.  By the way what parent let’s their 13 year old go off for photo sessions without a guardian, really.

I have to say that this year I am the least excited about the Academy Awards that I have ever been.  And I still can’t stand Harvey Weinstein.”

E ME: I’m here and willing to read whatever you have to say….