<p>^^^I agree that it is pretty sick-
on the other hand it also makes me think about all the cases that never get prosecuted or the ones in which sentencing seems really off the mark, as in the case of this man that my class is going to work with at the low security prison next weekend. </p>
<p>Ellebud, I said he had a traumatic life AND I said he should be punished. It is possible to hold those two truths at the same time; one doesn’t cancel out the other. I don’t think anyone here has said that the trauma he endured is a license to commit a terrible crime. </p>
<p>What bothers me is Harvey Weinstein referring to this as a “so-called crime” – as if Polanski hadn’t admitted it himself years ago. Does this mean that drugging and raping and sodomizing a 13 year old is not clearly a crime in Harvey Weinstein’s mind? Or does it mean he thinks Polanski admitted it but didn’t really do it? Also, I am rankled by Debra Winger, President of the Film Organization granting that award in Zurich, who says they are standing by him and awaiting his next great masterpiece. What is with these people?</p>
<p>Just out of curiosity because I did not follow the case 31 years ago. My understanding is that Roman Polanski was at a party held at Jack Nicholson’s house. Why was there a 13 years old there? Was she babysitting, or something? Who was responsible for the child at the party? Who invited her? That certainly does not excused Polanski’s terrible act, but at the same time, shouldn’t there have been a civil suit?</p>
<p>It was not a party. He was alone in the house with her according to her testimony when the crimes were committed. He brought her over to take photos. Where the parents were in this is unclear – the girl testified she’d had sex before a couple of time – makes me wonder how closely this child was being supervised.</p>
<p>Mimk6: I was actually making reference to a comment by a French producer (?) who made this comment. And to Debra Winger who is at the film festival where Polanski was supposed to appear and receive his award. I saw both parts of what you said where one did not negate the other.</p>
<p>The (then) 13 yo’s parents are completely irrelevant to anything. It doesn’t matter if her mother failed to stay at the daughter’s photo shoot because she was selflessly volunteering at the local orphanage, because she had to go cook dinner and pick up a sibling at soccer practice, or because there was a sale on fur coats on Saks she couldn’t miss. Why on earth is the mother being brought up? It really doesn’t make a difference if the mother had pinned a note on the girl saying, “Roman, take her,” does it? Talk about warped, to blame the victim’s mother. 100% of the blame is on Polanski, end of subject.</p>
<p>13 yo’s are routinely left with adults all the time. Piano teachers, soccer coaches, private tutors, or just family friends. Good grief, if I drop off my 13 yo to her piano teacher’s house, is that “negligent”?</p>
<p>The reason the mother’s behavior is being brought up is because in California (and I am guessing New York) there are special laws regarding minors working in show business. A parent or guardian must be present when a minor is working. The minor’s money (Coogan law) is monitored by the state. The minor’s hours of work are monitored by the state. This is to protect the minors, the production company (ies), and the production people.</p>
<p>Any parent who leaves a minor child at a photo shoot, at night, in a private home, alone is negligent. (May I add that the house is located up in the hills away from anything…including nearby houses?). </p>
<p>Please do not compare a piano teacher or a soccer coach’s activities with this. It really is different.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, you are right that it doesn’t matter, in terms of his culpability, if the parents closely supervised or not. I’m not blaming the parents for his crime. He did it. However, keeping a close eye on where kids go and who they are with is part of being a parent and, as with everything, parents have to be vigilant and wary. Those were different times, and I think parents were more trusting of other adults. However, kids who are less supervised do make easier targets for abusers. Who do you think an abuser is more likely to target? </p>
<p>It’s not negligent to drop a kid off at a piano teacher’s house, but it’s a good idea to keep checking to make sure that child feels comfortable there, etc. and that nothing seems off. Many children are abused at the hands of coaches, family friends, youth pastors, priests and other “trusted adults”.</p>
<p>Five entertainers whose work I will never pay to see:
Roman Polanski
Woody Allen
Mel Gibson
Michael Vick
Whoopi Goldberg</p>
<p>I cannot understand why these people are so popular. (Btw, I used to like Whoopi Goldberg but after hearing her defend both Michael Vick and Roman Polanski, I’ve got to wonder what she’s thinking…)</p>
<p>Yes. Although they have been strenghtened (regarding hours of work) in recent years after the deaths on set on the John Landes film. But parents on set and on the job laws have been in place since the time of the the Our Gang comedies. (And I must add that it is also the parents’ responsbilitiy to know the laws because there are times that an extra shot is needed. Or a late shoot is needed. It is the parents’ responsibility to know that the kid’s day ends at…and stick to the law.)</p>
<p>I view both behaviors (Polandski’s and the mother) as separate issues. But in this town there are cadres of mom and dad wannabees. They will do anything to push themselves or their kids foward. As someone mentioned the mom was an actress/model/whatever. </p>
<p>As for Polanski I for one view him in two lights: as an artist and as the human being. I find the latter reprehensible.</p>
<p>ellebud—I agree, while someone may be an accomplished artist, their humanity is a separate issue. It is as if Hollywood assumed that since he was not captured he could now be assumed to be “a free man” and how dare anyone impinge on his freedom. He was a fugitive, he knew it and frankly, he should be grateful for all the freedom he actually has managed to enjoy…I think it is karma that he was on his way to receive an award for lifetime achievement…</p>
<p>I was a young music prodigy who played the organ for mass at a Catholic Church starting when I was 12 years old in the 1960’s. I was routinely dropped off for practice by myself. A certain priest who happened to be my favorite was often there. Imagine my (and my parents) surprise when his name was mentioned on one of the final Phil Donohue shows as being a pedophile with young girls. Thankfully, nothing ever happened to me, but if it had, my parents in NO way would be negligent. Same goes for dropping me off at piano, or having my USA swim coach pick me up in his old VW van at 4:30 am to drive me to long course practice over an hour away! Back when RP did this, there was much more an air of innocense of trusting your children to others.</p>
<p>Without knowing the complete background of the relationship between RP and the victim and her family, in NO way could I fault her mother.</p>
<p>I think if this was 2039, and we were asking the same thing about 2009, I might have a different view.</p>
<p>There is a HUGE difference between dropping your daughter off at a piano lesson and dropping your daughter off at the private home of an actor (already notorious for drugged out parties) with a director (ALSO a member of a free-wheeling scene) for a private photo shoot. This mother is a mixture of a stage mom , a procurress , and an idiot. THIS MOTHER WAS IN THE “BUSINESS” HERSELF. She was not naive.
Just an FYI----My family and I have been in and out of the film industry for years. I cannot think of ANYONE who would think of this mother as an innocent in all this. The first question any of us ask in conversation re this situation is WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THIS IDIOT MOTHER?</p>