Update: Oreo, Dog Thrown Off Building, Was Euthanized
People Wait For Tomorrow's UWS Apple Store Opening
Emily and Sarah Kunstler, Filmmakers
Cheap Chicken Wing Deal Ruined by Gunslinging Teens
FIT Students Busted For Drug Dealing Get Probation
Legendary Director Roman Polanski (Chinatown, The Pianist), who testified against a Vanity Fair article - via video, of course, to avoid extradition in the US where that sex with a minor issue is still hanging over his head, just won his libel case in a British court. The VF's article claimed Polanski seduced a woman at a NYC restaurant en route to the funeral of his wife Sharon Tate and their unborn child, who were viciously murdered by the Charles Manson clan in 1969. So, if Gothamist gets this right, you flee a country because you're too spineless to face justice, only to seek it once a magazine dares to run some gossip - good to know that Polanski’s inability to self-examine himself is almost laughable.
However, under questioning from Vanity Fair's lawyers, Polanski did admit he repeatedly cheated during his marriage and was back on the casual sex circuit only 4 weeks after Tate's death, which Conde Nast questioned as a "callous indifference to her memory." Polanski maintained it was "quite the contrary, [as it] would be callous indifference if I did so using Sharon's name …" and that he seduced Swiss finishing school girls just the Christmas after to prove his "continued existence" after his wife's death. And Mia Farrow, star of Rosemary's Baby, testified that Polanski was grieving when she met him at Elaine's, shortly after Tate's murder. Give this man an Oscar! Oh, wait, they did.
Now Vanity Fair, which called Polanski a "fugitive from morality," is set to pay him $87,000. According to the AP, editor Graydon Carter found that verdict "amazing," and that "as a father of four children, one of them a 12-year-old daughter, I find it... outrageous that this story is considered defamatory given the fact that he cannot be here because he slept with a 13-year-old girl a quarter of a century ago." We're just wondering if Carter is going to make Polanski come to the U.S. to claim his check.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Whoa, Gothamist! Little rough on ol' Roman there, ain't'ch'a?
The magazine told a lie. He caught them. He won. What that has to do with a 36-year-old-case escapes me. Except to say that a man's three-decades-plus conviction does not give VF the right to publish things about him that they have since acknowledged aren't true.
He's done a lot of scummy things in his life, but good for Polanski for suing and winning.
Mia has a soft spot for child molestors. Graydon understates giving a quallude to a 13 year old then violently raping her when he describes that Polanski "slept with a 13 year old."
whoa, Tim N. - little easy on Roman aren't ya.
First of, we all know Roman's a scumbag. So that we're clear on that. But was this case about what he did or what VF did? With all the things Polanski's done in his life, why did VF have to make something up? And because RP is a bad guy, does that give Graydon Carter (not a rapist, granted, but no saint himself) the right to say anything about him that's juicy in print?
I'll certainly not argue with anyone over RP's character. But that doesn't make it okay to do things against him that you wouldn't want to see done to others. Two wrongs don't make a right.
No, it doesnt give Carter a free pass to publish smut. BUT, at the same time, a person unwilling to observe a judicial system certainly shouldnt be allowed to then depend on it once he deems it necessary --it is completely hypocritical. If Roman can't respect a court than no court should respect him.
The judge shouldn't hand over money to Roman until he himself plays by the system and agrees to own up to his own actions.
I think the point is, that RP is choosing when and how the law can work for him, and ethically this is what is questionable and under scrutiny; VF should not (and arguably does not need to) fabricate or mislead readers with inaccurate information about RP, however, why should VF be fanancially libel to RP? How about a retraction or correction in an upcoming issue?
Not being an expert regarding either, it still seems to be a matter---as someone points out above---of the difference between ethics/morality and the rule of law.
Capone murdered, destroyed businesses, sold alcohol illegally..and what did they get him on...tax evasion.
This doesn't excuse Polanski, but the 70s were a far different time than today...particularly in Hollywood.
For those who haven't...skim "Hollywood Babylon" to see how Tinseltown has played by a different set of rules since it was first founded...
A magazine which said he propositioned a woman shortly after his wife was murdered in 1969.
Mr Polanski had been libelled "for the sake of a lurid anecdote".
The magazine unsuccessfully argued the incident did happen.Polanski won.
I'll certainly not argue with anyone over RP's character. But that doesn't make it okay to do things against him that you wouldn't want to see done to others. Two wrongs don't make a right!!!
Dar... couldn't have said it better myself.
If only you were thirteen year old girls you could go celebrate vindication of character with uncle Roman.
Bob... um... no.
Go back and re-read, please.
Again, not to excuse RP, but did anyone know that the victim in this case, who is now a housewife in Hawaii, said that RP should be pardoned? That she was a star-struck kid and that she forgives him? Check out:
http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html
Despite what Bob may think of me, I am not in the habit of doing 13-year-olds (not since I was 14 anyway)nor am I in the habit of defending those who do. But the facts are the facts... something Graydon Carter should remember.
Chinatown sucked too. Always did. Always will.
What I find utterly irritating about the man is his repeated claims of fear of returning to the United States. He has put off what would be a vastly easy trial case (victim forgives him, his wife was murdered by the most famous cult leader in America...) for the plain hysterics of it all and he is less capable of fulfilling a jail sentence than ever. Any pleas for due process by him should be taken with a brick of salt.
The British judicial system screwed up. They shouldn't have allowed this case to go forward. The Vanity Fair editorial office is in the U.S., the incident in the story took place in the U.S. RP is in France. Then to cap off the nonsense the Brits allow RP to testify via videolink for the first time in Brit. history. The Brit judicial system really bent over forward for Uncle Roman.
Tim :)
France and UK are in a union Im told.
Clinton testified by video for blowjob trial.
VF is a multinational company.
Polanski is interesting artist.
Polanski is nympo.
Potential sex + qualudes = youth unimportant.
Indian brides often below 13 yrs young.
French say: Old enough to bleed Old enough to breed.
Tim :)
France and UK are in a union Im told.
Clinton testified by video for blowjob trial.
VF is a multinational company.
Polanski is interesting artist.
Polanski is nympo.
Potential sex + qualudes = youth unimportant.
Indian brides often below 13 yrs young.
French say: Old enough to bleed Old enough to breed.
poor rina -- never had wild and misspent youth. tant pis.
Well Rina, did you?? I certainly can't surmise from what you've written. But apparently Graydon Carter and the rest of the Vanity Fair crew didn't for sure. I guess they just write about boffing teen Greek royalty on huge boats, they never did it themselves. Pity.