A taste of justice. Or maybe not. If you're Roman Polanski, you've got half a shot. You've got your Hollywood friends signing for your support. Support of what, exactly? You're a good director. Yes. You were nabbed at a Film Festival, an international clusterfuck of stars in their habitat. True.  My only guess as to why these cheerleaders are willing to sign their names on the very sullied dotted line is they're not reading what you and I are. They must be looped in by misleading, dumbed-down sentences. "We don't like your law at our artsy-fartsy festivals",  "It was a lynching!"

That has to be it. It can't be that these somewhat knowledgeable folk just outright think it's all about wiping the slate clean.  

I like to stay out of the celebrity world, its goings on and such. But I can't keep my mind to myself here. I feel as if every cheap name on that petition should reflect the obvious poor judgement (and perhaps, morals) of said signees. 

It's not about art. It's about law. Two things that hardly sound compatible. But that's what we're talking about here.

I love Rosemary's Baby. I liked The Pianist. I loathed that it was heralded and welcomed with standing ovation-considering the common knowledge of why it's director was a no-show- and has been for 32 years. An absence due to a still lingering rape charge (against a minor) he fled in 1977.  You see this is a crux for most people in the know of this story.  There are two points of view here: Either you: A) Think this 13 year old girl had consensual sex with a 44 year old man. In which case you must acknowledge that this is a charge of Statutory Rape. Or B) You think she was coerced by a big-time director (she was) drugged (she was) and raped (she was).  Both of those are unlawful, and carry mandatory jail time. It's not convoluted. It's very clear. There are always detractors, which is what makes this such a thorn in my side.

 Rape is a crime that is never one-sided. There's always the victim blaming. It carries with it accusations of ones integrity, sexual histories, provocativeness, etc. But one thing that is a standout here and in cases involving minors; none of that matters.  It's a crime to have sex with a minor.  I don't care if that minor had previous sexual relationships with others. If you call yourself an adult, you are accountable. So be accountable Polanski.  Evading your crime for over thirty years may have enabled the victim, as an adult, to pacify. But not how that 13 year old girl in 1977 felt. She was the victim. She had the crime done to her. The state has a right to uphold that charge. I hope, they succeed. 

I could say, that I am so gung-ho, anti-Polanski, because I experienced abuse in my childhood.  Not an unwarranted statement--this is what the supporters drudge up before spewing Holocaust and murder as valid excuses for Polanski's debauchery.  But that's not important.  Nobody cares about personal struggles. They evoke sympathy, but should not deter the just, moral cause.  What this is really about is the message. We expend effort to educate our youth on the importance of standing up for yourself.  We tell young women to know the risks, because they are all susceptible.  We tell them that the law works to protect victims. But when we break it down, we haven't really hit the message home.  

I think Roman Polanski is a brilliant filmmaker. I think Roman Polanski raped a 13 year old girl 32 years ago. Yes, I think its still relevant.