Candice Bergen | 10/05/2009 12:00 am

Candice Bergen: An Alternative Punishment for Roman Polanski

In response to: Should Roman Polanski go to prison?

The Roman thing is complicated as we all know. It brings out the dark, avenging side of America, yet it is a crime. It was absolutely a criminal, indecent, amoral act and should be acknowledged and in some way paid for. But he is a brilliant, gifted artist. He is a father. And he is 75. How much time should he serve? And why is he not allowed to be home in Switzerland under house arrest? With his kids? Why in prison? What should not happen is his being made an example of with a harsh sentence. There should be a resolution that factors in his contributions and his age. Prolonged house arrest?

277 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

M R,

Candice’s accomplishments as an actress have nothing to do with her views on Roman Polanski, in my opinion.

It was you who connected the thought that Candice might be so hard up that she might want or need a part in one of Polanski’s films. That is why I listed her many, many roles in film and t.v. It was to counter your notion that she must be "hard up" and need a role in any film, Polanksi’s or others. Make up your mind about what you’re expressing and then, write again. And once more, whether you’re a child or not, realize that Murphy Brown might have "wiped the floor with RP" but so might Kojak or The Police Woman or The Mod Squad. All of these are just characters and Candice just happened to play Murphy Brown. Your comment that Candice must feel the need to lick his boots so that she could get a part in one of them is just inflammatory. Candice is a gentle soul with a good mind and heart who just happens to be on the panel of wowOwow and was asked to respond to this question. Perhaps you surround yourself with "boot lickers" but Candice does not and is not one. The freedom that gives you and Candice the right to speak also gives you the right to "name call" (i.e. "boot licker"), but on this site, I think the Community Manager has made a statement about that, so you’re out of line.

By Murphy Mac on 10/07/2009 7:48 am

e-mail alert

I cannot understand any other reason for Candice to stand behind this rapist than because she wants to be in his movies. Why else would a woman with a daughter do this? She is no gentle soul if she thinks that Polanski should be freed just because of his contributions to the movie industry. How ridiculous. So what if he made Rosemary’s Baby? I love that movie but that doesn’t mean that the director has the right to rape a 13-year-old girl. Come on now.

By Miriam Robin on 10/07/2009 7:55 am

e-mail alert

It was absolutely a criminal, indecent, amoral act and should be acknowledged and in some way paid for.

That is what Candice said. She never said he should be freed. I’m not going to debate Candice’s right to her opinion nor that she was asked to state her opinion because she’s on the wowOwow panel. I hope the panel tosses her a harder question next time like, "What can we do to please Miriam Robin?"

By Murphy Mac on 10/07/2009 9:02 am

e-mail alert

Okay, Murphy Mac. I just thought that Candice’s comment that they should consider Polanski’s works and age was inappropriate in this case.

By Miriam Robin on 10/07/2009 9:15 am

e-mail alert

Murphy Mac is right on track with a question just like this. If only we could please all who’ve come on bobbin, especially those like vivacious Miriam Robin. Vengeance is mine saith the crowd, who speaketh with voices vociferous and loud.

By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 10/08/2009 4:48 pm

e-mail alert

The character of Murphy Brown was a brilliant woman who would have wiped the floor with Roman Polanski (and with anyone who tried to get him out of prison).

_______________________________

And the character of Shirley Schmidt was a brilliant woman who probably would have wiped the floor with Samantha Geimer.

By Baby Snooks on 10/07/2009 7:05 pm

e-mail alert

And given her to Denny Crane to sort out her particulars.

By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 10/08/2009 4:50 pm

e-mail alert

And the elderly nazis that we catch up with? should they not be prosecuted and punished due to old age and ingenuity to escape prosecution

By Carol Weinman on 10/06/2009 8:21 am

e-mail alert

I cannot think of anything more vile than comparing a Holocaust survivor to a Nazi.

By Baby Snooks on 10/06/2009 8:54 am

e-mail alert

You are reading this in reverse. I referred to elderly Nazis who got caught for their crimes in their old age not elderly survivors. You are the reason people don’t use these forums with anonymous people who hide behind their fake names.

Specifically I was referring to people like Eichmann and his like who are captured in their later years. Should we let them off because they are old. Our legal system cut Mr Polansky considerable slack more than once in the last 25 years. To use his horrible experience in the Holocaust as an excuse to rape, drug and escape froom justice is an insult to all the six million who died many of which are my blood relatives. Hope we can agree on this point and sorry you misunderstood.

By Carol Weinman on 10/06/2009 2:27 pm

e-mail alert

I read what you posted for what it was. I am reading what you posted in response for what it is. I did not say that because he is a Holocaust survivor he should be excused. What I said was it was vile to compare him, in any manner, to a Nazi. Which you now have done twice. You have dishonored the memory of the victims as well at this point. I am reduced to tears to think that a survivor would do so and then attempt to justify it. I have been reduced to tears at several points in all of this.

By Baby Snooks on 10/06/2009 2:57 pm

e-mail alert

Again sorry you continue to miss the point. I am not comparing him to a Nazi but rather I am comparing letting old age be an excuse for a crime as the living SS Nazis did. It’s just as well to refer to any aged criminal. Perhaps we should let Mr. Madoff out of jail due to his age or maybe Mr Gotti should have been let out due to illness. You want to make this a jewish issue and it is not. I hope you also cry for Mr Polanski’s victims that he was tried for and those who he managed to escape being tried for. I will no longer continue this convaluted conversation with an anonymous person. I hope you have tears for all the minors that he drugged and raped

and used his religion and status as an excuse for. As for dishonoring survivors, I suggest you look to your anonymous self-serving self. You are not the moral arbiter for Holocaust survivors either.

By Carol Weinman on 10/06/2009 3:37 pm

e-mail alert

Yes, Carol, you could have compared this situation to anyone, and there have been many who have been convicted of a crime they committed years ago and are now elderly; but you didn’t. You brought in Nazi’s, therefore connecting this Polanski business with what went on in Germany. Not comparing, mind you, but making a connection. Words matter.

By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 10/08/2009 5:00 pm

e-mail alert

Roger from Ohio thank you for your comment. Remarks like "she says to forget it", well of course she wants to forget what horrible thing was done to her. All these post supporting Candice’s statement, which by the way I like Candice & her art tremendously are to me disturbing. "Why didn’t she scream" my god maybe she was so drugged she couldn’t. The remark about how he was so distraught over his wife’s murder. So we wake up one day and say "I know what would make me feel better I’m going to sodimize a 13 year old. I hardly post anymore because I’m so disenchanted by what our society is willing to accept when it comes to behavior in all forms. This is about hollywood & the people that think they are so special they can forgive because that is what they do to protect their next movie, or project. They would support guys like that & Woody Allen because they can open doors to careers. So bottom line is it’s about money not loyalty. Deep down people stick by people for a reason and sometimes that support is about greed. He could of paid the money & took the punishment but he choose to run and never since tried to reach out for a possible resolution to what everyone refers a crazy judge out to get him. I’m sadden that he even has children because this will stick with their last name forever.

By Barbara B on 10/06/2009 8:35 am

e-mail alert

On top of everything else, Matt Lauer interviewed Debra Tate, Sharon Tate’s sister, who has kept in touch with Polanski, and she says that this was not a classic case of rape—she describes herself as a victim’s counselor—and although a few years ago she spoke to Polanski in favor of his returning to the US to stand trial again, she changed her mind about whether he could get a fair trial recently after speaking to people in the DA’s office.

What could be clearer? Polanski "deported" himself to avoid a vindictive, crooked judge and badly functioning system. He did a criminal act in that regard but the whole deal should really be resolved in another way, not with the publicity-hungry bloodhounds of the DA’s office or LAPD calling the shots.

It is true that this whole mess stinks of politics and vendettas and backroom dealing.

It wouldn’t matter to me if he were a famous director or Joe Shmoe. His victim forgives him, he passed the psychological and did time; he was messed over by an unreputable judge, his Swiss time should count in a sentence and he should pay the woman what he offered to and let the whole thing be over.

By F Fox on 10/06/2009 9:16 am