Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

The Liz Smith Column | 10/12/2009 3:00 am

Liz Smith: Roman Polanski and Hollywood's Big 'Oops!'

Also from Our Gossip Girl, no surprises in the sad saga of Anna Nicole Smith. And did we help Barbra hit No. 1?
Wikipedia

Image by Film Servis Festival Karlovy Vary
"Every great mistake has a halfway moment, a split second when it can be recalled and perhaps remedied," said Pearl S. Buck.

***

I wonder if Hollywood’s liberal elite is pondering its great mistake? I do mean the ill-considered drumbeat of outrage that immediately followed the arrest of Roman Polanski in Switzerland on a 1977 charge of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

If given the chance to do it again, would they re-assess, and – in the words of Barack Obama – "calibrate" their protests in a more reasoned manner? Would Debra Winger, even if she believed it, openly refer to the forces behind Polanski’s arrest as "philistine"?

Even New York magazine’s celebrity-crazed "Approval Matrix" remarked on "the weird outpouring of Hollywood support for a guy who drugged and raped a 13-year old."

Over the past two weeks a palpable – and rare! – sense of embarrassment has fallen over the entertainment community, a collective, "oops!" It’s not so much that minds have been changed, but there is a realization that eagerness to help a colleague may have actually assured him U.S. jail time. Public and media backlash was instant, and served to seemingly define the worst of what some people feel about "Hollywood types."

That broad brushstroke is unfair. Nobody who signed the petition to release Polanski from his Swiss jail cell approves of child rape. But emotion and entitlement momentarily swept aside measured response.

If Polanski himself had a shred of sense, he would have immediately demanded to be returned to the U.S. to face the music, with appropriate remarks of long-held remorse and guilt. At 76, respectably married with children, having survived the Nazis and the butchering of his wife and unborn son, and with not the slightest indication he has ever re-offended, I don’t think he would have had it too hard. Now?

Sometimes it’s best for friends to just shut up.

***

As you probably already know, Barbra Streisand has topped the Billboard chart yet again. Her "Love Is the Answer" CD is No. 1. She beat out Mariah Carey and someone or something called Paramore.

Now, just because we wrote a glowing review of Streisand’s recent stint at the Village Vanguard, we’d never dream of taking any credit for Barbra’s success. But her rep did send a sweet note – along with all the staggering stats on Barbra’s album – "Couldn’t have done it without you." He probably sent a similar missive to everybody who worshipped Barbra in print over the past week or so. Still, with civilized thank-yous an almost forgotten art, we will accept that compliment.

***

Some years ago, before the death of Anna Nicole Smith, while she was free-falling into drugs and sad exhibitionism, I said to a friend, "She is the kind of girl who, if she hadn’t become famous, would have ended up in prison for murder." My friend was shocked. I said I didn’t think Anna had many moral boundaries, and her abuse of substances lowered whatever boundaries she did have. And, she was dumb. No crime in that, but she was.

I had been the recipient of some inside info on her, too sad and sordid to print, but giving me a terrible glimpse into her life. Often, I would call a press rep who stuck it out with her for more years than I thought possible. I’d always say, "Forget about her, she’s a lost cause, what about her son?!" He’d reply, "Oh, but she really loves him," which was not the point I was trying to make.

So, does it come as a surprise that the late Anna is now being accused of once having wanted the son of her late billionaire husband dead? Nope. She was not smart or calculating enough to have planned anything, but in the grip of her addictions, her fear that she’d lose her lawsuit against the estate – could she have said it, and more than once? I think so. Luckily, she was surrounded by people as spacey and dim as she, so nothing came of it.

In a way, it’s too bad the FBI couldn’t have jailed Anna for conspiracy. She’d be alive today, clean and sober and with good behavior, out of prison before she was 45. And her son would probably be alive too.

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

Baby  Snooks

Most of those who signed the petition are not Hollywood "liberal elites" and in fact most are New York "liberal elites" or Europen "liberal elites" and the Hollywood "liberal elites" were probably hesitant to speak out because of the comments of the district attorney.  Fear is a great motivator to do nothing. And say nothing. 

Comments have been twisted along with the facts of the case itself but the majority of people who signed the petition did so out of concern over the legal aspects of this rather than the moral aspects and everyone just assumes they are all "equally" immoral and probably deserving of being burned at the stake along with Roman Polanski.

Oops? I don’t hear a collective oops. Or see a collective oops.

One of his attorneys has taken this position that his friends have done him more damage than his enemies.  He should fire that attorney.

Thank god for friends who speak out. More of them should have in the 1950s. Instead, then as now, so many just wanted to appear politically correct. Doing what’s right be damned. 

By Baby Snooks on 10/12/2009 7:15 am
E .

I wonder Baby S if you think that Roman Polanski did anything at all wrong in the case of this particular 13 year old.  

I think that Ms Smith used "Hollywood" to reference the entertainment industry not place of residence or performance.  I suppose you are based in California yourself - I hope that you don’t feel slighted at the thought of Westerners being lumped in with Easterners or Europeans! 

Perhaps Polanski needs to realize the crime he’s committed against himself through whatever internal force that has prevented him from stepping forward and accepting responsibility for his actions all these years.  Crime and punishment is a nasty business and justice is imperfect.  When you open Pandora’s box the doody will be flying and no one comes out clean. 

By E . on 10/12/2009 1:30 pm
Baby  Snooks

I was absolutely horrified at the time this happened but the point is the matter was properly investigated and properly prosecuted despite quite a few, including Liz Smith, claiming that it wasn’t. 

The victim herself has stated this was supposed to have been a closed matter. But what does she know?

By Baby Snooks on 10/12/2009 2:33 pm
E .
My understanding of the case is that it was conclusively adjudicated with some misbehavior by the presiding judge.  I do not take into account the wishes, thoughts or fancies of the victim, now an adult who may or may not have been paid off by RP to shelve the dark episode, because it is criminal to have sex with a 13 year old and it is criminal to supply illegal drugs to a 13 year old no matter how much they or their parent may want either or both to take place.  The case could not be properly closed and left for the history books because RP neither submitted himself to properly complete his prison sentence or stood like an adult and argued against the outcome of the trial based on the misbehavior of the presiding judge.  RP remains a fugitive from justice in the USA.
By E . on 10/12/2009 4:03 pm
Baby  Snooks

My understanding of the case is that it was conclusively adjudicated with some misbehavior by the presiding judge.  I do not take into account the wishes, thoughts or fancies of the victim…

_____________________________________

It has nothing to do with her wishes, thoughts or fancies but simply the plea agreement that all parties including the judge agreed to. Which the judge then decided he didn’t agree to.  After he agreed to it.  That goes far beyond "misbehavior" adng gets into the issue of double jeopardy.

As for his being a fugitive from justice who was finally apprehended by the Swiss the Swiss at this point look about as good as the Los Angeles County district attorney. They claim they had no previous knowledge of Roman Polanski entering the country and that if they had, they would have arrested him a long time ago. 

You have to have a passport to enter and leave Switzerland. Roman Polanski has residency in Switzerland despite holding a French passport. He owns a home in Gstaad. He has a car registered in Switzerland. He pays taxes in Switzerland.  The Swiss suddenly just discovered he was coming into Switzerland? This is all political. It has nothing to do with justice. 

As for the duplicity of the Swiss, they laundered money for the Nazis. That sums up the Swiss. 

By Baby Snooks on 10/12/2009 5:18 pm
E .

B Snooks - like it or not there is a process to the justice system.  Had RP only gone through the process he would have likely done little time after the sentencing.  He had a very good argument for impropriety in his trial.  Instead ran like a fool.  There is a good likliehood that at the end of this matter he still will not have to serve any/much additional time.  If he doesn’t go throught the process he/we will never know and he will always be a prisoner of sorts.  

 There is a necessary process to the laws of every civilized nation - to act outside of those laws is criminal.  Like it or not RP is a convicted criminal who ran off before completing his sentence or properly pleading that the handling of his case was unjust.

As for Switzerland and the Nazi’s etc. - please.  There were no pure heroes in that war or any other.  Tracing back throughout history there is no nation without blood on its hands.  Further, it is not righteous or acceptable for anyone, no matter how much they have suffered at another’s hands, to in turn victimize innocents. 

There are legions of prisoners who could use your support.  Which cases are you following - or is it only this one wealthy, celebrity, well-connected, powerful man that you choose to be so passionate about?

By E . on 10/12/2009 6:55 pm
Baby  Snooks

I am sorry that it appeared flip before when I made the comment that he fled the Nazis twice but in reality that is what he did and while it is easy for us to talk about ideals of justice, he saw how those ideals can vanish very quickly at the hands of one man. I would imagine quite a few Holocaust survivors in a simiar circumstance, not getting into the matter of what they have been charged with, would have have left for the safety of their own country.  People forget he was a resident, not a citizen. 

And for those who say "it cannot happen here" that is what quite a few in Germany said. Before it happened.

By Baby Snooks on 10/13/2009 4:32 am
Baby  Snooks

There are legions of prisoners who could use your support.  Which cases are you following - or is it only this one wealthy, celebrity, well-connected, powerful man that you choose to be so passionate about?

_________________________________

I’m just as outspoken about the others.  If Roman Polanski had been shunned after he moved to Paris, which in some ways he was by some, and ended up with absolutely nothing I would have been just as outspoken. 

At the time my thought was "what on earth has possessed him?"  It was the same thought I had when he had the affair with Natssja Kinski.   I will forever agree with Anjelica Huston.  He was not a bad man. Just an unhappy man. 

By Baby Snooks on 10/13/2009 6:11 am
Smarterthan That
OOPS! McCarthy was right.
By Smarterthan That on 10/14/2009 10:47 pm
keenans news
This artical is no source for their claims that Hollywood is embarassed.  Actually, they don’t feel sorry.  They actuall read the facts apparently.  It is not child rape.  She is a yound adult.  She took the drugs, they were not forced on her.  She had consensual sex, like many 13 year olds do.  Her partner just happened to have a different age.  Boo hoo.
By keenans news on 10/12/2009 7:17 am
Scarlett Ohara Mitchell
Except for the fact that there are laws against all of those acts, I might agree with you. But probably not. Boo hoo.
By Scarlett Ohara Mitchell on 10/13/2009 9:32 am
Baby  Snooks

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091011/en_afp/switzerlandusfrancepolanskicrimepeoplefilm_20091011195134

Apparently Liz at least stays current with the "news of the day" and I still stay Roman Polanski should fire the attorney. 

 

By Baby Snooks on 10/12/2009 7:23 am
Baby  Snooks
As for Anna Nicole Smith someone might point out that her mother stays current on the "news of the day" looking for lawsuits to file.  This was just more of the shenanigans of Pierce Marshall who matched the shenanigans off Anna Nicole Smith "tit for tat" and of course her tit was always bigger than his tat. Pardon the pun.  Having watched them go at it with each other in and out of the courtroom I often wondered if maybe they weren’t in love with each other. It seemed more like a divorce than a battle over an estate. 
By Baby Snooks on 10/12/2009 7:29 am
phyllis Doyle Pepe

Never was that interested in the Smith thing, but loved the "her tit was always bigger than his tat." It’s the Polanski case that has me concerned. The article that you posted, Snooks, on the other thread was so poorly written, I thought. You wouldn’t have known until the second page that Roman had been incarcerated and evaluated  for forty some days and even then the latter was not mentioned. What did interest me in the article was the preposition that during the 60’s/70’s this culture’s moral standards were in the tank and that the case at that time was viewed very differently than we view it now because sometime during the Reagan era we suddenly got Leave it to Beaver back in our lives. Really? I left teaching middle school children almost eight years ago and at that time  some of the young girls––and this was in white bread upper status Cheshire, Ct.––were dressed like hookers on parade in Piccadilly square: bellies showing, bosoms on display through tight tops, little teeny tiny skirts so short that when they sat their crouch would be in full display. Some did not leave home dressed as such, but had separate clothes in their locker to change into and out of. This was also the time when we had after school drug and sex education seminars. Last year we had three new films that dealt with much older men having affairs with much younger women. The Polanski case is a travesty and the hypocrisy surrounding this is sickening. And yes, friends that stand by you are indispensable.

 

By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 10/12/2009 9:34 am
Baby  Snooks

In absolutely no one’s defense it is next to impossible to cover it all within the "allowed column inches" or the "30 seconds
our media is restricted by. and in absolutely everyone’s defense what appears to be biased or slanted coverage is really just a matter of trying to cover what seems to be the most important points. 

No doubt one or two or three magazine articles, as opposed to stories, will be hitting the newstands by the end of the month which may, or may not, present a more balanced picture of not only the legal issues involved but also the moral issues. All of which are quite complex simply because we have become such a complex society. 

I do wish Dominick Dunne were here to write one of the articles. No doubt he could twist the turns and turn the twists and regardless of his personal opinion still give us a view of "both sides of the coin."

 

By Baby Snooks on 10/12/2009 9:52 am