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 | 10/07/2009 5:00 am

Liz Smith: Polanski Conversations Prevail

Also from Our Gossip Girl: The ‘evolution’ of Fred Thompson … Danielle de Niese, opera goddess on Bleecker Street … Barry Manilow’s holiday jingles.
Roman Polanski © PR Photos
"Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you mad," wrote Aldous Huxley.

***

Remember the presidential race? It was only "yesterday" metaphorically speaking, but it seems now like a million years ago.

Well, if you do remember, you should vividly recall Fred Thompson, the senator from Tennessee, who was also on "Law & Order" for several years as the gruff district attorney.

Fred decided, well into the race, that he really didn’t want to be president and dropped out fairly early. But this big, tall conservative is back in action.

He and his wife, Jeri, do a daily radio show for Westwood One, which is heard in 173 markets all over the country. Fred also just returned from Kentucky where he shot the first part of his role in Disney’s upcoming feature, "Secretariat," opposite Diane Lane and John Malkovich.

In a few months, he’ll be in Flint, MI, to portray William Jennings Bryan in the feature movie "Alleged." This drama is about the famous Scopes "monkey trial" where he argues with the great Clarence Darrow about the origins of man. The Darrow role will be played by Brian Dennehy.

Hmm, talk about typecasting – Fred Thompson as William Jennings Bryan!

***

Soprano Danielle de Niese knocked them dead last night down at Le Poisson Rouge on Bleecker Street in Greenwich Village. This performance kicked off the singer’s new hotly anticipated Decca recording, "The Mozart Album." She squeezed it in on her night off from her adorable performance as saucy Susanna in "The Marriage of Figaro" at the Metropolitan Opera.

2009_1007_danielle_de_niese_c_Decca_Chris_Dunlop1.jpg
Danielle de Niese © Decca/Chris Dunlop

Danielle, born in Australia and raised in Los Angeles, is of Sri Lankan and Dutch parentage. She got her first break at age nine when she won a competition with a Whitney Houston medley. Danielle is in the tradition of the new opera stars – beautiful and trim and, in December, she’ll be marrying Gus Christie, the Englishman who runs the prestigious Glyndebourne Opera Festival.

This is a big week in New York for opera buffs. The late great Beverly Sills’s collection of gowns, paintings, opera scores, jewelry and everything else she garnered in a lifetime goes on sale at the Doyle Galleries this very day. Bidding will be especially hot for a helmet that the Wagner Society is bent on nabbing for its own.

***

Arguments as to whether filmmaker Roman Polanski should get what he deserves or whether he should just waltz off into the sunset scot-free after all these years are dominating dinner tables.

But it looks as if about 80% of people polled think he should face the music, at last, and only the showbiz crowd (ever tender-hearted) and European intellectuals are on his side.

Any day now, we will have on wOw a "Conversation" where Julia Reed, Joan Juliet Buck and yours truly debate this matter. Here are some points I wasn’t smart enough to make in regard to that argument as it was happening:

Polanski acknowledged in his 1984 memoir that he caused his young 13-year-old victim "considerable pain" when he committed statutory rape on her in Hollywood. He made her submit to oral and vaginal sex, plus sodomy. But according to his biographer, Chris Sandford, he made little or no visible show of contrition. He was warned at the time to limit his public appearances with "nubile young actresses" during the trial. Polanski said back then that he was "a hard-working professional obliged to deal with these distractions."

After he fled from L.A. he continued to denounce what he called "bureaucratic interference" in his life. When he left France for trips to off-limits Holland or Switzerland, he was heard to say, "I’ll be home again before there’s any legal nonsense." He even bought a home in Gstaad.

Sandford remarks, "No wonder, perhaps, that one of Polanski’s friends told me last week that Roman had possibly come to believe over the last 30 years that he was less and less bound by any restrictions on his liberty." The biographer adds a P.S."If so, it’s an assumption that may yet be tested by events in the weeks ahead."

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

Baby  Snooks

I hope the conversations at the dinner tables have been more polite than the conversations on the internet. 

I have never seen so many people who know that something is wrong attempt to maintain that while it’s wrong it’s also right. 

By Baby Snooks on 10/07/2009 6:20 am
Reader 117
Oh, but don’t you know?  It’s because he’s a talented artist!  Of course, that comes with a free pass!  (Can you sense the sarcasm?)
By Reader 117 on 10/07/2009 1:45 pm
Mugsy Peabody
Can you sense your own inability to realize that you are DELIBERATELY misreading and misconstruing other people’s opinions in bad faith to make yourself feel good about your own self-righteousness? 
By Mugsy Peabody on 10/09/2009 4:49 pm
jin yung

The mother should rape polanski in jail, but sadly he’d probably enjoy it.  both the mother and Polanski should go to jail - period.  a few years for both.  I used to go to belair, hollywood, and bevely hills parties when I was 20 till 25 years of age, and parties were filled with under age girls, and boys that were from across the street to Ohio. 

Men are pigs, but parents can be worse. 

By jin yung on 10/07/2009 5:00 pm
F P
Ms de Niese is a superb singer and she can act unlike so many opera singers of the past. She’s right up there with Joyce DiDonato, Renee Fleming and the late truly great Lorraine Hunt Lieberson.
By F P on 10/07/2009 7:30 am
phyllis Doyle Pepe
And with Frank Peterson, outstanding tenor, when singing in the shower or out standing in his fields of Minnesota green or gray, depending on the day.
By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 10/07/2009 8:48 am
F P
When not freezing his butt off in the winter :-)  How ya doing Phyllis?
By F P on 10/07/2009 9:15 am
C Hardy

I hope most of those dinner conversations are between parents and their daughters letting them know that ITS NOT OK what RP did - regardless of how many years ago it was…….I am already teaching my daughter and she is 3.

If 80% of those who think RP should serve his jail time and pay then those 80% need to find out which celebrities are supporting this man and not go see their movies - maybe that will get their attention…….

 

By C Hardy on 10/07/2009 8:02 am
Baby  Snooks

Let’s hope someone is letting mothers know that what Samantha’s mother did is not okay and before I get "flambed" again had I been trusting enough, as opposed to cunning enough, to let my 13 year old daughter go off on a "photo-shoot" with someone and this had happened, I would have pressed statutory rape charges against not only the famous director but the boyfriend and my 13 year old daughter would have been sent to a parochial boarding school for girls and I might have spoken to her by the time she turned 18 and graduated. Might have. I might not have spoken to her until she graduated from college.

I still believe this is about agenda rather than justice and that is not about what he did and shouldn’t have done and what she did and shouldn’t have done and what her mother did and shouldn’t have done but simply about what the judge did.  The judge, alas, is dead and so we can’t burn him at the stake. So we will settle for Roman Polanski without realizing we will be burning Samantha Geimer at the stake as well.  A sad day in America when we do so. 

 

By Baby Snooks on 10/07/2009 8:47 am
Carrie Auger

Amen!  One of the most well thought out and rational comments I’ve read by far.

Really, who drops off a 13 year old at some mansion to be alone with an adult male?

By Carrie Auger on 10/07/2009 2:03 pm
Rachel F

Carrie, what her mother did was inexcusable. That neither negates nor explains what he did, however. He raped her, plain and simple.

And, before anyone insists that the 40-something year old man having sex with the 13 year old girl was a mere victim of the wiles of a shameless Lolita, and not a rapist, according to the law, he was a rapist. She says she told him "no" and he did it anyway; others here care not to believe the 13 year old girl in favor of the 40-something year old man. Whatever; it’s irrelevant anyway. Legally, he committed rape. 

There is a reason that we have laws on the book to protect kids from predators (yes, that includes the "talented" 40-something year old men who rape little girls). Because kids can be talked into anything without fully understanding the consequences or implications. This girl was likely given a "pep talk" by her ‘mother’, and was certainly talked to by Polanski. Whether she agreed or not (she says she did not) is immaterial. The law is there simply because kids (that’s what a 13 year old is) aren’t mature enough to make adult decisions, and therefore — without legal protection — can be legally preyed upon and taken advantage of by unscrupulous degenerates.

Furthermore, the pretense that Polanski was just seduced by a wicked little Lolita is absurd. The man has demonstrated his penchant for young girls by raping a 13 year old and carrying on an affair with a 15 year old. Now, before anyone says the affair with the 15 year old was legal where it happened, etc., I’m not arguing that (it’s a straw-man argument brought up by at least one other poster here in previous discussions); the point is that the man clearly has (or had, at least) an appetite for children, demonstrated by his own actions, as admitted by him. That is a sick man, and letting him free after his initial crime and then fleeing the country does a disservice to girls everywhere, because it sends a clear message that it’s ok to rape and sodomize little children, at least as long as you’re "talented" and have loud or influential friends. It’s not ok. Polanski should be treated like the rapist and fugitive that he is — fame and talent aside. 

By Rachel F on 10/07/2009 3:17 pm
Carrie Auger
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that he didn’t rape her.  Just that her mom has some culpability in it as well.  What he did to that 13 year old girl was wrong.  No matter how she dressed or acted, she was only 13 and he should have known better.  But so many people are just calling for us to string him up by his neck on the White House lawn (when so many mass murderers and serial rapists are still alive and well).  This deserves some careful thought on what should happen, especially when the victim has said she doesn’t want to go through a trial again.
By Carrie Auger on 10/07/2009 4:27 pm
Rachel F

I absolutely agree that her mom is culpable as well. I think it’s a shame that she was not charged with some form of neglect/endangerment/abuse. My point was just that that is an issue aside from whether he should or shouldn’t be made to "face the music" so to speak.

As for the victim’s stance, I understand where she is coming from. It happened a long time ago, and the media fiasco doubtless only awakens fresh pain everytime. It is important, though, to keep in mind that we can’t set a precedent that it’s ok to commit this sort of crime, go abroad for 30 years, and then be completely excused. He fled because he thought he could get away with his crime by doing so. If he does get away with it, what’s to stop others from following his lead? Sadly, I’ve heard of quite a few rapists getting away with their crimes because the victim was intimidated/humiliated/etc., and so wouldn’t press charges or go through with them. And, all too often, our society looks on rape and sexual abuse (as long as it doesn’t end with the victim’s death) as a sort of unimportant crime — completely overlooking the life-altering scars that the crime inflicts on the victim as though it really doesn’t matter, because, hey, they’re still alive, right? It’s not that simple, and it’s sad that often our society can’t see that.

I don’t want him strung up or anything like that. That is far above and beyond what would happen to any other criminal in his situation — and that (what would happen to any other rapist in his situation) is exactly what I want to happen to him. He should be held accountable according to the law. Nothing more and nothing less. :-)

By Rachel F on 10/07/2009 4:51 pm
Baby  Snooks

Legally, he committed rape. 

___________________

Legally he committed statutory rape. That is what he pleaded guilty to. Not rape. There is a distinction between the two under the law per the laws regarding rape as a forced act and statutory rape as a consensual act. What you choose to think it is or choose to believe it is does not make it what you want it to be under the law. 

By Baby Snooks on 10/07/2009 7:22 pm
Jennifer Mc

The fact that he pled down to statutory rape doesn’t mean that he didn’t commit the act of rape.

The victim has said that she said no numerous times, and he drugged her and gave her wine. The crime that he was allowed to plead down to, in my opinion, doesn’t mean that the act magically became consensual.

By Jennifer Mc on 10/09/2009 2:13 pm