This new petition is the result of a phone conversation a few days ago with Jean-Luc Godard. The principle is simple: a gesture of solidarity accompanied by an appeal to Swiss justice, signed by film makers, and only film makers, who have in common that, like Godard, their works have been named as Official Selections of this year's Cannes Film Festival.
It does not include all the 2010 nominees. Some because they did not wish to be included, others, more numerous, because we simply did not have enough time to contact them. All of them are invited to join us. All, selected in every category of the finest festival in the world, are invited to add their names, as soon as possible, to those of the first signatories.
No doubt some disgruntled souls will argue that Polanski's friends have once again rallied. No doubt there will also be those who, hiding behind their nervous and cautious reticence, will push their shamelessness to the point of warning others against a text that can only "irritate the American judge even more." A coward's argument! A pathetic objection! Here at La Règle du Jeu, we believe that, in the more than ever tragic solitude in which Roman Polanski finds himself, any and every gesture of support should be accepted. We think all means are good ones, all, if they allow him to escape the Kafkaesque isolation that has been his lot for the past seven months. And we find it, especially, a very strange conception of justice and morality that Roman Polanksi, already the sole defendant in the world never to have been granted the right to extenuating circumstances or the statute of limitations, may now be, as well, the only one forbidden to see his comrades, his colleagues and, sometimes, his friends denounce the denial of legal right of which he is the object.
The 2010 Cannes Festival begins in a few hours. There remain only a few hours to say, adamantly, that, no matter how brilliant the films presented at this new Festival, a man will shine in his blinding absence: Roman Polanski.
Petition
The undersigned learned to their amazement of new elements of information provided by Roman Polanski in the text published last Sunday, May 2nd, on the website of La Règle du Jeu, the review published under the direction of Bernard-Henri Lévy. In particular, they learned of the existence of this essential piece of evidence, placed under seal, strangely, by American justice: former District Attorney Roger Gunson's deposition of last February 26th declaring, under oath, that, 33 years ago, Roman Polanski served the entirety of his sentence at Chino State Penitentiary, according to the decision of the judge charged with his case at the time (before the latter, under the pressure of public opinion, suddenly changed his mind and retracted his decision). Conscious of all the Festival they will be attending this year owes the author of "The Pianist", whose absence there will be strongly felt, conscious as well of the basic rule of law that maintains it is impossible to judge and condemn a man twice for the same infraction, and conscious, finally, that the United States's extradition request is based upon a lie, they hereby appeal to the Swiss authorities, entreating them not to believe the word of Governor Schwarzenegger and the prosecutors of the state of California.
Premiers signatories :
Jean-Luc Godard
Mathieu Amalric
Xavier Beauvois
Agnès Varda
Bertrand Tavernier
Olivier Assayas
Jean-Stéphane Bron
Patricio Guzman
Jean Paul Civeyrac
Katell Quillévéré
Marshall Fine: Movie Review: Carnage
If they had sex and she said nothing at the time, isn't she breaching the terms of their agreement selling Roman Polanski out and betraying him so Charlotte can have another 15 minutes of fame on top of her first 15 minutes of fame and financial gain that she obtained fraudulently?
All so Charlotte could have her cake in Pirates and eat it too! At the expense of Polanski.
No wonder she wanted to meet the Los Angeles District Attorney because they do have something in common.
But as Charlotte made her bed so she could be in the movie Pirates, then she should lie in her bed, because she could have said no and walked away from Pirates. No-one FORCED her to be in that MOVIE apart from herself. She seems to have prostituted herself in order to be in that movie.
continued below
Quote
Asked by a reporter on Friday whether Lewis – a former Playboy cover girl, who has not appeared in a film for seven years – was "shopping for a book deal", Allred briskly responded: "Next question."/ppI know Polanski well, as we recently collaborated on a film of my novel, The Ghost. So when, on Saturday afternoon, I was telephoned by a reporter from the Mail on Sunday, I could guess what it was about. They were running an "exclusive interview" with Lewis: did I have Polanski's telephone number so that they could contact him? I suggested they call his agent./ppOn Sunday morning, the interview duly appeared across two full pages, with the dramatic headline: "I will never forgive Polanski. I'm telling the truth and Roman knows it is the truth." Ah, but is it? In fairness to the Mail on Sunday, they did at least do a little research in the cuttings library before going to press, and actually included a comment Lewis had made on the record about Polanski in 1986: "I found him very attractive. I'd love to have had a romantic relationship with him – and a physical one. You can't help falling in love with him. But he didn't want me that way."
I may have some empathy for Charlotte if she had walked away and had not worked for Polanski after being allegedly sexually propositioned & abused by him but that is apparently not what happened.
Walking Away from Pirates and Polanski would have at least shown that Charlotte Lewis was not prostituting her body to gain a part in the movie
Yes it is sad if that is what it would take for Charlotte to be in Polanski's movie, but perhaps for certain projects in this artistic medium they need more than just a platonic relationship to be really inspired, or maybe if they are attracted to the actress then it would not work out or be inspiring if the attraction was not returned obviously. But if the actress does not have mutual attraction and begins to succumb to sex in exchange for the part in the movie this is where things go wrong.
And if Charlotte Lewis had not said yes when she meant no she would not have had a movie career or the power to harm him now.
If Charlotte did have sex with Polanski for a part in Pirates, said nothing, got the part and is upset about it now, what a betrayer, a real snake in the grass she is. She got her side of the bargain and now wants to stab him in the back for her fraud and prostitution.
I loved "It does not include all the 2010 nominees. Some because they did not wish to be included, others, more numerous, because we simply did not have enough time to contact them."
Puh-leaze! The "others, more numerous" were all people who do not wish their names sullied by being used to defend this fugitive child-rapist, no matter how great a filmmaker he is.
Levy, you're making me vomit YET AGAIN.
I enjoy a lot of your comments on the blog and I often laugh out loud reading your hilarious posts.
We differ on the Polanski case. He committed a crime. I call it "rape" and do not ever soften the meaning of that word with legal definitions of ultimate charges in the plea bargain. Is there more to the Polanski case than "this fugitive child-rapist," completely leaving aside any talent or artistry in his life?
I know what you think of Polanski. But what do you know of Roman Polanski, the person?
I was stunned by the vitriol when blogging began about Polanski. On both sides. I do not understand why there is so much hatred. On both sides. Americans have lost their imagination and their sense of decency about people when those people are in trouble. Both Roman and Samantha have been troubled ...more by the public demonizing and the machinations of the malevolent LA DA than anything else. They have made peace with what happened. Roman committed a crime. He was and is remorseful. Samantha has stated that what he did was wrong, and she asks that we all move on.
But we don't.
Why did Roman Polanski want - need to be with a girl of thirteen in 1978? What happened?
Cont'd...
4:40 PM CST
...I will add to my response to you below that many American men (most likely a very huge number) are intimated by intelligent, aggressive women...Consequently...again, conjecture...Perhaps (maybe)... these men prey on young adolescent girls because they are intimidated by older, more mature women...
There.
I've given you a free pass. Now run with it.
J.B. 666 (..."It's a trap"...)
5/19/10
http://homylafayette.blogspot.com/2010/05/tale-of-two-dungeons.html
5:35 PM CST
Quote :
..."Polanski is NOT Panahi"...
So what ?
...He's not one of the Coen brothers either...he's not Charles Manson and he's not a pedophile...Whats your point ?...
J.B.
5/20/10
If Polanski did not drug and rape a child then he should have no qualms about proving his innocence in court. Instead, he fled the country and lives in very posh, cultured, and secure isolation. Hardly a punishment.
- - - --
Then 40+ director later writes a book where he calls 13 year old girl a liar by STILL insisting that it was all, in fact, consensual.
emheller:
You are wrong. He was not prosecuted for rape. What do you mean by rape?
2:10 PM CST
Quote :
"...if the Holy Ghost intervenes on his behalf..."
...Well actually I do have such plans, provided I can sustain my usual wine consumption below my usual norm...
The Holy Ghost
5/14/10