Free Polanski?

A few days ago I questioned whether or not our resources should have been spent finding a way to capture Roman Polanski for a rape he committed 30 years ago, considering the victim had forgiven him. I just think there may be other crimes more worthy of our attention.

With that said, there are good reasons for continuing to pursue Polanski. And now that he is captured, there is absolutely no reason to let him go without a full accounting of his crimes.

So, what the f*$% are these guys thinking?

Woody Allen, David Lynch and Martin Scorsese today added their names to a petition demanding the immediate release of Roman Polanski from detention in Zurich. … The petition has now been signed by more than 70 film industry luminaries, including Polanski’s fellow directors Michael Mann, Wim Wenders, Pedro Almodóvar, Darren Aronofsky, Terry Gilliam, Julian Schnabel, the Dardenne brothers, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Wong Kar-Wai, Walter Salles and Jonathan Demme. Actors Tilda Swinton, Monica Bellucci and Asia Argento, as well as producer Harvey Weinstein, have also put their names on the petition.

4 Comments

  1. Ian

    They are thinking, “But he’s such a great artist!” and not “But he was a child rapist!” I think Polanski is pretty indefensible at this point, and I find it shocking that people were willing to keep working with him up til now anyways.

    “[13] year olds, Dude.”

  2. Chris

    He can be a good director and a terrible human being. I just don’t understand how they can say he should be let go. He like plead guilty and stuff…

  3. Daimao

    I can see how guys like Woody Allen or Marty might defend someone in the business who they have such high regards for, personally and professionally. Child rapist or otherwise, I can imagine the desire to circumvent the law on this one and let Polanski slide, especially considering it was thirty years ago. Doesn’t make it right of course, but would justice really be served by locking the guy up now?

  4. Chris

    Daimao,
    That’s the generous explanation. Otherwise I think it’s more likely they are just protecting “one of their own”.