Talk:Roman Polański

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roman Polański article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Contents 1 rape charge 2 Fourth paragraph under "criminal indictment" 3 Sharon Tate's murder 4 Consequences of the rape case 5 References 6 Speculation on Polanski's motives? 7 Regarding his name 8 Article move 9 Geimer Testimony 10 4th and 5th Paragraphs 'Criminal Indictment' Edit 11 Adrien Brody 12 Facts

[edit] rape charge

why does this article put the blame on the child and neglect the fact he could have urged her to tell her mother she wants to stay? and he had power over her and authority so obviously she wasnt gonna fight him, on top of it he had to get her inhibitions down with alcohol and drugs. If this kind of thing were allowed it would set a precedent for child pronography. Also he knew how old she was beforehand and set up the photo shoot himself not the mother, he also had another underaged victim who was 15-16 who was ana ctress right afterwards showing that he had no symphany and really is a pedophile.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.135.56.61 (talk • contribs) .

Is it worthwhile to add more details about his relationship with the young girl, or is that just not worth rehashing in an encyclopedia? It is a part of what makes him a significant figure. David 19:42 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

Well, yes, if he claims it was consensual or something I think that would be relevant--regardless of whether we or the court agree with him. My $.02 (we mention Hitler's hatred of the Jews & how he blamed them for Germany's problems; that doesn't mean we agree, of course). --KQ 19:56 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

Views have been advanced that Samantha Gailly (her maiden name)'s mother set up the whole situation as part of an extortion plot against Polanski. This theory, discussed in Polanski's autobiography, deserves further investigation. While this does not exonerate Polanski, it suggests that some sort of charges should have been brought against the mother and at the very least she should have been deprived of custody. --209.178.190.82

Well, investigate it yourself and then hope a contributor picks it up off a site or book or whatever. I'm sure it'll be appreciated, but the Wikipedia doesn't conduct its own investigations. It makes summaries and references reports already made. You know, like an encyclopedia. 68.9.205.10 14:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's plenty of links in the article (and I'll add one from the victim's article). This is a significant event that has greatly affected Polanski's career, at the very least by limiting him to what countries he can be in, so it deserves mention. Also, the victim deserves some credit here. I'll fix that. --ssd 04:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is more "career" info in the "controversy" section than in the "career" section. I feel this article needs some re-organizing. --Feitclub 03:38, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

And it's hardly appropriate to include being done for statutory rape in the introduction. That nowhere near covers half his significance, but it does cover half of the introduction. I'm removing it from the intro for now. Hardwick 07:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The sentence was replaced. Does the crime have to be in the lead paragraph? It was reprehensible, but it doesn't (shouldn't) define him as a figure. --Dpr 03:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does. He fled the US to avoid prosecution and remains to this day a fugitive, refusing to take the risk of having to face Justice or having to deal with his crime. That says something about his basic character. CFLeon 03:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Samantha clearly says that the sex was not consensual. Although the charges were reduced to statutory rape, it seems obvious from the evidence and the presence of drugs that a rape has been committed. [1] "It was not consensual sex by any means," wrote Geimer in her article. "I said no repeatedly but he wouldn't take no for an answer. I was alone and I didn't know what to do. It was very scary and, looking back, very creepy." I think it is important to mention this, because a lot of people think that raping a minor automatically means "statutory rape" which is rather demeaning to minors (i.e. it implies they can neither give nor withold consent). Obviously rape is worse than statutory rape, and I think the original charges need to be pointed out in the article, preferably before the reduced charges are mentioned, to clear up the widespread misconception that Polanski's crime involved consensual sex. A5 19:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth paragraph under "criminal indictment"

This paragraph appears to be blaming the victim for Polanski's rape. When a 43 year old man violates a child of thirteen there is no excuse and this paragraph must be re-written, unless it is wiki policy to blame victims?

What do you mean? If you're referring to the parenthesis, it simply states Polanski's own version, from his autobiography (not "wiki policy"). --Mathew5000 19:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Tate's murder

Was Sharon Tate eight or four months pregnant (there seems to be some inconsistencies here) ? -- Tochiro

She was 8 to 8 1/2 months pregnant - don't know how someone could think she was 4 months... -- FireflyAngel

There is an inaccurancy: "It may be telling that Polanski chose to play the lead in his next film, The Tenant (1976), the story of a Polish immigrant living in Paris". The film doesn't find out Terkovsky's nationality. He represent of all immigrants who can't adapt theirselves. BTW: This Film is very good.--62.87.163.40 22:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consequences of the rape case

1. On extradition it is said that Polanski is a French citizen. Is that the case?
2. Did the state of California request the US government to convey a request to France that Roman Polanski should be prosecuted? I know at least one case where a French citizen was (successfully, if I remember well) prosecuted in France for a murder committed in the US.
3. Is it true that Polanski has never since returned to the US, for fear of arrest? David.Monniaux 18:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

The references section here is huge, and far outweighs the needs of the article for citation and further reading. I don't think the goal here should be to annotate every book and citation on Polanski's life, but rather to include some gems which are good overviews or provide specific citation for article text. I know nothing about the citations (and don't speak the language in which many are written), so I don't think they do either of these things adequately. Perhaps someone with a little more expertise can trim this list down to a reasonable size? --ABQCat 07:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a problem. I've been thinking that because this is English language Wikipedia, everything of any other language must go! Probably a lot of others could go too - I don't believe for a second that they were all used in creating the article. It really looks like just a list. Rossrs 10:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation on Polanski's motives?

"It seems somehow important to Polański at this point to make a film for children, and maybe also for his own children." Whose judgement are we reading here, about what "seems" important to Polanski? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This might have come from an interview. (referneces?) As the movie has not yet come out, it may be too soon to speculate much about it. --ssd 17:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it may be in one of the 420 listed references. ;-) Do you wanna look for it, or shall I? Rossrs 10:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding his name

Shouldn't his name be spelled "Roman Polanski" instead of "Roman Polański" on EN, since almost everybody uses "Polanski"? WhisperToMe 03:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the original spelling should be used. Following this logic, Lech Wałęsa should be redirected to "Lech Walesa" as this is perhaps the version the world is most familiar with, but which looks pretty odd to a native speaker of Polish. "Almost everybody uses..." Generally no one can be expected to know and use foreign diacritics, but this is an encyclopedia after all, so IMO native versions of names should be preferred. -- Ijon-Tichy 12:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Tell that to Confucius (Kong Fuzi).--Greasysteve13 12:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article move

I think the article should be moved to Roman Polański. I guess it was created here before Wikipedia started accepting diacritics in titles. What do you think?--SylwiaS | talk 09:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, he's credited in English films without the diacritics - Isn't he living in France now? WhisperToMe 02:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The name is originally spelled with ń, and is therefore more correct that way. It also does not confuse anyone to leave the diacritic on (no ambiguity, the n can easily be discerned, etc.), and it was most probably due to technical restrictions, carelessness, and/or ignorance (or a policy based on the like) that the name has been spelt Polanski on movie posters, etc., rather than because of a specific wish of Mr. Polański to spell it without the diacritic. As Wikipedia supports Unicode, there is on these grounds no reason to drop diacritics of this sort. – Krun 16:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Please realize that using diacritic marks in links results in an invalid link. The search program interprets the diacritic as nonsense, not the intended character. CFLeon 21:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geimer Testimony

If someone is deceived into doing something, then they didn't give their consent even if she wasnt raped and didnt say no and the whole thing is made up. Also, if someone drugs a woman/girl and gives her alcohol to break her inhibitions before having sex with them its also rape. Anyway, you could tell how old she was by looking at her face, she still had a kids face, so although her body was developed you would have to be retarded not to tell shes a kid by looking at her baby face. Also he couldn't give consent because of her age, thus it is statutory rape. Allowing 13 yr olds giving consent would lead to child pornography being wide spread.

I have been scrupulous in citing the Geimer testimony transcripts, insofar as the "rape" allegations are concerned. Anyone who has questions about it shoudl read the actual transcripts, which are eye-opening. --TallulahBelle 21:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If she hadn't cried "rape" and got me sobbing my heart out, I just might be tricked into thinking Polanski was telling the truth when he said he was set up. No offence meant, but I truly cannot imagine any sane person actually swallowing this. Go back and read that bullshit she told the police, and see if I'm not kidding... it reads like a rehearsed checklist of evil things to do to little girls, plus she even added that cute little detail about her period so that we all know he is kosher about menstration even when he's high on a drug that she knew more about than he did! These lurid stories are fine for the likes of Dr. Laura, but this is really beneath the standards of wikipedia to treat these allegations as even marginally reflecting what actually took place (especially since we have only Geimer's unreluctant word for it). Sweetfreek 09:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 4th and 5th Paragraphs 'Criminal Indictment' Edit

These paragraphs were consummate examples of 'bias by ommsion' that my history texts are so fond of mentioning.

For example, they stated 'Geimer's mother asked her directly if she wanted her to come pick her up. Geimer said no, she wanted to stay with Polański'. Not only had the author neglected to mention that prior to this Polanski had said the photoshoot remained unfinished, they had also expanded on Geimer's testamony of merely "No" [2], thus implying a familiarity not stated as present.

Furthermore, the sentence, 'Geimer, knowing full well that it was a third of a quaalude tablet, said, "Okay"' neglected to point out that (if we are not disputing the accuracy of Geimer's statement as a whole) by this point Geimer was completely intoxicated. It is unlikely anyone aged 13 and drunk knows 'full well' anything.

Using as much restraint as I can... I have no idea what the author was thinking with the concluding sentence 'They then proceeded to continue shooting photographs, and eventually to have sex'. Not only does this imply consent (which according to Geimer was not given), it also completely ignores the issue of ASSAULT. To describe any alleged rape as merely, 'to have sex' indicates both bias and an incredible lack of respect.

Theoretically these edits have removed most of the POV in these paragraphs - I have no problem altering/debating/defending as needed... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nylarathotep (talk • contribs).

I think Nylarathotep may have shown a little too much restraint. I edited it a small bit more, but overall it seems POV to give all these details of what led up to the alleged rape, without going into detail about the alleged rape itself. I'm not suggesting we do that, but rather that we strip down the section to some basic facts that are clearly relevant to Polanski's life. (All the direct citations of the court transcripts are, to me, a bit of a red flag suggesting an element of original research. We should ideally be citing newspaper articles or books, so that it isn't us making the judgment call about what the important elements are.) --Allen 06:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adrien Brody

A lot of Americans actually think Roman Polanski is Adrian Brody, because they've never seen Polanski, but they see "a Roman Polanski film" and then they see Adrian Brody. At one point after Adrian Brody's anti-war oscar acceptance speech, Chris Rock (I think it was chris rock) said "Didn't that guy rape a little girl?" on a talk show, and in fact nobody corrected him. While I find this kind of funny, the image of Brody above Polanski is probably just making things worse. 66.41.66.213 12:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"A lot?" I've never encountered this. One unfortunate mix-up, if that happened, is not evidence of a widespread misunderstanding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.131.12.228 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Facts

Shouldn't the quote from an E! clip show be removed since it is by definition an opinion, not a fact? If you can fit it in somewhere else it is an interesting comment that I personally agree with, but putting it in a "fact' section is pretty dubious.