"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[Penton-Man]

I don’t follow that topic because I find the (original) situation so personally disgusting that I would prefer not to spend my time discussing it.

I think that the rational supporters of the Director believe that there was substantial misconduct (by the judge) in the original case and therefore the case should have been dismissed…….which it wasn’t, and furthermore, therefore believe that there was a miscarriage of justice.

Detractors to the Director seem to think that is not an issue at all or is complete hogwash and the guy should still serve serious prison time for what he admitted doing to a 13-year-old? girl…..rather than only ~ 40 days in prison for a psych evaluation.

My personal opinion is (and this does not in any way reflect the view or position of my employer) is that primary consideration as to how this matter proceeds forward through the legal system in terms of *justice* should be given to the current feelings/desires of the victim involved, and not to the cares/wishes of the District Attorney’s office or The People of California…….or a bunch of talking heads on talk shows, for that matter.

[MerrickG]

hey Penton,

Im not asking for a release date or anything but I do feel I have a moral imperative to find out.

Do you know if there are any plans to re-release Real Genius on bluray or even a dvd with a special edition treatment that it deserves? Can you at least say if its been talked about.

To this day this is still the best Val Kilmer movie right after Batman Forever, of course

Thanks.

[Jeff Kleist]

Val keeps talking about Real Genius 2, I dunno if it's going to happen, I kinda have to err on the side of no. A kid I went to HS with played Youngest John Wilkes Booth in the Abe Lincoln and his Time Machine SNL sketch, and the next age up was played by Gabe Jarret tho

Perhaps since Grant Imahara from Mythbusters stated when they busted the popcorn scene that he based his entire life on the movie, that he might be helpful in lobbying the powers that be

At the very least for god's sakes change the cover art back to the poster that the other territories are using

[Sponge-worthy]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

My personal opinion is (and this does not in any way reflect the view or position of my employer) is that primary consideration as to how this matter proceeds forward through the legal system in terms of *justice* should be given to the current feelings/desires of the victim involved, and not to the cares/wishes of the District Attorney’s office or The People of California…….or a bunch of talking heads on talk shows, for that matter.

Penton, taking the risk that I will beleaguer the point, I totally agree. Every few years this case seems to return to light in one way or another, and this poor woman--who seemingly just wants to get on with living her life--is thrust back into the spotlight. I could only imagine what the appeals / plea-withdrawal / new-trial possibilities might be going forward. The victim in this case may have to shoulder this prosecution for a substantial length of time should the accused be returned to California. So to me, it seems that the People, the aforementioned talking heads, and the District Attorney may be more interested in the proverbial pound of flesh or the closure of a case file than the realistic and pragmatic reality of what is best for the victim. It's an ugly situation all around, to be sure. But when formality trumps common sense....I don't know.
Hopefully things will work out quickly and for the best.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by ryan69969

Every few years this case seems to return to light in one way or another, and this poor woman--who seemingly just wants to get on with living her life--is thrust back into the spotlight. I could only imagine what the appeals / plea-withdrawal / new-trial possibilities might be going forward. The victim in this case may have to shoulder this prosecution for a substantial length of time should the accused be returned to California. So to me, it seems that the People, the aforementioned talking heads, and the District Attorney may be more interested in the proverbial pound of flesh or the closure of a case file than the realistic and pragmatic reality of what is best for the victim. It's an ugly situation all around, to be sure. But when formality trumps common sense....I don't know.

Of course the director in question could have ended any legal "trauma" suffered by the victim by not skipping out of the country in the first place. So who's fault is it really?

He admitted his guilt, and having a 13-year old child in my family changes one's perspective. Crime does not have an expiration date.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

My personal opinion is (and this does not in any way reflect the view or position of my employer) is that primary consideration as to how this matter proceeds forward through the legal system in terms of *justice* should be given to the current feelings/desires of the victim involved, and not to the cares/wishes of the District Attorney’s office or The People of California…….or a bunch of talking heads on talk shows, for that matter.

...right, and she's said that she wants to drop the case.

But, of course, it's not her call. Not even a little bit. It's "The State of California vs. Roman Polanski", as rape's considered by California law a crime against the state as an entity, not a crime between two individuals. As such, it's not even a consideration, legally, what the victim thinks, as it's not her right to say one way or another to proceed.

Strange, but true.

Oh, and welcome back, Penton. Still trying to get all my damn reviews done for TIFF, hope Vancouver was groovy.

[Jeff Kleist]

A reasoned stance Penton.

[Sponge-worthy]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Of course the director in question could have ended any legal "trauma" suffered by the victim by not skipping out of the country in the first place. So who's fault is it really?

That question presumes that the prosecutor is powerless in the face of the system's formality--which simply isn't the case.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Crime does not have an expiration date.

Actually it does. See "Statute of limitations."

Not applicable in this particular case though, as a plea was entered long ago. However, if there's any basis for the notion (as Penton referenced above) that the original judge was in err or even displayed misconduct, there's a very good chance the accused could withdraw his plea. In which case, the whole process would start over: pre-trial, trial, witnesses, evidence--including the victim being hauled before the media circus to testify should the accused wish to take it that far. From what I can gather, that would be the absolute last thing the victim would want. My point is, if we move beyond the "would'a, should'a, could'a" speculation of what might have been and analyze the here-and-now realistically, I must wonder if it's really justice for the victim on the horizon rather than merely a perceived sense of "justice" for everyone else on the outside looking in.

Of course, from there we get into the all-too-heady, philosophical discussions about the functions and objectives of criminal law. But I'm way too uncomfortable on this as it is.

Apologies to Penton. I yield back the thread.

[J.Cornelius]

I find it reprehensible that a man who gave drugs, raped and sodomized a 13 year old girl would garner any sympathy from some in the entertainment community or any segment of society for that matter. It is a travesty of justice that he has been a free man for over 30 years after pleading down the charges. F-HIM hope he rots in Chino.

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Of course the director in question could have ended any legal "trauma" suffered by the victim by not skipping out of the country in the first place. So who's fault is it really?

He admitted his guilt, and having a 13-year old child in my family changes one's perspective. Crime does not have an expiration date.

+1

Furthermore, just because the director paid the family millions of dollars (or so I've heard...please correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't mean it should go away because 30+ years have passed. I have a 13-year old as well and no amount of money could pay to have her innocence taken away.

[Dalese]

Originally Posted by DenonCI

+1

Furthermore, just because the director paid the family millions of dollars (or so I've heard...please correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't mean it should go away because 30+ years have passed. I have a 13-year old as well and no amount of money could pay to have her innocence taken away.

The settlement is reported to have been $500,000 with another $100,000 for interest.

Link...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movi...anski.lawsuit/

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Dalese

The settlement is reported to have been $500,000 with another $100,000 for interest.

Link...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movi...anski.lawsuit/

Thanks for finding that. My wife was my original source, so I took that with a grain of salt (hopefully she doesn't read this thread )

[HeavyHitter]

Hi Penton,

What are your thoughts on this article regarding Walmart's decision to scale back DVD and Blu-ray displays?

http://online.wsj.com/public/article...132563199.html

[DenonCI]

Costco has cut back too (at least the ones in my area). They used to have a huge Blu-ray selection and now it's essentially an end cap with a sparse amount of titles. I'm hoping they'll expand it for Christmas (fingers crossed).

[Propellarhead9]

The Walmart here just expanded theirs significantly. Doubled the selection they had.

[Bobby Henderson]

I think Wal-Mart has cannibalized a good bit of its DVD sales when it installed Red Box vending machines in so many of its stores.

I was stuck at the exit of one of our local Wal-Mart super centers last night waiting on one heck of a rain storm to subside. In the time I stood there, several people visited the Red Box machine nearby.

Additionally, Wal-Mart still charges a few dollars more on average for Blu-ray titles versus what customers pay to buy them online from merchants like Amazon.com. I haven't exactly been buying a lot of BD titles lately, but more often than not I buy them from Amazon. A pretty good "carrot" must be offered to get me to buy local. I bought a copy of Braveheart from Sam's Club for $24, but only because it had a $10 rebate for owners of the DVD.

[Jeff Kleist]

Good point Bobby, part of what kept the $0.25 a disc they were making on the $5 DVD bins going was volume. Now instead of buying a few $5 DVDs instead of renting, people are redboxing.

Frankly I think that RedBox is going to run out of venture capital. Most of the majors won't cut supply/revenue sharing deals with them because they're sabotaging the profit window rental market, Fox/WB/Uni will crush them, or the studios will make them part of the family and keep out the middleman

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

...right, and she's said that she wants to drop the case.

But, of course, it's not her call. Not even a little bit. It's "The State of California vs. Roman Polanski", as rape's considered by California law a crime against the state as an entity, not a crime between two individuals. As such, it's not even a consideration, legally, what the victim thinks, as it's not her right to say one way or another to proceed.

I realize that.
But “legally” doesn’t necessarily mean *justice* or *wise*.

I would not want this victim (even though she is now an adult) to have to even indirectly re-live this childhood experience via more media publicity (supermarket tabloids, etc.) or further criminal litigation if it is her desire to drop the matter.

If people (meaning the District Attorney’s Office and The People of California) can’t appreciate this, then I would suggest they read her Grand Jury testimony starting at page 10 (be forewarned as the Q&A is quite candid and graphic)………..
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib1.html

I think that given California’s current economic situation, the D.A.’s office is under-budgeted and under-staffed just like everything else is these days, and the time, effort and expense to further prosecute the Director would be better allocated to victims of rape, etc. that want their help or are even begging for their expeditious aid in terms of more resources for either the investigation or prosecution of their own personal tragedies but isn’t being granted due to cutbacks and such.

This is The Big Picture –
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_...osecutors.html

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I realize that.
But “legally” doesn’t necessarily mean *justice* or *wise*.

I would not want this victim (even though she is now an adult) to have to even indirectly re-live this childhood experience via more media publicity (supermarket tabloids, etc.) or further criminal litigation if it is her desire to drop the matter.

If people (meaning the District Attorney’s Office and The People of California) can’t appreciate this, then I would suggest they read her Grand Jury testimony starting at page 10 (be forewarned as the Q&A is quite candid and graphic)………..
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib1.html

I think that given California’s current economic situation, the D.A.’s office is under-budgeted and under-staffed just like everything else is these days, and the time, effort and expense to further prosecute the Director would be better allocated to victims of rape, etc. that want their help or are even begging for their expeditious aid in terms of more resources for either the investigation or prosecution of their own personal tragedies but isn’t being granted due to cutbacks and such.

This is The Big Picture –
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_...osecutors.html

I've thought about this issue quite a bit due to these posts, and given what I've now read from the victim and her wishes, I think Polanski should be set free, but not be allowed back into the United States. Banishment to France should be punishment enough, right?

Seriously though, bringing him back will serve little purpose for those most affected, notably the victim, who doesn't want to see this go forward. Having had to go through the ordeal once is bad enough...having to dredge up the past after all these years may be too much for her. (Also, that testimonial makes me sick to my stomach.)

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I realize that.
But “legally” doesn’t necessarily mean *justice* or *wise*.

...no, we are agreed. Just as it's more than a bit insane that you guys actually "vote" for your DAs in some sort of spectacle of "democracy", whereby court decisions then turn inexorably into questions of popularity and career building rather than, as you say, justice. Not to say that simply appointing judges or district (crown) attorneys is prima face a better solution, but the offensiveness of a case that its being driven by a media obsessed justice branch that needs to be seen in a positive spotlight in order to be reelected cannot be overstated.

But, yeah.

On a related note about the nature of evil, I finally wrote my "Das weiße Band" review... if you get a chance, go see it. The black and white photography is =amazing=, and it's such a subtle, strange little flick that (despite its accolades at Cannes) I'm worried it'll be overlooked. Ditto for "City of Life and Death", which you should -definitely- seek out...