Playing Six Degrees Of Child Rapist Roman Polanski Is Ruining Wreck-It Ralph For My Family

By  | 

Last night one of my kids asked if we were going to see Wreck-It Ralph this weekend. The new movie from Disney, Wreck-it Ralph tells the story of a video game character who rebels against his role as a villain and dreams of becoming a hero. It looks like a great movie from the previews, and features all sorts of awesome things like cameos from other video game characters and lots of cool celebrity voice talent, including John C. Reilly voicing the lead character. Which is why we can’t see it. Because John C. Reilly was in a Roman Polanski movie. Six degrees of Roman Polanski is ruining Wreck-It Ralph for my family.
[youtube_iframe id=”ZPX6-4Bo7XU”]

In 1977, Roman Polanski was arrested for the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl after he drugged and raped her in one of Jack Nicholson’s bedrooms. He pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawful sex with a minor. To avoid sentencing, he fled the U.S. to his home in London and eventually hid out in France. In September 2009, he was arrested by Swiss police at the request of U.S. authorities, which also asked for his extradition. The Swiss refused and released him as a free man. He lived in a sort of gilded exile in a penthouse in Paris, marrying and fathering 2 children, continuing to work as a director, owning multiple homes in Europe. It wasn’t until his 2002 film The Pianist won three Academy Awards that this whole rape incident really came to light again, and numerous celebrities spoke out in support of Polanski, including Whoopi Goldberg who said this about the director:

“I know it wasn’t rape rape. It was something else, but I don’t believe it was raperape … When we’re talking about what someone did, and what they were charged with, we have to say what it actually was, not what we think it was.”

To fully understand and appreciate the fuckery of Hollywood supporting Polanski is summed up brilliantly by my friend Kate Harding who wrote an excellent  piece in Salon about the incident:

Let’s keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she’d rather not see him prosecuted because she can’t stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let’s take a moment to recall that according to the victim’s grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, “No,” then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

As Kate Harding states above, the victim, Samantha Geimer, who was 13-years-old when the rape occurred, has since “forgiven” Polanski, and has received a settlement of around $500,00. Geimer is writing a memoir about her life as Roman Polanski’s rape victim.  A whole lot of celebrities support and work with Polanski. His own victim has since moved on. But as a mom and a woman I find the idea of supporting, which is too weak of a word, celebrating, an actual rapist appalling.

John C. Reilly isn’t a rapist. He’s an excellent actor who I was a huge fan of until he decided to appear in a Polanski movie. Along with Kate Winslet, Jodi Foster and Christopher Waltz. None of these celebrities have spoken up about the whole rape thingy. Which was, despite whatever Ms. Goldberg thinks, an actual rape. Of a child. A lot of the celebrities who have worked with Polanski are parents. I’m not sure how this whole thing works, are you able to look at your own kids and think “Hey, if you are raped at age 13 I can forgive your rapist and be totally cool hanging out with your attacker?”  Yes, it didn’t happen to any of the kids who were born to these actors, but how do you spend time with someone who raped a kid and never have it come up in conversation?  Hollywood, I don’t understand you.

I can’t move on from this whole Polanski incident until he is punished for raping a kid. Some may say that living in “exile” in France (while still working and making a whole fuckton of money) is punishment enough, but I think the actor/director Kevin Smith has the right idea when he tweeted:

“Look, I dig ‘Rosemary’s Baby,’ but rape’s rape. Do the crime, do the time.”

All of the actors who have worked with Polanski obviously don’t have an issue with the fact he once raped a kid. They are cool with it. But I’m not. There are so many directors making movies! There are directors who have never raped a kid. Why did John C. Reilly have to work with that scumbag Polanski and make me feel all creeped out by supporting his career and buying tickets to see his movies? It’s six degrees of Roman Polanski, but it’s still six degrees too close to a man who raped a little girl.

(photo: Disney)


  1. therealKelly

    November 2, 2012 at 9:24 am

    Yes! Yes! Yes! I don’t get it. Strong, feminist mothers work with this child rapist. The world would be OUTRAGED if a football program hired Jerry Sandusky because he’s just such a great defensive coordinator. Roman Polanski is a convicted, admitted rapist. I refuse to put a dime in the pocket if anyone who works with him.

    • Eve Vawter

      November 2, 2012 at 9:54 am

      And doesn’t it ruin everything? Kate Winslet, you are dead to me!

  2. meteor_echo

    November 2, 2012 at 10:27 am

    I’m totally going to go and see Wreck-It Ralph. In fact, I’m super hyped about it, because of Bowser, Eggman and Zangief (along with Cammy and Chun Li!). Do i care that one of the voice actors worked with Polanski before? Nope. And I’m a rape victim myself.
    Let the kid see that movie. For the sake of having fun time.

    • Eve Vawter

      November 2, 2012 at 10:53 am

      Yeah, the video game cameos will be awesome and all.. but rape.

    • meteor_echo

      November 2, 2012 at 11:14 am

      It is just a movie character voice.

    • Eve Vawter

      November 2, 2012 at 12:36 pm

      It is, and I do like John C Rielly a lot, but I would really like to ask these people why they can work with Polanski.

  3. BrendaKilgour

    November 2, 2012 at 10:28 am

    Celebrity absolves all sins in these wonderful United States of America. Just ask Kim Kardashian. Or Barack Obama.

    • meteor_echo

      November 2, 2012 at 2:57 pm

      Or Mitt Romney, while we’re at it.

    • Clueless

      November 2, 2012 at 3:18 pm

      I don’t like Kim Kardashian but I am curious as to why you think she committed a sin? And Barack Obama? Please enlighten me.

    • lawcat

      November 2, 2012 at 3:40 pm

      Those in glass houses…..

    • Julie

      November 7, 2012 at 5:17 pm

      If you’re one of those people who said they’d move to Australia if Obama got elected again, I think you should go right ahead and do that. You’d be in for a rude awakening though, what with their openly gay politicians, compulsory voting, universal health care, lack of guns, evolution taught in schools and their *GASP* female, unmarried, atheist prime minister.

      This just seems like another childish, unresearched statement that holds absolutely no water.

  4. CW

    November 2, 2012 at 11:31 am

    What kind of parent allows their 13 y.o. daughter to attend a Hollywood party? Polanski’s a creep and should absolutely serve jail time for what he did, but the girl’s parents should also be prosecuted for child neglect in their bad decision to allow their daughter to get herself into a situation where some creep took advantage of her.

    • Eve Vawter

      November 2, 2012 at 12:35 pm

      Oh word, do you know her mother introduced them?

  5. LoriLee

    November 2, 2012 at 11:41 am

    So you won’t see any movie with Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Ewan McGregor, Sigourney Weaver, Johnny Depp, Hugh Grant, or Harrison Ford? They’ve all been in Polanski films. I get where you’re coming from, but there’s almost no way that you can stick to that stance and watch popular movies these days.

    • Eve Vawter

      November 2, 2012 at 12:28 pm

      add purchasing anything made by Prada to this, and you have my stance on disagreeing with raping kids.

    • Guest

      November 12, 2012 at 12:11 pm

      Wow, I think I get it. Child rape really is just a financially pushbutton to you, isn’t it? No wonder you can’t explain it to anyone who keeps asking; it means nothing to you whatsoever outside of how it affects your consumerism.

      I think I’m going to throw up.

  6. Pashmina64

    November 2, 2012 at 11:52 am

    Roman Polanski’s Bacon number is 2, therefore anyone with a Bacon number under 4 can be connected to him, and believe me, finding someone above 3 is hard enough. My friend’s grandfather lived in Germany in the 40’s and came to Canada when he was 10, should I avoid my friend at all costs because of this?

    • BrendaKilgour

      November 2, 2012 at 12:36 pm

      If he or she was a Nazi collaborator, then yes, I would suggest spending as little time with them as possible. That’s the moral equivalent of a sentient adult choosing to work with a convicted child rapist who has fled the country to evade responsibility for his crimes. What about this is ambiguous for you?

    • Eve Vawter

      November 2, 2012 at 12:36 pm

      I am not sure what living in Germany has to do with this?

    • nat

      November 3, 2012 at 1:23 am

      She’s saying that since Nazis controlled Germany in the forties and her friend’s grandfather lived in Nazi controlled Germany, should she just ignore the friend because of that connection?
      You refuse to see this because one guy voicing a character once worked with a rapist. My grandfather was a rapist, should I have no friends? Makes no sense. Maybe he did have problems with Polanski, but his career is his career.

  7. Em

    November 2, 2012 at 12:25 pm

    Six-degrees is a long way to connect someone to something they have no part of. It just seems your looking for something to be sanctimonious about. I don’t watch most Polanski films, but I’m not going to let even one-degree ruin a film he did not have a hand in.

    • Eve Vawter

      November 2, 2012 at 12:35 pm

      I’m totally sanctimonious about child rape.

    • Em

      November 2, 2012 at 4:29 pm

      Yes, absolutely, but that’s not what I meant. Your article is about the sixth degree to a man who did disgusting things, which is implying actors who are connected to those who worked with Polanski condone his actions (which is a presumptuous implication in my opinion). I can understand boycotting John C. Reilly, Kate Winslet, Adrian Brody, etc. but it’s not anyone’s place to add a degree to actors and directors that work with them suggesting because they do, they must be o.k. with Polanski’s actions. It’s the title of your article I found sanctimonious, but I understand the context you meant were directly to those who worked with Polanski in his films. That is my only argument with this.

  8. alice

    November 2, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    hmmm, im not sure i agree with you here. there are so many levels to this. Rape is – in my opinion – the most egregious act a human can commit. Because of this (not in spite of it) we have an obligation to apply diligence to rape cases. is statutory rape a heinous crime? of course. when you read geimer & polanski’s testimony, pre and post trial, does it leave reasonable doubt as to the consent of geimer or the understanding of that consent from polanski? of course.

    this is by no means victim blaming. but when you state that you would really like to know WHY these actors could stand to work with a man convicted of statutory rape, i think you’re not living in reality. or your trying to create reality that doesn’t exist.

    these actors can still work with polanski because their industry has been/is RIFE with statutory rape. in the 70’s, would it have been uncommon for a young teenager to drink or take drugs in this industry? would it have been uncommon for a young teenager to have sex in this industry? with an older man? this doesn’t discount the possibility that rape occurred. but facing the facts, it explains why people can still work with polanski, and why your statements like “he drugged and raped a little girl” are a little misleading.

    given geimer’s interviews on the subject, where she says things like “the whole thing was blown out of proportion” and “he wasn’t forceful or mean or anything; i just wanted to let him get it over with”, and given the obvious nature of the industry, the nature of the decade, the fact that geimer allowed the charges to be reduced to “sex with minor”, given all of that: you still want to know why actors today can stomach to work with polanski?

    simply put: because not everyone can declare such steadfast, unyielding, and apparently omniscient statements that you can.

    • BrendaKilgour

      November 2, 2012 at 2:29 pm

      So in your world a 13-year-old girl who has been plied with Champagne and Quaaludes is capable of giving “consent” to being sodomized?

      I hope you live far, far away from me. Preferably in a locked cell.

    • Eve Vawter

      November 2, 2012 at 2:38 pm

      yes, Hollywood has always been rife with statutory rape. I’m sure it still is today. But just because raping 13-year olds in the 1970’s was ” common” doesn’t make it ok. It was a crime then,( it’s a crime now) which is why Polanski fled to France to avoid going to prison, there is nothing misleading about saying he drugged and raped a little girl, that is exactly what he did. rape is rape. People who work with Polanski are working with a child rapist. It’s that simple.

    • alice

      November 2, 2012 at 3:27 pm

      i’m not saying you’re wrong in your beliefs. and certainly just because it’s “common” doesn’t make it okay. But in terms of why other actors still choose to work with polanski, it IS relevant. if you worked in an industry, in a time, where having sex with minors was something fairly common, and where minors drinking and doing drugs in the company of adults was equally common, then you have your reason why polanski is not an outcast in his industry.

      when i said you were a little misleading in your statement, i should have rephrased. i think you chose your words to be intentionally sensational, as is your choice as the author. but when teenagers get drunk and high in the company of adults, you probably don’t always describe them as being “drugged [by adults]” and i doubt you always describe 13 year olds as “little girls”.

      if you want to assert that polanski offered her quaaludes for the sole purpose of raping her later, then you can do so, but it would be conjecture.

      to brenda: your whole statement is conjecture by the way. i knew i would get an earful for posting what i did. im not a rape apologist. but im also not a person who would ever boldy state that a 13 year old girl is INCAPABLE of giving consent to sex after she’s had champagne or quaaludes or pot or whatever.

      can minors LEGALLY give consent to sex? no. but brenda, yes in my world, which is also reality, minors can consent to having all sorts of sex, under all different conditions. that doesn’t mean it happened here, but your declaration that it can’t happen ANYWHERE is wishful thinking at best.

      alice not behind bars

    • BrendaKilgour

      November 2, 2012 at 4:55 pm

      The thought of someone with your worldview even discussing children, let alone being anywhere near one, is truly terrifying. Please go have yourself sterilized.

    • alice

      November 2, 2012 at 5:05 pm


    • meteor_echo

      November 2, 2012 at 6:16 pm

      Give each of us “child haters” the cash to get ourselves sterilized, then. I’d love me some sweet tubal ligation.

    • Julie

      November 7, 2012 at 5:09 pm

      This is just bizarre. Alice gave us a well thought-out statement of her views. None of which came across as “terrifying”. She seems pretty logical and researched in her discussion. And that’s all you can come up with? Your response is childish at best.

    • Chocoholic

      November 12, 2012 at 12:17 pm

      I agree, Julie. I really hope they’re just trolling these boards and aren’t actually moms – I’d hate to think they were raising children to think like this, then turning them loose for my children to have to deal with.

    • alice

      November 2, 2012 at 4:43 pm

      i don’t know why people are giving you thumbs down for choosing to protest something based on your convictions btw. (my fiance and i are giant meat eaters, but he sternly abstains from “eating baby animals” because he believes it’s wrong. so no veal for me, but the man has convictions)

      anyway, i know you write a lot of articles on the subject of rape, and i think this particular article brings up an important conversation that i’d love to see you write about, namely: statutory rape.

      as a feminist, i have a hard time with this term. (actually, i think most states don’t use the word “rape” but “abuse” or “assault” instead). i have a hard time reconciling someone else telling ME when i’m capable of sexual consent. i don’t like the idea that 16 year old Jill from arizona can have sex with her older boyfriend and some busybody across the country will convince her she’s a victim. “no no jill, you don’t understand, you were INCAPABLE of consenting honey!” bullshit

      i wrestle with the idea of treating young teens like they’re incompetent, and also treating them like they ARE. but overriding everything, is my conviction that we – everyone – have power over our bodies.

      and as a society, we certainly do bend the rules of “statutory rape” – the ethics are always framed within a popular consensus. “Oh no, Priscilla was raped when she was 14, by Elvis. She was his girlfriend!” “He didn’t lure her with champagne and pot. That was just the times!”

      Or what about the countless nameless young teenage groupies that have made their way into musician’s beds over the years?

      We definitely plant a kernel of doubt in these cases. We don’t cavalierly toss the words “rape” and “victim” at these girls. We grant them a level of competency that the state does not. But then what is the point of these laws to begin with?

      When do we choose to use the word “rape” with regards to a minor, instead of just “sex”?

      For me, it’s hard to decide. I think it is for others too. And for the people saying “not for me, it’s easy, rape is rape!” I worry that you’re doing a disservice to the word and the “victim”.

      How do you know? Do you protest Elvis movies and songs and associations? And if not, why?

      Like my fiance and his convictions against eating babies, how many of our convictions are subjective, and borderline arbitrary? It’s like justice potter stewart famously said of hardcore pornography: “i know it when i see it!”

      anyway, this is definitely a topic that gets me talking! i would love to see you explore it more.

    • Eve Vawter

      November 2, 2012 at 7:17 pm

      I’ll happily write about stuatory rape. It’s my belief that two teens of around the same age who have consensual sex, like a 16 year old and 18 year old, it isn’t rape but consensual sex. But in the Polanski case, we have a 13 year old girl who said ” no” versus a man in his 40’s ( at the time.) that’s rape. In the case of Elvis and Pricella, she met him in Germany when she was 14 and I would have to research this, I don’t think they married until she was 21. I know she eventually moved from Germany when she was still a teen and lived in a different house ( maybe the managers?) for a while, but from what I recall her parents were very strict and Elvis was pretty religious. I am not 100% sure, but I think it’s been said she was a virgin at marriage, Elvis had a ” thing” for virgins. Anyway, I think he may have been in his twenties when he met her, so yeah, it’s pretty creepy, but I don’t think Elvis raped her ( from what I know) but yeah, it deserves further discussion

  9. To Celebrate Women

    November 2, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    I understand not wanting to see Polanski films (though I still watch them), but everyone who worked with him? How far are you going to carry this? Editors, screenwriters, grips? After all, they could have worked on other films too, and they contributed to the film just as much. How about Woody Allen and his teenage stepdaughter? Are you going to avoid everyone who ever worked with him too? Or Errol Flynn, or any of the artists and performers in all media who have been involved in similar situations? Chaucer supposedly committed rape, let’s get rid of all copies of The Canterbury Tales, shall we?

    I’m all for bringing Polanski back to the States and putting him in prison, but the actors are not responsible for what happened, and they’re not keeping him in or out of prison by working with him – the situation will remain the same whatever they do. Frankly, you’re carrying this to a ridiculous extent.

    • Eve Vawter

      November 2, 2012 at 2:48 pm

      I choose not to support people who knowingly work with a child rapist. I don’t see anything ridiculous about it at all. Polanski should do time.

    • NotTheRightWay

      November 2, 2012 at 3:14 pm

      I hope you realize that by not supporting these people who worked with Polanski, you are hurting everyone but Polanski. I too feel he should do time. I would not pay money to watch his movie. But, by not watching this movie you (and others like you) will reduce revenue for a good movie which could in turn mean the studio cutting some jobs in another area, or not making such movies again which would also mean fewer opportunities for others in the movie business (not just actors, but as the comment above mentioned -Editors, screenwriters, grips).
      And do you know how talented John C. Reilly is? Are you telling me you haven’t once laughed out loud watching his movies?

      Instead of boycotting a movie or people connected to Polanski, you can start a petition, talk more about what he did, start a fund for awareness and support.. anything that would be more proactive.

    • Eve Vawter

      November 2, 2012 at 3:23 pm

      I see you point, and I like your ideas, and I did say I really like John C Rielly’s work a lot, but can’t Polanski just do the time? And I’m totally not worried Disney will go out of business by me not seeing this movie.

    • copycait

      November 2, 2012 at 7:31 pm

      In that case, what about the above comment asking about editors, screenwrites, producers, etc? Do you research whether these people have worked on Polanski movies and then boycott their other films too? Otherwise, it seems like your “line” is pretty arbitrary and maybe even hypocritical.

    • Eve Vawter

      November 2, 2012 at 7:35 pm

      I’m not calling for the boycott of this movie, that is absurd. I’m not even calling for the banning or boycotting of any child rapist who makes a movie. What I’m saying is, I don’t think Hollywood people who work with Polanski should do so until he goes to prison and serves his time, and as for me, as a mom, I don’t wanna give money to his cronies. I’d rather support artists who don’t work with child rapists.

    • copycait

      November 2, 2012 at 7:46 pm

      OK – but you totally focused on the part of my question that wasn’t the point! I’ll rephrase – what about the above comment asking about editors,
      screenwrites, producers, etc? Do you research whether these people have
      worked on Polanski movies and then make a personal choice to avoid their other films too? Otherwise, it seems like your position lacks logic or consistency – and I don’t even disagree with your position! As an English teacher who is forced to use Polanski’s version of Macbeth in the classroom, I spend hours telling students about why he is a bad person.

    • Eve Vawter

      November 2, 2012 at 8:35 pm

      Here’s the deal, an editor or script supervisor in Hollywood doesn’t make as much money as say, Oscar winning actress Kate Winslet. They don’t have as many opportunities afforded to actors who can pick and choose which projects they work on based on their own moral code, Or more likely, which movie is going to best advance their career. Someone like Winslet doesn’t HAVE to make a movie with Polanski in order to put food on the table. For someone who gets fewer opportunities and job offers ( like a set decorator) its hard to fault them. I’d like it if people were able to turn down an ” opportunity” to work with a child rapist, but they don’t have the financial latitude of someone making a million dollars+ a picture.

    • copycait

      November 2, 2012 at 10:02 pm

      OK, fair enough. But what about the producers, specifically? Or the film distribution companies? After all, they are the people who actually pay Polanski to make the movies, and pay the actors and everyone else too. They have more money and power than the actors and are therefore more culpable, following your reasoning. Do you also avoid supporting the other works of these contributors like you avoid the actors? For example, Sony helped produce and distribute Carnage, so if you won’t see another John C. Reilly movie, shouldn’t you also refuse to see other Sony films?

  10. K

    November 2, 2012 at 5:54 pm

    I can’t connect the dots here, sorry.

    As someone who was a victim of child rape, it is actually strangely hurtful when people use “child rape” as a platform to push whatever belief they have. It makes me feel as if I went through all of my suffering JUST so they can have something to get on their high horse about.

    This move has NOTHING to do with Roman Polanski. Absolutely nothing.

    The man who raped me was convicted in the 90’s, he served 7 years, he is now out. That doesn’t fill me with comfort, however I am sure he has a job as part of his release where his criminal history is disclosed, do I want to find his boss and boycott everything to do with him/her? Absolutely not, Do I want to boycott all his colleagues, should they have any service I require? Absolutely not. Because NOT ONE OF THESE PEOPLE DID ANYTHING TO HARM ANYONE THAT I AM AWARE OF.

    Has John C.Reilly harmed anyone that we know of? No. He hasn’t.

    This type of six degrees connect the dots isn’t helpful, it is hurtful to some of us who had to endure being raped as a child. Please don’t make us out to be a joke.

    • Eve Vawter

      November 2, 2012 at 6:58 pm

      The ” whatever belief” I have is that child rapists should serve prison time before they get to live in penthouses in France, make millions of dollars, and win Oscars. if you can’t connect the dots between using an example of child rape to speak out against Child rape, I’m not sure why. It isn’t like I’m using child rape as my platform of ” save the whales.”
      As for your rapist, it’s good he went to prison, but as for the person who hired him, I’m not sure I’d want to give my business to someone who hired a raper of children.

    • miliotisa1

      November 3, 2012 at 12:46 am

      You sound like you believe he made those millions of dollars
      “because” he raped a child, as some sort of bonus prize or something.
      Like he didn’t earn them just like all other directors do.

      No, he made the money he did cause he’s a genius film-maker. A movie is art, art is as is and it is not the personal life of the creator you should
      focus on but just the art itself. If you watched a movie of unknown
      origin and loved it, learning it was made by Polanski’s dog-walker
      should not diminish it’s artistic merit whatsoever.

      Sure, he should have gone to jail. Nobody disputes that. The fact that he didn’t does NOT make The Pianist or the rest of his films bad though.

      Lastly, what’s the point of prison if not for people to have a way to pay their
      debt and return to society? If you refuse to do business with the man
      who hired the rapist AFTER going to jail you just sound like a
      hypocrite, that you’re using Polanski’s not going to jail as an excuse and that
      you’d feel just the same about his filmshad he gone to jail and then made millions of dollars out of his art.

      What should we do with them if, according to you, boycotting anyone who would offer em work and a way to live after jail is proper. Just kill em and be done with it?

    • Eve Vawter

      November 3, 2012 at 7:54 am

      You brought up one of my very favorite debate topics, which is can you separate art from it’s creator, and no, I have no firm answer for this because it’s something I think about a LOT, I think in Polanski’s case I agree with the Kevin Smith quote above. Great movies, still gotta go to jail. It’s a very interesting idea to me though. how can you love art on its own if you don’t like the artist?

    • Eve Vawter

      November 3, 2012 at 7:55 am

      You brought up one of my very favorite debate topics, which is can you separate art from it’s creator, and no, I have no firm answer for this because it’s something I think about a LOT, I think in Polanski’s case I agree with the Kevin Smith quote above. Great movies, still gotta go to jail. It’s a very interesting idea to me though. how can you love art on its own if you don’t like the artist?

    • miliotisa1

      November 6, 2012 at 8:42 pm

      I think it boils down to this basic core concept;

      “Bad people can do good things.”


      If you believe that an evil act taints someone so very through and through that everything they ever do from that point on will be irreparably marred then you do not believe in redemption, forgiveness and for people’s potential to change and become good. That, is a very sad place to be in. I think being optimistic and hopeful is worthwhile in the long run. If we look at it from your view, it really would be better for those people to be put down. Nothing they ever do would ever be worthy of appreciation, a life full of scorn with no possibility of worthiness…death is better than that.

    • guest

      November 12, 2012 at 12:04 pm

      But I thought you disagreed with that quote. He said he dug that movie – so he went out an saw it, even knowing what Polanski did and wanting him in prison. Kevin Smith is basically the opposite of your opinion.

    • Eve Vawter

      November 3, 2012 at 7:55 am

      You brought up one of my very favorite debate topics, which is can you separate art from it’s creator, and no, I have no firm answer for this because it’s something I think about a LOT, I think in Polanski’s case I agree with the Kevin Smith quote above. Great movies, still gotta go to jail. It’s a very interesting idea to me though. how can you love art on its own if you don’t like the artist?

    • samsam

      November 4, 2012 at 1:19 am

      Wow! I really don’t get these attacks on you! I bet many of these commenters would never eat at a Chik Fil A franchise, even though the franchisees did not speak out about gay marriage, the owner did. I see this as about the same degree of separation as an actor who is in a movie by a rapist (although the rape is a million times worse in my opinion.)

      I personally think we SHOULD hold the celebrities we contribute our money and time to to a higher standard. It is one thing to not knowingly contribute, but once you have that information, if you don’t feel morally right supporting them, then don’t. I will not support anything with Jason Biggs due to his disgusting tweets on Asians, women, Jewish people, and about anyone else he thinks will get him about 15 more minutes of fame. I loved American Pie, but I will never see American Reunion. Good for you for having standards, and for teaching your children a lesson that will stick around a lot longer than the popularity of this movie.

    • Kate

      November 4, 2012 at 1:45 am

      What has Chick-fil-a got to do with anything here?
      If that is a big concern of yours, I don’t eat there because I don’t live in a country where it exists. Also because I am a vegetarian. :S

    • samsam

      November 4, 2012 at 10:27 am

      That’s not a big concern of mine. I was just trying to compare the degree of separation in a non-celebrity way. For instance, say the owner of a national tire chain kills his wife. There is overwhelming evidence, including his own admission. He gets off on a technicality. If you need new tires, do you go to his chain? It wasn’t the manager of that branch who did it, but he represents him.

    • Kate

      November 4, 2012 at 1:47 am

      His employer did not do a single thing wrong.

      When people are released from prison they have paid their debt, it’s done, it’s over. Unless he offends again he is entitled to a job, a home and a life. Someone has given him a chance and part of me is happy that there are people out there who give people second chances. Everyone deserves one upon release.

    • guest

      November 12, 2012 at 12:08 pm

      Hey, I think we all agree that he didn’t get what was coming to him, yeah? But what the ever loving heck does that have to do with what films you choose to boycott now? Even if everyone on the planet boycotted his work, it would have no effect on getting him in prision. It certainly won’t go back and make him have served his time before getting that penthouse and all those millions of dollars.

      So, again, how does penalizing his former coworkers link up with wanting him in prision? You haven’t explained that yet.

    • meteor_echo

      November 3, 2012 at 1:02 am

      Somebody downvoted you? What the fuck, people.

    • Chocoholic

      November 12, 2012 at 12:23 pm

      After reading her replies elsewhere, I think you are absolutely right – this is just an excuse to her. There’s not even some paper-thin excuse about wanting to financially punish those who worked with him so they’ll lose their careers, and she makes no point to organise others to do this – and the kicker, “Hey, do what you think is best. If you feel like its okay to support the work of actors who knowingly and willingly worked with a convicted yet unpunished child raper, that’s your prerogative. All I’m saying is that it’s not for me.” Wow, it just doesn’t get any more callous toward rape victems than to use what they went through as a excuse to brag about how you’re a superior person. Truly, utterly disgusting what some people will stoop to on the internet.

  11. koolchicken

    November 2, 2012 at 7:43 pm

    Like some of the other commenters I too have been raped, repeatedly. And I don’t see a problem with this film. Now I’ll admit, I don’t watch Roman Polanski films (assuming I know it’s his at the time). But I don’t see why I should ban all films with John C Rilley in them because he once was in a film that guy directed. Unless these actors are openly chummy with this guy or are openly supporting him I don’t see a need to blacklist them all.

    • Eve Vawter

      November 2, 2012 at 8:40 pm

      Hey, do what you think is best. If you feel like its okay to support the work of actors who knowingly and willingly worked with a convicted yet unpunished child raper, that’s your prerogative. All I’m saying is that it’s not for me.

    • Julie

      November 7, 2012 at 4:49 pm

      I don’t necessarily agree with your stance, Eve. I don’t watch Polanski films, but I don’t have a problem with the people who worked on his films when they are in other movies. If they thought that being in his film would help further their careers, then that was their choice. However, I do applaud you for sticking to your convictions. Just because people don’t agree with you, that doesn’t mean you should stop believing in it. Good for you!

    • Chocoholic

      November 12, 2012 at 12:12 pm

      Wow, that was unbelievably bitchy. I just…. wow. And you’re a mod? How have you not been banned yet??

    • Auryn Grigori

      October 9, 2013 at 12:01 am

      Wow, that is cold-hearted of you. Why don’t you slap koolchicken, too while you are at it?

  12. nat

    November 3, 2012 at 1:32 am

    My grandfather was a rapist- of his own children and other women. I guess being my friend means you condone rape. O.o

    • Jessie

      November 3, 2012 at 6:45 pm

      You can’t pick your family, you can sometimes pick who you work with……

  13. Steph

    November 3, 2012 at 6:46 pm

    I hope you feel the same way about racism and sexism in Hollywood, otherwise that’s really kind of shitty.

  14. khem

    November 4, 2012 at 12:08 am

    I don’t get the downvoting here… I will still watch movies with actors who have worked with Polanski. I will not watch his films though. But that is your choice, and a noble one. And to the people focusing on statutory rape – it was also rape. She said NO! She was drugged. I don’t give a fuck if this was the norm.

  15. What?

    November 10, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    This is an insanely ridiculous article. You pretty much sum up the phrase “lighten up”. This thought process of yours is so flawed and objective, there’s really nowhere to begin. What about a friend of yours who buys a Polanski movie? Are you no longer friends? Do you have friends, with a mentality that everyone who has done wrong should never have any contact with another person EVER? Let us know when you enter the real world.

  16. Looky Here

    November 11, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    “How Eve Vawter Shady Relatives are ruining my child’s internet experience” well i will no longer read any of your articles b/c in your family history you have had child molesters, thieves, and liars.To think that you have any one of these types of family members makes me shudder to think what would happen to my child if she stumbled upon one of your articles.

  17. Chocoholic

    November 12, 2012 at 11:58 am

    If you want to avoid anyone within six degrees of Polanski, that’s your right (although since you apparently love Reilly’s work I don’t know why you’d want to punish him). But I don’t see how this comes to getting upset that “now you can’t see Wreck-It Ralph”. If you want to go see it, go see it. If you want to boycott anyone within six degrees removed from Polanski, then do that. Honestly, what are you complaining about here? “Oh, I made the exact choice I wanted to make, boo hoo?” My mom never bought another product from any Nestle-affiliated company after The Baby Killers came out, and I still don’t to this day. I think what they did was despicable and they should not ever be forgiven.

    But I don’t cry that they’ve made me miss out on all their delicious chocolate online, either. Grow up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *