Natalie Portman gave an interview to the Los Angeles Times last week to promote her work in New York, I Love You. Natalie directed one segment of the series of short films, and Natalie also stars in one segment directed by Mira Nair. In the interview, Natalie talks about her dreams of directing and how she is actively seeking out more adult roles. She also kind of pulls a Megan Fox, and I detest saying that or even comparing the two women. Natalie is talking about how her roles affect her life, and she discusses her supporting part as a troubled, suicidal teenage girl in Heat. Natalie then does the whole “I’m a cutter” thing – although she does specify state that she only cut herself once:

“Just as what you are feeling in your life affects your acting, what you act in definitely affects what you are feeling in your life,” Natalie Portman says with typical thoughtfulness.

“And whether you want it to or not, and even if you don’t know it, it bleeds into your life. I made ‘Heat’ when I was 14 and played a girl who died,” she continues. “A year later, I got into a fight with my mother and cut myself. I had never done it before and I never did it after that, but I think having my wrists bloody in a movie definitely affected my psyche.”

At this point,” says Portman of the parts that appeal to her, “I want to be a woman on-screen because I want to be a woman in my life. I don’t want to be a little girl.”

“Working with Mira in New York, I was so thrilled to watch a female director, and you couldn’t ask for a better model than her,” she says. “For me, directing isn’t a backup plan, because I really love it. At the end of the day, it is your product, which you don’t get when you’re acting. Even good performances are pieced together by good directors. You give plenty of bad takes, and they put it together in the editing room.”

As for when she might take on that particular challenge, “I don’t love saying I’m going to do something before I do it because I feel like that’s a formula for hearing, ‘You never did what you said you were going to,’ ” she says, “but I really love directing.” And while she admits to some fear of stepping behind the camera and out of her comfort zone, “that’s intrinsic to everything you do as a creative person. You’re constantly putting yourself up there to be trashed. If I thought about it too much, I’d just be crippled. I’d rather create.”

[From the Los Angeles Times]

Eh, it sounds like she just did it once to see how it would feel. But it feels like she’s trying to be a bit edgy about it, doesn’t it? Like “oh, I was so hardcore when I was a kid.” Meh. Maybe I’m being overly-analytical. But that attitude bothers me.

Natalie is also facing a backlash because she signed the “Free Polanski” petition in support of Roman Polanski’s release from custody. Natalie is in esteemed custody – everyone from Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, Harrison Ford, Jeremy Irons, Salman Rushdie, Kristin Scott Thomas, Steven Soderbergh, Emma Thompson and Diane Von Furstenberg, amongst many, many others (see full list here). Ugh, I think Emma Thompson’s inclusion might be the cruelest cut of all. Why, Emma, why? Anyway, the backlash against the signers seems mainly from the more conservative media outlets, but I think it will probably grow as more stuff starts happening with the case. Interesting note: Natalie’s The Professional director Luc Besson was one of the few prominent French artists who did not sign. He released this statement about Polanski: “I have a lot of affection for him, he is a man that I like very much… but nobody should be above the law…. I don’t know the details of this case, but I think that when you don’t show up for trial, you are taking a risk.”

Natalie is shown with Mila Kunis at the “American Ballet Theatre hosts the 2009 Fall Gala” in NY on 10/7/09. Credit: Flashpoint / WENN.com. She’s also shown in a fuschia dress at the Toronto Film Festival on 9/17/09. Credit: WENN.com

Jamie Foxx has been taking a secondary role for the promotion of Law Abiding Citizen, which gets a full theatrical release this Friday. Gerard Butler has been promoting this film for a few weeks now, and will be doing even more promotion this week as he chills out in New York City, rehearsing for his gig as host of this weekend’s Saturday Night Live. Can you imagine it? Sigh… my guess is that there will be at least one skit where he’s shirtless. And there will probably be (just guessing here) some kind of digital spoof of 300. Meanwhile, this interview with Jamie Foxx is literally the first thing I’ve seen Jamie do for his promotional duties beyond red carpet interviews at the premiere.

In Parade, Jamie talks about everything from R&B (it’s for the ladies) to Roman Polanski. I guess with the content of LAC (Gerard’s family gets killed, Jamie’s district attorney cuts a bad deal with the killers, Gerard hunts down and tortures and kills everyone), Jamie and Gerard are going to get a lot of unimaginative questions about the American justice system and whether it’s broken or whatever. Parade decided to ask Jamie about our failed justice system’s current poster boy, Roman Polanski. Jamie doesn’t go off as much as I would have expected:

Passing judgment on Roman Polanski.
“If it had been my daughter who was barely a teenager–my daughter is 15–Roman Polanski would be missing . . . period. It wouldn’t even get to the court case. But, that’s me and I wouldn’t want anyone else to follow that because you should let the justice system work it out. On the other hand, I don’t know Roman Polanski, but maybe if I had a relationship with him my answer would be different. I just think this whole issue is bigger than Roman Polanski.”

Where do you draw the line?
“Revenge is a tough thing. When it comes to someone bringing harm to your family, it’s hard to think about turning the other cheek. When I hear about things that we allow to go on in our society where women are harmed, I just knee-jerk. I’ve said some things publicly that my publicist keeps telling me I should keep to myself. I don’t know if that’s my Texas upbringing, but there comes a point where you just say, ‘OK, that would be my tipping point. What would I do?’ Some of things I’ve said I’d do to sexual perpetrators were pretty graphic. But I also read some stories of people taking the law into their own hands, which is bad too. So it’s tough to know how far you’d go.”

Trying not to get left behind with his choices as a singer.
“I’m just going to stay current. It’s like all my R&B cohorts are out of jobs right now. Nobody wants to hear R&B. It’s sad. If you want to be on the radio you got to stay young. My daughter always goes, ‘Dad you sound old. You sound 50. Why don’t you have a machine on your voice? They’re not going to like that. You gotta sound young.’ Then when she heard me sing ‘Blame It,’ she went, ‘That’s it. That’s real music.’”

The celebrity challenge.
“It’s hard to be a celebrity nowadays. It’s not about your track record anymore. If you have a great movie, you’re good. If not, people are ready to write you off. I think the only ones who are really winning are people like Will Smith. People go, ‘Oh, it’s Will Smith. I’ve got to see him, whatever he’s in.’ It’s tough because the lines have been blurred. I was watching that reality show with Jon and Kate. They’re huge, and I don’t even know what they’re huge for. They somehow crossed over because they’re just as popular as Brad Pitt.”

Beware of YouTube.
“If you’re somewhat successful, you can keep on doing your thing. But don’t get caught out there looking goofy. It’s weird. When you do something that stinks, it’s going to last forever on the Internet. There’s always someone in the audience with a camera phone and if you’re not 100%, you’re going to be watching yourself on YouTube.”

[From Parade]

He sounds almost… thoughtful. Of course, this is the same guy who, back in April, said on his Sirius radio show that 16-year-old Miley Cyrus should “make a sex tape and grow up…Do like Lindsay Lohan and start being a lesbian… Get like Britney Spears and do some heroin… get some crack in your pipe… Catch chlamydia on a bicycle seat.” Of course, Jamie later apologized. And those just words. Granted, they were pretty gross, disgusting things to say about a 16-year-old, but it’s not like Jamie physically assaulted a young girl. Like Polanski did.

Jamie Foxx at the premiere of Law Abiding Citizen at The Grauman’s Chinese theatre in Los Angeles, California on October 6, 2009. Credit: WENN.

I am shocked to report that Roman Polanski does not like prison. He is seriously not a fan. While most people appreciate some time to themselves to relax and catch up on their pleasure reading (that’s what you do in prison, right?) Polanski just doesn’t know how to make the best of it. According to his lawyer, he’s really bummed out. The term he used was “depressed,” but I think “bummed out and wallowing in self-pity” more accurately sums up the situation. His attorney tries to phrase it like the situation is dire and Polanski is all old and fragile – mentioning his age when it’s totally irrelevant. They’re pushing to get him released on bail while he’s waiting for his extradition hearing. Unfortunately when you’ve skipped town before, officials are unlikely to give you the opportunity to do it again, even if it was 30 years ago.

Two weeks after being arrested in Switzerland to face extradition to the United States, Roman Polanksi is languishing behind bars.

“I found him to be tired and depressed,” his lawyer, Herve Temime, told a Sontag newspaper, Reuters reports.

“Roman Polanski, who is 76, seemed very dejected when I visited him,” Temime explained to another paper.

“Polanski was in an unsettled state of mind,” his lawyer added. Polanksi had fled America in 1977, after pleading guilty to charges he raped a 13-year-old girl. The Oscar-winning director left the States because he feared a judge would reject a the plea bargain he had made and send him to prison for 50 years.

Officials in Switzerland are holding Polanksi in jail, believing him to be a flight risk. But Temime claimed they should decide “very soon” on whether to grant him bail.

“He would fulfill all the conditions and stay in Switzerland until the extradition proceeding are decided,” Temime said.

[From PopEater]

I’m having such a hard time not making any jokes about the world’s tiniest violin. Which I just happen to have right next to me, and have been playing with my pinkie finger. Poor Roman Polanski. All alone in a Swiss jail. You know what they do to the prisoners there, right? They give them Hershey’s chocolate instead of Swiss. Rough going, I’m sure. The thing is, whatever Polanski’s got going on in a Swiss jail, it’s going to be soooooo much worse in the U.S. Assuming he goes to prison, which he may not. But he’s got to know that, which is why I’m disinclined to believe he’d really show up for his extradition hearing. As has been pointed out before, it’s relatively easy to get across the borders in Europe, simply because many of them are easily accessible via a nice car ride.

Polanski might want to consider some Zoloft. It can take up to six weeks to kick in, so he might want to get a head start for his trip back to the states.

Here’s Roman Polanski with Czech President Vaclav Klaus at the 39th Karlovy Vary International Film Festival in July 2004. Images thanks to WENN.com .

Roman Polanski won’t be getting out of jail anytime soon. He’s being held in Switzerland pending an extradition to the U.S. But even though he skipped out on his sentencing for rape in 1977 and fled for France instead, his lawyers are ridiculously trying to argue that he’s not a flight risk. Snort. Yeah, why in the world would anyone think Roman Polanski would fail to show up to court when he promised? Especially in Europe, where he can just drive across the border to another country. Luckily the Swiss didn’t buy that garbage.

Roman Polanski lost the first round Tuesday in his battle to avoid extradition to the U.S. for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl. Already locked in a Zurich cell for the last dozen days, Polanski learned he will remain incarcerated for an extended period as the Swiss Justice Ministry rejected his plea to be released from custody. Swiss authorities expressed fear he might flee the country if freed from prison. The director of such film classics as “Rosemary’s Baby” and “Chinatown” has been wanted by U.S. authorities since fleeing sentencing 31 years ago.

“We continue to be of the opinion that there is a high risk of flight,” said ministry spokesman Folco Galli, explaining the decision. Galli told The Associated Press that the threat was too great for the government to accept bail or other security measures in exchange for the release of the filmmaker. Polanski was apprehended Sept. 26 as he arrived in Zurich to receive an award from a film festival. Authorities in Los Angeles consider him a convicted felon and a fugitive, and Switzerland says there has been an international warrant out on him since 2005.

Polanski’s legal representatives are also appealing to Switzerland’s federal criminal court to free the director. Galli said the Justice Ministry has submitted a letter to the tribunal explaining why it opposes release even on bail. Legal experts say Polanski stands a minimal chance of a speedy release, even if his lawyers have suggested he be held under house arrest in his chalet in the luxury resort of Gstaad. “In practice, I don’t remember any case where a fugitive has been released on bail while awaiting extradition to a foreign country,” said former Zurich prosecutor Peter Cosandey, adding that Polanski’s ownership of an Alpine chalet doesn’t aid his case greatly.

“He could easily disappear,” Cosandey told The AP, referring to Switzerland’s lax border controls. “He could just hop on a train to Germany. Coming by plane, you’re often just waived on. By car, it’s even easier.” Dieter Jann, another Zurich ex-prosecutor, has said extradition would be hard to fight, and he thought Switzerland had followed procedures correctly. In Paris, Polanski’s lawyers took note of the decision and said they would focus on convincing the court to free Polanski.

“In particular, Mr. Polanski undertakes to remain in Switzerland for the duration of the extradition procedure, and to respect all obligations that could be imposed on him to guarantee this commitment,” said a statement. One of the lawyers, Herve Temime, added that Polanski did not pose a flight risk. “We sincerely hope that the Swiss judges are able to remain detached,” he told reporters.

[From Yahoo! News]

“We sincerely hope that the Swiss judges are able to remain detached” means “We sincerely hope the Swiss judges will be star struck with this famous director and ignore raping a 13-year-old a long time ago.” The only thing that would make me half respect Polanski is if he finally took responsibility for his crime. Be a man and go back to the U.S. and work it out through the courts. I won’t even be all that pissed if he doesn’t actually serve any time. I’d love it if he did, but what really pisses me off is the running away and hiding out like a terrified little mouse. And then having the gall to argue that he should get to kick it in his chalet instead of jail while waiting for his extradition hearing.

In related news, Poland has finally honored Polanski with his official star on their Walk of Fame in Warsaw. I really, really, really hope this was something that had been planned for a long time, and not something they just hatched in the last few weeks. It’s tacky no matter what and they shouldn’t have done it right now. It just reinforces the notion that it’s fine to rape a 13 year old, and you can still go on to have a normal, enchanted life. Disgusting.

Here’s Roman Polanski at the opening of the 8th International Film Festival of Marrakech last November. Images thanks to WENN.com .

Over the past week I’ve found myself so confounded and confused by celebrities begging for clemency for child rapist director Roman Polanski. While I understand that he may or may not have gotten off because of a legal technicality (the veracity of that argument is unclear), what I do not understand is how so many celebrities are rushing to his aid. First off, the reason we’ll never know for sure if Polanski had a plea deal or would have gotten more time is mostly due to the fact that he fled the country. His choice, his fault.

Secondly, I can’t believe they’d even want to be associated with him. No matter what – no matter what – Polanski drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13-year-old girl. While some celebrities have been making the argument that Polanski deserves to be pardoned based on technicalities in his trial that could have resulted in a dismissal, just as many are arguing that it wasn’t really rape (Whoopi Goldberg), that it’s been so long we should just let it go, his victim has publicly forgiven him, etc.

But the second most illogical argument (after Goldberg’s “it wasn’t rape rape argument) is that Polanski is/was a great director. Chris Rock put it perfectly last night:

Now that everyone from Sharon Tate’s sister to Governor Schwarzenegger has weighed in on Roman Polanski’s arrest, Chris Rock is having his say.

On ‘The Jay Leno Show’ Thursday night, Rock made the fair if hilarious point that even the most sensational trial in recent memory didn’t go places that some Polanski supporters are headed.

“People are defending Roman Polanski because he made good movies 30 years ago?” he said. “Are you kidding me? Even Johnny Cochran didn’t have the nerve to go, ‘Well did you see OJ play against New England’”

[From the Huffington Post]

I love Chris Rock. Way to cut right to it. What if I am a really great gardener? Or I am a hardworking CEO? Or a hardworking housewife? What the hell does being good at his profession have to do with rape? Does that make it okay for him to force himself into a 13-year-old? If I used to be the best surfer in Australia, does that mean I should be able to loot diamonds whenever I please? Seems like an asinine argument, but that’s essentially the correlation a lot of people are making. And I am a big fan of several of Polanski’s films. I’m just a bigger fan of justice.

California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger may have plenty of long standing ties to the film industry but he’s not letting that influence his treatment of fugitive admitted rapist Roman Polanski. Schwarzenegger was asked in a CNN interview if he would grant Polanski a pardon if he was ultimately extradited to California and the answer was “no,” along with a clear statement that he thought Polanski deserved no special treatment because of his status as a filmmaker:

During an interview on CNN’s Situation Room, the actor-turned-politician excluded the possibility of an advance pardon should the film director, 76, return to the U.S. Polanski, who made Rosmeary’s Baby, Chinatown and The Pianist, was arrested Sept. 26 at Zurich airport on a warrant related to a l977 child rape case and his subsequent flight from justice.

“It doesn’t matter if you are a big-time movie actor or a big-time movie director or producer,” Schwarzenegger said. “I think that he is a very respected person, and I am a big admirer of his work.

“But nevertheless, I think he should be treated like everyone else,” he added. As California’s governor, with one year remaining in office, the Austrian-born actor has the power to grant clemency to the director. Said Schwarzenegger: “One should look into all of the allegations, not only his allegations but the allegations about his case. Was there something done wrong? You know, was injustice done in the case?”

Polanski’s lawyer has vowed his client will fight extradition to California.

[From People]

The guy was on the lam for over 30 years after violating a little girl. He plead guilty, fled the country and needs to go to prison. End of story. Good for Schwarzenegger for standing up for justice. That reminds me of this editorial by the author of The V*gina Monologues, Eve Ensler. She asks about the Polanski case “Does Roman Polanski’s undeniable brilliance as a filmmaker somehow not make him a rapist?” Schwarzenegger’s answer is probably “no.”

Polanski’s attorneys have filed a request that he be allowed bail in order to be let out of jail in Switzerland, with the promise that he won’t leave the country. The guy owns a chalet in Switzerland and it’s not like it’s going to be a hardship for him. Prosecutors in Zurich say it’s highly unlikely that he will be granted the option to post bail, and that “in most cases the imprisoned person has to remain in detention for the whole process.” I hope the guy is extradited soon. The jails in the US are likely to be much worse than in Switzerland. At least he’s finally locked up after living the high life for so long.

Polanski is shown in the 70s with Natassja Kinski, who he dated when she was just 15 and he was in his 40s. He is also shown with Jack Nicholson, who has not spoken out on his behalf. Look at the chick behind them freaking out. Credit: Fame Pictures

I’ve been following the Polanksi case, but we haven’t been covering it as much because it’s the kind of entertainment story that veers into the realm of hideous crime. It’s also something that upsets me immensely when I consider all the apologists this guy has. Polanski drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13 year-old girl when he was 43. In case you’re one of those people who believe that it was somehow consensual, which still makes the disgusting assumption that a 13 year-old could ever give consent, read the girl’s testimony on The Smoking Gun. She said “no” several times and asked to go home. She even said that her asthma was acting up and that she needed to go home to take her medication. The victim is now a 45 year-old mother of three and is urging the DA’s office to dismiss the case, but just because the victim doesn’t want the crime prosecuted doesn’t mean that long-delayed justice shouldn’t be served. Just because the guy is an accomplished director who has some high-profile high-influence friends doesn’t mean that the case should be dropped, either. And just because his pregnant wife was murdered it doesn’t give him a pass to rape little girls. Polanski also had a relationship with a then-15 year-old Natassja Kinski in the years following his wife Sharon Tate’s murder.

In my opinion, Polanski’s only chance for a dismissal of his case involved potential judicial misconduct, as alleged in the 2008 documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. Polanksi served 43 days in prison on a psychiatric evaluation in 1978 before escaping for the high life in France. A prosecutor on the case made the allegation that the judge reneged on a plea deal that was offered at the time. The thing is, that prosecutor is now claiming that he lied and that the judge, who is now deceased, never offered Polanski a plea deal. It looks like this case just got a hell of a lot more cut and dried. The guy committed a crime and fled the country, end of story:

A former prosecutor says he made up a story he told a film crew about advising a judge handling Roman Polanski’s sex case to send the director to prison.

In “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” David F. Wells is depicted as conferring with a trial judge more than 30 years ago about Polanski’s case. Wells said in the documentary that the judge took his advice in deciding to renege on a plea bargain and give Polanski additional prison time.

“I made that up to make the stuff look better,” Wells said.

He also said he overstated his actions after being told the film would air in France, not the United States. The film aired on HBO.

Wells’ statement on the documentary later became part of the basis for a move by Polanski’s attorneys to dismiss the case against the fugitive director, who was arrested in Switzerland on Saturday.

Wells, who retired more than two years ago, did not handle Polanski’s case but was assigned to the courtroom where it was heard and had frequent interactions with the now-deceased trial judge Laurence J. Rittenband.

“They interviewed me in the Malibu courthouse when I was still a DA, and I embellished a story,” Wells said about the film crew in an interview with The Associated Press Wednesday. “I’m a guy who cuts to the chase – I lied. It embarrasses the hell of me.”

Wells said he was sorry about making the comments for the documentary.

“I cost the DA’s office a lot of money and aggravation over this,” Wells said.

Polanski was accused of plying a 13-year-old girl with champagne and part of a Quaalude during a modeling shoot in 1977 and raping her. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy.

He pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse; in exchange, the remaining charges were dropped, and the judge agreed to send Polanski to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation.

But Polanski was released after 42 days and fled the country for France before sentencing after the judge reportedly told lawyers he planned to add more prison time.

Polanski’s attorneys later argued in a motion to dismiss the case that the communications between the judge and Wells were clear misconduct and violated Polanski’s constitutional rights.

[From The Washington Post]

A haughty editorial by Polanski’s longterm friend and collaborator, British novelist Robert Harris, was published in the NY Times on Tuesday. Harris suggested that Polanski was being pursued now due to the 2008 documentary defending him, and made the ridiculous statement that so many people looked up to him so he should somehow be beyond justice. “His past did not bother me, any more (presumably) than it did the three French presidents with whom he has had private dinners, or the hundreds of actors and technicians who have worked with him since 1977, or the fans who come up to him in the streets of Paris for his autograph.”

There’s a very well argued rebuttal in the Huffington Post by author Andy Ostroy, who picks apart Harris’ claims and makes it clear why Polanski faces extradition for an over 30 year-old crime:

The simple truth is, Roman Polanski is a pedophile, which is defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as someone with a sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object. There is nothing in this definition that mitigates this behavior. Nothing regarding how often the adult has sex with a child; whether or not the mother was negligent; how long ago the crime occurred; or whether the sexual abuser has any Oscars for filmmaking. Polanski’s a pedophile and a fugitive, and it’s time, after 30 years, that he finally face justice.

It is outrageously offensive to see the outpouring of support for Polanski from the world’s elite artist-class. Are there two sets of laws according to these people? One for artists and another for everyone else? And are we supposed to be influenced by what these apologists have to say in trivializing Polanski’s despicable acts, especially Woody Allen, who married his own stepdaughter after raising her since childhood? Shame on them all.

[From The Huffington Post]

If this guy goes free now, after committing a heinous crime and leaving the country, it will be yet another example of money and power escaping justice. I thought justice was supposed to be blind, but I guess she can still be distracted by a good movie.

Director Brett Ratner (Rush Hour, X-Men: The Last Stand) recently filmed a segment as part of a collaborative movie of different shorts called New York, I Love You. Ratner’s contribution involved the story of a young man losing his virginity to a paraplegic woman hanging from a tree. He seems to have presented it as an entirely consensual experience that takes place at the woman’s reqest, and if done sensitively it could have been well received. The script was based on a real event in Ratner’s life, but he said that the story line was too offensive for producers, who had it changed to a man having sex with a female actress pretending to be a paraplegic. Only Ratner used the term “cripple.” Isn’t that a derogatory, antiquated term?

Ratner also explained that when they filmed in Central Park they had to bring their own tree and fake grass because film crews aren’t allowed to use any of the existing trees or tread on the grass.

Moviemaker Brett Ratner lost his virginity to a paraplegic dangling from a tree and now he has turned the sexual encounter into a scene in his latest film.

The director reveals his odd short, as part of new movie “New York I Love You,” is based on a real episode during his youth in Miami, Florida.

But he had to tone down the sex scene in the movie – because producers couldn’t stomach the idea of his lead actor, Anton Yelchin, making love to a tied-up paraplegic woman.

Ratner explains, “It’s probably my most personal film. When I sent the original script, which is autobiographical, the producers would not let me film it because, in the original ending, she (the girl) is a cripple, and they have sex as she’s hanging from a tree in Central Park. Everyone was freaking out over my short, so I changed it to where she wasn’t a cripple, but an actress pretending to be a cripple.”

In the disturbing scene, the girl, played by Olivia Thirlby, insists Ratner’s character (Yelchin) makes love to her, while she is suspended from a tree.

The moviemaker relocated the scene to New York’s Central Park and admits he had all kinds of problems shooting there.

He adds, “I had just two days to shoot the scene. I thought it would be easy because it was Central Park… I go into the park and I take the girl, and she weighs, like, 75 pounds and I hang her off the tree. The problem was that the law in Central Park states that you’re not allowed to touch a tree if you’re a film crew; you can’t go near a tree. So they said, ‘You can’t do this, can you make it a pole?’ I said, ‘I can’t, it has to be a tree.’ They wouldn’t even allow us to go on the grass. So, in the gravel part of the park, I put all this fake grass down and we had to bring in, believe it or not, our own tree that we flew in from upstate New York! We put that tree up and it was a nightmare because there were park rangers watching us making sure we weren’t breaking the law. It was crazy.”

[From Starpulse via Fark]

In related Ratner news, he’s planning to make a follow-up to the 2008 documentary by director Marina Zenovich, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. Ratner is quoted by Page Six as saying that Polanski’s recent arrest in Switzerland for the 1977 rape of a 13 year-old girl was influenced by a corrupt judicial system in LA:

“The family has forgiven [Polanski]. The victim has forgiven him. The rest of the world has forgiven him,” said Ratner, who cast Polanski as a French detective in his movie “Rush Hour 3.” “The LA judicial system is corrupt. It’s horrible.”

[From Page Six]

As much as I want to tie these two stories together, I will avoid jumping to any conclusions about why Ratner is on Polanski’s side. My take on the Polanksi story is that if he served his time in 1978, and the 42 days in jail was what was originally agreed on in exchange for a guilty plea, then he should be let go. I don’t think that 42 days is in any way a just sentence for his awful crime, but if he struck that deal, it should be honored. There are allegations of judicial misconduct in the case and the judge supposedly reneged on a plea deal. From what I’ve read the 42 days in jail was for a psychiatric evaluation, though, and he fled to France to escape being prosecuted for his crime. He raped a 13 year-old girl and no matter what happened in his personal life before that, he should face the consequences. If he was just another rapist who fled the country after a 1977 crime I doubt we would be so concerned about his rights. Polanski is now sitting in prison in Switzerland as US, Swiss, and French officials try to negotiate whether he will be extradited to the US to face charges.

Brett Ratner is shown on 8/10/09 at the Inglourious Basterds premiere. Credit: PRPhotos

Back in 1977, director Roman Polanski was photographing a 13-year-old girl, Samantha Geimer, at his friend Jack Nicholson’s home. Just days later, she accused Polanski of rape. She claimed Polanski fed her champagne and prescription drugs, then raped her repeatedly. At first, six charges were leveled at Polanski, and after the charges were filed, Polanski made a plea deal with the LA County’s district attorney in 1978. He pled guilty to “unlawful sexual intercourse” with an underage girl, and he was imprisoned for 42 days.

What happened then is rather sketchy, and there have been several different versions. Some versions have Polanski simply not wanting to serve any additional time in any jail, as per his plea deal, which led to his fleeing the United States. Other versions have a corrupt judge and/or district attorney who were trying to renege on the agreed-upon plea deal. It’s very confusing, and I’m honestly not sure what really happened. All I know is that in 1978, Roman Polanski fled the country on his French passport, and he’s never come back to the states once, not even to collect his Best Director Oscar for 2002’s The Pianist. (Sidenote: Jack Nicholson collected Polanski’s Oscar, and hand-delivered it to him in France.)

Since 1978, Polanski has lived in France for the most part, making his films and enjoying his freedom. The French authorities always claimed that they would not enforce an outstanding American extradition order because his crime was not covered by existing treaties between France and America. This weekend, the 76-year-old Polanski set out from his French home to head to Switzerland. He was due to receive a lifetime achievement award from Zurich Film Festival. The Swiss police arrested and detained Polanski as soon as he entered the country, and they have every intention to extradite him to the United States:

Director Roman Polanski, who fled the United States in 1978 after pleading guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl in California, has been arrested in Switzerland.

In a statement, the Zurich Film Festival, where Polanski, 76, was due to receive a lifetime achievement award, said the Oscar-winning director was held on his arrival in Switzerland Saturday.

A U.S. warrant for his arrest was issued when Polanski left the country more than 30 years ago before his sentencing. Polanski, a French citizen, has never returned to the U.S. since then and has sought to have the case against him dismissed.

The Swiss Federal Department of Justice and Police, which confirmed Polanski’s arrest on an outstanding American warrant, added that a decision to extradite him to the U.S. is subject to judicial procedure.

“Why now?,” a friend of Polanski told PEOPLE on Sunday. “We don’t understand. Roman has been to Switzerland before so we don’t understand why he’s been arrested this time.”

Earlier this year, a California judge demanded that the director return to the U.S. in order to apply for dismissal – something Polanski has refused to do for fear of being arrested on arrival as a fugitive.

Polanski’s victim, Samantha Geimer, who has said she long ago moved on with her life, told PEOPLE in 1997, “If Polanski comes back – fine. That would at least end it. It will never be over until that happens.”

The Polish born filmmaker – whose films include Rosemary’s Baby, Chinatown and 2002′s The Pianist, for which he was named Best Director (Harrison Ford accepted on his behalf) – is married to French actress Emmanuelle Seigner and has two children, Morgane and Elvis.

In 2005, he won a libel suit against Vanity Fair magazine over an article that accused him of propositioning a woman while on the way to the funeral of his murdered second wife, Sharon Tate, a victim of the 1969 Charles Manson killings.

[From People]

According to the Associated Press (via HuffPo), the Swiss authorities are waiting for the American government to make a formal extradition request. There’s still a lot of paperwork and legal and diplomatic wrangling to be done, but I think there’s a good chance Polanski could be back in America within the next few months. Although, Polanski has very powerful allies in the French government, and they might try to pull some major strings to get Polanski back. The French Minister of Culture, Frederic Mitterrand, is said to be briefing President Nicholas Sarkozy on the issues, so Sarko could step up big time.

People rake Polanski over the coals every few years, and Polanski’s victim, Samantha Geimer, usually gives a quote. The last time I remember her speaking out was after Polanski’s Oscar win, when she said publicly that Polanski’s case should be dismissed and all charges dropped. While I think she was definitely raped, I also think she’s dealt with what happened to her, and she’s looking for some peace. Polanski even paid Geimer an undisclosed settlement when she took her case to civil court. While it’s nice to see the Swiss stand up for justice everywhere, at some point people have got to drop this. I hope Polanski is extradited, brought to America, and the case can be formally resolved in a just way.

Roman Polanski is shown on 6/15/09 in Paris in the header and on 5/25/08 in Cannes below. Credit: PRPhotos

Despite a 30-year pending statutory rape charge, Roman Polanski’s had it pretty easy since his self-imposed exile from the United States. After fleeing the U.S. to escape a statutory rape charge stemming from inappropriate contact with a 13-year-old girl – which Polanski has never denied but instead says was “consensual”- he has lived in Europe, making films and mingling with the beautiful people. He sure seems to have a lot of people on his side. Even his victim, who is now 45, says it’s time to let the incident fade into history and drop the charges against the famous director. But not because she thinks Polanski is innocent – she’s just tired of all the publicity and wants to put it behind her.

The woman whom Roman Polanksi was convicted of having sex with when she was a mere 13 years old is “absolutely clear” about one thing.

She thinks the 30-year-old statuatory rape charge against the Oscar-winning filmmaker should be dismissed.
“Surprised and disappointed” that the Los Angeles Superior Court system has not heeded Polanski’s bid to have the charge of having unlawful intercourse with a minor dismissed, 45-year-old Samantha Geimer feels like a victim all over again, according to a four-page declaration filed Monday.

“I have urged that this matter come to a formal legal end,” Geimer stated. “I have urged that the district attorney and the court dismiss these charges.”

The prosecution’s refusal to dismiss the charge against Polanski, who has been living in self-exile in Europe since 1978, when he fled the U.S. out of fear of being sentenced to jail time for his crime, has “given great publicity to the lurid details of those events, for all to read, again,” she continued.

“True as they may be, the continued publication of those details causes harm to me, my beloved husband, my three children and my mother. I have become a victim of the actions of the district attorney. My position is absolutely clear. Let us deal with the harm and continued harm that the pendency of this matter visits upon me and my family, and waive the legal niceties away and cause it to be dismissed.”

“My views as a victim, my feelings as a victim, or my desires as a victim were never considered or even inquired into by the district attorney prior to the filing,” Geimer said. “It is clear to me that because the district attorney’s office has been accused of wrongdoing, it has recited the lurid details of the case to distract attention from the wrongful conduct of the district attorney’s office as well as the judge who was then assigned to the case.”

Geimer’s current position echoes the one she took in an interview for the 2008 documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, which alleges that the L.A. District Attorney’s Office had inappropriate communication with the judge overseeing Polanski’s case back in 1977-78.

A hearing on Polanski’s motion to dismiss the decades-old charge is scheduled for Jan. 21.
In a counterfiling last month that graphically recounted the details of the 1977 sex case, Deputy District Attorney David Walgren contended that Polanski has “voluntarily remained a fugitive from justice” and is “not entitled to have the court entertain his motion” unless he returns to L.A. to face a judge.

On Friday, a judge rejected the Pianist director’s request to have the case removed from L.A. Superior Court to the California Judicial Council because of this perceived bias among the court’s judges.

In her declaration, Geimer called the stipulation that Polanski must appear in person “a joke, a cruel joke being played on me.”

“I have survived, indeed prevailed, against whatever harm Mr. Polanski may have caused me as a child.”

[From E!Online]

It’s clear from Geimer’s statement that she believes in Polanski’s guilt. It’s also obvious that she’s fed up with the way Polanski is still revered by the media, and is using international law to avoid prosecution. If he really had nothing to hide, he would have shown up in court 30 years ago to clear his name. It’s really sad that even the victim in this case has given up hope on having her day in court. I do wonder – if the charges are dropped, will Polanski return to the U.S. and be welcomed back to Hollywood with open arms?

Roman Polanski is shown at the Marrakech film festival in November, 2008 and at Cannes in May, 2008. Credit: WENN