Should actors continue to work with Roman Polanski?

Roman Polanski made a mistake in 1977, and has paid a heavy price for that ever since. He's had the 'fugative' label for many years now. From what I read in Polanski's autobiography, Geimer wasn't drugged, nor did she object to having sex with Polanski.

Whether this is true or not, I cannot judge upon. Polanski was convicted because she was a minor, not because it was involuntarily on her part. She may have regretted it later on.

Even though having sex with minors is not unaccustomed, (hardly any minor waits until being 18 to have sex), it is still illegal. Polanski obviously liked his girls young, in 1976 he became involved with then-15 years old Nastassja Kinski. So, in that light, Samantha Geimer, the person he was accused of having raped, was 'just another fling' to him.

All that aside, Polanski was convicted, and actually has paid $500.000 in damages to Geimer, and thereby paid his due. That combined with the fact that Geimer herself wants the charges to be dropped (as she said in several interviews), one has to wonder who benefits most from a prolonged debate about this entire issue. Surely not Geimer.So, all in all, it would be best to leave this entire matter behind us, including Hollywood actors and actresses, and let him do what he does best, creating beautiful movies, like The Piano.

He has never been punished for what he did. He was not in exile, he was a fugitive. I feel that he should be shunned by Hollywood in general, not just actors, but that is such a depraved place, they probably think nothing of what he did.

I keep wondering how many young girls he has been with since he's been out of the U.S. Someone who would do that once would do it again, in fact, he has a sickness, and probably wouldn't be able to help himself from doing it again. He chose to leave his country to avoid prosecution, and from all reports, he hasn't been living in poverty since then. He has worked abroad, collaborated with others and made money.

The fact that the entertainment community would even consider taking him back into a warm embrace sickens many people. He is a sick man and should be punished by truly being exiled from this country. Do we still do this?

I think we should in this case, because it is certainly a just punishment.

The background to that 1977 case as I understand had Polanski engaging in forced oral sex with a 13 year old girl whom he had drugged at the home of Jack Nicholson. To avoid sentencing he fled to Europe. Obviously that was a disgusting and heinous act.

Assuming that Polanski avoids extradition from Switzerland, where he is currently under house arrest at his Swiss villa, what then? This case, and the ugly details behind it, have been common knowledge since they first transpired. If Hollywood did not shun this man when the act was still fresh, why would they do so now.

If anything, the lengthy period of time that has gone by since he first fled has created a notion of sympathy for the man by some in the film industry. If they did not stand on principle earlier, I do not see how they would do so now. Sadly, the film industry has already made this decision decades ago on this matter.

Does this make this sort of reaction from Hollywood correct? Of course not. Personally, I believe he committed a vile act, one for which he did not serve punitive consequences.As such, he should face his sentence.

Should that sentence take into account the fact that he has apparently not engaged in sexual deviancy with minors since? Yes, but, the simple act of having lived an exemplary live since should not exclude him from facing up to that which he eluded so long ago. Until that act of full contrition is realized by Polanski the film industry should shun him.

Sadly as I stated above, they will not.

I think that there isn't enough outrage about his behavior. Yes, he's a gifted director but he did deplorable things to a young girl and then fled before he could be convicted. A lot of the articles related to this crime almost pity old Polanski but no one ever stops to wonder how that now woman is holding up from all of this.

Will Ferrell recently said that he wouldn't go back on the Jay Leno Show. He said that if Leno's people were to call, he'd probably "call in sick". It's funny to me how Leno's behavior is condemnable in public but Polanski's is not.In short, yes Polanski should be avoided he never really felt the ramifications from his actions.

Since the question is on whether or not actors should continue working with Roman Polanski, it depends on the actor. Sure, some people might disagree or even condemn the things that he has done. The fact of the matter is that he still is great filmmaker, even though I don't support some of his life choices.

If an actor wants to work with him, they should have the option to work with him. If they can separate their personal beliefs and politics from work, what's the harm in working with him?

Roman Polanski was married to Sharon Tate, who was brutality murdered by the Manson family in August of 1969. Several years after this tragedy, Roman met a young lady named Samantha Gailey, who was only 13 years old and her mother. He was accused of raping and drugging Samantha, during a supposed photo session with the young girl.

He was subsequently arrested and faced a trial for his actions in 1977. However, he chose to flee after paying a fine and making a plea deal to avoid prison time, but he fled the country. So in my opinion, he should never be allowed to work with any young actor or actress alone.

Therefore, he should never be allowed to make movies again, since he is a sexual predator who may reoffend if given the chance.

Well I don't see how sexually assaulting a 13 year old girl can be defined as political, so I can't answer that part of the question. As for the rest, of course not, he should be in prison, as should all men who rape minors. There are good reasons for the laws concerning age of consent, and good reasons why sexual predators need to be in prison.

Our young girls need to be protected from deviants who are not able to control their unnatural sexual urges. People who feel differently should line up outside his trailer (on his movie set) offering up THEIR thirteen year old girls for the pervert to use next. Since they obviously have no sense of society's and parents' duty to protect children from sexual predators, let THEIR children be the ones to suffer, not the rest of us.

You may think this answer is too strong. You obviously haven't had a daughter sexually assaulted by an adult male. It tends to bring out strong feelings.

If you didn't know it before, now you do. Prison is too good for slime like Polanski.

Actors should still work with him. Roman Polanski is not the only person in Hollywood who could be accused of unforgivable acts. According to the documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" the entire court precedings were more Hollywood style grandstanding and theatrics than a legitimate quest for justice.

The popularity hound judge renegged on a deal with the attorneys for both sides after the trial had concluded because he felt it would make him look bad in the media. So Polanski fled, not specifically because he had been rightly convicted and did not want to face federal prison, but because the judge had renegged and at that point there was no telling what the distrustful vengeful judge might do just to make a point and bolster his own reputation. Artists can still create meaningful important art despite their personal travails.So can Athletes for that matter, just look at Tiger.

I'm sure he'll be back to playing great golf in no time and will still draw thousands of people out to the courses. Picasso shacked up with a 17-year-old when he was 46. Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year old cousin, and despite being ostracized faced no criminal persecution.

I guess marriage made it OK? I think for Hollywood to boycott an influential artist like Polanski would be downright hypcritical. Art relies on its audience.

If people want to boycott watching Polanski's films then by all means do it. But I don't believe the art itself has been tarnished in any way.

These are all good answers based on personal opinion. Roman Polanski owes a debt to society, this must be paid no matter how much time has past, and reguardless of the victims position. Actors should consider the fact that he is a criminal, and some fan will not approve (Guilt by association).

As a consumer I will probably avoid attending another Polanski film until this matter is resolved. I don't think I will go as far as to hold the actors woking with him accountable for Roman's infractions.

It all depends on your moral value system. He was convicted. He drugged and sexually violated a minor.

The difference between himself and other pedophiles, sex offenders is that he has fame, money, and powerful connections. If you are willing to do business with any known criminal, famous or not. Then working with Polanski is a non-issue.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.