Saturday, October 31, 2009

Gore Vidal, a despicable old fool, defends Roman Polanski, a rapist

Of all the Hollywood and Hollywood-ish celebrities who have come out in defence of Roman Polanski since the director's arrest in Switzerland last month, Gore Vidal is without question the most reprehensible.

Or, at least, his defence is the most reprehensible of all the defences that have emerged so far:

Author Gore Vidal says he refuses to feel any sympathy for Roman Polanski’s rape victim, whom he dubs a "hooker."

In an interview with The Atlantic, the controversial 83-year-old author of such books as "Myra Breckinridge" and "1876" says of the director's sex scandal, "I really don't give a fuck. Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she’s being taken advantage of?"

The young woman to whom he is referring is Samantha Geimer, who was a 13-year-old aspiring model in 1977 when she was drugged and raped by Polanski.

Vidal went on to say that the media pushed an inaccurate image of Geimer, painting her as an innocent victim as opposed to what he believes to be her true identity.

He went on to suggest that anti-Semitism and anti-gay motives were behind Polanki's persecution. According to this celebrated author, Polanski basically did nothing wrong.

What a sick thing to say -- a reflection, perhaps, of a sick mind.

Geimer was not a prostitute, she was a 13-year old girl. Now, she may have been more grown-up than most girls her age, and her shameless mother may have been pushing her into Polanski's circle, but does that mean she deserved to be drugged and raped -- anally raped -- by a man with a sense of entitlement who was clearly trying to take advantage of her, and who persisted despite her protests? And even if she were a prostitute -- and, again, she wasn't -- would that justify rape? Is it perfectly okay to drug and rape prostitutes? According to Gore Vidal, the answer to these questions would seem to be a resounding yes.

For more on this, see Melissa McEwan, who shares my disgust and contempt. Yes, Polanski may have been the victim of bigotry, but, no, that doesn't mean "there is not a legitimate case against him." There is -- and his various supporters around the world can only defend him by ignoring the facts and making excuses for raping minors. As far as I know, no one has gone quite as far as Vidal, but it's all ugly nonetheless.


See my previous posts on the Polanski saga:

-- Politico and partisanship: The very stupid attempt to link Roman Polanski to Obama and the Democrats, via Hollywood.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share


  • I can't help but remember Lilly Tomlin's SNL sketches where she used to call him "Mr. Veedle."

    Actually I do suspect he's beginning, at 82, to show signs of dementia. He claims he never heard of the Gay Marriage issue, that John McCain lied about being a prisoner in Vietnam (everyone from Annapolis lies) he says.

    That was back in 2008. I think he's about ready for a straight jacket at this point.

    As to the douche bags trying to pin Polanski's apologists on Obama, they don't have that excuse. They're not insane, they're douche bags.

    By Blogger Capt. Fogg, at 12:58 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home