Director Roman Polanski celebrates his 90th birthday on August 18th. He was the husband to Sharon Tate, and father to their unborn son, Paul Richard Polanski. Roman was friends with Voytek Frykowski from an early age, growing up in Poland. Roman was also friends with Jay Sebring and Abigail Folger.
After the Tate-LaBianca murders, Roman was interviewed by police, and subsequently conducted his own personal and private investigation of the murders at his home on Cielo Drive in Los Angeles. He will forever be a part of the immense story that is the Tate-LaBianca murders.
Please click on the video below to view photos of Roman through the decades.
Music by: Saint Etienne, Join Our Club, Heavenly Records, 1992.
22 comments:
Let the arrows fly.
Talented yes. Genius no IMO. Flawed definitely.
Suffered a tragic loss the scale of which few of us could imagine.
Largely unpunished for his deviancy thereafter.
Left with mixed feelings about RP. Certainly some sympathy but revulsion in at least equal measure.
Cui bono?
I wonder
how some or many persons/humans that live/lived with no belief or a general practice
in a religion
or any spirituality, such as those that practice humility, love of nature, the natural world and universe and all that wonder around and above us, that they have and mean well as opposed to those that just don't have religion or any spirituality as I described in the first sentence above.
How do these people live to be 90 or even several years more or less
while having a rather 'neutral' or as so many, a cold attitude to spirituality
and it's their physical comfort and often, their ego that is all that comes first in the world.
This movie business involved character is 90 and all he has done is say that he's kinda sorry that happened with, let's face it, a child. A girl of 13.
Like many keep doing, even with that sort of phony 'regret,' the only thing, in their mind they are truly sorry about, is getting caught.
Are you of any religion?
Or, simply a good person who means well? As is obvious that the vast majority that visit and comment on this site are.
Within a short time, this sexual criminal was actually hustling women for dates:
as in, 'Im the Hollywood director of this and that movie.' And they did and it was, of course, for sex. Within a week of the crimes at Cielo. I wonder, if you only care about you and you believe in only your gratification and the easy high class life, then you may be one of those that are like this character. Being with Sharon was only to his advantage, was his mindset and within say, five years, he'd take off afree a divorce, or simply continue to cheat on Sharon. The shows go on
that should read: 'he'd take off after a divorce,'
in the last sentence
thank you
I tend not to think about Polanski in connection with TLB. He really has very little causal connection to the events. In that sense he's like the pool, or the pergolas: a part of the background that has no real affect, one way or the other, on the events at 10050 Cielo.
So far as any other things he did later, I see that as part of a separate narrative and hence unconnected to TLB.
It's always hard to assess a flawed/bad person who does good things. His early work (Knife under Water, Cul de Sac, Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby) was exceptional and some of his later work (Chinatown) showed he still had talent. Amongst European film directors he is up there with the best.
His other side is hard to forgive, although the facts are not always clearly given. The girl had been sexually active for a while and was there at her mother's instigation. She had already undressed for Polanski at a previous session, and came back willingly for more. This, albeit pre-Weinstein, was the time of the casting couch and a recognised way into the industry. A well trodden path.
Her age at the time is unacceptable to us but sexually active thirteen-year-olds were commonly 'willing and able' back then on the fringes of showbiz. Manson himself was not immune ad who knows how many runaways showed up at his door. Think Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, jimmy Page, etc., and plenty more. Girls of this age queued up at concert stage doors and hotel entrances to get laid (see that scene with Shelly Plimpton and Arlo Guthrie in the movie Alice's Restaurant). And Rolling Stone Bill Wyman was openly living with 13 year old Mandy Smith with her mother's blessing and the knowledge of London's Metropolitan Police, who were unconcerned.
All of which is not me condoning Polanski, judged by today's standards was a monster who should have known better corrupting a minor unable to take such decisions responsibly. But it was quite a while ago, in a very different climate. Contrary to what many people believe Polanski did time and only skipped bail before his trial because the trial judge had announced he was going to make an example of him. By today's standards what he and Geimer did was reprehensible, but she has asked for him to be forgiven and I don't think continued attempts to prosecute him now are useful for anyone.
Good information Proteus, but as I said, so far as TLB it's unconnected.
Beyond that, I agree with your assessment of his films--it's evident that he makes films less from inspiration, as he apparently did at the beginning of his career, but still they are well made films.
In this regard (making some uninspired films very professionally) he's like Ridley Scott.
...and I thought that The Pianist was right up there.
But that's all outside of a focus on TLB. It's like noting that Grant had met with Lincoln the morning of the day of Lincoln's assassination. Grant was himself an interesting character but had no direct connection with the assassination.
Anyhow, that's how I see it. I certainly don't blame people here for wanting to talk about an interesting character with a connection to one of the victims, but not with the events, themselves..
Shoegazer said:
“I tend not to think about Polanski in connection with TLB.”
There is very minor way that Roman provides info concerning the murders at Cielo Drive.
So Schreck’s “Myth … Shaman Manson File” book came out in 2011. On this blog there were about 3 articles debunking 3 things Schreck wrote. The articles were authored by a group named something like “WeR7”. I believe DebS was one of the group members.
The articles are good and in one of them there were other things mentioned that were in the book without backing or sources.
One of the things mentioned was that Schreck describes there being drinking glasses present at the scene and that was something that was listed as there being no evidence to prove this.
But in an early newspaper article, Roman specifically described how the police asked him if there was a party that night because there were (six? drinking ) glasses.
It’s very likely that some of the addendums to the homicide progress report contains this info. (O’Neill appears to use addendum’s as can be seen police interviews that are tagged with a number). But without having access we do get this info from Roman.
These glasses may also be one of building blocks for some of the unsubstantiated drug transaction rumors.
So Roman was did provide us with a piece of info that is not that easy to obtain.
From Statman’s book we get Paul Tate removing the last Heineken from the fridge. New motive, Tex killed the hosts because they were out of beer.
ToF:
Do you feel that this is relatively solid information?
I *profoundly* mistrust books as primary sources of info, and this mistrust increases as the publication date becomes more remote from the event.
Too, in the situation of the supposed question about a party with 6 glasses, I'd personally want the context and the intent. There's no guarantee that the police did not feed the idea of 6 glasses to try to smoke out withheld information about the events of the night.
Shoegazer,
I didn’t communicate to you in a clear way.
Schrecks book, I have the 2021 version, is a combination of faction (fact and fiction) and fantasy (G.W. cut down the cherry tree). Schreck is extremely poor on providing sources, but none of the books do it well, with Guinn being probably the best. Unless you can prove a statement wrong by providing a source that shows the correct answer, you can only ask for the source of something written that you have no knowledge of. You may not believe it or believe to be true, but you can’t say it’s not true.
WeR7 missed the article of Roman saying the police asked about a party because of the glasses. They were at fault disproved by Romans article. We don’t know if Schreck used Roman’s article making this case circular (if he did).
Did LE lie about the glasses? Maybe, but even if they did there still is a base for this info and you need to prove that they lied.
There is nothing in the available reports and photos showing, the bar, the dining room, or the kitchen. Even concerning the dogs and the kitten. There is only documented proof of the kitten at the pound truck, with Rudy’s dogs. Nothing about Tate and Folger’s dogs.
Bugliosi blew a fuse when Garretson mentioned the bird. He wasn’t aware, they all missed it. Rudy confirmed it.
So Roman either gives us proof of an LE lie (to see where Roman leads them) or valid information that is not in the police reports available to us (may or may not exist).
Roman is definitely minor in TLB, unless you get into all the unsubstantiated rumors concerning sex, drugs, etc; which I don’t. I don’t think he’s in any way related to motive.
I don’t base too much on books. I like photos, police reports, trial transcripts, parole hearings, and limited data from news articles close to the event.
TorF, yes. Good points on these seeming small details. Like Rudy's bird, Edward, a green singing finch, the other pets, and the drinking glasses. We should also remember that Winifred Chapman was asked repeatedly by the defense about drinking glasses and dishes about the Cielo premises when she would report to work in the morning. The defense was always attempting to paint a portrait of a party taking place at Cielo on the night of the murders.
Additionally, I always found it strange that the dining room, kitchen, and back quarters of the house were absent from police reports. We are told Sharon and Abigail's dogs, Prudence and Tom, were found in a closet. Which closet?
And to all: agreed that RP did not command a huge role in the totality of TLB. Like all of my photo videos, the basis of them is basically existential. Roman was the husband of Sharon Tate, he lived at Cielo, conducted his own investigation into the deaths, and achieved the milestone of turning 90.
ToF:
I see your points, and thanks for spending extra time explaining them.
You were clear enough the first time thru, I just didn't get it. :^)
Torque:
Additionally, I always found it strange that the dining room, kitchen, and back quarters of the house were absent from police reports. We are told Sharon and Abigail's dogs, Prudence and Tom, were found in a closet. Which closet?
I don't suspect anything too extraordinary about what I'm bringing up, but I read Atkins' various statements and GJ testimony, and nowhere in her narrative does she mention going anywhere to the right of the entry hall--toward the DR--this in spite of Watson telling her to essentially check out the house to see if anyone else besides Frykowski was there.
As to the dogs in the closet, one wonders: which closet, and who put them there?
It's interesting (to me, at least) having these discussion on what amounts to the epistemology of of the Tate case. It made me realize, clearly, that I'm pretty content with the basic official narrative, and if there's some evidence that seems to be in conflict with aspects of the narrative, to me, this calls into question only the aspect it contradicts.
There are those who start with a favored scenario, and if they find *any* conflict in the narrative, use it to disqualify the entire narrative, allowing them to substitute in their favored scenario.
E.g. as ToF mentions that Altobelli had a bird. Apparently this was something Bugliosi was not aware of. And of course this makes Bugliosi look like he has incomplete information, or worse, withholds information arbitrarily, but the existence of the bird has no apparent bearing on the events of the 8-9 Aug, so to me it's just noise until it can be shown to have significance to the events. However, there are those who would use this to completely unwind the narrative. Then we'd begin to hear about the CIA, etc.
You know, oftentimes I find that in a new problem, I look at it for a while, and if the causal agent(s) is not readily apparent, I start trying to eliminate causal agents from the full palette of semi-qualified possibilities. In short X *cannot* be because of Y and Z.
Most aspects are not that clear, so that one can categorically eliminate them, so then I do a sort of triage based on *likelihood* as judged from physical evidence, statements, and life experience. E.g., the blood drips on the trunks: how were the trunks arranged to account for the pattern.This is not known for certain, but it appears to me that it was not likely they were standing on end. And yet the pattern, to me, is not explained. More elimination/speculation is needed.
We'll never get to the bottom of it but it's certainly fun trying!
"He put his penis in my butt."
Kraut - Quite
Respecting her religious beliefs.
Proteus said:
although the facts are not always clearly given. The girl had been sexually active for a while and was there at her mother's instigation. She had already undressed for Polanski at a previous session, and came back willingly for more. This, albeit pre-Weinstein, was the time of the casting couch and a recognised way into the industry. A well trodden path.
Her age at the time is unacceptable to us but sexually active thirteen-year-olds were commonly 'willing and able' back then on the fringes of showbiz
All of this is true...but does that ∴ justify it ? 🤔
One can argue that anyone who owned female slaves was free to do with them as they pleased. And it was common for female slaves to be raped at will or used as a sexual plaything, even among sailors on board the slave ships, before the slaves were owned by anyone. Its commonality goes without saying ~ but so too does the fact that it was not right then or now. Just because we are more stringent about these things now doesn't take the edge off then.
Lots of people will say that it's an "apples and oranges" argument, but while our view of a particular mode of action may change over time ~ this doesn't mean that that something has suddenly become right or has suddenly become wrong {depending on what we are talking about}.
By today's standards what he and Geimer did was reprehensible, but she has asked for him to be forgiven and I don't think continued attempts to prosecute him now are useful for anyone
As I stated a few months back, I don't have a problem with her forgiving him. I think that was a good thing she did. I'd be a weird kind of Christian {mind you, there are people that would say that anyway ! 😉} to say that she shouldn't forgive someone ! But this goes way, way wider than Samantha Geimer and any individual action she may have chosen to take. This is about society, it is about every man out there that has dodgy inclinations towards very young girls, whether they be sexually active or not {because it's a topic in itself how a girl of 13 comes to be sexually active; in many instances, where does that start and who does it start with ?} and it's about protecting millions of young girls from being exploited, groomed, "persuaded" by men and women {yes, including their mothers} savvier than them and continuing the social mindset that more than implies that this is mentally and physically healthy with not a jot of consequence anywhere further down the line. A 44-year-old man having sex of any kind with a 13-year-old girl that he has drugged, is answerable for those actions in my opinion, even if he's run off and has just turned 90.
Grim I think your thought processes are strong- the bigger issue is a legalistic one - once a perp has negotiated a plea deal and fulfilled it, should a fame seeking judge/the state be allowed to pull it? I do not think so. Did Roman get a weak, baby sized sentence- yup. Did both sides agree? Yup. He gets to walk even if it was no where near enough
Usually the judge takes the recommendation of the prosecuter but he doesn't have to.
FAO DAN
Agreed. This was way different- HE AGREED to a sentence- Polanski went to the hospital- and they found him fine in a fraction of the time. To then REDO the sentence is frightening- he was able to run and he correctly did
We have a system of laws that are supposed to be impartial, but the system really boils down to the human judges meting out the justice. We have systems to mitigate that, juries, the bar, higher courts of appeals, but it boils down to our faith in the judges' righteousness. Mostly they do well but they're still human.
I love watching them be patient and fair with morons defending themselves like Darryl Brooks. Chandler Halderson's judge was great. If we're lucky suitcase slayer Sarah Boone will defend herself, or at least take the stand. Tony Todt on the stand was incredible.
Halderson, amato, guy jr.: talk about your children coming at you with knives!
The ironic thing about those parent murderers and that statement is they're getting all stabby (and shooty) because they were spoiled, not neglected.
Post a Comment