This kind of celebrity club doesn’t appeal to the average person
Published: October 6, 2009
Updated: October 6, 2009
In the opening line to the movie “Annie Hall,” Woody Allen tells the audience: “There’s an old joke — um… and it goes like this — ‘I would never want to belong to any club that would have someone like me for a member.”
Currently, Woody Allen is a member of the celebrity club asking for film director Roman Polanski’s release from a fugitive warrant for failing to appear for sentencing after he pleaded guilty to a felony sex crime with a child.
Woody is also a member of Polanski’s predatory-sex club.
Woody Allen’s common-law wife and the mother of his children, actress Mia Farrow, discovered nude photos of her adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn, in Woody’s apartment. At the time, Allen was 56 and Previn was 21.
In the subsequent custody hearing for the minor children he had with Mia Farrow, Woody Allen testified, “It didn’t occur to me that this would be anything but a private thing.”
Judge Wilk asked him, “Wasn’t that enough, that you would know that you were sleeping with your children’s sister?” Allen answered, “I didn’t see it that way.”
Allen had a vision problem, and it seems Polanski has a memory problem.
At his plea hearing in August 1997, 44-year-old Roman Polanski admitted that in March 1997, at Jack Nicholson’s home, he had sex with a girl when he knew she was only 13.
Under oath, Polanski told the judge: he was guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse/victim under 18; that the plea agreement did not do anything other than drop his five other charges in exchange for his plea to the single crime; he knew he might get prison time; he knew he might be deported because of his guilty plea; and he agreed to do the statutorily required “Mentally Disordered Sexual Offender” evaluation.
The 19-page sentencing report said the 13-year-old victim went with Polanski under the guise that he was going to take pictures of her for the French magazine Vogue Homme. After sharing a bottle of champagne with her, he photographed her topless. Later, he gave her a Quaalude and photographed her fully nude.
After that, Polanski committed the remainder of the crimes he was charged with.
The report also described the horror story of Polanski’s life. As a young boy, he escaped from the World War II Krakow Jewish ghetto in which his family was interred. His father survived concentration camp but his mother did not. After the war, his father remarried and Roman was sent away when he did not get along with his new stepbrother.
The pre-sentence report said, “There is no current religious affiliation. Defendant, born in the Jewish faith, was raised in the Catholic faith, subsequently embracing and then renouncing communism as a substitute faith.”
He first came to the U.S. in 1967 to direct “Rosemary’s Baby,” a film about the incarnation of Satan, starring Mia Farrow as Rosemary. One year later, Polanski’s pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered by Charles Manson’s followers.
The pre-sentence report contained many character letters, including one from Mia Farrow, and concluded with the probation officer’s recommendation that Polanski receive no jail time.
Polanski, though, had already fled the country before the report was submitted to the court.
Hollywood celebrities destroy themselves by making up their own rules, and frankly, the rest of us can see we wouldn’t want to be members of their club.
Sharman’s column appears each Tuesday.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
You are right on it again Brewer!
Yes, rjma, it would be fair to say that about Republicans, because it is true as well. Except I would be more exact and name some names like Sharman did so the average reader could grasp that you would be talking about the ones in leadership or power who has just about completely destroyed the party.
After all, it’s not the unknown “Hollywood” personalities that carried the weight and power to demand Polanski be returned to America to serve out his sentence.
Ordinary Woman - RJMA may finally be getting it! He is half right from my perspective. If he had started his letter with “Cheney is part of the political club that ...........“ and ten or 12 paragraphs later said “Republicans destroy themselves by making up their own rules” both statements could be true, without you and or I assuming he meant ALL Republicans. We would have understood clearly by reading the entire letter that he meant only the Republicans in the same “political club” that Cheney is part of, and would never have insisted that he meant ALL Republicans. Maybe someone would have asked “Surely you don’t mean ALL Republicans?” And maybe someone would have insisted he meant all. Not me. And I think not you. Oh well.
So it would be fair to say “Republicans destroy themselves by making up their own rules”“, after all I’m only talking about “some” and didn’t say “all”.
By the way, if you had been reading my columns you’d know that I am more critical of big media than Mr. Sharman. I just don’t call it “Hollywood”.
Thank you Brewer,
But NO RJMA, the statement is clear: “Hollywood celebrities destroy themselves by making up their own rules”, does not say ALL.
All means ALL and that’s ALL that All means.
See what I mean Ordinary Woman?
Let’s gloss over the statement “Currently, Woody Allen is a member of the celebrity club asking .....“ and use the last sentence completely out of context, to force on you the fact that Sharman meant ALL.
You could say that the attention span of some people is not long enough to go from the begining to the end of this letter.
But that can’t possibly be the case.
No, OW, that’s not how the game works. When someone writes “Hollywood celebrities destroy themselves by making up their own rules” that paints an entire group with one broad brush, it is up to them to back it up. It is not for others to disprove his assertion. Sharman doesn’t even attempt to prove his assertion.
Apparently you somehow think that the more sexually graphic you make your post the more credible your views become. I for one can discuss this without your trashy imagery.
That said, I’ve said before and I’ll say again that I think he should be returned to CA to face justice and it appears that is what will happen.
On the other hand I certainly understand that people who know him personally believe that he should not be brought back. That’s what friends do.
I also didn’t know there is a list of the “Hollywood Elite”....although I thought it was all Hollywood, not just the elite.
Ordinary woman - RJMA and El Debibble have made it perfectly clear to me in past on this topic. Because Sharman didn’t say “some” it is obvious Sharman meant all. You may as well admit it. You will never get the last word with either of these “know it alls”.
Just read their blather, and ignore them - let them think they have you convinced. This way, you really win, and they think they’ve won.
OK, rjma, please tell us the data that proves that Hollywood people would have voted in the majority to send Polanski back to serve his sentence. Go ahead. Give us the data!!
Don’t get off on other political agenda’s. This article is about one broad stroke….questioning…would the Hollywood elite have voted to send Polanski home or to have him stay abroad and enjoy his career while some little 13 year old had to remember that one of her first sexual experiences were that of someone famous who got to screw her in the rectum because he gave her enough drugs to get away with it????
One last time. The problem with this column is that Sharman paints an entire group with one broad brush. How can you not say that is unfair?
If not then you’d have to agree to say it is fair for someone to to say “Republicans don’t care about the poor” or that “Southerners are unsophisticated” or that Blacks are…well you get the idea. The only group that I think you can make broad generalizations about are NY Yankee fans.
Well, as expected EL, you just can’t accept when someone has a different perspective then you. So why don’t you ask CSE to let you write an article each week in opposition to the views of Sharman’s? That way you could give us the “numerous examples to the contrary” and back up what you believe to be true.
You can’t re-write history today, when it was clear 30 years ago that the Hollywood majority-rule (clique) did not demand Polanski to come back and complete sentencing.
You probably won’t be allowed to write, as your judgmental attitude can’t help but come out.


Advertisement