Not as morbid as you might think, really. When you make the "obit" section in Variety, shows you were somebody. 'Course, Ed was "somebody" when he didn't appear in the obit section, so...
Here's the post I did on Ed a few weeks ago. I was the "Narrator" in the musical Ed directed, "Blood Brothers". Great show. And a great director.
Ed Cotter directed me in two different productions of the musical, Blood Brothers here in California. Interestingly, the word is that Ed mentioned to someone recently that the loss of his wife, De, in 2007 had been weighing heavily on his heart. They had been married for over 60 years, I think, and inseparable. He told this person he wanted to be with his wife on Valentine's Day.
Something's dirty down at Los Angeles Superior Court and it ain't the men's bathroom stalls.
On June 10, I blogged about this excellent documentary which premiered on HBO Monday. Be forewarned: I'm not in any way taking Roman Polanski's side regarding this case. All I'm interested in is what's fair for all parties involved.
In 1997, a new judge ruled that Polanski could return to the U.S. (again - read the June 10 post) and face no additional jail time as long as the court hearing to iron out these details was televised. Earlier in the week, Los Angeles Superior Court called that assertion, "a complete fabrication", and asked that HBO change the disclaimer at the end of the film to reflect that the hearing be held in "open court" - not televised. Apparently there's a difference.
Both Polanski's original attorney and the original prosecuting attorney stand by the original assertion made by Judge Larry Paul Fidler in 1997 that the hearing be televised.
That's not all. The director of the DA's Specialized Prosecutions Bureau stated, "there was no requirement that the hearing be televised", and he added a new caveat - there is no guarantee that Polanski wouldn't serve additional jail time.
Sounds like the same bullshit going down at LA Superior Court that occurred with the original judge back in 1978. I guess there are instances with regards to our judicial system where there's no place for "fair play". I'm backing both attorney's on this one.
The documentary film "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and spotlights the film-maker's 1978 trial for having sex with a 13-year-old. I watched the HBO premiere yesterday and my eyes and attention were never diverted.
Polanski is an Academy Award-winning film director, writer, actor and producer. After beginning his career in Poland, Polanski became a celebrated arthouse filmmaker, and Hollywood director of such films as Rosemary's Baby (1968) and Chinatown (1974). Polanski is considered as one of the world’s great film directors. He won the Oscar for The Pianist in 2003.
In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, became embroiled in a scandal involving 13-year-old Samantha Geimer (then known as Samantha Gailey). It ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, a plea bargained, lesser charge. Before sentencing, Polanski was tipped off that the judge was going to disregard the plea bargain, in which case he would likely have faced a 50-year prison sentence. On February 1, 1978, Polanski fled to London, then to France. Consistent with its extradition treaty with the United States, France refuses to extradite its own citizens. The United States government could have requested that Polanski be prosecuted on the California charges by the French authorities, but this option has not been pursued. (Don't quite understand that one.)
In a 2003 interview, Samantha Geimer said, "Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us." Furthermore, "I'm sure if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it".
Key, I believe, in this documentary's success are the interviews of many of the principals involved - Samantha Geimer, the prosecuting attorney, the defence attorney and others. Unfortunately, Polanski was not interviewed and the judge who presided over the case is dead.
I'm more familiar with the Sharon Tate angle in the story (Polanski's wife who was murdered by Manson family members in 1969 - look for a post on Sharon under, "Women Celebs I Love #5 above this post) than I am with Polanski's case but a number of details about the case I was previously unaware of. I won't spoil it for you in the event you do see it. What I will say is this - the judge on this case not only did a disservice to Samantha Geimer, but to Roman Polanski as well. And both the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney agreed on this. Roman had sex with a 13-year-old - it was wrong. But the behavior on the bench by the judge was a breach in ethics. Just watch the movie.
(from police records)
Sharon Marie Polanski (nee Tate) , 10050 Cielo Drive, female Caucasian, 26 years, 5-3, 135, hazel eyes and blond hair. 16 stab wounds to the body - 4 or 5 of these would have been fatal. Victim's occupation is actress and for the last two years had been married to Roman Polanski, director-producer for Paramount Studios. At the time of her death, she was eight months pregnant with her first child - a boy.
Both the prosecuting and defense lawyer for Roman revisited the case in 1997. A judge in 1997 told lawyers that if Polanski returned to the U.S. he would serve no more time in custody; however, the judge insisted that the hearing be held 'in public, on the record and in open court.' Given the possibility that it would be televised, Polanski declined. ( I don't understand that one either.)
Polanski, 74, remains a fugitive from US authorities.
If you read a few posts down, Spike Lee and Clint Eastwood have had some words as of late. Clint told Spike to "shut his face" , then Lee said something about, "we're not on a plantation - he's (Clint) not my father". While the initial topic had to do with Clint's lack of representation of blacks in two of his films, Lee was the one who brought race into their specific comments when he used the word, "plantation". Low blow, Spike. Your stock - in my head (and it wasn't that high to begin with) - has dropped.
Wait. Now it's dropped even lower. Not because I don't like Spike as a director - I've enjoyed several of his movies and I respect him as a director. It's his attitude and whacky sense of entitlement that I have a problem with.
Lee Complains About Lack Of Interest For James Brown Biopic
9 June 2008 12:00 PM, PDT Director Spike Lee is struggling to win financial backing for a planned movie about late soul legend James Brown, insisting there's simply not enough interest in the star's life for the film. The outspoken filmmaker admits he has been trying to set plans into action for a biopic about the Godfather of Soul for some time - but has failed to get a studio to back his project. He tells MTV.com, "I have a black-biopic, no-money trilogy: Jackie Robinson. Joe Louis and James Brown. Those are three films I have scripts for and am trying to get done but have been unsuccessful so far. They (studio bosses) don't think there's a market for it, they're not interested. Or they think it costs too much. So that's one of those reasons why studios don't make anything."
I have no desire to see a movie on James Brown...I think he was over-rated. What did he have - 4 or 5 songs that I recognize (and I know music)? Hell, I thought there were two James Brown's - the singer and the-one-who's-always-in-trouble-with-the-law James Brown. Or I'm thinking of Bobby Brown?
A "black biopic". Spike said that. Not just a "biopic". Interesting. Yesterday I was on my 5-mile walk and I saw two black people (m/f) pulled over, driving a newer Mercedes. I overhead the words, "Ecstasy in the car" and the car was being towed. The man and woman were in handcuffs. Had I blogged about this and said, "a black man and woman", I would've been chastised (probably) for not just saying, "man and woman". 'Why did you have to add "black" in there, Jeff? Are you suggesting that only black people are criminals in LA?" I myself would have asked me, "Isn't 'man and woman' sufficient?"
Getting back to Mr. Spike. I said this in my previous post, and I repeat: Spike, why do you persist in being a whiny little bitch?? I'm a published playwright and have several plays I'm confident are good enough to be produced. I've had them read and produced (some - OK...one short play produced) in Ireland, Manhattan, Los Angeles, Cedar Rapids and Dayton. I'm certainly not famous like you, nor do I have the resume you do, but from one creative, artsy person to another - you don't hear me whining to my family and friends about "a lack of interest" in them. I don't whine to my family and theater colleagues about the theaters that turned down productions of my plays or the playwriting contests that I didn't win. Not every film that has the Spike Lee name attached to it is gonna be a hit - or garner interest by Hollywood executives. So - again...shut your face.
And while you're at it, the name of your film production company - 40 Acres and a Mule Filmworks. Observation: I don't understand why some black people bitch about the trials and tribulations of slavery (which was wrong), then embrace a term like, "40 Acres and a Mule" as the name of their production company (look it up, people). You would think you'd want to forget that part of your race's history. Is it similar to the reason black men are allowed to call each other "nigger" but a non-black man can't use the word? Many black people agree that blacks calling blacks "nigger" because "they can" does nothing but encourage the use of that word by others and the problem festers.
I'm just asking, Spike. Since you got all the answers.
Posts
All Comments
