The Persecution and Character Assassination of Roman Polanski As Performed By The State of California Under the Direction of Steve Cooley

And unforgettable finale — played out in the shadow of THIS.

“When she hopped the Santa Fe Limited for the West Coast after graduating from high school in 1938, Joan Barry (born Mary Louise Gribble) was a would-be actress with no professional acting experience or training. An impulsive, temperamental redhead with a voluptuous figure, the flamboyant 18-year-old planned to take Hollywood by storm.

Instead, while struggling to support herself by waiting tables, she was arrested twice by the LAPD for upgrading her wardrobe by shoplifting dresses from swanky department stores. In search of a less risky way to outfit herself, she became the mistress of a wealthy and prominent Los Angeles business man who paid the rent and kept her in style for the following two years.

During the zig-zag course of psychologically unstable Barry’s check-bouncing, pill-popping, wrist-slashing, binge-drinking, emotional blackmailing progression from harlot to starlet, she briefly became the luxuriously pampered playmate of the richest oilman in America, John Paul Getty. Finally, in June 1941, she signed a contract to become the $75/week salaried protégé of the wealthiest star in Hollywood, Charlie Chaplin, after making a successful screen test for the Chaplin Studio. (Getty had given her a Cadillac; Chaplin gave her a fur coat).

At the time 52-year-old Chaplin signed Barry to the renewable six-month studio contract–complete with acting lessons at the classy Max Rheinhardt school, and swanky Beverly Hills dentistry to cap her teeth—he considered her a gifted and promising actress. Looking back with regret twenty-five years later, the dignified septuagenarian awkwardly alluded to other characteristics of the young starlet that had also caught his eye. “Miss Barry was a big handsome woman of twenty-two, well built, with upper regional domes immensely expansive which…evoked my libidinous curiosity,“ he stiffly recalled in My Autobiography.

The basis for Chaplin’s hindsight chagrin over his breast fixation was that his torrid love affair with this histrionic drama queen with a borderline personality disorder (she employed theatrical temper tantrums, suicide gestures and pistol-packing threats of violence to get her way) turned out to be an even more disastrous personal fiasco than his marriage to Lita Grey had been. The Grey affair had cost him a tidy sum and some unwelcome publicity (which later inspired his film The Circus) and then blew over. But the public relations aftermath of the tawdry Barry affair eventually lost him the good will of the American people and resulted in his permanent political exile—as well as the immediate public rejection of his very next film, Monsieur Verdoux. Not surprisingly, Monsieur Verdoux was a self-referential black comedy about the sensational public trial and execution of a lady-killer. Chaplin based his fictional character Henri Verdoux on Henri Landru , a cold blooded Parisian blue beard who married and murdered ten women for profit. But the trial scenes in this movie (see next essay) echoed Chaplin’s time in the court room with Joan Barry. His first trial was criminal. The second two were civil.
A crass seductress who lacked nuance, primitive Joan Barry was not in the class of the seductresses of his childhood imagination, Josephine de Beauharnais, Lillie Langtry or Nell Gwyn. Her manipulative and explosive emotional outbursts undoubtedly provoked simmering feelings of murderous rage in many of her emotionally exasperated and exhausted former patrons and admirers over the years, including Charlie. Chaplin was, of course, the only one of her former lovers in an artistic position to sublimate creatively the feelings Joan provoked by filming a witty, sardonic, semi-autobiographical black comedy about the trials and tribulations of a cold-blooded lady-killer (which he told sympathetically from the killer’s point of view).

Either despite or because of Joan Barry’s borderline personality disorder, she exerted an extraordinary attraction over Chaplin—the irrational basis of which he surely did not fully understand. Although he was in the dark about why he found this erratic young woman so fascinating and alluring, she probably reminded him unconsciously of that other status-seeking, slightly crazy, grasping and materialistic, emotionally flamboyant femme fatale-actress, Lillie Harley. “When I behaved myself he was bored,” Barry recalled.

The most striking similiarity between Chaplin’s actress mistress and his actress mother was their shared history of mental illness. In Barry’s case, she would later be hospitalized in a California state mental hospital and diagnosed with schizophrenia (in the 1950s). The FBI exploited this already borderline psychotic young woman years earlier as their prize witness and poster child in a cynically trumped-up white slavery case whose covert agenda was to neuter Chaplin politically for his outspoken support of the Soviet Union during World War II. But their own FOIA files clearly indicate that the L.A. Bureau agents investigating the case alerted the home office even then that slightly crazy Joan Barry was an unreliable witness.
The priceless opportunity, however, that their carefully orchestrated courtroom media circus provided to discredit Chaplin politically (with a lurid photo as he was finger-printed like a common criminal spread gratis across the front pages of the nation’s newspapers) was more than worth the time and money J.Edgar Hoover spent when he personally authorized Chaplin’s frivolous prosecution on lurid charges of transporting a young woman across state lines for immoral purposes. The graphic “pimp shot” of Charlie (above) even made “Picture of the Week” in the February 28,1944 issue of Life magazine. At the time Chaplin actually was a happily married man and expectant father (having wed Oona O’Neill on June 16,1943).
Ironically, Joan Barry’s patently obvious emotional instability also seemed to be the unconscious inspiration for which Chaplin had been searching, for an uncompleted film project, Shadow and Substance. Contrary to the Hollywood grapevine, Charlie did not place Joan under contract simply to sleep with her. Barry’s screen test had revealed that apart from her nasal New York accent, which Chaplin planned to correct with elocution lessons, she had a remarkable ability to project convincingly his protagonist in that film, a spiritual young woman who has visions of the Virgin Mary, communicates directly with her namesake Saint Brigid, and experiences a deeply personal connection to the Saviour.

If Joan Barry’s temperament had much in common with Lillie Harley’s; Chaplin’s martyr-like screen heroine in Shadow and Substance, Brigid, evoked powerfully Hannah Chaplin’s own deep spiritual connection to Jesus Christ, even before Hannah lost her mind and began to experience religious visions during her floridly psychotic episodes at the Cane Hill lunatic asylum.

But the uncanny similarities between Joan Barry’s instability, and Chaplin’s childhood memories of his mother’s, did not end there. Returning to court after his white slavery acquittal for a series of civil trials over the hotly disputed paternity of Joan Barry’s out-of-wedlock child, Chaplin found himself in his father’s shoes. Like Charlie Chaplin Sr. who protested bitterly in a London courtroom the unfairness of his being obliged legally to financially support a child who was not his biologically (Sydney Chaplin), Chaplin soon found himself in a Los Angeles courtroom protesting an identical injustice.

Despite the fact that scientifically incontrovertible but legally inadmissible blood group testing evidence conclusively demonstrated that the child in question could not have been his, Chaplin lost this jury trial (eleven to one) and, like his father before him, was instructed to pony up.
While he felt as morally outraged as Charlie Sr. had in the face of that earlier miscarriage of justice, Chaplin paid the child support. But he abandoned the Shadow and Substance project which glorified and idealized a religious martyr figure like his mother and started instead to work on his courtroom drama, Monsieur Verdoux , which bitterly satirized the Kafkaesque legal injustices he and his father had suffered.

Conceived as an ironic comic indictment of modern capitalist society, which had driven Henri Verdoux into his financially motivated career as a lady-killer, Chaplin’s film failed to win the sympathy of American moviegoers for his new martyr villain /hero, whose cynical morality, urbane manners and fastidious dress seemed the antithesis of the lovable Little Tramp, whom everyone had seen as a chivalrous rescuer of damaged and fallen women).

Having been vilified by the American press as an arrogant symbol of elitist wealth and privilege , and made to look like an unfeeling monster in his relationships with women throughout the course of the Barry trials, Chaplin was unable to win back the enormous public sympathy which he had previously enjoyed (and mistakenly assumed he could take for granted).

Not only did Monsieur Verdoux flop at the box office, but two months after its release an irate Republican congressman in the House of Representatives called for his deportation by the Truman administration. Charlie Chaplin, he declared, was un-American.”

For Chaplin there was eventually a happy ending.

The same can’t be said for Joan Barry.

Born as Mary Louis Gribble, her father, Jim Grumble, committed suicide before her birth. Her mother remarried, a man whose last name was Berry and the family moved to New York before Barry went to California in 1938 to pursue an acting career.
Charlie Chaplin had a brief affair with Barry, whom he was considering for a starring role in Shadows and Substance, a proposed film in 1942, but the relationship ended when she began harassing him and displaying signs of severe mental illness. After having a child, Carol Ann, on October 2, 1943, she filed a paternity suit against Chaplin in 1943. Although blood tests proved Chaplin was not the father of Barry’s child, Barry’s attorney, Joseph Scott, convinced the court that the tests were inadmissible as evidence, and Chaplin was ordered to support the child. The injustice of the ruling later led to a change in California law to allow blood tests as evidence. Federal prosecutors also brought Mann Act charges against Chaplin related to Barry in 1944, of which he was acquitted. Barry was institutionalized in 1953 after she was found walking the streets barefoot, carrying a pair of baby sandals and a child’s ring, and murmuring: “This is magic”.


Hedda Hopper, who made all sorts of tabloid hay of Barry’s ravings, wasn’t around to pick up the pieces when her alleged Chaplin “victim” hit bottom. “Magic” indeed.

Plus ca change


plus c’est la meme chose

“Four years after he fled the United States in 1978 after pleading guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, Roman Polanski “forced himself” on another woman, then 16, in his Paris apartment, the woman alleged Friday. Charlotte Lewis of London, who appeared in Polanski’s 1986 film Pirates, made the allegation in a press conference held at her attorney Gloria Allred’s Los Angeles office. Allred described Polanski’s alleged behavior as “sexually predatory conduct.”
“[Polanski] sexually abused me in the worst possible way when I was just 16,” said Lewis, who remained composed while reading a prepared statement. “He knew [how old I was] when he met me and forced himself upon me in his apartment in Paris. He took advantage of me and I have lived with the effects of his behavior ever since it occurred. I’ve traveled to the U.S. at my own expense to make sure that justice is finally done and that Mr. Polanski gets what he deserves. All I want is justice.”
Lawyers for Polanski said in a statement: “We don’t have any information about statements made at a Gloria Allred press conference today, but we do know that the District Attorney continues to refuse to provide the Swiss government with accurate and complete information relevant to the extradition issue.”
Allred was vague as to what legal remedy her client was seeking, but said Lewis was willing to testify against him. Authorities in L.A. are seeking to extradite Polanski, 76, to the U.S. from Switzerland on decades-old charges he had sex with a 13-year-old girl. Allred says she and Lewis have already met with an L.A. detective as well as a prosecutor.”

Let’s so the math, shall we? Charlotte Lewis was born in 1967. She was 16 year’s old in 1983 when Polanski’s alleged “sexually predatory conduct” (never brought upduring the trial) allegedly took place.
Pirates was produced in 1986, three years after it’s director “sexually abused me in the worst possible way.”

Not so bad as to forego the movie.

Polanski, like Chaplin amd Woody Allen, has a taste for young women.

He is also a filmmaker of great distinctio n — a fact I have been repeatedly told should never be mentioned.

He is also the victim of one of most notorious ass murders ever committed in this country — a fact that, etc.

Something he’s scarcely forgotten.

Hey — he makes weird movies

But just before that last one —

Parents pimping out ther kids is an old story in Hollywood. Think of Beverly Aadland.


Think of


But we’re not supposed to think about anything save dragging Polanski back to California so Steve Cooley can be elected Attorney General, and a Nancy Grace-trained public can get its pound of flesh.

So what’s the appropriate Polanski punishment?

This would be no surprise to him. He’s escaped death so many times. He even lived to make a film about a fellow Warsaw ghetto survivor.

Most recently he’s made a film about the never-to-be-prosecuted crimes of Tony Blair and Dick Cheney

In all likelihood he may not live to make another film.

But Polanski has never been one for happy endings.

Sing us out Maurice


  1. Timbo1952 May 16, 2010 11:06 am 

    the use and abuse of the Justice system for political purposes, revenge, financial and personal gain, as well as personal aggrandizement is repeated throughout history, i.e. the Dreyfuss matter. The number of wrongfully convicted men and women (almost always poor and minority) fuels the rage that the powerless feel toward the system. Polanski made a horrible mistake, independent of the morality and legality of what he did. He was weak and put himself at the mercy of bad judges, bad lawyers and bad prosecutors. No purpose is served by his prosecution other than making some sanctimonius conservatives happy.

  2. eggsackley May 17, 2010 12:53 am 

    I only disagree with the first comment posted because of the reference to sanctimonious conservatives: when Polanski was arrested in Switzerland, it was the drama queens at Huffpost and who led the charge, screaming for his blood. We’ve always known that the American left could be sanctimonious too, and as the recent eruption of Gloria Allred on the weird margins of the case reminds us, we’ve really “slud” in recent years. Although Polanski has been fair game ever since his arrest, the tabloids, who no longer consider him news, have left this one alone. Their role is now being played, for the most part, by the liberal blogosphere and upscale gossip rags like Vanity Fair. You can read about the slander suit Polanski won against that publication for reporting that he made a pass at a starlet and offered to make her “the next Sharon Tate” while en route to his wife’s funeral — complete with Graydon Carter’s arrogant unapology — in Polanski’s Wikipedia article, which has been locked since the new controversy erupted. This has had the unfortunate effect of leaving three pages of Grand Jury testimony that a judge leaked a couple of weeks before his Oscar win as the uncontested last word on the case, while more credible material contradicting it that is also available online is less readily accessible. As a lefty who scarcely dares to speak the name anymore, I thank David for upholding the standards we all once believed in by putting this sorry episode in historical context with his great visual essay.

  3. David E May 17, 2010 7:20 am 

    Merci Monsiuer!

    The idstinction between the tabloids and the “legitimate press” was erased some time ago. Definitively wiht the O.J. Simpson circus.

    Ah for the days of Maurine Watkins and press whores with style!

  4. Timbo1952 May 17, 2010 8:27 am 

    SORRY my typing skills are lacking. I agree with eggsackly but as a liberal i take any excuse to bash the other side. Gloria Allred and other represent an element of self promotion and egomaniacal posturing by people who are more left that right but I am reluctant to admit it. They have also been baying for the blood of Polanski for their own motives.

  5. lawguy May 20, 2010 1:01 pm 

    I’ve been thinking I would comment but the the flu disagreed with that and I am now able to drag myself to the computer.

    Your post caused me to drag out Jerry Geisler’s “Hollywood Lawyer” and reread the chapter on Chaplin’s trial. Of course after that I had to read about Flynn’s trial. Flynn’s “crime” was probably closer to Polanski than Chaplin, although those problems didn’t seem to affect Flynn’s career much if at all. I have read a couple of memoirs of soldiers in WWII who mention that the Flynn “incidents” did give them a new saying when they got back from a pass off base, that they “Were in like Flynn.”

    Reading Geisler’s cross of one of the girls is eye opening for what he was able to get away with and what one could get by with now, or even in the 70s. Statutory rape was a crime in the 40s so Flynn (if I recall his memoirs correctly) merely lied about the whole thing. Geisler chose to believe his client and put him on the stand to deny everything. He was also able to bring out the picadellos of the girls. One of the more interesting points is that Geisler wanted women on his jury figuring they would be more likely to give Flynn a break.

  6. David E May 20, 2010 1:16 pm 

    Flynn’s Romantic Rascal movie persona was of considerable help in saving his ass. Chaplin criticized capitalism, attacked Hitler (before it was Politically Correct to do so) , and was suspected of being a Jew.

    Polanski IS a Jew, who survived the Holocaust (unlike his mother who was exterminated in the camps), and survived Charles Manson.

    His sin? Making weird and disturbing movies, particularly one about Los Angeles in which a VIP is revealed to have fathered an offspring by hos own daughter.

    His mistake? Leaping to bait that had been hauled all over town.

  7. lawguy May 20, 2010 2:51 pm 

    You are probably right. The visceral hatred of Polanski still surprises though. The anger that is still there is kind of weird. I’ve read several commenters who have viciously attacked Gore Vidal for his defense of Polanski.

    The other part of that is the total acceptance of the girls grand jury testimony as gospel and the insistance that since Polanski plead to the charges he must be guilty. Even though anyone with a passing relationship with the criminal justice system knows that there are a great number of people who plead out because the down side of going to trial and losing are way too great.

  8. David E May 20, 2010 4:50 pm 

    Gore Vidal was attacked for calling Samatha Geimer a whore — which she was. We are a nation obsessed with sexualizing children while at the same time ostentatiously declaring shock that anyone would would be interested. Michael Jackson was a gay pedophile. But his marketing himself as what Baudrillard identified as a “sexless alien” was strikingly successful. To this day people believ he slept with underage boys but never touched them. (Yeah, right.)

    Polanski should be contrasted with Bill Clinton. The way the Beltway carried on you’d swear no one had an illicit affair (or in Clinton’s case a quckie blow-job before.) The publif rightly felt this was something between him and Hillary, and so their incredibly expensive efforts at destroying him came to naught. She, meanwhile has gone on to become one of the most respected figures in international diplomacy.

    Go to The Smoking Gun to read not only Guimar’s testimony but the doctor’s report on what did and didn’t happen between her and Polanski that day. The “He drugged and sodomized her while she begged for him to stop” meme is sheer daytime soap opera. Nothing about how she was dry-humping her Mom’s boyfriend in the police station waiting room.

  9. David E May 20, 2010 5:27 pm 

    a fortiori

    Graham Green published the following review of “Wee Willie Winkie” Both he and the magazine “Night and Day” were sued by Shirley Temple’s studio and her guardians. The magazine was bankrupted and Greene fled to Mexico, where he found the material for his novel, “The Power and the Glory.” When Greene’s film criticism was collected in the volume “The Pleasure Dome” this review was omitted.

    Night and Day, October 28, 1937 The Films by Graham Greene

    Wee Willie Winkie

    “The owners of a child star are like leaseholders — their property diminishes in value every year. Time’s chariot is at their backs: before them acres of anonymity. What is Jackie Coogan now but a matrimonial squabble? Miss Shirley Temple’s case, though, has peculiar interest: infancy with her is a disguise, her appeal is more secret and more adult. Already two years ago she was a fancy little piece — real childhood, I think, went out after “The Littlest Rebel”). In “Captain January” she wore trousers with the mature suggestiveness of a Dietrich: her neat and well-developed rump twisted in the tap-dance: her eyes had a sidelong searching coquetry. Now in “Wee Willie Winkie,” wearing short kilts, she is a complete totsy. Watch her swaggering stride across the Indian barrack-square: hear the gasp of excited expectation from her antique audience when the sergeant’s palm is raised: watch the way she measures a man with agile studio eyes, with dimpled depravity. Adult emotions of love and grief glissade across the mask of childhood, a childhood skin-deep.

    It is clever but it cannot last. Her admirers — middle aged men and clergymen — respond to her dubious coquetry, to the sight of her well-shaped and desirable little body, packed with enormous vitality, only because the safety curtain of story and dialogue drops between their intelligence and their desire. “Why are you making my Mummy cry?” – what could be purer than that? And the scene when dressed in a white nightdress she begs grandpa to take Mummy to a dance – what could be more virginal? On those lines in her new picture, made by John Ford, who directed “The Informer,” is horrifyingly competent. It isn’t hard to stay to the last prattle and the last sob. The story — about an Afghan robber converted by Wee Willie Winkie to the British Raj — is a long way after Kipling. But we needn’t be sour about that. Both stories are awful, but on the whole Hollywood’s is the better.”

Leave a comment