The Polanski effect: great art conquers all
The arrest of filmmaker Roman Polanski in Switzerland has been greeted with public outcry around the world. Is Polanski the tragic victim of a spurious American justice system, or has society come to accept violent crime – as long as the perpetrator is a creative genius? By Samuel Webster.
Roman Polanski with his Crystal Globe award. (Image: Film Servis Festival, Karlovy Vary)
Last week, legendary filmmaker Roman Polanski was arrested as he tried to enter Switzerland for a film festival. That is old news, but has sparked an interest in me I cannot contain. There are questions that are yet to be answered. Why now? What about the court settlements? What about the victim? But instead I must bring to the forefront a question which, morally, begs for exploration.
Why are people defending him?
Cold and disturbing fact: In 1977, Roman Polanski (then 44 years old) was convicted of the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl. He gave her alcohol and Quaaludes and performed various sexual acts on her, including intercourse.
Result: He was originally charged with “rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act [with a minor.]” (FindLaw) However, as part of his plea bargain, the charges were dropped to only include a charge for sexual acts with a minor. By my count, that would make him a charged rapist and a convicted paedophile.
But, don’t forget. Polanski is a brilliant filmmaker so his capture is a perversion of justice. How dare we lock up a genius?
Reuters reported that French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterand stated that he thinks “this is awful and totally unjust… Just as there is an America which is generous and which we like, so there is an America which is frightening, and that is the America which has just revealed its face.” (Anger in France and Poland after Polanski arrest, 27/9/09)
Anna Applebaum at the Washington Post goes further, and this is what I take issue with:
“The girl, now 45, has said more than once that she forgives him, that she can live with the memory, that she does not want him to be put back in court or in jail, and that a new trial will hurt her husband and children… There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age…”
Once someone is charged for a crime, the victim’s opinion should not affect the legal judgment. The precedent that sets is that one can commit all the crimes one wants, as long as the victim won’t force retribution. There are many emotional and psychological reasons why a victim may want to put the trial behind them and that inclination cannot be the impulse behind the path of justice.
“He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski’s mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland. His pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in 1969 by the followers of Charles Manson…”
Ms Applebaum argues that for convicted paedophiles, and charged rapists, there is a loophole. If you are a Holocaust survivor, or have endured the murder of loved ones, you can avoid punishment for your crimes. I’m not saying that the rape didn’t occur under questionable psychoses, but that is something that should be decided in court, not by your bank balance and plane tickets.
“Polanski is 76. To put him on trial or keep him in jail does not serve society in general or his victim in particular. Nor does it prove the doggedness and earnestness of the American legal system.”
Another loophole, if you run long enough, you’re not guilty. The system is earnest in that it persecutes for crimes even-handedly, and does not take into account personal situation in the execution of justice. Those individual circumstances are things taken into account throughout the sentencing, but cannot fairly be used as a means to free someone of guilt.
“If he weren’t famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all.”
Applebaum’s last phrase is particularly worrisome in that it gets it completely backwards. The truth is, those supporting Roman Polanski right now are adhering to the concept that ‘because he is famous, no one should bother him at all.’ They express disgust at Switzerland for inviting him to a film festival and then extraditing him. They blame the world that does not understand his genius. They blame the people who refuse to see that rape is okay if you are a Holocaust escapee. She claims that her article does not support rape, but surely you cannot be against rape, and still think that those convicted should roam free? In my view, rape is never okay, and should always be punished.
There are those like Chicago Now’s Greg Morelli who comments rather light-heartedly:
“Yes, he diddled a 13-year-old girl. Yes, he diddled a 13-year-old girl at the home of Jack Nicholson. Yes, there was champagne and quaaludes and diddling. But I don’t blame Roman Polanski. I blame the mother. Who drops off a 13-year-old girl, dressed like a 25-year-old woman, to hang out with Roman Polanski at the home of Jack Nicholson? “
I’m not saying that Polanski is the only party involved. He wasn’t home alone with the girl, her mother knew where she was and his victim has since forgiven him. All of these facts need to be considered, of course, but they should be considered in court when he is tried for his crimes. They should not be excuses for a man’s decision to flee, for if it were up to the individual we would all roam free of retribution.
But the truth is, this situation is not new. Michael Jackson was supported for years by fans using the “Thriller was fantastic” line of defence. John Lennon’s “Imagine” is revered despite widespread public knowledge of his alcohol-driven violence towards his wife and son. Chris Brown was on Larry King the day after sentencing, and mark my words: he will bounce back from his bloody attack. As a general audience, we have fallen to vacuity, taking our artistic reverence and marking it as innocence.
“Leave Britney alone!” we cry melodramatically at a webcam when a pop star is found putting her children at risk.
“Leave Michael alone!” we scream as the news paints our favourite pop-star in a poor light.
“Leave Polanski alone!” we cry at the way our pianos now hold cinematic weight.
But still there is one more question: what will we use for truth once art has dissolved it?
Should Polanski be tried and sentenced? Or should he be left alone? Leave your comments below.
Sam Webster is a writer who teaches cultural studies by day and muses on the state of the world by night. He is currently working on his first novel. Read more at his website or follow him on Twitter.
