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.
Great post, Sam!
Personally, I don’t think Polanski can be forgiven. The fact that the victim has forgiven him does not exonerate his crime. It does, however, I believe, put the ball in the victim’s court: if she does not want matters to proceed after all this time, and would rather let sleeping dogs lie, then I see no problem with Polanski being detained indefinitely or imprisoned without her involvement. If the point of punishment is to prevent relapse, and if there has been none (that we know of) in however many years, and if the original victim wishes to be left alone, then Polanski’s punishment should be purely his own, and not constitute any kind of burden on his victim. He deserves to be held account for his actions, regardless of how long ago they were committed, or how poorly his family was once treated. Violence begets violence, but I hardly find I likely that being the child of Holocaust survivors impelled Polanski to be a rapist. Whether or not he knew the age of the girl at the time, which is a very unlikely defence, is irrelevant: she was young enough that he asked her mother for permission to photograph her, and she protested his advances. She asked to go home, and he would not take her. Who can forgive that?
I agree wholeheartedly that Polanski should rot and die in jail, not so much for his crimes but for his stupidity and lame excuses. He thumbed his nose at America for thirty years, which is just STUPID! If he had stayed in the states, if he hadn’t made a pledge to appear and then left the country, he would have been out of jail for what, 20 years, longer?
However, I also wholeheartedly disagree with your linking this to Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson was never found guilty of any crime and was treated like a freak by the American media, police, and justice system overall, again without never a verdict. You can claim that he paid off the victims, or that he was powerful enough to get away with his crimes, but the truth is there is not a skerrick of evidence that Michael Jackson ever did anything more wrong than poor judgement, as well as poor taste in “friends”.
Foz (though this does relate to you as well Michael) – my issue is not so much with the outcome of the trial as it is with the existence of it. What disgusts me is the sycophantic praise of a man for one thing being lauded as an excuse for another. It is unbelievable that people think that a man’s artistic endeavours should stop him being held accountable. Once again, it’s not about him being jailed or detained. People are protesting that America decided to catch him, as if they ignored it for 30 years and just figured it would go away. The victim’s thoughts on the matter should be taken into account (or if she chooses, not) but that should occur within the legal system, not in the tabloids or some pretentious petition by other film makers.
Michael – Believe it or not, despite the way Michael was treated by the public, it would have been much worse if he hadn’t made Thriller, I promise you. The fact is kids were still sent to his place, his shows still sold and every argument for paedophilia was equally met with an argument against. I honestly believe that one of the worst things a man can be accused of is rape, and above that paedophilia. If such accusations come out as being false, to poorly paraphrase Macbeth, the spot doesn’t wash. The damage is done at the site of accusation and ‘innocent until proven guilty’ while still existing in principle, does not apply to reputation. MJ’s fans to this day defend that he was never charged, and I have been one of them. But in doing so, they also omit that he admitted to giving wine to adolescents and sleeping in bed with them. Both things are entirely inappropriate and while they do not have the ramifications that paedophilia does, they are still worthy of some concern.
Olivia Hambrett, editor at Trespass Magazine has written a wonderful article focusing on the impact of the artistic response on rape victims which I believe is not only a unique and valuable take, but also right on the money.It’s definitely worth checking out.
Thanks both of you for your wonderful feedback!
On those counts, Sam, I agree!
Here, here!! Well done Sam, very insightful argument and I completely agree with you. Thank you for writing this in such a diplomatic yet with a strong moral tone, our society sadly has a lot to answer to!
L S – thank you for your lovely comment. I hope you (and others!) will stick around to follow my articles here and elsewhere.
Thank you all, once again, for your wonderful feedback on my first post here with Reportage.
I think the Polanski controversy is way too overdone now. It’s not any different from any other famous celeb/sports person case where “a minor has been raped-some million years ago”! This happened 3 decades ago. The people working on the case at present, probably weren’t even born in the 70′s. Yes he was a jerk and hosted an unlawful “act” with a minor. But the victim is a fully-grown adult now, (with grey-hair too).. she has forgotten the case. She has forgiven the man (As you say.. a number of times). The man has given delivered some brilliant cinematic performances ever since. Probably this worldwide humiliation is a way of community service for him. Calling him to the film festival and making a mockery of his presence at the airport was a little nasty, i reckon. People need to stop with sensationalising an event. The paparazzi needs to stop. The media needs to stop. Rape is a DISGUSTING AND PATHETIC crime… i am against it. But i support “new” news.. not stuff that happened when i was in my mum’s womb !
p.s. Great post sam!
Shitika: The difference here is that these allegations aren’t just coming to light now, he was charged, was convicted, and fled the country. He has been an incredibly high profile fugitive from justice, and even won an academy award while still wanted by US authorities, which is a disgusting joke. I think the fact he has been arrested on his way to accept a lifetime achievement award is hilarious… I also honestly hope his life ends behind bars.
Sam: Also, let me say I enjoyed your article, I thought it was well written and you made many valid points. I hope my ranting didn’t offend you or anything.
It is just that Michael Jackson is a sore point with me, not because of his success or talent, but because I honestly believe that he was an incredibly scarred and stunted human being, and I believe his actions were as those of a child, not an adult, and in that context sleeping in the same bed (at least) is perfectly understandable. I didn’t heard that thing about the wine, but I am sure it was in context (such as a meal).
Also, when ranting about Polanski, I totally forgot to mention his libel trial. Because he was a fugitive from justice, a british court allowed him to use a video link to give evidence. So he is allowed to legally pursue a magazine for wrongs done to his reputation while on the run from the law for forcing himself on a thirteen year old he drugged? Poor form, british civil judge, poor form.
I don’t even know where to start how ignorant the notion ‘But i support “new” news.. not stuff that happened when i was in my mum’s womb !’ is. I’m sorry Shitika but that just doesn’t fly with me. I mean if we were to dismiss crimes based on their dates then so many people not to mention heinous historical events would go unobserved and unpunished and we would be blissfully ignorant. But that’s not the case. You commit a crime, you pay for it.
The victim may have forgiven Polanski but it’s not just about her any more because – and I’m not a lawyer – I’m pretty sure rape isn’t a just a crime against an individual but against the state also. If Polanski isn’t made an example of, others may get the idea that sticking your finger up from all the way in Europe for 30 years will excuse you from paedophilia.
Lots of people are up in arms about how it was disrespectful of the authorities to capture Polanski the way they did. Polanski forfeited any respect and acclaimed he’d achieved the minute he decided to drug a 13 year old girl and rape her. Any recognition of his work, I personally believe, is a joke and a slap in the face.
The thing that makes me the angriest is well respected actors and directors are putting their name on a petition to face this man. Just because the man is in your elite group of circle jerkers doesn’t mean his crime can be excused! It’s ridiculous!
Good article, Sam.
Joyeeta: Hear Hear (here here? I can never figure out how to spell it). As for Samantha Geimer, (seen here) she isn’t the victim here. The victim here is this little girl.
-Edited, fixed your links. -Nick E.
I fail at html
Joyeeta : i agree with you that this guy deserves no sympathy at all. But i strongly feel that we as a society somehow love to blow the trumpet when a celebrity is involved in societal crimes/cases. And what i’m finding outrageous is, why blow the trumpet AFTER 32 years? Does the case still hold the same strength? The victim said that she wants to forget about the entire thing, just because she doesn’t want to be dragged in to this all over again. And look, she is being dragged into it. Each and Everyday!
In the 70′s or even the 80s; rape and sexual assault cases held a strong sense of shame and disgrace within them. Now the society is very shameless. Rape is just an everyday term (don’t misread me when i say, everyday! It’s a terrible crime and deserves a hefty punishment). The society today is sadly, attuned to these horrific crimes. And it only carries a meaning when performed by a BIG name.
Where do all the anger vanish when the girl living next to your house is assaulted in her house by a stranger? Or where the passion dissolve when something like this happens to a “nobody”! That is what is bothering me. By putting Polanski in the limelight, all the offenders out there will not really “learn a lesson” or feel immensely guilty about what they have done and intern, surrender! NO.. that will not happen… Even if the society that it may happen….
Just clarifying again… I am NOT supporting Roman Polanski… He did a crime.. and he should be punished. But will putting him behind bars and covering it on a 60-minute live telecast over a current affairs show change society’s and offender’s perception? Will it ring a bell in those disgusting and pathetic minds?
The way the case is being dealt with in the media and the certain areas of the society is what is bothering me!
Also.. Excuse my ridiculous number of Typos in the previous post. This font is hopeless to proof read in.
I have to say, Greg Morelli’s article was hilarious and brought up some great points. I know everyone’s raving about Kate Harding’s essay over at Salon but Morelli nailed some hard facts that everybody should be examining more closely. Read the comments too – very sharp and very funny.
Leave your response!
Reportage social
Popular
Categories
Comments
Links
Featured multimedia
Special reports
Reportage's annual news snapshot of Sydney over three days in May 2010 produced by journalism students from their newsroom at the University of Technology, Sydney.
Working Lives
An ongoing series of interviews with leading Australian journalists about their lives and careers.