I am loath to bring up the arrest of Roman Polanski in Switzerland on an old U.S. warrant, because I generally find that referring up the director’s legal history in this country accomplishes very little besides giving a certain number of individuals the opportunity to puff up their chests and get humoungously righteous. I will note, for the heck of it, a commenter on a Facebook thread who, apropos the arrest, giddily pronounced “…we’ve all been waiting for justice here in America!” This struck me as funny, because recently I’ve been reading about that dude in Texas who was, like, totally put to death by the state despite being all, like, not guilty of a crime and stuff. And I wonder where’s the frothing at the mouth about that? But that’s just me. It probably really only has something to do with my pathetic inability to include myself in the “we” that’s all been waiting for justice in America. Sad.
UPDATE: Kim Morgan’s consideration of Polanski’s art—specifically his practically-feminist Repulsion—is well worth checking out, its slightly in-your-face title notwithstanding. When I wrote about Criterion’s great DVD of Repulsion back in July, I noted: “I’ll leave it to others to ruminate on the irony of Polanski having made two of the best, most sensitive pictures about how a patriarchal society can crush women: this one and Tess, filmed in 1979 after Polanski’s departure from the United States.”
It’s insane how moralistic people get over something that in no way, shape, or form involved them. Even the woman whom he ‘violated’ says the past should just be buried. If SHE isn’t upset about it, what right does anyone else have to be? I’m not saying it was right, I’m just saying it’s not really anyone else’s business.
@Ryan Kelly: putting ‘violated’ inside dismissive quotation marks goes a little far in my book. The details in the original indictment – not the lesser charges RP eventually copped to – make for pretty grim reading. Agreeing that he got shafted by a judge who kept moving the goalposts on him is one thing, exonerating him is another.
But when it comes to the brass-tacks question – do I really want to see Polanski brought back to the US in handcuffs? – the answer is no. For one thing, if we’re talking justice, the mind reels at all the ’70s rock stars and Hollywood names who should be on trial with him.
Gah, that does send the wrong impression, you’re right, and you were very right to take me to task for it. Of course what he did was very, very wrong and something no sane, rational adult would do.
And yes, I understand that he did much more than have consensual sex with a minor. It probably still would have been a crime even if she hadn’t been 13.
In America, justice is interpreted as blood vengeance. Nothing more or less. It doesn’t help that Polanski was foreign-born and partook in something that was not uncommon in ’70s Hollywood.
As Glenn mentioned, it hardly matters if some poor sod is guilty or not as long as the state gets to kill someone or destroy their life. I always thought that if there was an execution of an innocent proven (and the state makes it near-impossible to do so), the prosecutor, judge, and jury should be punished. Prosecutor should be imprisoned (and sentenced to death if he shows any misconduct in railroading an innocent man), judge should lose his law license and be removed from the bench (and lose his pension), jurors should never be allowed to sit on another jury again in their lifetime, and their names published. And the family members (if any) should be given every nickel the judge and prosecutorial team has made for the entire time during and after the miscarriage of justice. Not for vengeance, mind you, but deterrence. It would make them much more careful about who they decide to kill by state sanction.
What’s always interested me is the vehemence of those who would bring Polanski to “justice,” which to my mind extends beyond reason even if you take as a given how incendiary the issues of rape and violation are. How many times does one feel obliged to preface any kind of critique of the handling of the case with “Well, of course, what Polanski did was utterly deplorable, but…?”
I also sometimes wonder what might have happened had Polanski not fled the country. What kind of man, what kind of artist, might have emerged from the river up which Judge Rittenband suddenly decided to send him?
I’m personally doing quite a bit of frothing about Cameron Todd Willingham. What’s especially infuriating is how Governor Rick Perry and then-prosecutor (now judge) John Jackson still defend the sentence. Judge Jackson saying on Nightline that even though the arson evidence has been completely discredited, the fact that Willingham was put to death doesn’t bother him at all. He then twists all logic to say that the arson evidence wasn’t the most important evidence but the fact that he had tried to kill his kids before (he allegedly beat his wife while she was pregnant which a sitting judge conflates into “trying to kill his kids”).
But if there was no arson, then there was no crime. Even if he had actively tried to kill his kids in the past (which there’s no real evidence to suggest he did), you can’t put him to death because his kids eventually did die in an accidental fire.
If Willingham were still alive, he’d likely get a new trial (just like Ernest Willis). It’s only because he’s dead that the governor and the prosecutor (now judge) twist and conflate and do whatever they can to convince themselves (and others) that they did the right thing.
And sadly, unlike DNA evidence, the discrediting of the arson “science” isn’t quite as definitive to the general public (if, to bring in another suspicious Texas case, DNA testing showed that Leoncio Perez Rueda raped Sister Tadea Benz, it would be extremely difficult to continue to support the idea that Johnny Frank Garrett raped and murdered her.)
Since the original investigation was botched, we can’t find a definitive cause of the fire that killed the Willingham children. And as long as we can’t, there will always be those who will say “well, you can’t prove he didn’t start the fire.”
I don’t care anything about Roman Polanksi except that I hope the whole thing finally gets settled in such a way that’s fair.
I think papa zita hit it on the head when he noted the fact that Polanksi was foreign. It would seem that he took the fall for lots of extremely seedy behavior that plenty of natural-born Americans were just as guilty of – the outcry for justice being a way of sanitizing our own version of history, yet again.
As for the Texas débâcle – to me, it’s primarily another glaring example of the insanity of capital punishment.
Ryan: I don’t know that it’s overly “moralistic” in and of itself to be against statutory rape. “If SHE isn’t upset about it, what right does anyone else have to be?” Consent isn’t an issue in such cases, by definition. She was too young to consent.
The Polanski case is always a tough one for those of us who treasure his work. Prior to the legal trouble, he had an awful life with which it’s impossible not to sympathize. And the judge “shafted” him, as tc said. But he did what he did, and to be honest I’m not sure my love for KNIFE IN THE WATER and CHINATOWN would trump my outrage if the girl were my daughter.
But, no, I certainly don’t feel like puffing my chest up about his arrest. It’s just a sad situation all around.
BTW, obviously the “Ryan” I addressed in my post is Ryan Kelly.
Did I saw I was for statutory rape? But there are people I know who simply refuse to watch a Polanski movie because of this situation. To me, that’s just insanity, and yes, moralistic in every sense of the word. It’s a terrible, ugly, thing he but it’s still not enough to judge his work by, is all I mean.
Yes, I’d feel differently if it were my child too, as we all would. But, on that note, would you have allowed your daughter to pose scantily clad for an issue of Vogue? I wouldn’t, least of all leaving her alone, mostly naked, in a room with an older man.
Ryan: I’m sure you’re NOT for statutory rape, which is why I found the wording of your original post unfortunate. You say if the victim isn’t upset, why should anyone else be? Um, well, because we have this law. But again, I’m not coming down on the side of the “humongously righteous,” as Glenn calls them. I only mean to say that a certain amount of outrage over Polanski’s actions isn’t uncalled for, just as we should feel outrage over the judge’s misconduct.
And no, if I had a daughter, I’d like to think I wouldn’t be as irresponsible as the mother in this case. But it wouldn’t absolve anyone who took advantage of my stupidity at my daughter’s expense. Just as the judge’s misconduct isn’t justified by his desire to see justice served. I guess that’s my main point – justice is not served by ignoring or minimizing the actions of either man, so I don’t understand choosing sides on the issue in some black-and-white way. I’m not sure if that means I have no dog in this fight, or two. Oof, it’s uncomfortable up here on this fence.
I do agree that an artist’s work should be considered apart from his or her personal life, but I also understand why that can be difficult for some people (maybe I should stop before Griffith, Reifenstahl and Kazan start getting pulled into this).
Maybe Polanski could hire Mackenzie Phillips for his next film?
Since I was the first to take issue with Ryan Kelly, may I say I also know what he’s getting at in his most recent comment. Junking an artist’s work out of disgust with his or her personal morality would lay waste to something like half of my DVDs, not to mention CDs. Lou Reed, Mick Jagger? Yeesh. I guess it’s just lucky I like Bach OK, but a diet of nothing but would get kind of samey.
I also doubt many people would argue that Polanski hasn’t paid a steep price for his transgression. 30-plus years of working in exile has probably done more damage to the career he might have had than a few months in jail ever could. Even so, I could wish that just once he’d expressed some real (not defensive) remorse. So far as I know, he hasn’t.
I responded to a friends’ post about Polanski, that I find it completely illegal to arrest someone in a country in which they are not charged (again, unless you’re Bin Laden-with an int’l warrant) – and this woman wrote back “raping a 13yr old is illegal no matter where you are”…missing the point entirely.
This makes me so angry! (does this allude to the fact that I approve of child rape? Please…)
First – do we need to say say that celeb culture was never clean? Wtf was a 13yr old doing at Jack Nicholson’s house in the 70s anyway? I was 13 once, I used to pretend to be 15 to get the 19 year olds (it uh, doesn’t work, when you don’t look the part)…but even after all this time and the girl (now woman) says “whatevs, we’ll settle this, leave this alone”.…it doesn’t even matter.
Has Roman been a threat since? Yes – of course, to other filmmakers because he’s so damn good. But really now, I agree with your point “justice in america?”, while health care is still being debated? Innocent people still being sent to jail…really Polanski is the big deal?
I do note the irony that I happen to like Polanski’s work, which is why I find this all really disgusting…while I’m just waiting for Tom Cruise to eff up.
But still, the lesson is bigger than all of this. I just worry about civil liberties.
ps: Glenn – your question is super interesting! What would’ve become of Polanski had he not fled? Part of me really thinks that we wouldn’t have had THE PIANIST…
I know that the vitcim has publicly forgiven him, and the judge was sketchy but… He gave drugs to, and then fucked an underage girl, both of which are illegal. He then fled the country to avoid prosecution, which makes him a fugitive. Obviously an innoccent man being executed is awful, but what does that have to do with this case? Because of what happened in Texas we should let rape slide? What if it wasn’t Roman Polanski The Director, but Roman Polanski The Plumber? Would you feel differently?
@ Colin: Well, that’s part of the whole point, isn’t it? How you, or I or the next person “feel” about the case. And my point in bringing up the Cameron Todd Willingham execution is that how we “feel” about a case has in large part to do with what we know, or more to the point, have been told about a case. Again…Jesus, I feel like such a tool for falling for this…yes. What Polanski did in 1977 was disgusting, awful, morally reprehensible, and very truly ILLEGAL. And, as the arguably too-worshipful/deferential documentary entitled “Roman Polanski: Wanted And Desired” chronicled, his case was an awful clusterfuck.
I’m not positing Polanski as a folk hero. Nor am I excusing his actions. Yes, I had a nice conversation with him in the lobby of Cannes’ Hotel Martinez and shared an elevator (a small one) with him shortly thereafter back in…2008? Yes. If that is sufficient ground for deeming me corrupted, go for it. For my (taxpaying) money, doggedly pursuing his extradition seems…well, hell, if the District Attorney’s office of the worse-than-bankrupt state of California believes it’s worth it, who am I to gainsay it?…
@Colin: good comment. Polanski the Famous Movie Director vs. Polanski the imaginary plumber is one basic issue here, always has been.
But for the record, he didn’t flee the country “to avoid prosecution.” He showed up in court and pleaded guilty to a reduced (but still serious) charge. He only ran like hell for Europe once the judge started changing his mind about the right sentence.
Glenn, with all the very great respect I have for you as a critic and a writer, I have to say that my indignation over that Texas case and a good many others does not lessen my feeling that it is high time Polanski face the music. In fact, it increases it. It sticks in my craw, as a diehard liberal, that while poor people in this country may die for crimes they didn’t commit, a man can use his money and prestige to evade the legal system for so long. I don’t think it serves the people of California all that well to send him to Soledad or wherever for an extended period. My personal choice would be have him allocute at long last, fine the shit out of him, at most have him clean toilets or pick up highway litter for a couple of weeks and send him back to Paris and Emmanuelle. For what it is worth, I assure you my chest is not puffed out when I say that bringing him back to face a sentence, whatever that sentence may be, is worthwhile because no one is above the law. Not Polanski the plumber and not even Polanski the genius.
There’s no doubt what Polanski did was wrong and illegal, but, as Glenn is pointing out, it brings out a lot of people who use this opportunity to take a rather self-promoting moral stand on a highly publicized case involving a movie director while remaining apathetic about tragedies that do not involve famous people.
Certain members of the moral police foam at the mouth when a public outrage happens just so they can chime in with perhaps a little bit of self-deification in the process. While some of us do actually remember that those that make the loudest moral accusations in society have often been people with dubious morals themselves.
Ultimately, this is a legal matter now. And whatever happens to him will happen, but a lot of this self-satisfied “We Got ‘Em Now!” rhetoric while readying the noose reeks of self-aggrandizement for taking down another Hollywood figure rather than any genuine concern for the victim.
And this, finally, is what drives me so goddamn crazy about this whole thing: my sympathy for the Siren’s beautifully articulated position, and my strong leaning towards Steven Santos’ equally beautifully articulated argument. As Charlie Brown says, “Aaaargh!” Or “Auuuggh!”
@Glenn and Stephen – I will also say that I have not gone over to Big Hollywood because I don’t want to see the hoedown over there; I know I’ll find it distasteful to say the least. Please, this isn’t Ira Einhorn we’re talking about. Haul him into court, sentence him and then let’s all STFU. But maybe a better comparison than Polanski the Plumber would be Polanski the Chief Executive Officer of GreedCorp Inc. If this were a guy who made his money and fame in leveraged buyouts or bioengineered seeds, would anyone on our side of the aisle spare him a second thought?
@ The Siren: You ask “if this were a guy who made his money and fame in leveraged buyouts or bioengineering seeds, would anyone on our side of the aisle spare him a second thought?” Well, it’s an interesting question. In terms of the railroading…I would like to think I WOULD care, in a disinterested-concern-for-justice-abstract kind of way. But…well, I’ll be blunt. Unlike most leveraged buyout or bioengineering seeds guys, Polanski is an individual who has had, in various ways, a profound effect on my perspectives, my dreams, my funny bone, my fears, and a lot more. He’s had that effect as an artist, not as a person, but nevertheless. So, yes, that’s part of why I care, I suppose. And that doesn’t explain to me why some of the chest-puffers care as they do.
Oh, well, they care because somehow this is another 14-point stag-head to stick on the wall in the culture wars which is why, as I said, I am avoiding BH for the time being–I’ll just wait for Edroso’s summary. It’s an odd position I am in. I want the man to stand in court and finally apologize publicly to that woman, but I don’t want to have to sit around and hear about how this is somehow emblematic of Hollywood’s general sociopathy since the 1960s. He’s emblematic of nothing except his own twisted, but fascinating, psyche. If I hear too much of the “Polanski shows how decadent that generation was” I will be forced to step from behind the draperies and remind everyone of several Old Hollywood figures who got away with much worse than Polanski…
And let me be clear, I share your admiration for the man’s work.
@The Siren: yes, I think we *would* care, but for unpleasant reasons. That is, we’d be relishing the schadenfreude of seeing the scumbag get his comeuppance, à la Big Hollywood – with no more real concern for the poor victim of the whole thing. It’s a very troubling comparison, for which I’m grateful to you.
I just wanna add that…
The lopsided doc about Polanski did pretty clearly show that, even though he was clearly guilty of his crime, the guy was getting shafted by the legal system. Maybe he fled due to cowardice or maybe he fled due to guilt. But the screw-job being handed to him made the decision pretttty clear in terms of bailing.
Yes, he’s a great film director. I had the great good luck to see an immaculate print of “Repulsion” at a college. But if the rape victim were not forgiving, if the other underage girls in Polanski’s life hadn’t kept quiet, wouldn’t this case more perfectly mirror those of J. D. Salinger and Joyce Maynard, of John Phillips and his daughter, of Victor Salva and that young boy? There’s a strong tendency in the art communities not just to forgive the artist his sexual irregularities, even if they are forced on unwilling partners or sexual favors are won with false promise of marriage or by taking advantage of a child’s trust of his father, but to expect the victim or the partner taken advantage of to keep quiet. This demand for silence and forgiveness varies exactly depending on how badly the other party was taken advantage of and how quiet he or she kept. Little condemnation of Salva’s victim, moderate condemnation of Mackenzie Phillips, Maynard got it both barrels, though it’s her life, dammit, and her story. Yes, I’m lumping together incest seduction and rape, but to those of us outside the film community the glaring common thread is the absolutely anything goes sexual ethic. At least it’s the ethic of the rich and powerful; the people mourning Polanski’s capture have gloated over the once-famous who fell. And he’s old and he has a wife and kids who’ll miss him, but he should have stood and taken care of this 30 years ago. If you can’t trust a Hollywood court to go light, what court can you trust? And if he knew he was safe in France he could have stayed in France.
By the way, I’ve been reminded that the laws in Europe greatly confuse the term I used in my previous post, “underage.” It seems to be perfectly legal to have an affair with a fifteen year old in France, and other European countries have lower ages of consent. I meant by American laws and standards.
What tc recounts is what I remember of the case. Polanski did plead guilty and was going to “take his medicine” when the judge started shifting the goalposts. Other Hollywood stars were rumored doing pretty much the same crime, and every rockstar of the ’70s had groupies who were incredibly young. Rodney Bingenheimer’s club wasn’t full of legal-age women back then, you know. But they sure knew how to give a good hummer. To call ’70s LA libertine wasn’t the half of it.
Polanski knew she was underage, but I also believe he considered her “experienced”, which wasn’t unreasonable (c’mon, why would she be at Nicholson’s party to begin with?). It didn’t make Polanski innocent, though. It also helps to consider the era when this was going on. I lived through it and remember how pop culture sexualized pubescent girls at the time. From ad copy to film to afterschool specials, it was everywhere. If you lived through it, you’d know it really was a different era culturally. Not an excuse, but an explanation of how Polanski thought he might not face stiff prosecution, and ran when he saw that he was going to be the sacrificial goat.
Regarding the “it was a different era” theme: let’s remember David Hamilton’s photographs. I seem to recall that a few years ago someone actually tried to ban them on grounds of them being child porn (not to mention the cover of that album by the Scorpions and the kerkuffle it caused on Wikipedia).
Which is not to excuse at all what Polanski did, etc. There are two truths that are perfectly compatible here:
1) Roman Polanski is a rapist (no “statutory” here: rapist, period).
2) Roman Polanski has ten times the talent that the people sneering at him will ever have.
Why is it so hard to understand?
I’m away from the internet for a couple of days, and I miss out on all this. Everything I might have wanted to say has already been said, and said better than I would have been capable of, by others, particularly the Siren (though I think that sentencing Polanski to picking up litter is perhaps going a little easier on him than I’d like to see).
The only thing I might add is that the focus on what “other” people in Hollywood may or may not have done that may or may not be similar to what we know Polanski did seems to me to be a completely false argument. If some other actor or director raped a 13 year old girl and got away with it, am I supposed to think that this should somehow change the punishment that Polanski receives? If not, then why bring it up at all? Some people have gotten away with murder, too, but that doesn’t effect what we think, or what we think should happen, to murderers who actually get caught. And by the way, pointing out that others in film history have gotten away with crimes similar to Polanski doesn’t help the other, and apparently connected, point that those who are, according to some, overzealous about wanting to bring Polanski justice are really on some sort of half-cocked anti-Hollywood-decadence crusade. Because if Polanski was one of a mob of such Hollywood rapists, then…
But that’s not the point I want to make myself. The only things that matter in this case to me are Polanski’s crime and the judicial misconduct, the latter of which, I think we can all agree, does not obliterate the former.
Also, I don’t much like the idea that those who are “puffing themselves up” about Polanski’s arrest don’t, deep down, care about the victim. Some of them may not, but why single them out? Because the implication would be that those who would have Polanski remain free and clear somehow care MORE about the victim, and I can’t quite twist my brain into an elaborate-enough pretzel to buy that.
Also, @pap zita:
“Polanski knew she was underage, but I also believe he considered her “experienced”, which wasn’t unreasonable (c’mon, why would she be at Nicholson’s party to begin with?).”
That’s repulsive.
Well, Bill, I’m not honestly sure just how much those who are puffing up CAN actually care about the victim. That’s not to say that these people aren’t “sincere,” but there are practicable limits to compassion, empathy, and so on, and when I read things such as “we’ve all been waiting for justice here in America,” I can only think, “what the hell?” I’m reminded somewhat of Yoko Ono after the murder of John Lennon; various and sundry folks would approach her and say “I know how you feel,” and her reflexive response would be, “No, you don’t.”
In defense of Papa Zita, while the phrasing of his observations might have been somewhat ill-advised, I understand what he’s getting at, and while I don’t think it in any way justifies Polanski’s actions (geez, maybe I should put that in all-caps), I don’t think that the examination of the era’s sexual mores in Marina Zenovich’s film about Polanski was unwarranted either.
@Paul: I DO remember David Hamilton’s photographs. I’d see the books at Womrath’s in Hackensack when I was a kid. As I recall, most of them contained texts by Alain Robbe-Grillet.
If David Hamilton’s arty crap isn’t child porn, then I don’t know what is. That his photos were ever legally available – not only in book form, but as pictorials in “classy” skin magazines – just proves how unhinged the 70s were. Honesty forces me to add that back then they only made me queasy, not outraged, but I was in high school and no philosopher. I do remember suspecting that their pretensions to art were a snow job, though, Alain Robbe-Grillet or no Alain Robbe-Grillet.
Saying it was a different era, which it was, isn’t a legal argument or an alibi for Polanski. It’s just a cultural truth. At the time, neither society at large nor his own circle’s gaudy behavior were giving him much reason to think this was particularly taboo or that he’d be penalized for it. That left his own moral scruples as the only deterrent, and … well, we all know how that worked out.
@Glenn – “Well, Bill, I’m not honestly sure just how much those who are puffing up CAN actually care about the victim. That’s not to say that these people aren’t “sincere,” but there are practicable limits to compassion, empathy, and so on, and when I read things such as ‘we’ve all been waiting for justice here in America,’ I can only think, ‘what the hell?’ I’m reminded somewhat of Yoko Ono after the murder of John Lennon; various and sundry folks would approach her and say “I know how you feel,” and her reflexive response would be, ‘No, you don’t.’ ”
Well, okay, but that isn’t actually why you originally made the point, is it? Because reasonably, the above logic could just as easily be applied to your outrage about Willingham, couldn’t it? Because you weren’t executed for a crime you never committed, nor, I’m assuming, do you know anyone who has. In this sense, none of us has any room to get TOO outraged about any crime that wasn’t committed against us or one of our loved ones.
@bill: Re “the implication would be that those who would have Polanski remain free and clear somehow care MORE about the victim, and I can’t quite twist my brain into an elaborate-enough pretzel to buy that.” The fact is that Samantha Geiner – whose good sense and courage are a wonder, if you’ve ever seen the HBO doc – just wants this to be over and has for many years now. A new trial would force her to revisit the trauma and once again reduce the meaning of her life to the fact that she was “the girl in the Roman Polanski case.” My guess is you’re all for victims’ rights when it comes to retribution, so I don’t see how respecting her wishes is irrelevant just because she wants the book to be closed instead of thrown.
@tc – But do you think that those who believe Polanski should be free and clear of all charges are made up largely of people who are supporting Geiner, or people who just really like “Chinatown”? Sure, I’m sure some of them are, as Glenn puts it, “sincere”, but in my experience most of them talk the kind of forgiveness that has, as its core, a love for Polanski’s art (which I share), but if we’re going to be separating the art from the artist, that doesn’t just apply to choosing to watch their films despite thinking they’re personally not such great people.
As for Geiner’s forgiveness – it’s wonderful that she’s able to do that, and your point is well taken. But let’s be practical: should a victim’s forgiveness and wish to move on always trump legal retribution? If not, than why should it in this case?
And about that “shifting the goalpost” argument: the plea agreement that was settled on was bullshit. This doesn’t mean the judge didn’t act improperly, and there would be no legal recourse had Polanski actually served it, but 90 days psych treatment for what Polanski did? Does no one else think that this sentence is, on its face, pretty outrageous?
@bill: First off, sorry – it’s Geimer, not Geiner. I don’t want you to be stuck perpetuating my mistake.
Otherwise, I obviously don’t have insight into everyone else’s motives. I’m sure they run the gamut from attitudes I’d have no problem agreeing with to some I can’t stand. I also by no means believe a victim’s wishes should “always” trump legal retribution – or legal restraint, for that matter.
In this case, though, I think Geimer’s wishes count for a lot. If she were on TV saying she still wants the little creep behind bars for what he did to her – and lord knows she’d have a right – then I don’t think the “Polanski has paid enough of a price” or “But he’s a great artist” camps would have a leg to stand on.
But WHY? If forgiveness doesn’t always trump legal retribution, why do you think it should in this particular case? That’s what I don’t get.
Saying it was a different era, which it was, isn’t a legal argument or an alibi for Polanski. It’s just a cultural truth.
TC again makes clear what I didn’t. I don’t excuse Polanski’s actions, just that what was going on then was part of the culture, especially in LA. I considered it odious at the time (besides, all the hot girls my age were going for college guys or married men). Being a young shutterbug, I had an older friend 30 years ago pay me $10 to go buy a David Hamilton book for him at the local bookshop when I was still a teenager (I was always buying photo books). I guess he didn’t want to be known as a perv by the bookshop proprietors. When I looked at it, my thought was it was Playboy for horny 15 year olds, Robbe-Grillet or not Robbe-Grillet. Being a photographer, I’m not bothered by nude depictions of adolescents (their parents give permission, you know), but Hamilton gave me a real porn vibe, unlike Sally Mann.
An usual retort that one hears, when discussing subjects like the death penalty, is “well, what would you think if they had killed *your* daughter?”
Those who like to use that kind of retort, if they are consistent, would have to admit that in this case the victim’s wishes should have more weight than their own wish for justice/revenge/whatever.
(Of course, I’ve always thought that the first argument was bullshit, or at least a really bad way to run a criminal justice system, so…)
@bill: It’s a subjective call, that’s all. Geimer is the only injured party that we know of; while I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if there were other 1970s 13-year-olds who could tell the same story, they haven’t come forward. And she really, really doesn’t want this to go on defining her life 32 years after the fact. I can’t help sympathizing with that.
So I don’t much want to see Polanski back on trial. But if some kind of deal does get made and the charges are dropped, I would hope it was on terms that made his guilt clear and that couldn’t be taken as vindicating him. If any of his supporters treated it as proof he shouldn’t have been prosecuted in the first place, I’d throw up.
@papa zita – My objection had less to do with your “cultural landscape” argument as it did with your “why did she go to a party at Jack Nicholson’s house in the first place?”* argument, which has a highly uncomfortable “then why did she go up to the hotel room with him?” vibe.
*The answer to that question, by the way, is that she was 13 and her mom brought her there.
PS – “their parents give permission, you know”
So?
I don’t think that Geiner is going to have to re-live this horror any more than she had to re-live it while media were doing publicity for the doc last year. The rape case will likely be dismissed or Polanski will get off with time served, and I don’t think the victim will have to be in court. Retribution seems to be the only reason to throw him in prison on the rape charge–and, in the world’s busiest court system, where judges now take off two unpaid furloughed days a month, I don’t think this case will get as much of a hearing in downtown LA as it has on Some Came Running. However, I do think that there is a very good reason to punish someone for evading US law for 30+ years, regardless of the crime. The only way to fight this charge is for Polanski to show up. He could have done so last year when lawyers tried to get his case dismissed due to judicial misconduct. Or he could have not travelled to countries that extradite fugitives to the US. (And Glenn: my blood pressure is steady, my chest un-puffed, and I feel little emotion regarding this case. However, my Crim Law teacher’s appearance as pundit on a variety of news outlets piqued my interest).
She wasn’t at a party. It was a photoshoot. With Roman Polanski. She was a model. Poor judgement on her mother’s part, but that’s it, poor judgement.
By her own admission, if any of you discussing ACTUALLY BOTHERED TO READ THE SMOKING GUN TRANSCRIPT OF WHAT SHE SAID, she had had sex once before, so no, she wasn’t a virgin. She was drugged by Roman Polanski. She said no repeteadly. She anally raped her. He even asked her if she 1) had had her FIRST PERIOD already, which obviously proves he knew very well she was a teen who’s recently been through puberty and 2) when was the last time she had her period, since he didn’t want to get her pregnant, because he was SUCH A GENTLEMAN. The deed was done, she cried and he took her home.
Now just shut up and stop defending him. Be angry if he’s the scapegoat of all rapists, but do not go blaming a 13-year-old girl who said “no repeatedly” until she finallly let him have his way with her because she was ALONE WITH A MUCH OLDER MAN IN A HOUSE and because SHE WAS AFRAID. Just read the fucking transcript
@Bill– “by the way, pointing out that others in film history have gotten away with crimes similar to Polanski doesn’t help the other, and apparently connected, point that those who are, according to some, overzealous about wanting to bring Polanski justice are really on some sort of half-cocked anti-Hollywood-decadence crusade. Because if Polanski was one of a mob of such Hollywood rapists, then…”
No, not some half-cooked anti-Hollywood decadence crusade – I had in mind the “everything wrong with Hollywood and this country began in the 1960s” crusade. The Polanski case has always drawn that out of certain culture warriors and is why I was careful to refer to his generation.
If Roman Polanski had been hauled in on a statch rape complaint, made bail and then fled the country … which, from news reports in the last 36 hours, seems to be what everyone thinks actually happened here … then I’d be all for his extradition; though I would question (as I do now) the zeal with which LA Country has apparently revisited this matter after three decades. The fact that Samantha Geimer is urging that Polanski be left alone is important for gauging the severity of her trauma (or lack thereof) after all these years, but as a purely legal matter it’s irrelevant. Statutory Rape is on the books as an offense against the People. The law is unambiguous: consent means nothing; the goodwill of the victim means nothing. What people are forgetting here is Why Polanski Fled.
There was a plea deal; agreed to by all parties in the case *including* that eminent jurist, Laurence J. Rittenband: The court would order that Polanski be sent to Chino for a Psychiatric evaluation; the judge would then follow its recommendation at sentencing. Fine. They send him out there, the shrinks determine that he’s not a rape‑o, not a pedophile, not a danger to the community; they write a report reflecting said determination; recommending a sentence of Time Served and sending him home. He’s out of Chino in 42 days (*not* an easy stretch, regardless of how long he was there).
Long story short, Rittenband suddenly backs out of the deal just before sentencing, and on the most dubious grounds imaginable (an extremely prosaic newspaper photograph of Polanski at that year’s Oktoberfest); deciding that he’s going to unilaterally void the agreement, toss the Psych evaluation and send Polanski up for the maximum penalty under the statute. At the very last minute (according to Polanski’s lawyer *and* the Assistant DA on the case) Rittenband presumably realizes that his About Face would look even worse in the papers than the supposed leniency of the plea deal, so he concocts this baroque, jaw-dropping piece of Judicial Theater whereby he would hand Polanski the maximum in open court, then have everybody come back that evening for a hearing in chambers where he would commute the sentence to Time Served, just like the shrinks at Chino said he should.
Roman Polanski, then, had a choice: He could trust an incompetent, borderline-senile glory-hound of a jurist … one who had repeatedly demonstrated during that case just how out-of-control a Judge could be … and risk ending up on C‑block, waiting for the appellate courts to crawl to his rescue while every badass in the joint reminded him what they do to baby-rapers … OR … he could run.
He ran. And I don’t fault him for one second.
While I may not quite agree with your “solution” to judicial misconduct–jumping bail because you fear that a judge might give you the maximum sentence–I think that was a fairly lucid explanation for what inspired Polanski’s exile. Mostly, though, I am tickled by the idea of Thomas Sutpen weighing in on a case of statutory rape. When will Humbert Humbert chime in?
I wasn’t detailing it as a solution to anything. My point is that Polanski had a reason for fleeing the country that was not wholly unreasonable.
People in 2009 seem to have the impression that Polanski made bail, then made a beeline for the airport the minute he hit the street; that he was, in other words, like every other bail jumping felon in creation. In point of fact, he plead guilty and did the time he was ordered to do under the terms of an agreement *all* parties had signed-off on. He went through the process in good faith (one can argue that the plea deal was insufficient, and that justice was not served by it; that’s another matter entirely). I don’t think this context can be emphasized enough.
In closing … I abjure all responsibility for the sordid past of my literary namesake.
Yes what Polanski did was wrong and there should indeed be some legal ramifications for his actions. However, to see the usual cast of characters sail out against him is so predictable. I call it the “Glenn Beck-ing” of modern day America. It’s getting tiresome.
BTW Glenn, if I may bring up an actual film – thanks for repeating the Tess shout-out. That one is long overdue for a reassessment.
Glenn, I can see how and why you find Big Hollywood crowd’s moralistic handwringing pretty annoying and quite silly. Where we differ, I think, is when I read things like papa zita’s rape-minimizing nonsense, I’m 100 times more put off than anything in the first category. That kind of garbage has been flowing far too freely from people who really should know better, and it frankly makes me want to join arms and march with Rod Dreher.
@Mr. Sutpen: I can understand you wanting to disavow the whole business with Wash Jones and so on, but please don’t shatter my illusions by telling me that Tom Sutpen is actually the name you were born with. It’s my favorite Internet handle of all time, and I was happy giving you and Wm. Faulkner – not your parents – the credit for it.
Re Diane Rainey’s comment:
It can’t completely be called “Glenn Beck-ing” since people on the Left (including recent fires-of-Hell-be-upon-Polanski op-eds on Salon.com and Jezebel.com) are weighing in with the same kind of hanging-judge severity.
****What’s always interested me is the vehemence of those who would bring Polanski to “justice,”****
Well, I guess people tend to feel strongly about those who drug and rape children, and then skip the country to avoid punishment.
****Nor am I excusing his actions.****
Well, yes, yes you are. Saying that the state of California should make no effort to arrest him is excusing his actions. (And the bit about California being broke is a total red herring, since to date the amount of money spent on apprehending Polanski was probably no more than a phone call to Switzerland). Comparing Polanski to a completely irrelevant case involving a man unjustly executed both implies that he is innocent (he isn’t) and that actually asking a man who entered a guilty plea to stand in a court and take his punishment is some miscarriage of justice.
Look, this isn’t complicated. Polanski drugged and raped a child. He entered a guilty plea. He is a fugitive from justice. He will, with luck, soon serve the prison sentence that he should have served thirty years ago.
Vidor: I have written above that I consider Polanski a rapist (not “statutory” or anything), so I have no problem with him being brought to justice. The problem others are pointing out, I believe, is one of double standards: why so much effort in one case and so little in others? Why so much vitriol in one case and barely a shrug in others?
If justice is what we care about, certainly an innocent man being executed is as serious (or more) than an indicted man being on the run for 30 years, and yet… well, ask some of the virtual-pitchfork wielding crowd how they feel about that dude in Texas. One can’t help but wonder whether so much anger directed in this case has something to do with its culture war aspects. Which is, you know, perfectly compatible with Polanski actually being guilty.
How much effort are we talking about here? A phone call to Switzerland? Maybe a fax? A few one-way air tickets from Zurich to Los Angeles?
Justice is served in a million different court rooms every day. It’s served when the innocent are acquitted, when guilty murderers are convicted, when people who confess to statutory rape are sentenced, and when I got a ticket for going 84 in a 65 mph zone. I dispute the notion that there is a finite amount of justice and the fact that Roman Polanski is going to be extradited means that somewhere an innocent man will be executed. Frankly, talk of the man in Texas is irrelevant to this topic, unless one talks about that incident in order to minimize what Polanski did.
You can make all kinds of guesses why people care about this case more than others. The obsession with celebrities. The extreme sensitivity to child sexuality in American culture. Resentment at a wealthy and talented man being able to zip off to Europe and escape punishment when all the folks who aren’t best friends with Debra Winger actually have to serve prison terms after pleading guilty to rape charges. I don’t know. What I do know is that people who plead guilty to crimes do not get to dictate the terms of their punishment. A Los Angeles judge will decided what Polanski’s punishment will be. Polanski, for his part, will use all his oodles of money to pay for the very best lawyers in order to minimize that punishment. That’s the way the system is supposed to work.
I think Vidor’s last paragraph there is a perfect summation.
I think Vidor’s right. Celebrity and power are why people care about Polanski and not about the Texas case. One can bemoan this, but I think it’s pretty well-established that people love getting “humoungously righteous” about celebrities, whether the transgression is large or small. I don’t think this is going to change anytime soon.
The flipside of this is that Polanski’s attention-drawing celebrity/money/power gives him access to presumably excellent legal resources and, evidently, the support of a bevy of film world giants and French government officials.
Also, I agree strongly with djw. I honestly don’t know why so many people are wasting their breath defending Polanski, either directly or obliquely. Yeah, maybe the righteousness of culture warriors is annoying, but if that’s the thing that bothers you most about the Roman Polanski saga, I think you need to reassess the situation.
Anyone have any love for “The Ninth Gate”? I think it is time for a
reassessment. And, honestly, Polanski got screwed by the justice system. He did some time in Chino. Not fun. Do we make exceptions for brilliant men? Absolutely. And it’s clearly not right. But should I feel guilty for coming down harder on, say, a non-talent like Victor Salva, who videotaped his crimes for his own personal amusement? Only if the morons responsible for posthumously-deifying Michael Jackson(kids in bed, dangling baby, the entirety of “Invincible”) cry “Uncle” first. And if Roman Polanski’s defenders make you want to roll with Big Hollywood, then any sort of convinctions you had were not deeply held to begin with. Did I mention I liked “The Ninth Gate”? Lena Olin and Emmanuelle Seigner(best move Polanski ever made) in the same movie? Holy mama!
Solid argument, Mike. Your days on the Oxford Debate Team did you good.
Some of us, Mike, can separate our aesthetic judgments from our ethical and political ones. (I thought he richly deserved his Oscar for The Pianist AND he probably belongs in jail.) And if by “roll with big hollywood” you mean to simply acknowledge that through a very particular and specific concatenation of circumstances, they have (almost entirely inadvertently and extremely clumsily) stumbled into the general vicinity of a defensible position, I don’t find it particularly hard to admit that such a thing has occurred. By sheer random chance, it was bound to happen at least once.
Fuck you, you rape-apologist piece of shit. Not just for your defense of Polanski but for the comments I’ve seen you make elsewhere, deriding the emphasis on Polanski’s, you know, having RAPED A CHILD as “pearl-clutching.” Yeah, us hysterical bitches, getting all worked up just because some man had to get his rocks off! Fuck you.
@ b.g.: Ben Gazzara? Nah, I think not.
Well, it was nice while it lasted; 60-plus comments without a troll. I’m tempted to lock the thread, but I won’t, but I also won’t make further comment on the case, at least here. Maybe in my Auteurs’ column Friday. But that’ll be it.
Oh, lock it. I’m done, and I like to think I was far from the worst.
I’m not going to take the bait and get angry or exhausted over this post – I love your blog, Glenn, just as I love the films of Wong-Kar-Wai and many of the other directors who are offering illogical, emotionally charged arguments against the extradition of Polanski … but will you fill in the blanks for me here? I teach a class that involves a lot of formal logic, and as best I can tell, this is your argument in a nutshell:
* America – in particular Texas (the state where I was born, and live, and have done a fair bit of legal volunteer work with a nonprofit capital appeals clinic) – has a deplorable, disgusting, classist criminal justice system. (I completely accept this premise, by the way, and not just for the sake of argument.)
THUS:
* A celebrity fugitive and admitted child rapist** who has used his wealth to evade arrest for thirty years should not be arrested and extradited to face punishment.
(**No, not “statutory rapist”; that was the charge he pled guilty to, as part of a plea bargain; the facts of the crime, which are not in controversy, actually support charges of rape and forcible sodomy.)
Glenn, I hope that instead of shouting back to me (or ignoring me), you’ll admit that you were in error here. Invoking the lives of the wrongly executed in the course of arguing that a brilliant, fabulously wealthy artist should be immune from punishment for rape is simply wrong. So is stating, falsely, that “nobody is frothing” about the plight of the wrongly accused when in fact many people have dedicated their entire lives to changing America’s criminal justice system. That our voices have been drowned out doesn’t mean we aren’t speaking, or that we don’t care.
Finally: believing that capital punishment should be abolished, and that the indigent criminal defense system in this country must be overhauled, is not inconsistent with demanding that a rich and famous person face the same criminal processes that a poor person would face. On the contrary, the opposite argument – that Polanski is special, because he had the resources to flee punishment for thirty years – is hopelessly inconsistent. If the law is unjust for Polanski, demand that it be changed for everyone – and make relevant demands; Polanski is not facing execution in Texas, nor was he wrongly accused of anything.
I’m not puffing up my chest, and I’m not an asshole or a moralist, though I’m sure I’ll be called both; I’m a secular progressive and a strong admirer of Polanski’s work, and I’m genuinely unhappy with this post.
PS: Also, that guy at the LA Times was right; Sunrise sucks.
PPS: Just kidding; the LA Times guy is an idiot.
PS: My last post gave the incorrect impression that I’m someone who’s “dedicated [my entire life] to changing America’s criminal justice system.” That’s not true – though it would be awesome if it were. I only meant to say that I give a shit, and have occasionally (though not often enough) put my money where my mouth is through volunteering, donations, and political activism.
@ Matt W: Okay. I’m not going to shout back to you. I allow that I did not formulate my argument in the original post as well as I could have, nor was it necessarily the smartest course of action to make some kind of comparison that could be so easily revealed as apples and oranges. What my objection was—what my objection has always been—has to do with rhetoric. I look at the people who are howling about how Polanski is finally going to have to face “American justice” and I wonder just what it is they have so personally invested in the case. And I don’t believe it has all that much to do with some noble notion concerning a rapist being brought to justice. You talk about “demanding that a rich and famous person face the same criminal processes that a poor person would face.” And, for Kate Harding and many, many others, Roman Polanski IS that person. And anybody who even says “yes, but…” gets shouted down: “He RAPED A CHILD!!!”
Make no mistake: I think Whoopi Goldberg is an ill-informed clod and a moral idiot. And I thought that about her even before she made her monstrous observation that what Polanski did wasn’t “rape-rape.” Let me go further: I think that though the timing and the circumstances of its serving frankly stink (Polanski collaborator Robert Harris’ NYT op-ed piece, while admittedly biased, is a good guide to this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/opinion/30harris.html), I do not question the validity of the warrant in question. It’s a fair cop, in a sense, and Polanski should know it, as should his various counsel. I do wonder what the actual warrant says. I suspect it speaks more to his fugitive-from-justice status than to the original crime. Should Polanski ever be compelled to appear before a court in Los Angeles, this detail may tend to disappoint Kate Harding and her death-threat-making, “fuck you you rape-apologist piece of shit” children. And they are her children.
Sorry. Couldn’t help myself on that last bit. But I hope this addresses your questions. I don’t like rape and I don’t like rapists, and yeah, it’s happened to people close to me. But there’s quite a bit at play here that does not lend itself to a completely Manichean reading. And there’s also quite a bit of self-congratulation.
As much as I favor the extradition of this fugitive, and as much as I believe Geimer’s grand jury testimony regarding the crime, I’m confused by people who say that Polanski is an “admitted” rapist rather than an admitted statutory rapist. He pled guilty to the latter; that was the plea bargain, right? The reason that the facts of the forcible rape are not “in controversy” is because they were never going to be adjudicated once the guilty plea for statutory rape was accepted. The charges were never brought. Polanski did not have to confess to it, or to stand trial for it. In reality, there is a great big shroud over the events of that day, one that Polanski, Geimer, and the justice system have chosen not to remove. While I think that Polanski drugged and brutally raped a trial, and feel that her grand jury testimony is the truth, I’m not sure that Polanski has admitted to everything. I like justice, too. But it won’t happen here–not in the way that people seem to want. Remember your Gaddis: “You get justice in the next world; in this world, you have the law.”
Oh spare me – if you folks can find an excuse crawling under a rock (it’s cos “he’s European” my ass) you cant wait to shine your light in there.
It isnt just the so-called morality police (you’d prefer the immorality police, the pro-child rape police?) making a fuss about this. It’s the laughably ignorant campaign started by Thierry Fremaux with the help of the directors’ more famous buddies that has made people go what-tha‑f???
Polanski could have saved himself the trouble if at some time in the last 28 years he’s returned to face the music and own up to his personal responsibility like an adult – by now he’d be allowed to travel anywhere. He didnt. His decision. A cowardly one.
Correction to above post: he raped a “girl,” not a “trial.” Been a long day.
The funny thing is, Glenn, that it was clear to me the post was about rhetoric and also, I would add, the self-righteous addiction to outrage. But if you at any point question the sincerity of those who seem so invested in Polanski being sent to jail (while not getting worked up if, say, an innocent man is executed), the response is often to be accused of sympathizing with a child rapist. More outrage!
I think a lot of people missed the point of this post by a mile and went into either knee-jerk anti- or pro-Polanski modes. Why does every argument have to wind up into this “either you’re with us or with them” attitude where I don’t want to be on either side? In another words, if I have to choose whether to side with cinephile apologists lacking moral compasses or self-righteous pseudo-moralists, leave me out.
Polanski being a great director should have no bearing on whether he serves time for a rape that we all know he is guilty of. His supporters need to recognize that no director is a god and they are the same fucked-up human beings we all are. Making great films doesn’t trump his obvious guilt for committing a crime. And, on top of that, he fled the country like a coward rather than face the punishment. Let justice, as flawed as that system is, hopefully take its course now.
And, yes, most of the vocal outragists (yes, I just coined that phrase) probably could care less about the victim. It’s more about an agenda where they get to demonstrate their moral superiority to anyone who’s willing to listen, particularly when the target of derision is famous. As I said earlier, this is an opportunity for them to vocally pronounce how “moral” they are. Well, good for them. I’m sure none of these people are capable of doing great wrongs onto others, right? The last I checked, morality is a day-to-day personal struggle that you work at, not a gift handed down from the heavens to only special people who then preach to others because they consider themselves infallible.
Basically, a crime is committed against Ms. Geimer (who had the double misfortune to be raped by a famous person in a celebrity-obsessed culture that would never had truly left her alone even if Polanski hadn’t fled even though his fleeing obviously exacerbates this situation) and now she and her family gets to watch as something terrible done to her gets politicized. Fodder for 24 hour news and internet message boards where, let’s face it, considering how narcissistic most people are, we really make it all about ourselves.
Personally, I just read Kate Harding’s article today. I didn’t need her to tell me that, when a critic (not you, Glenn) admits that Polanski “harmed a young woman”, while using words like “grotesque” and “bully” to describe their anger and bewilderment at those who would give Polanski a pass (and many would), and only gets around to using the word “rape” when he’s looking to score points off the other side, then something is wrong somewhere. The way the English language is being used by Polanski’s defenders is exhibit A.
****I do wonder what the actual warrant says. I suspect it speaks more to his fugitive-from-justice status than to the original crime.****
I don’t understand this comment and the following sentence about disappointing Kate Harding. Why would the warrant speak to the original crime? The original crime was already adjudicated when Polanski entered a guilty plea.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Bill, but see b.g.‘s comment, above. How do you like the way he’s using the English language? And anonymously, yet. Can we make him “exhibit B”?
I’ve said that I think Whoopi “not ‘rape’ rape” Goldberg is an ill-informed clod and a moral idiot. Richard Cohen is a regular idiot. Anne Applebaum is disingenuous, to say the least. And so on. And now I’ll say that b.g. is a child of Kate Harding.
@ Vidor: You say “the original crime was already adjuticated when Polanski entered a guilty plea.” Exactly. Harding and her minions expect that Polanski will be tried for rape if and when he is extradited to the states. He will not. The only reason I hedged there was because I haven’t seen the actual warrant. Which means I should still hedge. Nevertheless…
@Glenn – Fair enough. Bernard Goetz has you entirely wrong and throws around “rape-apologist” like Jeffery Wells throws around “Hungarian animal rape” (or whatever the term is he uses to describe what he thinks Polanski didn’t do), but I still have to say: “pearl-clutching”? This post starts off on the attack, by implying that those who would prefer to see Polanski face the music are doing so in order to pat themselves on the back (“puff up their chests” and “self-righteous” being the key phrases). Everyone on the side opposite yourself gets tarred right out of the gate.
@ Bill: Bernard Goetz, now that’s funny.
And, fair enough—I came out the gate pretty strong (that’s my self-forgiving phrase for “obnoxious”). I don’t think I’ve been utterly disproven, but I have been thoroughly dispirited by a lot of what’s been said by those on my side of the fence. If I can even call it my side of the fence anymore. I like to think I’ve been refining/clarifying my position as I go along. Here’s a part of what I might be posting at The Auteurs’ tomorrow: “Yes, I think Roman Polanski did a terrible thing. Committed a very serious crime. The whole scenario seriously creeped me out even back in the ’70s, when sexual mores were so different, apparently. But also, even then, I thought, well, I like the guy’s films, and sure enough he’s had it pretty tough in his life, but hell, what he’s accused of doing is a big deal crime…and a matter for the courts. I was what you’d call disinterested. And when he skipped out, I thought, ‘Well, look at that.’ Disinterested again. I’ve never felt compelled to stand up and shout, ‘Bring Roman Polanski to justice!’ Or, for that matter, ‘Exonerate Roman Polanski!’ I thought the recent doc on his case brought some very interesting data to light, but that it was also a trifle too infatuated with its subject for its own good.”
If the people on your side, or maybe now it’s my side, what the hell (kidding there), were merely saying, “He was a fugitive from justice, and now he’s been apprehended, and that’s all well and proper and as it should be,” that would be one thing. But that’s not what so many of them are saying. So many of them are also saying that anyone who sees a shade of gray here, who won’t fall into lockstep in Manichean bloodthirsty condemnation, is an apologist for rape. More than self-righteous, it’s self-congratulatory.
And again, agreed: phrasemaking along the lines of “Hungarian animal rape” doesn’t help matters, and is sick-making.
Glenn, I do think – although I obviously can’t prove this – that were the arguments against extradition based more often on the problems you have with the idea, the furor from the other side wouldn’t be quite so intense. Obviously, at this stage, I don’t have to tell you what too many of the arguments from Polanski’s defenders do actually sound like, and yet… I’ve heard that Polanski deserves “special dispensation” for being a Great Artist (seriously, I’ve heard that one), I’ve heard that it wasn’t “rape-rape”, I’ve heard that the girl was forced on Polanski by her mother, I’ve heard it was the 70s, I’ve heard that it was a “youthful mistake” (Polanski was 43), and on and on. If it’s enough to make you, who is ostensibly sympathetic to that cause, furious, imagine how it makes the rest of us feel?
Which doesn’t excuse rolling right over more nuanced arguments and ignoring the actual points you, and others, have made, but it perhaps explains it a little. And I think you’re slightly wrong about what people on my side of the fence are saying, and what is at the root of this anger we feel. We want the law properly enforced here, yes, but we also want the crime to be called what it was, and not danced around or treated lightly. It is a terribly serious crime, and that guy saying Polanski “harmed a young woman” still makes me mad.
****Exactly. Harding and her minions expect that Polanski will be tried for rape if and when he is extradited to the states. He will not.****
I don’t know how many people do and don’t understand that. One would hope that anyone informed enough to write columns about the matter would know that what’s going to happen, should Polanski be expedited, is that he will face a judge to receive sentencing. Wouldn’t be too confident the sentence will be merciful, BTW. Skipping town and fleeing to France is not the kind of thing that encourages a judge to let you get off with probation.
As for sides–well, Mr. Kenny, many of the people on your “side”, if it is a side, ARE apologists for rape. As you have noted (Whoopi, Robert Harris, Applebaum) and others you didn’t mention (Debra Winger, who should be ashamed of herself).
As far as being ‘disinterested’–from my “side”, if it is a side, I was not pelting the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office or the French Embassy with angry letters. I was disinterested. In fact it used to bug me when internet discussion threads about “The Pianist” or whatnot would devolve into angry sniping about the girl Roman Polanski raped decades ago. But once he was actually arrested and it was announced that he was facing extradition? He has it coming.
Whoops, “extradited” not “expedited”.
To chime in very belatedly on what I suppose is the “bill” side of the fence (first time for everything!), here’s what I find…weird about your reaction, Glenn: you seem considerably more bothered by the obnoxious way some people have responded to the rape in question than by the rape itself. That suggests to me that your outage-meter needs to be recalibrated, as I had to recalibrated mine on this issue.
I am sympathetic to your evolving position because my very first reaction to Polanski’s arrest was to roll my eyes at the American authorities and selfishly wonder how this would affect his capacity to make movies I enjoy. But then I read occasional SCR-commenter Scott Lemieux’s post on this (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2009/09/polanski-arrest.html) and started to think a bit more about this. And you know what? I ended up coming to the conclusion that, given where things are now, Polanski should be extradited and sentenced.
While it’s very unfortunate that this provides the opportunity for a lot of ugly chest-beating, in the end, that’s outweighed by Polanski’s own acts and by the importance of the rule of law. You’re really letting the chest-beaters win if you just reflexively take up the position opposite theirs. Better to simply ignore them and to your own conclusions.
@ Vidor: If you really believe Harris is an apologist for rape and belongs in the same company as Goldberg and Applebaum, you didn’t read him very carefully. Yes, he absolutely admits a personal bias as a friend and collaborator of Polanski’s. But late in the piece he says this: “Of course what happened cannot be excused, either legally or ethically.” That’s a pretty clear statement, no? And to proceed from there and ask “who benefits” is not in and of itself an illegitimate argument.
****That’s a pretty clear statement, no?****
Reads as a pretty cursory CYA disclaimer, from my perspective.
****And to proceed from there and ask “who benefits” is not in and of itself an illegitimate argument.****
It isn’t? When did “who benefits” become the standard for which verdicts to enforce and which to blow off? What would even lead someone to ask that, unless that someone was looking for excuses to spring Roman Polanski from the jailhouse? (Followed subsequently by getting a moribund “Pompeii” project going, maybe.) Roman Polanski committed a crime, pled guilty in court, and skipped town to avoid punishment. Those are no-nos. All that we, if by “we” I can refer to those who want Polanski extradited, ask for is that the system is allowed to play out as it is supposed to.
You know, not for anything, but I sort of resent any implication that my rape-sensitivity-meter needs to be recalibrated. You really don’t know anything about it. And I’m not about to tell you of my own experiences with rape and rape victims to prove any sort of point. It’s exactly that sort of thing that does bother me: that if one declines to express a personalized emotional outrage over what Roman Polanski did to his victim, one is in effect guilty of something almost equally heinous. Yes, I am appalled by rape on general principle. I cringe at the rape jokes in such otherwise very enjoyable films as “Blazing Saddles.” And I am close—very close—to someone who was raped at knifepoint. I expended a lot of rage on that person’s behalf. Didn’t end up making much difference in the end. Expending personal rage on people who are strangers (full disclosure: I shared an elevator with Polanski once) has never made sense to me. Which isn’t to say that I am indifferent to injustice. But…
Christ. This really is what David Foster Wallace would call a “vexed issue.” Didn’t I say I was gonna close this fucking thread?…
Glenn, your patience with this thread amazes me.
I thought the original post was fine. It was tart, but I don’t come here wanting Mitch Albom. If you hadn’t left room for reasoned disagreement I wouldn’t have spoken up.
Glenn, I apologize if you took offense at my comment. I didn’t mean for my “recalibration” metaphor to track your feelings of personal offense, which I agree are beside the point. I meant for it to track your publicly-expressed and considered *judgments* about how to respond appropriately to the legal and ethical questions on the table before us.
I don’t doubt your personal outrage at rape and I’m genuinely sorry to put you in a position where you felt you had to play your rape-credibility card by relating something horrible that happened to a loved one. As I explained in my comment, my own first reaction to hearing about Polanski’s arrest was not at all personal outrage in either direction, so I could hardly criticize you on those grounds. I meant only to question how you were weighing various factors in reacting to the overall debate, which remains (I think) a legitimate question. That’s not at all meant to be a critique of you as a person, but a disagreement with your expressed opinion – a disagreement that I expressed somewhat clumsily.
Whether addressing this particular thread or the complete mess that is the Polanski case…
Maybe it’s time to extinguish the torches, put away the pitchforks and do what it appears Geimer has done and suggested we all do as well and move on with our lives.
No matter the amount of pontification one does for whichever side, the matter is out of our hands. Time for the lawyers to earn their money.
I think Mr. Merk’s is an apt comment on which to close this thread. Although I do want to reassure DUH that I’m not taking his first comment personally. I mean, I did take it personally, obviously, but I don’t at all hold it against him. And that will be that, here, for now.