I was a little kid in the Simi Valley when a maniacal hippie group holed up in the hills near my home. I knew nothing about them until the spectacular Tate/LaBianca Murders in August, 1969. At that time, I remember wondering about the husband of Sharon Tate: the newspapers referred to him knowingly, but I had never heard of Roman Polanski. It wasn’t until many years later, after I’d become a fan of (some) of his work, that I found out that he was a fugitive living in France because he had been convicted of drugging and raping a 13-year old girl in California in 1977.
I began my boycott of Roman Polanski films at that point. I would like to see “Chinatown” again, but I won’t. Now, it turns out that my boycott list will grow a bit longer to include Whoopi Goldberg films (boy, really straining the willpower: can I resist the “Ghost” reruns? And “Sister Act”, oooh, that hurts.) I’d say I was going to boycott “The View” but since I’ve never watched it, I think that wouldn’t be entirely honest. Many creative types and celebrities have signed a petition protesting the arrest of Roman Polanski in Switzerland. It reads as follows, and as traditional, I’m including my comments:
Petition for Roman Polanski
We have learned the astonishing news of Roman Polanski’s arrest by the Swiss police on September 26th, upon arrival in Zurich (Switzerland) while on his way to a film festival where he was due to receive an award for his career in filmmaking.
The reason for his travel is important to the cohesiveness of their argument for his release. It’s compelling.
His arrest follows an American arrest warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals.
Well, yes: morals. In this case the “morals” in question were also “laws.” The two often coincide, but it’s hard for amoral people who consider themselves above the law to keep track.
Filmmakers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision. It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him.
Bad translation alert. Also bad grammar alert, which may or may not be contributing to the general lack of logic in this paragraph. Maybe the next paragraph will clarify.
By their extraterritorial nature, film festivals the world over have always permitted works to be shown and for filmmakers to present them freely and safely, even when certain States opposed this.
OK: Film Festivals are like the United Nations General Assembly (in more ways than one, as it happens.) If a contemporary filmmaker of Polanski’s stature needs to attend a film festival, he should have Cinomatographic immunitiy, like diplomatic immunity. BTW, I first read this as “By their extraterrestrial nature.”
The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no-one can know the effects.
Here we get into the not-very-tall grass of international law: neutrality doesn’t apply to criminal cases where there is an extradition treaty. It applies to, like, war stuff. And not “culture wars,” which this is a part of. And I love the “opens the way for actions of which no-one can know the effects.” I think that means “We can’t keep track of what crimes we’ve committed where and our lawyers go on vacation in August.”
Roman Polanski is a French citizen, a renown [sic] and international artist now facing extradition. This extradition, if it takes place, will be heavy in consequences and will take away his freedom.
Better translation: Roman Polanski is a French citizen, a renowned international artist, [ and is] now facing the threat of extradition. This extradition, if it takes place, will entail serious consequences and will take away his freedom. Well, yes. Think “Tess.” Life imitates art! But, while we’re thinking about “Tess,” which was a visual feast and pretty incomprehensible, Tess gets raped and eventually kills her rapist. She’s chased by the law and is apprehended. While she’s on the lam, she stops for the night at- Stonehenge! and drapes herself artistically across one of the big stones and artistically goes to sleep. When dawn arrives on the Salisbury plain, her eyes flutter open and her field of vision is ringed by mounted men peering down at her. She says- and no, I’m not kidding- “Have you come for me?” I was in a packed movie house when I saw this and I burst out laughing. It would not be the first time that I would incur the hatred of hundreds of movie goers. The other time was at “The Da Vinci Code.”
Filmmakers, actors, producers and technicians – everyone involved in international filmmaking – want him to know that he has their support and friendship.
So write him a letter.
On September 16th, 2009, Mr. Charles Rivkin, the US Ambassador to France, received French artists and intellectuals at the embassy. He presented to them the new Minister Counselor for Public Affairs at the embassy, Ms Judith Baroody. In perfect French she lauded the Franco-American friendship and recommended the development of cultural relations between our two countries.
And your point is? Judy Baroody’s job is going to suck if Roman gets extradited.
If only in the name of this friendship between our two countries, we demand the immediate release of Roman Polanski.
In the name of Franco-American friendship, we demand the release of the child-rapist Roman Polanski.
Is now a good time to call these people Cheese-eating Child-Raping Surrender Monkeys?
For my boycott list:
John Landis, Martin Scorcese, Woody Allen (surprise!) Tilda Swinton, Pedro Almodovar, David Lynch (surprise!) Jonathan Demme, Terry Gilliam, and a lot of people I’ve never heard of (mostly French.) I note, however, that despite the “big names,” there aren’t that many of those, and that the list really isn’t much. The Americans who signed are either so big (Landis, Scorcese) that even a scandal like this can’t touch them, or they are so past their sell-by date/ not a box office draw that it doesn’t matter (Allen, Swinton- who is probably suffering from delusions that anyone cares what she thinks.)
A friend sent this to me with the note of surprise that it came from Salon- fortunately, it’s making the rounds. I’ve already seen Kate Harding’s article cited at NRO. She’s pulling no punches with the Left’s hypocrisy and I can’t help but think that there is a large but silent group even within Hollywood that finds all of this pretty disgusting.
Comments 35
Sometimes I like to take the man of the world, man aware of the relativity of moral codes position…
…not much this time. Maybe if he’d stayed and taken his medicine – probably would have gotten a wrist-slap sentence – instead of fleeing and then thumbing his nose at the world, justifying himself cynically, I’d be more willing to scrounge around for some benefit of the doubt.
As for the petition, until and unless some big Hollywood names stand up on the other side, it will have almost the same effect as if they all signed it.
September 30th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
“The Pianist” was one of the best films I’ve ever seen. I do not think the world would be a better place without Woody Allen.
I gather Polanski’s victim forgave him and got on with her life a long time ago. I have no details, but I would not be surprised if he has compensated her a long time ago for his crime.
Clinton’s serial abuses were far worse in my mind, and he has none of Polanski’s or Allen’s redeeming qualities. I’d much prefer spending an afternoon with Allen and Polanski than any amount of time with Clinton and Gingrich.
A lot of wierd things happen, and we’re all a little wierd, and we’ve all done some pretty horrid things. T.S. Elliot was a Jew hater. “Four Quartets” can still give me a thrill.
September 30th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Remind me not to tote beers over to scientific socialist’s on a fall afternoon. Football, SS. Think pigskin. As for poetry, Henry Wadsworth Linkfeller is good enough for me.
(Just pulling your chain.)
Roman Polanski is icky. Always was. As a poster-child for statutes of limitations, he really has his drawbacks.
September 30th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
“We’ve all done some pretty horrid things?”
OK, I decided that SS is joking but it’s too scary the way he sounds just like… Whoopi Goldberg.
September 30th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
SS – “I gather Polanski’s victim forgave him and got on with her life a long time ago. I have no details, but I would not be surprised if he has compensated her a long time ago for his crime.”
She sued, he settled. One of the things I’d like the press to ask him and her is whether there have been any payments since that settlement. My guess is that he has her on the payroll as a ready tool to deflect and confuse the issue.
Another thing one seldom sees in news of this is that after arriving in France Polanski hooked up with Natassia Kinsky, then 15 years old.
There is of course a very old tradition of wealthy and/or powerful older men acquiring very young women (Ghenghis Khan is said to have had 3,000 sequentially for health purposes) but I thought we were past that.
September 30th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Remember Lolita?
September 30th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
I have no recollection of anyone by that name.
http://tomroeser.com/blog/img/f23831/Nixon_Haldeman.gif
September 30th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
@Zoltan Newberry – I really can’t cope with guys who cite “Lolita” like that’s the paradigm for adult male- adolescent girl relationships. (I’m not saying you’re doing that, by the way.) Take Roman Polanski at his word: Guys want to [expletive deleted] young girls. The whole “she seduced me” excuse is a male fantasy.
September 30th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
fuster, we know you’re holding out for the girl with the golden ball.
September 30th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
My first wife had a friend in Boulder, Co. who swore she was VN’s inspiration. When she was about 11, a very refined foreign gentleman often sat reading near the playground she frequented. They did nothing more than talk, but he seemed fascinated, and she was very beautiful. Turns out VN lived in Boulder during that time.
September 30th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
The moment in Polanski’s oeuvre that made the biggest impression on me is the “cat i’ the adage” speech from Macbeth. His Lady Macbeth (don’t know who the actress was) was just an ordinary young wife who has ambitions for her husband and is frustrated that he doesn’t seem to have the backbone to realize them. A very clever and original banality-of-evil kind of thing.
Polanski is merely clever, but Woody Allen was a true comic genius before he started, disastrously, taking himself seriously, and both his life and his work went to hell. Go and see Bananas again if you don’t believe me.
September 30th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
I like Four Quartets, too. But if T. S. Eliot had ever committed a crime, I don’t think he should have gotten off just because he wrote good poetry. If Polansky has paid restitution to his victim, that’s good; probably saved him a big lawsuit, too. But one doesn’t satisfy the law by satisfying the victim.
Can’t help wondering if someof the Eropeans are just enjoying yanking America’s chain on this. I mean, they do prosecute rape cases, don’t they? And do extradition for escaped convicts?
September 30th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
@Barbara – Cute comment and great illustration. Two points!
September 30th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
And, as SS said, Polansky has done more good with just one of his flicks (‘The Pianist’ is my favorite) than Clinton, Gingrich, Dodd, and many other skuzzballs will ever do in their entire lifetimes.
Do yourself a favor, Barbara, and see it.
September 30th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
@Zoltan Newberry – Interesting. Nabokov claimed that he personally didn’t care for nymphets. But he was definitely a very weird person. Besides Lolita, the only book of his that I finished was Ada, which I stuck with until the end only because I hoped to figure out why anyone would have written anything so weird. Of course I didn’t find out.
I thought the first half of Lolita was uproariously funny. The second half was so boring and sick that I think I ended up just skimming it.
September 30th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
What a funky bizarre argument it is to try to minimize, due to artistic merit, some middle-aged person drugging and jumping a thirteen year old.
Would it be even better if the event had been filmed with really nice lighting?
September 30th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
@fuster – fuster, I don’t think anyone here is trying to minimize it. The issue is whether one can separate admiration for the work from admiration for the man. But if you’re referring to the reaction of some of the decadent Europeans, I think it’s revolting.
September 30th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Catherine The Great, one of the original cougars, specialized in boy toys younger than her own son. They were better looking too. Potemkin was one of her first, but he got too old for her I guess, so he took it upon himself to keep her well supplied with a succession of sweet young boy things.
When I was a college boy bussing tables, a much older waitress tried to seduce me.
Then, there was that nutty teacher in Portland or Seattle who fell in lust with a 16 year old Phillipino or Samoan boy in her class, and went to jail for it. She left her husband and had kids with this child. For all I know they are living happily ever after but I doubt it. She’s pretty nutty.
September 30th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
@Peter Shalen – Of course, you can separate the man’s work from his crimes.
Don’t I always remark about how he was a better dresser than Churchill, had more hair than Churchill, and he was a better painter than Churchill?
September 30th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
I think the word we use here at ZC is “shtoop.” There’s always the hope that we can attract Larry Birnbaum back with a bissel yiddishkeit.
September 30th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
I had to post my comment #20 four times to get it past the spam filter. Believe it or not, the phrase it didn’t like was “*xpl*t*ve d*l*t*d.”
September 30th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
@fuster – A whole house in one day. Two coats!
September 30th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Clinton pardoned Mark Rich.
Somehow, I don’t think Barry 0 is eager pardon Roman Polansky, no matter what Whoopie says.
I will ask my rabbi if he can pardon Roman Polansky 30 odd years after his crime, so he doesn’t have to go to jail, and we won’t be deprived of his next work, which might be even better than “The Pianist.”
But, then again, my rabbi was one of the few who did not vote for Mister Peanut, so maybe the entire lot of Reform Rabbis can beseech their Annointed One to pardon Polansky.
September 30th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
@fuster – very good! In fact, one of the better comments on this whole thing that I’ve seen. I may yet set aside a dacha with some nice ponds for you.
September 30th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
@CK MacLeod – You’re not a big Churchill fan either?
September 30th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
I was replying to the “nice lighting” post, toad. Didn’t really follow your Churchill comment.
October 1st, 2009 at 12:16 am
Paul Mirengoff: “Sure, he was a great film director, but then O.J. Simpson was a great running back.”
October 1st, 2009 at 9:24 am
@fuster (16) and Peter (17): fuster has it right. I’m very surprised at the willingness to minimize, excuse, and otherwise gloss over what Mr. Polanski did. I have to ask: could he have created “The Pianist” without being a child molester? Could he have created “The Pianist” after having served time? Of course, we can’t really know the answer to the last, but it seems obvious that the answer to the first is yes.
It is a self-serving trope, promulgated by the self-regarding, decadent members of the artist community, the vast majority of whom are basically ridiculous, that degenerate or anti-social behavior is a necessary adjunct to their creativity. But worse is that people are willing to give a particular someone a pass because he made a film that was “great.”
One aspect of all of this that no one is discussing is the implicit suggestion that the attitudes of Europeans toward screwing children is more “sophisticated”. This is a Leftist spin on a socio-political tactic. In Holland, the age of consent is 12. We are horrified that girls are married off in other parts of the world at very young ages, but in Europe adults can use children for sex without any particular social compact. Lenin and I agree on one thing: the key to strengthening the State’s power is the erosion of normative family ties, and adult-child sex is an excellent way to accomplish that.
October 1st, 2009 at 9:39 am
Barbara — you go, girl. Here is an interesting comparison. If everyone wants to steep himself in melancholy irony, consider that Hollywood and the cinematic industry everywhere are rushing to downplay Polanski’s crime and affirm his artistic genius, blah blah blah. There are adults who don’t excuse Polanski, exactly, but wonder if this ancient crime really had to pursue him for the rest of his life. I mean, after all. And so forth.
Now the comparison. There are young American men in their late teens and twenties today who have been branded as “sex offenders” for the rest of their lives because the parents of 16- and 17-year-old girls reported that the guys in question were caught having sex with their daughters — when the guys were 18, 19, and 20 themselves.
We can argue all we want about whether sex can possibly be “consensual” when it involves a girl of 16. But anyone with a brain also knows that a whole lot of 16-year-old girls are having sex with teenage boys who are a year or two older than they are. We also know that the culture today encourages those girls to get on the pill and make sure the guy is wearing a condom, because the pill doesn’t protect you from STDs.
What the culture does not do is encourage those girls to refrain from having the sex. I’m sorry, I just can’t get politically indignant about teenage boys having sex with underage girls who are barely younger than they are. If it’s not a moral problem, to which the answer is, “Don’t do it!”, then what the hell kind of problem is it?
The point is this. Those young guys will have “sex offender” following them around everywhere they go until the day they die. Every job they apply for, the prospective employer will find “sex offender” on the routine background check. Whenever they move into a neighborhood, their residence will be annotated on the sex-offender map. There will be blocks they can’t even live on because they’d be near a school if they did.
Yet they did nothing even approaching what Polanski did, which was clearly assault rape. So bring it on, and tell me how ambivalent we all ought to be about Polanski and the long-forestalled punishment for his old, old crime. When someone starts to care about these young guys branded as sex offenders for something society is madly encouraging their young girl partners to engage in — then it will be time to worry about Polanski.
October 1st, 2009 at 11:45 am
@Barbara – nicely stated – except that according to this informative reference on worldwide age of consent laws, the age of consent in the Netherlands is 16. 15 appears typical for Europe, with Spain in the lead at 13 – check that: It’s 12 for… the Vatican State. Make of that what you will…
There are a handful of states in the US where age of consent is as low as 14 (e.g., Arkansas), but goes up to 16 where the age gap between partners is greater than a few years or the older partner is older than 18 or 21.
We all understand that “consent” is not the real issue in the Polanski case – except in the sense, as you observe, that the Polanski defenders fall back on a kind of supervening “social consent”: In other words, they’re okay with a sexual E-ticket for artists of sufficient renown, especially ones whose spouses and other loved ones have been viciously murdered, and especially if acts that would count as “serious crimes” for other people take place in utterly degenerate moral environments like Hollywood of the 1970s.
BTW – my favorite Polanski movie is THE TENANT. For those of you who haven’t seen it, it’s a black comedy with strong currents of psychological horror. At the climax, the main character, play by Polanski, has finally been driven to dress up as the former tenant of his apartment (a woman), and throw himself out of her upper story window to his death… except that he manages only to injure himself severely. So he drags himself bloody and broken back up the stairs and throws himself out the window again – this time achieving the intended purpose.
There’s a lot of that going around.
October 1st, 2009 at 12:28 pm
@J.E. Dyer – In case there’s any ambiguity about what I’ve written on this thread, I think Polanski should be in jail. I see no inconsistency between that and my continuing to enjoy his better films. Do you?
October 2nd, 2009 at 12:57 am
@CK: My information about the age of consent in the Netherlands (great name in this case) may be out of date- I hear rumors that they are de-liberalizing a bunch of their laws- but I came by it honestly. A “mature” classmate of my son’s, in middle school, was Dutch. Now that I think about it, she wasn’t the kind of girl to second guess a pick up line like, “You know, it’s legal for 12 year-olds in this country!”
As for my personal boycott, I have this thing about contributing to the comfortable lifestyle of someone who has committed a crime for which he has not paid his debt. Sure, my pitiful stand doesn’t really mean anything to Mr. Polanski, but it’s also true that Roman has probably paid a sizeable price in opportunity costs. Not enough, as his Oscar will attest, but he lives under a well-deserved cloud, and for the time-being, behind some well-deserved bars.
October 2nd, 2009 at 7:31 am
@Barbara –
You are right, Barbara.
Katha Pollitt may have just circulated the only piece of her’s with which I will ever agree, and, with it, there’s a photo of Polanski’s victim at the age of 13, and she really looks all of 13. My 15 year old daughter is far more mature looking than that.
Yes, RP truly deserves what he is belatedly getting now.
October 3rd, 2009 at 3:36 pm
@Zoltan Newberry – Yes, I also had the experience, when I saw that piece quoted, of agreeing with Katha Pollitt for the first time. (I’m optimistic enough to hope it won’t be the last, though.)
October 3rd, 2009 at 3:57 pm
He’s printed up his whining statement, from the office of his chateau, no doubt, it’s hard to see someone more vile, then again he telescoped the water wars of the 00s, into the 30s, and painted
the Mulholland manque as someone capable of incest,
May 2nd, 2010 at 9:05 pm