There are two things I don’t think are in question for sane, rational people. Roman Polanski is a great filmmaker. Roman Polanski is also a rapist. With his recent arrest in Switzerland for possible extradition to the United States, there’s a new influx of disturbed individuals trying desperately to absolve him of wrongdoing in order to maintain his acclaim as a director. What these people don’t understand is that there is absolutely no interaction between the two. He can be a great director and still be a rapist, and vice-versa. It’s the Michael Jackson scenario as recently played out, except you know, Polanski was actually found guilty of something. At the same time, it’s an opportunity for victim-blamers to pop up and hate on women, children and non-virgins in order to transmogrify rapist into victim.
Look, I don’t know or care what the legal status of his case is at this time. My limited knowledge of the situation tells me there is a genuine discussion to be had about whether his case was properly handled, whether it’s open or closed, etc. But then you get idiots who can’t approach the issue with any nuance and argue that he was wronged long before anything even went before a judge.
The Huffington Post’s entertainment page is currently featuring two editorials by people spinning fact into amazing fiction in order to turn Polanski into not just an innocent man, but a victim even. First up is Joan Z. Shore’s “Polanski’s Arrest: Shame on the Swiss”. She begins with a whole lot of irrelevant nonsense about the Swiss being purportedly neutral in international affairs and talking about how this arrest has put the nation on her shit list. Then comes the disgusting stuff.
But there is more to this story. The 13-year old model “seduced” by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies. The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California. (It’s probably 13 by now!) Polanski was demonized by the press, convicted, and managed to flee, fearing a heavy sentence.
Where to even start with this victim-blaming filth? It was all the girl and mother’s faults. They made the girl readily available to him! And who cares about the age of consent, either then or now? It’s not in question since he eventually issues a guilty plea to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. That says it all on that issue. Poor Polanski, being demonized for drugging and raping a girl a third of his age. Boo hoo.
I met Polanski shortly after he fled America and was filming Tess in Normandy. I was working in the CBS News bureau in Paris, and I accompanied Mike Wallace for a Sixty Minutes interview with Polanski on the set. Mike thought he would be meeting the devil incarnate, but was utterly charmed by Roman’s sobriety and intelligence.
So what? No part of his being smart makes rape an impossibility.
On to another twisted method of excusing Polanski’s actions with John Farr’s “Leniency for Polanski”.
Confronting these developments, we must affirm the law’s the law, right? And what Polanski reputedly did with a 13-year-old girl all those years ago was unquestionably the act of a sick individual.
I sense a big “but” coming…
But the story of what Polanski suffered even before the unspeakable trauma of having his pregnant wife Sharon Tate butchered in the spooky twilight of the turbulent Sixties makes me believe that overall, he’s as much victim as predator himself.
Can you imagine living in the Krakow ghetto during the Nazi Occupation, and at the tender age of ten watching both your parents shuttled off to concentration camps, only to have your mother die in one?
These horrors by no means excuse his crime, but they are mitigating factors, are they not?
Uh, no?! Sorry but being a child during the Holocaust or having your wife killed by a cult of crazies doesn’t have shit to do with raping a thirteen year old. Or as Farr puts it, the time he “seduced” a thirteen year old with champagne and Quaaludes.
This new arrest also smacks of a sneak attack on the now 76-year-old director, who’s been remarried to actress Emmanuelle Seigner for two decades. (He’s probably reformed by now, don’t you think?)
I don’t know, he could be reformed, but maybe those childhood memories will return and he’ll abuse his position as an adult again. [/snark] Either way, reforming yourself on your own is not an option in the view of a proper justice system.
Possibly the worst part of this editorial, which I won’t quote, involves Farr giving a rundown on his five favorite Polanski films, as if the sum of these artistic achievements should be weighed against his indiscretions. This isn’t an either or situation. It doesn’t matter how awesome his films are, his crimes are still crimes. There is no intersection between these aspects of his life and to insinuate anything else is just gross and irresponsible. A series of other filmmakers are protesting his arrest and possible extradition as well, and Harvey Weinstein has pledged support. What a lovely world where artists take their craft more seriously than rape.
I’ll return one last time to Joan Z. Shore, who made some additional remarks in the comments section of the article.
One fact in the Polanski case has been overlooked (which is in the girl’s testimony before the judge): she was not a virgin.
Because as we all know, you can’t be raped if you’re not a virgin.
This latest event in Roman Polanski’s decision to run from the law is bigger than himself. It’s a time to look at some of the disgusting beliefs and points of view about sex and rape that lies beneath the surface of this nation’s consciousness. The hopeful, optimistic side of me wants this to become an opportunity for younger generations to be educated about what rape is really about, what it means and how justifying it hurts us all. Anything, anything at all to move the country a little bit further away from so often blaming the victim or excusing the rapist. There will never be justification for either.
