Filmmakers Flock to Declare Their Art More Important Than Justice

The Roman Polanski scandal continues to bring out idiots decrying his arrest for ridiculous reasons that only point to their own fucked up beliefs and priorities.

I’d like to post a list of the notable directors, actors, etc. who have signed a petition declaring the whole scandal a mere “case of morals” and the intrusion of justice into a film festival “inadmissible”. Among the names on the list are: Pedro Almodovar, Wes Anderson, Darren Aronofsky, Monica Belluci, Alfonso Cuaron, Alexandre Desplat, Jonathan Demme, Stephen Frears, Costa, Gavras, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Neil Jordan, Wong Kar Wai, John Landis, David Lynch, Michael Mann, Sam Mendes, Mike Nichols, Alexander Payne, Walter Salles, Julian Schnabel, Martin Scorsese, Steven Soderbergh, Tilda Swinton, . Oh, and Woody Allen, but you already guessed that. All of these people put their name below a letter that questioned whether what Polanski did was even wrong in the first place, but then have the nerve to position film festivals as sacred ground.

Are these filmmakers simply callous, self-important assholes who believe the creation of art trumps criminal behavior? That the rich and famous shouldn’t have to face justice for ‘indiscretions’ or ‘tiny mistakes’? Do they believe middle aged men having sex with thirteen year old girls isn’t immoral? Do they believe rape isn’t immoral? Or are they ignorant of the facts of the case? Are they afraid not to support him? Have they obtained their views on the situation from the heavily slanted Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired documentary, a work that the Los Angeles County Superior Court contends with on facts, let alone less explicit assertions? A work that, like some recent columnists, spends far too much time talking about Polanski’s tragic past and the judge’s personal life instead of analyzing what Polanski was charged with, accused of and plead guilty to. Truth is, the positions of these filmmakers won’t impact my appreciation for what they’ve produced, just as Roman Polanski’s disgusting personal life doesn’t turn Chinatown into a terrible film. However, for argument’s sake, it’s fun to throw their own argument back in their face. If they want to link their personal beliefs and actions to their films, as they’re doing by even talking about his works in this context or touting the magical sanctity of film as reason not to pursue Polanski, then it’d be fair game to do for them too, right? Only unlike the film industry, fewer members of the public would look upon defending Polanski in a positive light. It would be amusing to see what happens when audiences connect Shutter Island to Scorsese’s stance that this is a “case of morals”. Somehow I doubt if they would appreciate the argument when it has potentially negative repercussions for themselves and their industry.

As if I needed any more reason to hate Harvey Weinstein, he’s written an op-ed piece for The Independent about the Polanski arrest. Much of it is – unsurprisingly – back door compliments to himself (did you know he’s produced Oscar nominated films or that he can call up Governor Schwarzenneger whenever he wants? It’s true!, but he also reveals a very seriously twisted perspective on the birth of the scandal. Notably, he references the “so-called crime.” Wait, what? So now there’s a debate over whether sex with a 13 year-old was illegal? If so, someone should go back in time and tell Roman Polanski before he admitted guilt to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (a kind legalese way of saying statutory way). There can be no question that that was a crime. Even Polanski didn’t fight that one, but I guess it is rather hard to stand by Polanski when he’s got that pesky crime in his file. Diminishing its meaning or outright denying it is certainly one tactic to overcoming its weight.

Weinstein, like every Polanski defender, also manages to drop a few wacky distractions, like the conspiracy theory that the Swiss would only arrest Polanski because they’re seeking American help regarding their financial crisis. Yeah, that’s relevant. With or without the financial crisis, Polanski is still wanted by the United States and Switzerland still has an extradition treaty with them. Or how about this fun nugget:

It is a shocking way to treat such a man. Polanski went through the Holocaust and the murder of his wife, Sharon Tate, by the Manson family. How do you go from the Holocaust to the Manson family with any sort of dignity? In those circumstances, most people could not contribute to art and make the kind of beautiful movies he continues to make.

I didn’t know Holocaust survivors and widowers got Get Out of Jail Free cards. And think of the art he’s made! Oh that beautiful, beautiful art! Surely that’s worth more than the “so-called crime” against this young girl, right?

I was involved by the film, and it was an amazing experience to see people weep at the end of it. Warren Beatty and Robert Evans were there, too, and you could feel the sense of injustice from these people who are part of Polanski’s life. They know that, at heart, he is a humanist.

Ah, the oft-touted ‘he’s too nice to be a rapist’ claim. Just like those people who never guessed that their quiet, unassuming neighbor was a serial killer.

Forget about the Seventies era and whether this is excusable – this is a miscarriage of justice, and the government is making him a scapegoat.

A scapegoat? For what? Weinstein never says, probably because there can be no possible rational answer. After all, Polanski pleaded guilty to a crime. If Polanski can only be a scapegoat for himself.

Weinstein also brings up the aforementioned documentary’s claim that the judge reneged on the plea bargain’s agreements. He also simultaneously claims that Polanski already did his time. Both of these are half-truths at best. It’s true, Polanski’s plea bargain involved him spending 90 days under evaluation (he ultimately did less than half of that) but that was for the purpose of informing the subsequent sentencing. Let’s say that again, the sentencing had not been completed. When Polanski began to believe he wouldn’t be sentenced leniently, he fled the nation. Now, it’s true that at this time the judge acted unethically in engaging in ex parte communication with a lawyer for the state of California, albeit one in no way involved in the Polanski case. We’re still left with Polanski fleeing the country… before sentencing. So any claim that he’s completed his sentencing is straight-up bullshit.

I’ll leave off with two recommended readings. The first is “Letters From Hollywood: Roman Polanski’s Rape Of Child No Big Thing” by Kate Harding. In particular, check out her reactions to Debra Winger, president of the Zurich Film Festival jury, who is going around claiming Polanski’s arrest is an attack on art. Second, “Whitewashing Roman Polanski” over at Salon from February, about the now infamous documentary and it’s many perverse biases.

P.S. Props to French powerhouse writer/director/producer Luc Besson for standing up and essentially saying that Polanski is not above the law, that “there is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone.” No matter what he thinks about Polanski (Besson says he has no opinion but he knows him and their daughters are friends), at least he understands that the rich, powerful and artistic shouldn’t be allowed to operate under a different set of rules.