I like “Chinatown” and “Rosemary’s Baby” as much as the next person — “Tess,” “Repulsion,” and “The Pianist” are pretty good, too — but I’m still having a hard time understanding why anyone would bother defending Roman Polanski in the wake of his recent arrest on a decades-old charge of having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl.
Polanski pleaded guilty long ago, then fled the U.S. If you go back and read what he did, it was pretty terrible — he gave the victim champagne and a Quaalude, then raped her. The backstory is a little more complicated — there’s evidence of judicial misconduct in the case, and apparently the mother introduced Polanski to her daughter, who was, as a number of Polanski’s apologists have pointed out, no longer a virgin — but so what? It’s never OK to rape a child, even if the mother introduced you to her, and even if she’s no longer a virgin. Thirteen is very young, and even if Polanski — then in his 40s — didn’t know the victim’s real age, as some writers have claimed (read this dumb piece by Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post), consensual sex doesn’t involve drugging your partner. As the Post’s Eugene Robinson wrote, “Those who argue that there’s something unjust about Polanski’s arrest are essentially accepting his argument that it’s possible for a 13-year-old girl, under the influence of alcohol and drugs, to ‘consent’ to sex with a man in his 40s. Or maybe his defenders are saying that drugging and raping a child is simply not such a big deal.” (Click here to read the whole thing.)
Some statutory rape cases have gray areas. I’m sorry, but this isn’t one of them.
The legal debate has obscured the Polanski defenders’ more chilling argument, which is that because Polanski is really gifted, and has suffered — he’s a Holocaust survivor, and his wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered by the Manson family — he should be given a free pass. Is there any other way to explain why a whole bunch of artists whose works I love and admire — Pedro Almodovar, David Lynch, Wim Wenders, Martin Scorsese, Darren Aronofsky, etc. — would sign a petition demanding Polanski’s release? Here’s what producer Harvey Weinstein had to say about the arrest, before calling the rape a “so-called crime” (click here for more dumbness): “Roman Polanski is a man who cares deeply about his art and its place in this world. What happened to him on his incredible path is filled with tragedy, and most men would have collapsed. Instead, he became a great artist and continues to make great films. I was with him the day he won the Legion of Honour in France, which was a spectacular day. I remember the incredible love and affection that people have for him.”
Meanwhile, the New Yorker’s Richard Brody acknowledges that what Polanski did was awful, but suggests there’s no need to bother prosecuting him now. “Since fleeing to France in 1978, Polanski has done what the court could only wish every convict on probation would do: he has kept out of trouble, been gainfully employed, been devoted to his family, been a respected member of the community, made a contribution to society,” Brody writes. “(Sure, he had the benefit of exceptional resources and connections, but only because, to begin with, he demonstrated exceptional talents.) His life in the last thirty-one years has proven the plea bargain that had been negotiated, requiring no further jail time, to have been entirely justified. Polanski has been rehabilitated. And saying so doesn’t lessen my revulsion at the acts for which he was prosecuted.” (Click here to read the whole thing.)
Yawn. Here in America, accused criminals don’t get to flee the country and then turn around 30 years later and say, “Look, I’m rehabilitated! Don’t punish me!” They also don’t get extra points for having “exceptional talents,” or famous friends who are willing to write fatuous op-eds attesting to their love of the arts. As Elizabeth Wurtzel put it, (click here to read more) “Notwithstanding the due process concerns that the Polanski case raises — which are for legal scholars, not Hollywood directors, to quibble with — if we excuse Polanski from punishment, aren’t we really saying that his life is more valuable than the life of a 13-year-old girl’s just because he happened to direct ‘Rosemary’s Baby’? Taking that to its logical extreme, we have to assume that Bob Dylan can never go to jail, even if he rapes a teenager or two, and that Picasso could not have served time for whatever felonies he might have committed in his brazen lifetime, and — well, I could go on. Where would we draw the line? Does Leonard Cohen qualify? Neil Diamond?”
Meanwhile, Brendon Bouzard, a contributor to the film blog The House Next Door, expresses sadness about the support for Polanski from the film community — a sadness I share. “Many of the filmmakers who have signed this petition are people whose work I’ve greatly admired over the years — people like David Lynch, the Dardenne Brothers, Pedro Almodovar,” he writes. “It’s so difficult for me to reconcile the Lynch who made ‘Mulholland Drive,’ a cinematic criticism of the way that Hollywood and the film industry mistreats and abuses women with the Lynch that would sign a petition like this. Or the Almodovar who made ‘Volver,’ a film about the strength of women in the aftermath of sexual molestation. Or the Dardennes who have made such strongly moral films about crime and the need for absolution and repentance. I’m heartbroken right now because film is an art form that I’ve loved, that I’ve felt a special bond with, since I was a child. I’ve spent eighteen years of my life as a film nerd, and I’ve always believed that film is a medium its practitioners can use to enlighten, to make this world better, to champion those who are wronged, and to engage with morality in a serious way. And thinking about this today has basically made me question everything. How can I support an industry that refuses to acknowledge what happened? That turns a blind eye to such obvious injustice?" (Click here to read the whole thing.)
Still, I’d like to thank Roman Polanski for providing one of my favorite Oscar party moments. My friend Bill and I were so astonished when he won best director for “The Pianist” that we screamed “ROMAN POLANSKI?” in unison and fell on the floor. We just couldn’t believe it.
MORE CONCERTS
A couple of weeks ago I put together a list of some of the great concerts coming to the Capital Region this fall. (Click here to read it.) I’d like to add two more:
Ryan Bingham and the Dead Horses on Oct. 9 at Valentine’s in Albany I’ve heard a few of Ryan Bingham’s songs on 97.7 WEXT, and they’re very good — alt-country in the Ryan Adams/Drive-By Truckers/Steve Earle vein. He’s got a great voice, and I imagine he’ll be a lot of fun in a tight-knit venue such as Valentine’s.
Josh Ritter on Dec. 5 at the Troy Savings Bank Music Hall in Troy Josh Ritter is a talented singer-songwriter who happened to go to college with me. But I’m not just plugging him because he wrote the occasional arts story for the Oberlin Review. His albums are pretty good — I have all three — and when I saw him a few years back at The Egg, he put on a very good show. Even his stage banter was good. In any case, he’s come a long way from the days when he was performing at the Cat in the Cream Coffeehouse and my friend Zach was mixing his CDs. He’s worth checking out. Especially if you’re from Idaho.
Got a comment? E-mail me at sfoss@dailygazette.net.
