On the Polanski Affair
Sexually abusing a 13-year-old girl is obviously a serious crime.
And being an artistic genius never constituted, for any crime, an attenuating circumstance.
Having said that, and considering the wave of madness currently sweeping the country, we should also remember the following:
1. The "illegal sexual intercourse" that Roman Polanski acknowledged he was guilty of 32 years ago is not, for all that, the deadly crime, even crime against humanity, that the avengers hot on his heels have been denouncing for the past 10 days. Yes, it is a crime. But there are degrees in the scale of crimes. And it is an insult to good sense, an assault on reason, a door left open to all kinds of confusion, to muddle everything, to try to make everyone believe that a rape is a crime of the same nature as, for example, the one his wife Sharon Tate was a victim of, eviscerated several years earlier, to risk, in other words, because that's what we're really talking about, seeing Polanski join Charles Manson in the penitentiary where, starting January 1, 2010, he will have the possibility of parole.
2. This affair is all the more senseless as the principal complainant has chosen to forgive, to turn the page and, if possible, to forget. Leave me alone, she begs every time the Justice Spectacle, or just simply the Spectacle, shines its spotlights on this part of her past! Leave me alone and, while we're at it, forget this man that I, his victim, think has paid enough! But no. Defenders of victims' rights are there knowing better than the victim what she wants and what she feels. We are dealing with people who would step over the victims rather than let go of their prey and renounce the drunken desire to punish. It is shameful.
3. When the victim withdraws her complaint, isn't it up to society, that is to say the judge, to pursue the matter? Yes, without a doubt. From a strict judicial point of view, it is indeed the right of society. But this will be neither the first nor the last time that the strict judicial perspective misses the demands of compassion as well as those of intelligence. And just as I have never abstained from pointing out, in the Law of this America that I love, customs or punishments, found in every legal system, that distort the pure democratic idea, likewise there is no reason not to say it: arresting a man today about whom it was decided a long time ago, after 42 days in prison, that he wasn't a pedophile, tracking him like a terrorist, and extraditing him like a former Nazi is perhaps right according to the law, but not according to justice.
4. Would it be, like we're hearing everywhere, that his celebrity was giving Mr. Polanski refuge? No, of course not. I have spent my life trying to pull minuscule lives, nameless and faceless victims, from obscurity -- and I would have exactly the same views if Mr. Polanski weren't Mr. Polanski. Except... Except I precisely wouldn't have to maintain them. Because he wouldn't have been arrested. His dossier would have been buried for years. And there wouldn't have been any prosecutor, on the eve of an election (because many American judges are elected by the people like mayors and sheriffs), to arrange this high-profile arrest. Celebrity is not protecting Roman Polanski; it is doing him a disservice. Far from Roman Polanski hiding behind his name, it is his name that is drawing attention to him. And if there is a double standard in this affair, it is making Polanski, not an ordinary defendant, but a symbol -- and his eventual appearance a politico-media "grand bazaar" more than a fair trial.
5. The root of the matter lies in the whiff of popular justice that masks everything and transforms the commentators, the bloggers, the citizens, into so many judges sworn in on the great tribunal of Opinion -- some weighing the crime, others the punishment; we have even seen one of the virtuous, apparently an expert in chemical castration, propose for this new Dutroux (sic) a definitive treatment... Strange sort of outrage in those who don't find fault when it's a truly powerful person who acts like a child predator in front of our faces (ah, Mr. Berlusconi's escapades) but who become implacable when it's a seemingly powerful person who, like Polanski, has no other weapon but his talent... Singular kind of moralists who take an evil pleasure in replaying over and over the details of this sordid affair in order then to throw the first stone...
This lynching is a disturbance of the public order more serious than Roman Polanski remaining free.
This tenacity on the part of the gossips, and this desire to see the head of an artist on a pike, are the very essence of immorality.
Either one of two things, Your Honors. Either Polanski was this monster -- and we shouldn't have given him either an Oscar or a César; we needed to boycott his films; we needed to turn him in to the authorities every time he vacationed with his family at his home in Switzerland. Or you have never found fault, ever, with his announced appearances on the red carpets of every world festival; you feel as I do the formidable hypocrisy of this prosecutor, craving recognition, who woke up one morning to deliver him like a trophy to the public condemnation of the white-hot anger of voters -- and we must, like his victim, plead that he finally be left in peace.
Translated from French by Sara Phenix.
Megan Carpentier: Roman Polanski, And The Making Of A Legend
Polanski, the master story-teller, has been refining his story for 30 years, weaving his little lies one by one into a cloak intended to shield him from both moral judgment and the legal system.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
M. Levy, you commit a category mistake with this false dichotomy:
"Either one of two things, Your Honors. Polanski was this monster -- and we shouldn't have given him either an Oscar or a César; we needed to boycott his films; we needed to turn him in to the authorities every time he vacationed with his family at his home in Switzerland. Or you have never found fault, ever, with his announced appearances on the red carpets of every world festival"
You claim above is that what occurs in the political sphere, e.g. laws, justice systems, and political leaders, should dictate what happens in the cultural sphere, art re: presenting, financing, and honoring art. Don't you think awarding honors to an artist or works of art should be independent of what occurs in the political sphere? I bet you do, in general. So to suggest that those in the political sphere, e.g. prosecutors, politicians, etc., should determine what goes on in the cultural sphere--civil society monad, and that those in the cultural sphere should let the political sphere determine what happens there is subversive and inconsistent with Western liberal/social democratic principles.
Do you believe that that condition should apply to other endeavors, including intellectual endeavors such as those you engage in?
You also construct a universal "we" with agency to make these decisions "we shouldn't have...." How should that "we" be created, decide, act; who’s included/excluded from your "we?"
Levy's arguyment about Polanski's celebrity carries soem weight. However, it does so in the first palce, not merely now, too.
Were Polanski a not-famous "John Smith," would France have refused to extradite him? France has the ability, though not the obligation in law, to extradite persons who've plead guilty to the crime Polanski did 30 years ago. Yet, France did not.
Do you think Polanski's fame and stature as a highly talented and regarded artist was part of the reason they did not turn him over to the US? I do, and that turns the table on M. Levy on his own terms re: the role of fame in the matter.
WHERE WAS THE MOTHER,,HOW CAN SHE LEAVE HER UNDER AGE DAUGHTER WHO LOOKED OVER 13 ALONE WITH A MAN..HE RAPED HER AND SHOULD BE PUNISHED,,BUT ALSO ITAS THE MOTHERS FAULT,,AND SHE WAS NOT AS INNOCENT AS ITS MADE OUT TO BE,,SEX TWICE BEFORE,,AT 13...WOW
AND I STILL THINK SHE LOOKS OLDER THAN 13
http://static.koktajl24.pl/img/gallery/321x248/4q84cnekkf4m1a.jpg
M. Lévy makes a very good point: why now? Why not at any time since Mr. Polanski left the country? There has been ample opportunity over the years. So why now? Why has it suddenly become so important that he be 'brought to justice'? Surely that's the real story.
No, the real story is: Did he rape a 13 year old girl? He testified that, statutorily speaking, he did. The second story is why didn't the US go after him more stringently previously? Then, why didn't the French extradite the admitted child rapist for the past 30 years? Finally, yes, why now. Don't get the priorities mixed. Whatever, whenever, however he was pursued and captured is irrelevant to the question of: Is he guilty of raping a child?
Very passionate defense of an indefensible act.
I guess Monsieur Levy's ethical judgment allows leniency for an adult who seduces a child with alcohol and drugs. That, I guess, is not what he perceives to be "rape rape," as Whoopi Goldberg has called it/
I read somewhere that Polanski was supposed to have paid restitution to the unwilling victim of his seduction, but never did. Despite this, the girl (now woman) has forgiven him. And he's never attempted to make it right.
Polanski is not a man of honor. He's made some good films. But I wouldn't enshrine him in the panoply of theatrical genius. And I certainly wouldn't argue that his merit as a creative force should exempt him from spending time in jail.
The literati of France once made a passionate case for the release of Jean Genet, based on his talent, but being free to create did not redeem his rotten soul. He turned out to be a creative genius who was a devious, violent human being.
well said...thanks
It is tragic that people have created a list of excuses to why Polanski shouldn’t be extradited. Regardless of his talent, and the fact that this crime occurred 3 decades ago, Polanski still needs to be held accountable for his malicious actions. This would not only prevent him from being immune from the law, but as blogger Jeff Fecke (http://moderateleft.com/?p=5752) points out that failure to bring such crimes to court, could result in even more women being hurt by a failed judicial system if their perpetrators were able to flee.
While Polanski’s supporters also argue that bringing him to trial would be against the wishes of the victim who states that she wants this in the past, we don’t know if she’s been threatened to remain silent. This is a possibility as Kate Dailey (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2009/09/29/roman-polanski-raped-a-child-a-primer.aspx) references in her article that the victim had reported to deputies that she was afraid of Polanski and that that is why she did not more forcefully resist him. If she was afraid of him then, there is the possibility that she is still afraid of him and his powerful supporters who have joined his defense.
In addition, we don’t know if there are additional victims of Polanski that have not come forward due to fear. Neglecting to bring him to justice would prove to be a disservice to other victims that he may have.
I take exception to your claim that those who support the victim's wishes are "Polanski supporters".
This strikes me as something akin to Bush's infamous "You're either with us or against us".
He didn't say that those who support the victim's wishes are Polanski supporters. He said that Polanski supporters claim to support the victim's wishes.
All Cubans are human. Not all humans are Cuban.
Samantha G., threatened to remain silent?
Her photograph at the premiere of "Roman Polanski : Wanted and Desired"
certainly doesn't make me think so.
More women ARE being hurt by the indecent interest of the mob of Voyeurs
who rally everywhere. Don't you realize how frightenng they are? Don't you
know that above all, Fear is to be feared?
If there was a Judge of the Internet court, he'd have to make a Point of Order.
How can there be Justice without serenity?
"If there was a Judge of the Internet court, he'd have to make a Point of Order. How can there be Justice without serenity?"
Serenity? Perhaps this is best directed to the powerful 'elite' and hollywood types that used their media connection to SCREAM their support and protestation over the arrest of Polanski.
It is imperative as a philosopher, M. Lévy, to be able to distinguish between sophistry and reason. Roman Polanski is far from being Socrates (sentenced to death for corrupting the youth of Athens). Was Polanski teaching his victim a lesson in seditious truths like Socrates? No. Hence, there is no reason to distinguish justice from the law in this matter. It is also imperative not only a philosopher, but a citizen, to be able to admit error instead of multiplying specious arguments. No one argues there is equivalence between Polanski and Manson. Geimer has also been paid a lot of money, doubtless on agreement to not press further charges. Not being determined a pedophile has no bearing. He admitted to rape. That this was a "long time ago" is because Polanski has evaded the law for a long time. Evasion is not a ground for dismissal. The pure democratic idea is that everyone is equal before the law. Anything less does indeed damage the pure democratic idea. Were Polanski's celebrity for his arrest, he would have been found years ago. This is not a public lynching. It is a matter of law. Polanks has to make his case for dismissal in person. That he hasn't suggests that argument may not stand up. He more than talent to defend him in the forms of lawyers in LA, DC and Zurich. Furthermore, Berlusconi has not been convicted in the US.
As you put it the basis is very simple. And it's about time for some of these philosophers to stop trying to re-write chapters about law and justice without thinking in a functional way about the process of accountability. I guess that some of them (utopian philosophers) keep living in their La La land.
He brought this extradition on himself. It did not come out of the blue, it does not seem to be a sudden vengeance of the CA judiciary, or an election concern. The higher profile he and the case is, the more bound to prosecute to the letter of the law they are. If he had not moved to dismiss, they probably would have neglected him. Now it has blown up to a huge public outcry. Also very bad timing; In the bad-ol' days of the '70's, he got a great plea bargain, one that he would probably not see if the case were to be re-tried today, and after this public blow-up, never. He will be treated more severely than ever. They will have to. And this petition only works as gasoline on the fire.
http://www.hollywood.com/news/Judge_Denies_Polanskis_Dismissal_Request/5635763
I don't think I've seen many other comments that make this very important point.
"arresting a man today about whom it was decided a long time ago, after 42 days in prison, that he wasn't a pedophile"
If he pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor isn't he by definition a pedophile?
“tracking him like a terrorist”,
Didn’t he get tracked by winning and award and the cops read the announcement? Will Osama Bin Laden be getting an award soon?
“and extraditing him like a former Nazi “
Is there a special un-Nazi extradition procedure?
For the best refutation of the Polanski defense see here:
http://johnshore.com/2009/10/05/hollywood-go-polanski-yourself/
"If he pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor isn't he by definition a pedophile?"
================================
No.
Pedophilia is sexual attraction to non-developed, pre-pubescents. That wasn't Samantha Gailey Geimer. By all accounts, and I mean all, she didn't look 13.
The detective on the case, Sgt. Phil Vannater (of OJ Simpson case fame) said she looked like she could be between 16 and 18.
In the pre-sentencing report, describing her as "sullen", Anjelica Huston said, "She appeared to be one of those kind of little chicks between -- could be any age up to 25. She did not look like a 13-year-old scared little thing."
Roman Polanski is not a pedophile. That fact does not diminish what he did, and doesn't mean that those of us who say it are defending rape. If I had to guess, and I do, from the pattern of his relationships that I know about, Polanski is an ephebophile. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pedophiles-erotic-age-orientation
I disagree. I've seen Samantha Geimer's pictures from the Polanski photo shoot. She DOES look 13. She looks baby-faced in those photgraphs for Christ's sake. She hardly seemed developed imo. Anyway-it's no excuse. Polanski stated TWICE in the plea hearing that he KNEW she was 13-and he can't take that testimony back. He has since of course contradicted himself stating by turns that he thought she was 16 or 17-which would still be under the age of consent in California I believe (18).
I think most sane people who read this article found it laughable and there is a great post by JGatsby a page or so back that repudiates point by point this pathetic attempt by Levy to cast Polanski as the victim.
What I want to know is how in the world this is even a debate. Are there any Polanski supporters that are denying that at the very barest of bare minimums that he was going to take a plea admitting guilt to sexual misconduct with a minor (of course that plea is despicable in and of itself when compared to Polanski's actions)? So at the barest of bare minimums, if the judge had accepted his plea, he would have been punished for that crime. Are any of those 100+ Hollywood'ites who signed that petition claiming that he has fulfilled that punishment from the law's standpoint? I can't imagine they are because factually he hasn't.
So at the barest of bare minimums, how can it be denied that he still owes time for the crime he admitted to?
He may not owe time. That's for the judge to decide. The problem is that Polanski wanted California to drop charges against him without placing himself in the court's jurisdiction. As the French would say: "He wants the butter and the money for the butter".
The unfortunate part in all of this is that the victim wishes to protect herself, her family and her children and just move on, is being scoffed at as a ploy of "Polanski supporters". I have even read some posts saying she was "bought out". Her concerns are very legitimate.
And since Polanski clearly does not pose any threat whatsoever to California society, I believe such wishes should be given considerable weight.
He should be charged with fleeing, at the very least. That would not bring the victim into the picture. I think it may also carry a stiff sentence.
"Except I precisely wouldn't have to maintain them. Because he wouldn't have been arrested. His dossier would have been buried for years."
His dossier probably would have been buried for years. Know why? Because if he had not been a famous, well respected director, he would not have been given the freedom to leave the country - chances are he would not have been given the freedom to leave his jail cell. His dossier would be rotting in a file cabinet because he would have been rotting in a jail cell.
Correct, except for the rotting in jail part. By now, he'd have long since paid his debt to society.
your argument, monsieur levi, reminds me of the murder by bertrand cantat of noir desir. after the famous french musician brutally beat his girlfriend to death as confirmed by autopsy reports, the french government and french public pleaded for his release from the lithuanian prison. the general sentiment by the french was that the girlfriend deserved it as she was a drug user and emotional.
i live in france at the moment where there is outrage of polanski's arrest for his "illegal sexual assault". i find myself defending american puritanism' by suggesting the sodomized rape of a drugged 13yr old is worthy of punishment. like your fellow misogynists, mr levi, you would prefer to minimize this dispicable act to that of mindless "gossip", "opinion" and "lynching".
but then again, this coming from a man who once stated that a woman wearing a veil is inviting rape....
The French love to lob the term "American Puritanism," as though they have any idea--even remotely--of either the history of Puritanism in America, or what constituted Puritan society.
Everything is about displaced "desire" for them. And the more "transgressive" the sex, the more "artful" it is. Hence, their celebration of Sade. So adolescent.
See Josh Rosenblatt's Profile
The trouble is that the same moral daring that we look for in our great artists can spill easily into degeneracy. That's why we have to keep the artist and the art separate.
Check out my take here:
http://www.unfittimes.com/2009/10/06/unfit-for-the-laws-of-men/
your blog on polanski is BAD ! When you make a choice to run from what you have done in life you pay for it in some way and running means you give up any personal power you may have once been entitled to when you are there to face the consequences ! the choices are then made for you in the event of your absence...polanski gave his rights up when he RAN ! Does it surprise anyone that a man who has sex with a 13 yr old girl would also choose to run ? I read the court transcripts....DID YOU ??? He raped her and then when he found out she could get pregnant he forced her to have anal sex....he knew and was VERY aware of his choices he made that day ! I have three daughters and obviously you know what my position is going to be. when someone hurts one of your chldren they also hurt the entire family unit and it is devastating to the family ! A terrible crime has been committed and he should pay and pay more for the action of running ! its the law of nature when you hurt our most vulnerable citizens and our most precious recources ! please dont blog about things you know nothing about !
how do u know all this? were u there?
What a relief to see an opinion post that isn't calling for Polanski's head on a platter. The entire matter
now seems more like vengeance than justice. The victim has asked that the case be dropped, the
crime happened 31 years ago, and, as far as I know, Polanski hasn't repeated that behavior since.
I'm hoping that some kind of deal can be worked out to all parties' satisfaction.
finally a compassionate mature comment!!!!!!!
What? No one has asked for his head on a platter on this blog? Let me remedy that - His head should be delivered on a platter. His reputation was known in that he often searched out young girls for sex - this young lady wasn't the only one. What is it in the french character that - "To know all is to Forgive All"- is always an acceptable operative? Are there no absolutes that Mr.Levy believes in?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
