The Fall of Roman
Roman Polanski needs to come back to the United States and face his conviction for drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl in 1977. Period.
Why? Because he intentionally ran out on the justice system in the country where he committed his crime and has never been held accountable for what he did by standards that weren't his own. Simple as that.
Now, does he deserve prison time? Does he deserve mercy? These are questions for others to debate so I'm not going to bother getting into them, but one byproduct of the admittedly surprising arrest of Polanski in Switzerland really is worth exploring, because it's something that should leave a bad taste in the mouth of just about everyone, yet strangely doesn't. I'm talking about the idea that Roman Polanski should somehow be considered above the law because he's a talented artist.
It took all of a few hours after Polanski's arrest in Zurich for the notoriously pompous European artist community to rush to his defense, claiming outrage and indignation at the notion that Polanski could be impolitely busted while visiting Switzerland to receive (gasp!) a lifetime achievement award for his filmography. They're calling it a "provocation." The implication is crystal clear: There is often an unnavigable gulf between the artist and his work and, dammit, that's okay; you can honor the man's abilities without letting your paean be tarnished by any of the nastier realities of who he is or what he's done. If this kind of nonsense sounds familiar, it's because we all just lived through weeks of it when Michael Jackson died. Although it's never wise to willfully trample on someone's grave, you can't simply pay tribute to an artist's talents without recognizing that there's a very real person who may be guilty of very real crimes at the center of your love-fest.
And yet Europe's artistic community -- specifically French, Swiss and Polish filmmakers and cultural trendsetters -- seem to truly believe that Roman Polanski's abilities should amount to a Get Out of Jail Free card. That it's okay if the stereotypically tortured artist broke a few eggs along the way as long as the omelet came out looking like The Pianist. That in the end, the greater good was served by having Polanski free to make movies.
Just some of the reaction to the arrest: "(Polanski was) thrown to the lions," says French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand, melodramatically. "In the same way that there is a generous America that we like, there is also a scary America that has just shown its face."
"(He has) atoned for the sins of his young years. He has paid for it by not being able to enter the U.S. and in his professional life he has paid for it by not being able to make films in Hollywood," says Jacek Bromski, head of the Polish Filmmakers Association.
You're kidding, right? Roman Polanski has paid for raping a kid by not being able to live in Hollywood and being forced to make his movies -- and his vast fortunes -- in France? A comment like that is just shocking in its detachment from the reality you and I call home.
It's true we let talented people -- from musicians, to actors, to athletes -- get away with quite a bit more than the Average Joe in our society. As Chris Rock famously said, if O.J. Simpson had been simply "Orenthal the Bus Driving Murderer," he would've been in jail twelve years ago. But there's a difference between admitting that we can occasionally be starstruck blind and literally making excuses for someone's criminal behavior because they happen to entertain us with their music, movies, etc. Once again, I'm not arguing whether or not Roman Polanski belongs in prison; I'm saying that he shouldn't be able to avoid prison just because he's Roman Polanski.
We can let our entertainers get away with being assholes -- but not rapists. In a case like this, you can't separate Polanski the man from Polanski the artist. And it's reprehensible to even try.
Follow Chez Pazienza on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chezpazienza
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
How does that song by the tiddlypeeps go...?
"and Roman's somewhere far away..."
(I thought it was someone else altogether...I've been in a different ring for years)
"I'm saying that he shouldn't be able to avoid prison just because he's Roman Polanski" means no one is above the law. Anyone who does not agree with "no one is above the law" has a mental problem.
Ah, youthful indiscretion on Polanski's part? He was in his FORTIES when this happened.
I am sickened by the rape apologists who have come crawling out of the gutter to defend this admitted child rapist.
I've seen a lot of Polanski defenders blame the girl's mom, as if she thrust her 13-year-old at Polanski. I was 13 at that time also, and I remember how naive most parents were (the sex/drug culture was a fairly new and unknown phenomenon). My own mother, who grew up in Los Angeles, had led a very sheltered life. I can easily imagine her letting me go to a "photo shoot" with a famous director, thinking it was some sort of professional gig with other professionals, and being too intimidated to ask questions.
It was a different time, we don't know what she was told by Polanski, so people should lay off the poor woman. I'm sure she feels bad enough.
As for Polanski, he's a sex offender and belongs in jail. As for his defenders, they must be ignorant of the facts. What he did is indefensible.
He knew when he skipped town that this day might come. When we create our social institutions either we have faith in them or we do not. If we do not then change must come as institutional reform, not on a case by case basis. We should all support the system the majority of us have built and allow it to do what it is designed to do. The only injustice is if the system makes a special exception for Mr. Polanski, one way or the other.
I think some of the noise coming from Poland and France is because they are playing the Holocaust card. After all, Israel can get away with anything because they were nearly wiped out. They cry "never again" to justify occupying Gaza and other actions. So a lot of people feel Roman has suffered enough for being in a Nazi concentration camp and losing his mother in Auschwitz. Plus the Sharon Tate murders. She was pregnant at the time, remember. But this is definitely polarizing, like everything else. He knows if they get him back to the US, there will be enormous pressure on the justice system to throw the book at him, when, in a impartial environment, he would get months, maybe, and it would be done.
Is there not ONE issue in this crazy world we can ALL agree on?
Nah.
LTM.
Polanski is remembered, the few times he is, for the rape of a little girl and fleeing--to a comfortable life. His name will be remembered, the fewer and fewer and fewer times it is, for that rape of a thirteen-year-old girl. Welcome to eternity, Roman. . .
Although laws about age of consent for sex and marriage are the same all over the world, we tend to forget that Europe has always turned a blind eye to child rape. The pedophile priests of the Catholic Church were finally exposed and brought to justice in the US although the problem was more rampant and persisted for centuries longer in Europe. And we tend to forget that Sigmund Freud began his career bell-clapping about how rampant and destructive incest and child rape was in European society. It was only after he was excluded from the A-list parties that he made incest and child rape imaginary conditions. This is why French and Polish officials are advocating for Polanski.
Now why the has-been parade of Hollywood stars has gotten behind him is anyone's guess.
I totally agree. The outraged protest of the European artistic community is unseemly and totally misguided. It seems to suggest that what happend to that child is not important - what's really imporant, rather, is Roman's films. This does them no credit at all.
As for Roman, you don't get to redeam yourself of a crime a heinous as child rape by making movies, whatever merit they might have. And you don't get to redeem yourself even by being genuinely sorry, as he may well be. These things do not excuse you from the consequences of your actions.
I understand the argument that the woman herself just wants to move on from what happen. However, she may have moved on sooner and more successfully if Roman had not skipped the country and dragged the matter out for 30 years. This, in my view, only compounded his initial crime and his victim's humiliation.
Sorry or not - 30 years ago or not - good movies or not - he has to face the music.
Put Polanski in a prison cell with George W. Bush.
See Tallulah Morehead's Profile
You looked at the Huffington entertainment page, saw the 7000 blog pieces on Polanski, and thought "It needs one more"? If I see ONE MORE POLANSKI PIECE on this page, my eyeballs will explode!!!!
Move on, writers! Hey, didn't Jon Gosselin do anything stupid today? What is Susan Boyle up to?
Time to LET IT GO. The story will be around for MONTHS as Roman fights extradiction, since manning up is clearly not in his playbook. But as of today, if we put together all the two cents that each writer and commenter (including me) has tossed in, we could pay off the National Debt.
See Chez Pazienza's Profile
And here I am being lectured by a cartoon character yet again. Just love it.
If it's any consolation, that lecture was brought to you courtesy of a cut&paste from an earlier lecture to other bloggers.
In any event, your comment is one of the more sane and reasonable thus far
Obviously you did not get the memo. You can not have an opinion without first clearing it with Looney Toons. Theirs is the only one that matters. LET IT GO!
Every word spot on Chaz.
Ask the Hollywood set supporting leniency if it had been the daughter of say Polanski'"s friend Jack Nicholson or their own daughter would they still feel the same way?
I think not.
Republicans have recently been very harsh in liberals only because a handful of them support Roman Polanski. While some people will defend a person relentless because they share the same political and social ideology it is nice to know that most people will ignore that and support what is morally right. Thank you for this article and proving that despite ideology most people are in fact sensible enough to correctly judge issues like this.
You'd have to be one hard-boiled ideologue to overlook child rape.
What's more, while I'm supportive of arts and artistic freedom (and don't object to some of its sillier expressions), there are occasions where the artistic elite really show themselves to be living on another planet. This is one of them.
I think,and may be wrong,that he pled guilty as part of a deal. The DA and judge then made it known that they weren't going to honor their half of the deal,and make an example of RP. He may have pled innocent and gone to trial,possibly cleared,but for the deal. So if he comes back,he should probably have a trial,or the original deal,right?
Right.
That's the most intelligent phrasing of this issue I have heard to date.
He admitted to the rape, and plead guilty to a "lesser" charge of "statutory rape" - still a felony, but carries a lesser sentence. The prosecutor and defense made a plea deal. That's what happens in most cases, which is why most never go to trial. The judge is not bound by the deal made between the prosecution and defense.
What apparently happened here is that the judge - for whatever reason (grandstanding) - decided not to accept the deal, which included a reduced sentence. (at least he was planning not to - Polanski fled before the actual sentencing.) What would normally happen in that instance is that the defendant would withdraw his guilty plea, and the case would go to trial before a jury.
It wasn't a matter of 'not honoring their half of the deal'. The judge always has the final say in whether a deal made is acceptable to him/her. A plea deal is basically a recommendation made by the DA.
If it is discovered there is potential foul play on the part of a judge, both parties can move to have a new judge hear the case. Plus, there is always the avenue of appeal, and indeed, if the higher court found evidence of tampering/grandstanding, they would strike his decision and remand the case for a new trial. There were plenty of options. Granted they would cost a fair amount of money, but them's the breaks. You do the crime, you pay, and do the time.
But there WAS evidently some kind of tampering between the judge and the DA. The judge had accepted the deal,then he& the DA went out announcing they were going to make an example of Polanski. That's when Polanski's lawyer told him to skip. I'm not saying it was right,just what happened by reported accounts.
On that note, I will say however, please don't even compare this case to Michael Jackson's case. Michael Jackson had issues -- yes he did -- and he paid dearly for his problems. But Jackson was no OJ or Polanski. And although many Jackson fans who have undying adulation for Michael also have a very difficult time separating his genius from his personal flaws, we all know Michael went to trial nearly every day for 2 years to fight all 10 charges -- and came out innocent and completely cleared of any crime. And even though proven innocent, he was rejected and mocked for the rest of his life, continuing into death. Polanski on the other hand ran across the world away from his charges, and fools around the world are hailing him like some hero and supporting his foolery. What a messed up world we live in.
Jackson was "proven innocent ?" On what planet are YOU living on ?? He was not proved guilty - big difference !
Ella is on the planet that respects the U.S. Constitution. Michael Jackson was tried and found not guilty. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
