Rage, Repulsion, Response, Roman

Repulsion, rage and Roman. From comments, to blog posts, to emails, my entire day has been filled with Roman wrath. I can handle it. And I should -- I touched on a sensitive, flammable issue. But based on my "Repulsion" piece here, I think some readers failed to understand what I was writing, and simply jumped to conclusions. Some thoughts were well thought out, and even if they didn't agree with me, I find this interesting since the study of film should involve a multitude of opinions. And I *was* studying a film. But due to the numerous comments, I felt I should explain my take on the Polanski case, and I linked more thoughts to my site, Sunset Gun. But since then, emails, blog posts and comments have increased, so I thought it necessary to publish it here as well.

Upon hearing the news of Roman Polanski's arrest Sunday, and after arguing, discussing and thinking about the horribly mishandled case, especially by the late Judge Laurence Rittenband, and of course, the wrongful actions of Polanski towards young Samantha Geimer in 1977, I posted my take on Polanski's brilliant Repulsion here,  at the Huffington Post. From Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown, Tess, Death and the Maiden, Bitter Moon and other pictures, I've always contended that Polanski has depicted women with complication, humanity, ugliness and most important, empathy. Polanski is an artist, an acute observer of life's darkness and absurdities on the level of Dostoevsky or Nietzsche. I write this not to defend statutory rape, I write this to study the visions of a troubled, talented human being, a human being who has gone through real horror himself and a human being who also happens to be one of the greatest filmmakers alive.

But before discussing Repulsion, I wrote this, very briefly at the Huffington Post: 

I'm not going to go into my Roman Polanski defense. I've been doing this all morning, nearly ranting and raving over my views on the matter, and have grown frustrated and depressed. But in short, I'm not happy about his arrest. So, I would rather discuss one of his greatest pictures, a brilliant portrait of female sadness, alienation, sexual neurosis turned to psychosis. A movie all women should watch -- his masterpiece Repulsion.

This caused a flurry of outraged comments. Though many readers appreciated my essay, many slammed me for what they read as a defense of Polanski through his movies, Repulsion in particular. The Washington City Paper's blogger The Sexist wrote: "Congratulations, the Huffington Post's Kim Morgan:You win the prize of penning the most disgusting defense of Polanski I've read to date!"

Well if I get a prize, I'll hand a gold statue to The Post News blogger who wrote a bizarre, creepy take on my piece: "Kim Morgan claims she's setting aside her arguments for the right to rape children, and instead does some film criticism of Repulsion in an effort to suggest that Polanski can't be a rapist, because he understands women , and their dark desires -- hint, hint, his 13-year-old victim was asking for it when she cried and said no and begged to go home.  Polanski knows women better than they know themselves, she says.  He knows, apparently, that 13-year-olds are dying to be raped, even if they continue to say no after the fact by pressing charges... Morgan's insinuation that rape is some secret desire of women everywhere, and especially of junior high school girls."

I'm not sure how to respond to this this Andrea Dworkin-style foaming of the mouth, other than, I'm happy that she actually dug into my piece this deeply and at least saw some of the dual desires of women. Or, rather, what she views what I see. Even if she erroneously believes I'm saying Polanski can't be a rapist, because he understands women. And even if she thinks I'm a sick fuck. 

And here from, Wet Asphalt:

Frankly, this argument is the most blatant example of starfucking to be found and that Repulsion is in fact a piece of shit has no more bearing on the argument than does the fact that Chinatown is a masterpiece. The ONLY reason a 'film and culture' writer like Kim Morgan would be 'ranting and raving' at all about anything related to this case is because Roman Polanski is a famous person and Kim Morgan is a starfucker.

  Yeah. I've got no response to that one.

Though I understand the sensitivity and complexity of the matter, I find some of the hysteria bordering on insane. The emails I've received range from polite disagreement to articulatete salvos, to bizarre wishes that I should be or had been raped for my current defense of Polanski. Since I was 13 many years ago, and a woman myself, it's interesting to me that defenders of rape don't stop to think that perhaps, I might actually know a thing or two about such matters.

My stance has been that I believe the case should have moved along as originally settled by all parties, and not turned into the witch hunt it has become. Even, Roger Gunson, the Assistant DA who led the original prosecution, has expressed his problems with Judge Rittenband's conduct and stated that "under those circumstances" he wasn't surprised that Polanski fled. And I think that, for the sake of Samantha Geimer, this should have been laid to rest decades ago.

Read more Kim Morgan at Sunset Gun.

Comments

[allamericanmale]

It would have moved along as planned if Roman hadn't turned into a coward and fled from justice. Until he faces his crime and shows some repentance for raping a 13 year old girl and fleeing the country to escape justice, it won't move on, no matter how many movies he makes or stars in.

[mmiii]

This pretty much sums it up.

[Principaldad]

Absolutely correct.

[limber]

Kim, this is not about victim's rights. This is about the price of civilized existence in California, where it is a crime to a)rape someone, and b)have sex with children. Coincidentally, it's also illegal to jump bail. The case Polanski has eluded for so long is one where he agreed to appeal guilty to a greatly reduced charge -- a plea that was NOT done through the judge, and which the judge had the power to review. He never got that chance, due to Polanski fleeing the country.

The victim is understandably tired of being the focus of attention -- what I find amazing is that people don't make the connection that the case's high profile and victim's hounding has everything to do with the decision of Polanski to skip town. She's become the reluctant co-star in the 30-year long story, "Roman Polanski: Famous Fugitive Filmmaker!" This is not the DA's fault that the case remains open and constantly revisited -- it is Polanski's.

In the end, it doesn't matter how many pretty films he made, or how impressed some may be about his success while on the lam. The People of California demand punishment for the act of forcibly raping a 13 year old girl. That fact has never changed, and never will, and Polanski is rightfully going to be sentenced for his admitted crime (now with added bail-jumping, one assumes). this is about an admitted child rapist; I can't see where you're getting "witch hunt".

[El]

As someone who constitutes "The People of California," I must say that you, limber, don't speak for me. If there is indeed a price to be paid for "civilized existence in California," I'd rather it not be exacted in the pertinent resources (time, money, legal personnel, prisons, etc.) in a case that is legally murky (in terms of the judge's and DA's behavior) and, more importantly, already resolved in the heart of the victim.

Your use of the term "civilized" strikes me as somewhat incorrect, even falsely magnanimous. It is an UNcivilized society that seeks so-called "justice" merely for justice's sake, and metes out a penalty that may be unfitting for the crime. So-called "civilized" society also distinguishes itself, and cherishes, the ability to *forgive*.

It is a strawman argument being used by the hang-em-high side of the Polanski case, namely that the other side wants Polanski off the hook because he's famous and/or talented, etc. Speaking only for myself at least, this is not the case. But I have to believe that there are quite a lot of mitigating factors: the above-mentioned questions involving judge/DA, but also the time that has passed, not to mention Polanski's previous vicimizations himself, namely the Holocaust and his wife's brutal butchering at the hands of the Manson family. These don't give him an automatic free pass, but they should allow us to wonder if this is the best way to use our law-enforcement resources.

[limber]

Forgive? You think that the State should just forgive someone because he fled the country and evaded punishment for the rape of a 13 year old? That's bizarre. It also sets up one hell of a double-standard: if you do the crime, you must do the time, unless of course you have enough money to flee to another country and wait it out in a chalet in Gstaad.

This is not just a case for Polanski, this sets precedent and signals how justice in California operates. The man admitted to raping a 13 year old. For the sake of the rule of law, he has to get the flipside of that equation and be sentenced for his crime.

The victim, poor woman, has been raked over the media coals annually. This is Roman Polanski's fault, what with him being the fugitive. Of course she wants the case dropped, but that's not how the system works. You don't get the make your victim's life so abstractly awful that she finally says "FINE! Let him go, leave it! Just stop talking about it!"

The mitigating factors are for the justice system to work out -- and the justice system doesn't swing into action until Roman Polanski is standing in front of a judge, as he was meant to do three decades ago.

[MAH999]

So, if someone is up for rape and can show that they have been victimized by life, seen horrific things, that this becomes the go-to defense? I expect you mean that for that big black guy raised in SoLA, empoverished, poorly educated, watching people around him succumb to drugs, shot down in gang violence ... growing up with that as a daily experience ... it wouldn't be worthwhile to use our law-enforcement resources to bring such a person to justice if he should drug and rape a 13 year old?

Polanski did the crime. He skipped. Anyone else who skipped would be hunted down. He could have made this go away a long time ago instead of continuing to victimize his victim. He can afford much better lawyers than the poor guy from SoLA. Seems like a lot of boo-hoo-hooing for a guy who doesn't need or deserve it. Let him go back and deal with the system just the way anyone else would. I'll save my sympathy for the innocent guy who got executed because the Supremes wouldn't intervene.

[JoyceBains]

You should really, REALLY consider stepping away from your keyboard for a while.

[momamazed]

Kim,
I think it's absolutely hilarious that you choose to select the angriest, most extreme responses to lay out here. It's so easy to dismiss what many would think of as an over-the-top criticism of your article. There were dozens of thoughtful, rational responses you choose to ignore, but then, those aren't so easy to dismiss are they? I'm not fooled.

[martina1965]

I believe all of this is a severe case of misplaced rage. American public is seriously screwed - by banks, by politicians, health insurance companies and so on. American public perceives itself as innocent - hence the mass outrage against Polanski who is an obvious symbol of raping the innocent. He is the easiest target for mass hysteria. Just punish Polanski and everything will feel right again!

[Rogan]

It's so disturbing. I loathe this country. I wish I could leave, too. I too would never come back.

[WYHKTai-Tai]

Don't give up! There is a lot to loathe, but there is also a lot to love. and, bottom line, it's OURS. keep fighting to change this mess our country has gotten into in any way you can. On all the fronts you see necessary, healthcare, credit-card-usury, congress-o­n-the-take­, etc... Even if you're house bound and all you can do is blog. take heart, keep going, we need you!

[mullitt3d]

Kim, I consider you a friend. I have tremendous respect for your writerly talent and your love for movies. Polanski is a brilliant film director. That being said, I am appalled that people of your caliber and major film artists are rushing to defend this man. He drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. He sodomized her. Period. He has not faced the punishment for his actions. If, as you rightly say, you 'believe the case should have moved along as originally settled by all parties,' then that includes Polanski as well. He never stayed to let things play out. He is not only a pedophile and a rapist but also a coward. As XRaraavis correctly points out above "it was not settled because the plea agreement was never accepted by a judge. If the judge rejected the plea and tried to sentence Mr. Polanski to 50 years in prison. Mr. Polanski could have withdrawn from the plea agreement and gone to trial or the prosecution and Mr. Polanski could have drawn up a new plea agreement that would have been acceptable to the judge."

A 'witch hunt' generally implies someone being persecuted for something that haven't done or that isn't 'wrong.' What Polanski did was clearly wrong and he deserves to suffer the consequences of that action, whatever they may be. Such a heinous crime against a child cannot be tolerated in any society.

Pat Healy, Los Angeles, CA.

[javaz]

Defending a rapist is absolutely abhorrent and inexcusable and a slap to women everywhere who have had to endure the violence and humiliation of rape.

As a woman, I take rape very seriously and personally, and I do not care who the rapist is, how much money or talent a rapist has, there is absolutely no excuse for rape.

The man pled guilty to drugging a child and raping her and you think he should be free?
That he did not commit and act of violence and humiliation against the young woman?

I suppose your way of thinking explains why some people believe OJ should be free.

Unreal and disgusting.

[XRaraavis]

You say "My stance has been that I believe the case should have moved along as originally settled by all parties"

However it was not settled because the plea agreement was never accepted by a judge. If the judge rejected the plea and tried to sentence Mr. Polanski to 50 years in prison. Mr. Polanski could have withdrawn from the plea agreement and gone to trial or the prosecution and Mr. Polanski could have drawn up a new plea agreement that would have been acceptable to the judge. He had the same legal options as any other defendant. Instead Mr. Polanski believed he was above the law and fled to France. The original plea deal also included a long parole under which Mr. Polanski would have been supervised by the state. He did not fulfill this portion of the original agreement either.

[mockorange]

Roman Polanski to Martin Amis in a 1979 interview:

“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”

I read this quote in Michael Deacon’s column in the Telegraph. Per Deacon, the interview initially appeared in Tatler and is in Martin Amis’s book “Visiting Mrs. Nabokov”. I don't have a copy of the book so I'm relying on his (and his newspaper's) accuracy.

[mirandawilde]

He is unbelievably slimy.

[CAMBEL]

Gee, sorry that the judge actually wanted him to spend some time in jail for drugging, a 13 year old girl, then anally raping her while she cried and begged him to let her go home.

Could you please let us know what level of talant we need to show for you to defend us when we commit any crime? If I paint a beautiful landscape does that give me one get out of jail free card if I steal a car? If somebody composes a beautiful song, how many assault and batterys' will you let them off of because they are "Talanted"?

[julesbh]

You hit the nail on the head!

[meede]

I care not about his talent. I have talent for what I do. Get over it. Talent doesn't trump illegal actions. Pull your head out of your a $s.

This case has been active since 1977. All these writings are misleading as they've neglected much information.

Firstly, the civil case for which the victim was compensated, was only settled after 2003, Strange it took that many years from 1977 to bring a civil suit and she now blames the media, not Polanski.

In an interview in 2003, she did not express forgiveness but stated 'it's never too late' for justice to be served. Funny how she 'forgives' him now that the $ exchanged hands. Call it what it is -- her support was bought. She also participated in the documentary on this story which aired last year -- that too would have been a payment. Again, she's blaming the media for the attention. She brought the media to herself for her participation.

There was also a Court case last year, where Polanski's lawyers appeared but he did not. The Judge asked that he appear to speak to the matter for the case to proceed. Polanski ignored and did not respond to the Judge. It is also a fact that the documentary came out last year which fluffed over the seriousness of the victim. The fact that Polanski suffered growing up -- here's a quarter, call someone who cares.

Watch this then get back to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymc6LDd1QPg&feature=player_embedded

[wyldthings]

Kim, The defense of this man by calling out the judge is absurd. Either you had sex or did not. And since California law says that even a child when under a certain age can not give consent therefore it's rape. Do you believe that this was the first and only time he did this.

[Laura M]

I think you seem perfectly reasonable, but you are obviously blinded by your admiration for this man and his work.

Does 45 days of observation in a psychiatric facility sound like a reasonable punishment for drugging, raping and sodomising a 13 year old child? Even if you think it does, the judge in this case did not and he is not bound by a plea bargain between the prosecution and the defense attorneys. The case could not ‘move along as originally settled by all parties’, because it was not settled according to the judge, and then Mr. Polanski was not there to face his sentence.

What’s outrageous is the suggestion that his only alternative ‘under those circumstances’ was to flee a corrupt legal system and the unfair judgment that was supposedly coming his way. With his money and connections he would probably have ended up with a much lighter sentence than befit his crime, and there is the court of appeals if there is a question of corruption.

The reason he fled and hasn’t been back in 32 years is because he did not wish to do jail time, which the magnitude of his actions demanded, and still demand.

Even removing any emotions I personally feel about this case, a citizen cannot just abscond from a crime they have admitted to, become a fugitive from the law, and then expect to be released with no punishment when the law finally catches them.

[McBushMcSame]

Very well said!

[Rogan]

Uh, unless that criminal is a Republican politician. Then they do whatever the hell they want. They don't even have to give up their position of power, when caught...

[Princemarko]

Roman Polanski should face justice for his rape of a 13 yr old and then tag on fleeing charges.

LeFigaro just did a poll where 70% of the French citizens thought he should face justice. There is a huge disconnect from the media/celebrity elite and common people.

[World Citizen]

Some people (french politicians and 'artistes') are more than enablers.

There are some journalists that reported untruth such as "Why the FRENCH are outraged by Polanski's extradition".

I am american and I live in France and the truth is, I have not seen a single FRENCH comment which expressed outrage over the extradition. The comments vary :

1. Justice for all, even for the 'miserable'
2. Why am I going to jail for downloading when a rapist of a 13 year old girl is supported by politicians?
3. Our (french) law is no different from the U.S. law. If you run during the procedure, then that's another mistake.
4. These politicians and 'artistes' do not represent us.

The great thing is that the FRENCH know that this is because of no.3 reason. They are disgusted with the sexual acts that this adult man has done to the 13 year old girl.

One journalist's (Bruce Crumley) ambition to be another Stephen Clarke (author of A year in the Merde), wrote a piece for TIME that says that there is a cultural divide and : "Read "More Sex, Please, We're French.", making it seem to the entire world that the FRENCH are insensitive perverts.

I then realized that some people actually write CRAP because SENSATIONALISM and ATTENTION is more important for them than the TRUTH.

I wouldn't put it pass other 'artistes' to support POLANSKI, merely to get attention. This kind of people are worst than enablers.