Roman Polanski, And The Making Of A Legend
In 1977, Roman Polanski offered to take pictures of a 13-year-old girl for French Vogue. He then gave her champagne and drugs, insisted she remove her clothes, and raped her. He has been carefully tending to his alternative mythology of that night ever since.
The victim's grand jury testimony is not under dispute and it is arguably on the basis of that testimony that Roman Polanski and his lawyer agreed to a plea agreement at all. Plea agreements are not uncommon in sexual assault cases where victims are loathe to testify despite recent laws to supposedly disallow victims to be challenged about their prior sexual history. Polanski accepted his and repeatedly acknowledged that he understood the plea meant he could be thrown into jail or forced to register as a sex offender, but the victim wasn't spared her slut-shaming: the judge read into the record her completely irrelevant sexual history anyway, as though having consented to sex once mitigated Polanski's rape of her.
As part of the pre-sentencing period after his plea agreement, Polanski was allowed to fly to Europe to complete a movie, where he was photographed with another underage lover, Nastassja Kinski, who was 15. There is some evidence that the judge in the case might have found too much to bear the difference between Polanski's lawyer's argument that his child rape was a one-time event and the photographic evidence that Polanski's urges to copulate (consensually or otherwise) with women under the legal age of consent were ongoing. Polanski then declined to return to the United States for sentencing, the likely result of which--even if the judge threw the book at him--would have been a year or less of actual time in jail. He'd expected to get off scot-free.
Thereafter, Polanski gave an interview in which he excused his behavior by saying that his ephebophilic urges were universal to men: "Everyone wants to fuck young girls," he told his interviewer, probably adding to the court's concern that his behavior was continuing and would continue. Obviously, a legal system designed to protect women from rapists and sexual predators shouldn't be keen to show leniency to a rapist as unrepentant and unapologetic as Polanski.
Polanski's apologists have many reasons among them, from excusing his behavior as a result of his wife's brutal murder to his history as a Holocaust survivor to blaming the victim, her mother, or a legal system that left something to be desired. All of these stories start and end with Roman Polanski, who has been mythologizing his legal travails as though he's the modern Humbert Humbert, seduced by a too-young girl whose charms and stage mother left him, a broken, traumatized man, unable to resist the allure of sex (with a girl too drugged to fight back but not so drugged she could withhold consent). He claims he's a man subjected to a thorny legal system that brought back long-suppressed memories of Nazi Germany so disturbing he couldn't help but flea its judgment (and spend decades and untold thousands of dollars trying to subvert what little justice it offered his victim). He wants people to believe that he's a man of unsurpassed intellectual and artistic vision that modern mores (about things like sexual consent and rape) are too philistine to be applied to him.
And it is hard, I suppose, for some people to take the mythological Rapist archetype and apply it to Polanski. In modern America, The Rapist is still the disgusting, knife-wielding alley-dweller, the man who can only get "sex" one way, the criminal, the man from whom children and women would shy away. Maybe, in the corners of our collective consciousness, we can believe that The Rapist the lewd guy at the party, the perv, the one who doesn't want to have to put the effort into seduction, the one rejected one too many times to try his hand at obtaining consent. These archetypes, seared into our conscious, ignore one thing: rape isn't about sex, at least insofar as most (normal) people understand sex.
Who would want to perform sexual acts on a crying, protesting, resisting woman? One rendered unconscious or semi-conscious? It's grotesque to think about what rape is: a crying, fearful, unresponsive, protesting woman in pain, or one that simply lies there, unconscious, and must be moved like a rag doll to achieve her rapist's ends. It's not sex as much as its an assault, a penetration with a painful but non-deadly weapon. And people don't want to think about Polanski in that way, for their own reasons--but that doesn't mean it's not exactly what he did to his victim.
And why would someone resort to it, we ask ourselves, when the alternative is better? The fact is that rapists don't resort to rape: they choose it. Given all the women in the world who would have willingly had sex with Roman Polanski in 1977, he chose to rape an unwilling 13-year-old girl. He preferred it. Maybe he always preferred it, and this was the only child who ever came forward and called her rape by its name (a common occurrence among sex offenders: witness how long some Catholic priests continued to rape children without being caught).
But having though about the reality of rape, and caught in the social archetype of The Rapist, many people choose to believe that Roman Polanski isn't among their numbers. And so they've championed the mythology Polanski fashioned for himself, allowed him to clad himself in the guise once thoroughly skewered by Nabakov, to charm his audiences as he once charmed his victim's mother and his victim herself, and cheered his attempts to evade the processes intended to put an end--at least temporarily--to his predation.
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. The reality is, as it always is, that the Emperor has no clothes. The sicker reality is that the Emperor knew it, but wanted your 13-year-old to see.
Follow Megan Carpentier on Twitter: www.twitter.com/megancarpentier
Vicki Iovine: Girlfriends' Guide: A Year Of Sexual Blunders By Powerful Men: Blame It On High School
David Letterman is this week's Exhibit A in the ongoing case of Powerful Men v. Sexual Integrity, having climbed over Roman Polanski, who was last week's winner. Congratulations, David.
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
If anyone is weaving ‘little lies’ than that’s not Polanski. You think we’re all stupid? I read the transcripts, saw the interviews and the documentaries ever since his wife’s brutal murder in fact. And his past has no meaning? Then yours has neither. Polanski did his time for unlawful sex with a minor and was released early on the recommendation of impartial probation officers. He only fled the US after the judge had unlawfully reneged on that plea bargain, which was struck to avoid a public trial, and wanted to sentence him again after public pressure. NOT to 'stand trial', there never was any 'trial'. He was on probation to finish his film and the arrest warrant could only be served because that judge had sentenced Polanski in absentia before he was removed from the case by both parties' attorneys for exactly that illegal conduct. He was discredited after he had abused his powers and it's no wonder Polanski fled this injustice even the plaintiff's attorney didn't find surprising. Stop this inflammatory talk and find a real rapist you can hang Ms C. Polanski was proven not to be of ‘rapist material’ no matter how much YOU want him to be just because he liked younger women.
"Polanski did his time for unlawful sex with a minor "
That is incorrect. He was under psychological evaluation for 45 days. He did not do his time.
That is one of the raft of inaccuracies in your post.
How much longer do we actually have to endure these inaccurate accusations being fed to us from hypocritical postings like this? Let me enlighten you having actually been there being in my fifties. Polanski did not give her, offer her or force any drugs on her. She took a piece of Quaaludes herself without his asking her and there was no coercion. That's all recorded fact and it's about time people like you actually understood that. He neither fed her the alcohol since she took the champagne on her free will according to her own words, And, most of all it wasn't forcible rape as per medical evidence. Let alone ‘child rape’, since she was a prepubescent by law, which also throws out this ludicrous paedophile garbage. Geimer’s statement of having said 'no' or that she ‘desperately’ tried to get away from him was never corroborated by the actual findings, and many didn't, or (still) don't believe her. There was no mark on her and she never was ‘unconscious’! A ‘rag doll’? Get your facts right Ms C – Geimer herself stated often enough it wasn't rape let alone forceful, and it's amazing that self-absorbed moralist like you think they know better just to maintain these unfounded allegations to stoke this lynch mob attitude. You calling her a liar?
As I read the comments of some people here that challenge what it is that Polanski did, if it was truly rape usually under the 'banner' of presumption of innocence, I wonder if these people would care to take a step back to ponder whether Polanski did something illegal when he left the United States before his sentencing?
I also truly wonder what kind of experiences these people have had that the extradition of Polanski affects them so much enough that it compels them to challenge how this case should have affected the victim and other victims, why the victim herself wants the charges dropped, to challenge the black and white text in transcripts to the point of expressing that it is difficult to prove that Polanski raped a 13 year old.
As I read these comments, I can't help but get reminded how difficult it is for victims to even get the truth about their experience acknowledged. I also got reminded of how a child sexual abuser would often tell his victim that what happened is a secret between the two of them, thereby drawing the victim into his circle of evil by further corrupting the mind of the child to make the child think that she somehow caused what happened to her.
Excellent article. It articulates the structural facts of the circumstance 32 years ago and exposes the vanity and shallowness of the people who assume that someone charming and skilled in a craft cannot also be a sexual predator of young girls.
Of all the people who should know how the cinematic world exists on illusions, the actors and directors who've rushed to sanitize Polanski's drugging & rape if a child,a nd hold him up as the victim should be able to see through teh "brilliant" label to the facts in the case. Facts even Polanski or his attorney did not disagree with during the hearings.
Indeed the emporer has no clothes (except he is only an emporer among cinephiles)... and it's time he was brought back to the U.S. to face what he used his money and influence to avoid, years ago.
Moral indignation comes pretty cheap. Ms Charpentier seems to be more concerned that we comprehend the depth of her contempt for Polanski than anything else. Indeed, she keeps the focus firmly on herself and her feelings. I don't know the facts. I wasn't there. Neither was she. I find it telling that she uses such emotive terms to describe events that happened long ago.
Which to me is the point. If Polanski is such a danger to society why was he not extradited years ago and prosecuted? What's different now? I would have thought that's the real story.
"He then gave her .... drugs, insisted she remove her clothes, and raped her."
Megan:
How do you know this?
Polanski's own version of events states as much.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1203081roman16.html
Polanski's version of events starts on page 16. On page 17 he makes the statement:
"The girl was thirsty. I went to the fridge. There was a bottle of champagne. Helena said OK. We filled three glasses. Altogether the girl had about two glasses while we were there."
On the next page (18):
"I found a little box in the bathroom with quaalude pieces marked Rorer. She took one piece." Also on page 18 he admits to the intercourse.
Sex with a drugged person is not consensual. It is rape.
"He then gave her .... drugs, insisted she remove her clothes, and raped her."
I was responding to Megan's statement:
Did he give her drugs? No, according to his statement, which was given in exchange for a deal. (Not admissible, if there is no deal) Was he irresponsible for letting her take t1/3 of a pill? Yes. But burden of proof is formidable. That's why they gave up on that charge.
Did he insist that she remover her clothes? No, according to his statement, which was given in exchange for deal. (Not admissible.) Is there any corroboration? No.
Did he rape her? His statement, given in exchange for a deal, stated it was consensual.
I might have said somewhere that there was no corroboration. That's still true. All you have is what he said and what the girl said. The prosecution couldn't use what he said as part of the proffer process and realized at best they could prove unlawful sex. That's why they made a deal. Did they think more took place? Maybe, but they would have to get past the part where she may have added detail. For example, there was no evidence of force. That would be an insurmountable barrier to prove "rape-rape." But worse for the prosecution was the ability of the defense counsel to cast doubt on her whole version of what took place based on her testimony that is inconsistent with the medical examination.
More below
Part 2
Now we turn to Polanski's motivation to accept a deal. There was semen on her underwear. Today, they could determine whether it came from the defendant. Knowing the track record of LA police, the prosecution hopes it still exists. Assuming it does, they now can run a DNA test to determine if it is his. But if the DNA has deteriorated, the defense can use the evidence to cast doubt on whose it might be. Back then, the semen could make him seem guilty, whether or not they could establish it was his. Today, the lack of conclusivity could be exonerating. But, faced with the possibility that the prosecution could succeed with the unlawful sex charge, he took the deal which required him to admit guilt to one charge.
One important thing to consider: Neither the defense nor the prosecution wanted to be forced into a deal. Did prosecutors wish they could prove all charges? Sure. Did the defense wish they could prove all charges were unfounded? Yes. Nobody observed the alleged crime. It could have been that the girl's testimony was accurate. It could also be that Polanski didn't lay a hand on her. But Polanski had to admit to some things, which may not have been true. Otherwise, he had go to trial.
part 2 for Megan Carpentier, continued
When people speak of Cracow ghetto, they do not understand a winnowing out process and the Jewish Committees were but "Rittenbands" that judged who would have to be eliminated from being allowed to stay in dire extremis reduced to survival in apartments abandoned by unknown others, eliminated to leave space for the desperately deprived Polanskis.
The most respectable in the social order decided who would have to join the immediate transport. It was very arbitrary. That is what Polanski deeply recalled when he heard: he would be sent back to incarceration in that same psychiatric wing as the murderers of his wife, after which he would probably receive a "deportation order".
This information is not a rationale but a caution to you of just how unhinged you may find yourself if you do not expect anything ontoward could happen that you could not handle. Then start the "yes,but" (if he hadn't done anything, theoretically, then he would not have remembered); ah, but the anything came into play not on the day when he went to find out who had called about a possible photo shoot. It began in the prior decade when he came home from Europe and found his wife had been murdered among their friends and then they went through about a month of cremations.
He merely snapped, later. The psychiatrist however found nothing more than "a lapse of judgment", conveying that there would probably be no further "acting out".
Thank you to the author for having the courage and the talent to say it exactly like it is. Nothing can excuse the actions of this man. Thirteen or fifteen, the children are being exploited by the power of a man who thinks himself above the law. If he gets away with fleeing justice, it sends a strong message to all pedophiles... if you are famous you can still do what you wish in our society. We have NOT come a long way baby!
Wonderful essay.
Yo quiero saber como es posible,Polansky esta recibiendo todo ese apoyo y nos
cuesta trabajo que nuestras *post* vean la luz del dia aqui.
Bueno,Polansky despues de todo es un respetado individuo.
This is the babelfish translation of the above:
I want to know as it is possible, Polansky this receiving all that support and work costs to us that ours *post* sees the light of the day here. Good, Polansky after all is individual respecting.
I guess machine translations have their limitations.
While I find what he did to that 13 year old girl repulsive, your efforts to paint him as a pedophile by mentioning Nastassja Kinski is unfair. The age of consent in France is 15. Their relationship broke no laws.
Just because something is legal doesn't necessarily mean it's ethical. So, France had a lower age of consent. A 15 year old is still a child.
But what the author points to mainly as a sign that Polanski is quite likely a pedophile with more preying than has been made publuc are his own unrepentant words -- saying that all men want to f*ck young girls.
Unfortunately, I did not address you as writer10027 but it appears that my previous comment,"Agreed" follows your post; it was actually addressed to DoubtingThomas:
"While I find what he did to that 13 year old girl repulsive, your efforts to paint him as a pedophile by mentioning Nastassja Kinski is unfair. The age of consent in France is 15. Their relationship broke no laws"
To which I replied: Agreed.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/megan-carpentier/roman-polanski-and-the-ma_b_309792.html#postComment
Agreed.
A 44 year old man had sex with a 13 year old girl. Disgusting, wrong, and illegal.
Whether she consents to it or not is immaterial.
Why is there even a debate about this?
Part 1.
One more try, I have been attempting to advocate to Sandpaper there is a huge mistake in perception if you think that 44 year old looks as if he actually is. Factually, despite his unfavorable experience in life of having been born to experience being a persecuted victim of Holocaust mentality, and when you come to think of it and get right down to it, that in itself is the cause of why he is not your average looking 44 year old man, or does he even look close to 44. If you consider middle age as 44 years of age, I'm sorry for you. Being senior to that by how many decades I will not admit, I can tell you 44 year olds are kids! This may be one of the few cases in a history of this kind where the guy looks approximately the proper age suitably matched to the young woman who everybody keeps on insisting has to be a child.
This is a very peculiar American outlook that I hadn't realized had caused people in this country to lose hold of their senses. There are "children"; and then there are those who have clearly matured in their physical development beyond being a child.
to be continued
To clear the fog, I should inform you that I was going to a college-prep high school during WW2 and many of my classmates were boys quite as brilliant as the subject of all the reviling around here (which makes me begin to wonder?) They were rescued by local Jewish womens' organizations, following up the Kinder Transport of Jewish children to safety, in hopes of their being adopted.
I am sure that some of you must have seen the film:The Man Who Cried.
Of course, I can assure you that my father saw them as overly mature, when they would walk me home from school and to the door. I'll have to count the blocks on our suburb's map sometime because I think it more than a mile perhaps two but, having been Europeans those were their customs.
Who here is debating whether an adult having sex with a 13-year-old is illegal?
You're right, it was sicko then and it's still sicko. The interesting thing is that, as Hollywood's minions step up to defend him, the real world recoils in disgust at the lack of human values in their precious "stars."
Most of the people in the "real world" are trying to figure out how to make their rent.
As disgusting as it is that Polanski has such support - it's still not remotely all or most of Hollywood or the entertainment profession. A few big names, a few others. Some big names have come out against Polanski - Chris Rock and Kirstie Alley - most are simply silent - a prudent if cowardly response in a town where offending a big name director can end your career; offending a big name star can end your career if they refuse to work with you.
chris Rock & Kirsty .. I already addressed this in another thread ..they don't cut 'mustard' in the real hollywood.. they a re only for the hoi polloi..
Polanski's suppporters belong to t he ACADEMY.. get that through your head.
Thank you for your excellent essay.
Just because you say it's a fact does not make one. Since you have appointed yourself to be judge, jury and executioner does not make it true. After all there was never a trial or plea agreement. I call more like revenge, right wing rhetoric. His international arrest warrant is not because of rape but because he escaped to stand trial. After all there is a lot of guess work in your invective, not very factual by nature. Americans have the tendency to make revenge into law and look with disdain on other cultures, considering them inferior because of their sexuality. Ms Kinsky is a special case, because she was nurtured to be an actress in the first place and her father was rather strange character of an actor. So please do not involve facts that you have no knowledge about. Just because you are woman does not make you knowledgeable about other womens' lives. Nor do you need to carry the banner of self righteousness just because you read the grand jury testimony. The outrage this time was not about the rape indictment but the Swiss executing an international arrest warrant. You completely missed the point.
Yes, there was a plea agreement but Polanksi fled before it could be entered and accepted or rejected by the court. And are you saying the Swiss should have ignored an international arrest warrant? On what basis should they have done that?
Straw man argument.
Yes, Americans have a revenge culture.
Yes, Americans look down on other cultures which have different norms regarding sexuality.
But holding someone legally accountable for their crimes is not revenge, that's just holding someone accountable to the law.
Just because Americans are ridiculous when it comes to sexuality and are very prudish about it does not mean that it is prudish to say that you shouldn't be allowed to drug and rape a 13 year old.
I suppose you think you're enlightened for thinking sex crimes shouldn't be punished. Well, you're probably a man, aren't you? I, on the other hand, am a woman, 4'11", 100 pounds, who is pretty cute, and has very big breasts. I'm like a walking target for sexual predators. And as an anthropologist and a travel bug, I have traveled all over the world. I have been to countries where sex crimes are very lax. And guess what? When I am in these places, men treat women however they want. Men are very aggressive with me. Typical example: in Italy a man grabbed me in a crowded market and fondled my breasts while I cried out, and the people around me, a police office among them, laughed and laughed. In other places I had to hire a male escort to accompany me everywhere.
Enforcing sex crimes laws are about protecting women like me, not about revenge.
See Jeff Norman's Profile
You're right that that "it is [not] prudish to say that you shouldn't be allowed to drug and rape a 13 year old." But it might be a sign of prudishness when someone can't recognize that it hasn't been established that Polanski drugged anyone. What else explains why the girl's story is treated as fact while Polanski's story is ignored?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
