Polanski and Unmitigated Gall

Monday 12 July 2010

by: Eugene Robinson, Op-Ed

Washington - For Roman Polanski, the long, unspeakable nightmare of being confined to his three-story chalet in Gstaad, the luxury resort in the Swiss Alps, is finally over. The fugitive director is free once again to stroll into town, have a nice meal, maybe do a little shopping at the local Cartier, Hermes or Louis Vuitton boutiques.

Or he could just scurry like a rat into France or Poland, the two countries where he has citizenship -- and where authorities have a long history of acting as if Polanski's celebrity and talent somehow negate his sexual brutalization of a 13-year-old girl.

I'm betting on the rodent option, even though Swiss authorities are doing their best to convince Polanski that he can relax and enjoy the fondue without ever having to answer for his crimes. After all, they did force him to wear an electronic ankle bracelet for several whole months. The horror. The horror. After authorities announced Monday that they were denying the U.S. request to have Polanski extradited, one of the famed auteur's lawyers called the decision "an enormous satisfaction and a great relief after the pain suffered by Roman Polanski and his family." That statement should stand as the definitive textbook example of unmitigated gall.

Anyone tempted to feel Polanski's pain should take a closer look at the case. In 1977, when he was 43, Polanski lured a 13-year-old girl to a house in the Hollywood hills owned by Jack Nicholson -- the actor was not home at the time -- and plied her with drugs and champagne before having sex with her.

Polanski and his lawyers claimed that the sex was consensual. That's absurd as a legal argument, since the girl was too young to give her consent. But the girl's grand jury testimony makes clear that this was anything but a no-fault romp. She testified that Polanski, on the ruse of photographing her and wanting to make her a star, convinced her to pose nude and then assaulted her.

She testified that Polanski raped and sodomized her, against her will, and that she was distraught before, during and after the act. The director was indicted on six felony charges, including rape by use of drugs and child molestation, but was allowed to plead guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse. Polanski, who spent about a month and a half in jail, thought he had a deal that would get him off with nothing worse than 90 days in confinement under psychiatric observation. But when the judge had second thoughts about going through with such a lenient deal, Polanski fled. He has been on the lam ever since.

Polanski is a great filmmaker, and his Hollywood friends and supporters have blithely taken the position that his genius outweighs his crimes. Whoopi Goldberg opined last year that what happened between Polanski and the child "wasn't rape-rape." More than 100 movie-business luminaries -- including Martin Scorsese, Mike Nichols, Harvey Weinstein and, yes, the inappropriately libidinous Woody Allen -- signed a petition asking Swiss authorities to set Polanski free. I hope they're satisfied now that their prayers have been answered.

The decision by Switzerland to release the artist from his gilded cage was based on a technicality. The issue was "not about deciding whether he is guilty or not guilty," Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said. She's right; Polanski is guilty by his own admission. What the Swiss have decided is that despite admitting his crimes and fleeing from U.S. justice, Polanski will never have to be punished.

It's relevant that Polanski has never shown remorse. He claimed in a 1979 interview that he was being hounded because "everyone wants to (have sex with) young girls." It's irrelevant that the victim, now a middle-aged woman, has no interest in pursuing the case and reliving a traumatic episode. What matters is what Polanski admitted doing to her 33 years ago -- and the fact that Polanski decided to run away rather than face the music.

Swiss officials noted the obvious: that Polanski never would have visited Switzerland if he had thought he was putting himself in legal jeopardy. Since he's not a legitimate candidate for kidnapping and rendition by the CIA, he's now home free -- unless he somehow makes another mistake. He'll always have to look over his shoulder.

That's punishment of a sort, but not nearly enough. How about this: As long as he steers clear of U.S. justice, why don't we steer clear of his movies?

Eugene Robinson's e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.

(c) 2010, Washington Post Writers Group 

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.





     

»



Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



Boycoot RomanPolanski films

 Mon, 07/12/2010 - 13:17 — Anonarcmous (not verified)

Boycoot RomanPolanski films & his upcoming books.



I totally agree with Mr.

 Mon, 07/12/2010 - 13:18 — Avita (not verified)

I totally agree with Mr. Robinson. It is time that we stop supporting these film makers and start boycotting their films. I do not like what Polanski nor do I like what Woody Allen did. I am really sorry that the other directors and actors have supported him just because he is an artist.



Give us a break Robinson, as

 Mon, 07/12/2010 - 13:51 — Anonymous (not verified)

Give us a break Robinson, as a true liberal tell us what positive aspects is their to your corporate hack finger wagging? Oh I see, slow news day, where the real criminals are getting away with it- it's the demon sexual predator that threatens world stability. What do you want? Iron bars, a cell and years? I believe he has been in jail before, and not for 15 minutes. In Southern California, drugged young teenage girls work at sex for money, all part of a big industry. They are allegedly all of 18 years old, so I guess that's not really problematic 'eh?



With all due respect Eugene,

 Mon, 07/12/2010 - 15:17 — Dave Lindorff (not verified)

With all due respect Eugene, and agreeing that Polanski is s scumbag for what he did to that young girl, no one is served by prosecution at this point. If the woman in question doesn't want him prosecuted, her wishes must be paramount. Dredging the case up now and insisting on prosecution is just tormenting her.

At this point, a third of a century later, I see this prosecution as more of a prosecutorial Moby Dick. It hurts the crew, it hurts the whale, and it only feeds the ego of a crazed captain (prosecutor). There is an sick desire for vengeance that poisons the American psyche--especially in the psyche of people in the law-enforcement industry.

Get over it.

I'd feel different if this woman wanted payback. Whe deserves it and would have a right to demand that Polanski "face the music." But if she wants it over with, respect her wishes.

Polansky's punishment is being viewed by most people as the twisted sicko that he is.

Dave Lindorff
www.thiscantbehappening.net



He should be brought back

 Mon, 07/12/2010 - 16:28 — Anonymous (not verified)

He should be brought back nevertheless...



Brought back to Hollywood to

 Mon, 07/12/2010 - 16:54 — Anonymous (not verified)

Brought back to Hollywood to make some great movies - ya mean. Hollywood needs all the help it can get with it's incessant war mongering, and bland stupidity. Throw Jerry Bruckheimer in jail, he's far more guilty of poor taste and lack of sensible discretion.



Give me a break Robinson,

 Mon, 07/12/2010 - 17:50 — Jonathan C. Hansen (not verified)

Give me a break Robinson, you supreme jerk. The "victim" here doesn't even consider herself a victim, and you cry for the rule of law. What about the millions of Iraqis, including women and children the USA has killed due to war crimes? The people responsible are not being held accountable. The current administration is prosecuting whistleblowers that expose illegal activity on the part of the US government, and decline to prosecute the underlying illegal activities. Get your F***ing priorities straight. Crimes by the US government are much more serious and likely to engender lack of respect for the law than deciding that putting old Roman in jail is a #1 law enforcement priority. And consider how well your time is being spent diverting attention from the real problems facing the US.



Eugene, I think you've been

 Mon, 07/12/2010 - 18:46 — Anonymous (not verified)

Eugene, I think you've been hanging out too long on t.v. with the likes of Pat Robertson. People who'd delight in seeing this artist's filmwork banned. The Swiss government is correct; and this is why we have legal systems. Because people want blood not rationality. Look, our courts could have sent the Swiss government they requested on the hearing in question if they were so interested in getting a man back who deserved what you're implying. He's already served a sentence and he's received psychiatric treatment. But the Swiss system is far more humane than ours; they don't have capital punishment either, and they allow terminally ill people the dignity of determining their own deaths, too. No matter what you say, Eugene, the likes of Pat Robertson will never like you. So you might as well step onto the side of reality and justice where you belong.



Consider too Eugene that his

 Mon, 07/12/2010 - 18:52 — Anonymous (not verified)

Consider too Eugene that his house arrest and psychiatric treatment is more than they give serial violent sex offenders in this country. I know because my son brings me home the notices from school when they're released or move their residence.

While we lock up pot offenders or people with immigration violations. At a cost of 30,000 per adult per year, and 80,000 per year for a juvenile.

I will still be watching Polanski's MacBeth and intend on seeing another one when I can get my library to purchase a copy.



Stop playing to a certain

 Mon, 07/12/2010 - 19:58 — whaler (not verified)

Stop playing to a certain kind of mentality, journalist.



That's right, Eugene

 Mon, 07/12/2010 - 23:19 — Observer (not verified)

That's right, Eugene Robinson, it's not about deciding whether or not someone is guilty, all the time, in law. And under our Constitution, too -- have you happened to read it? For example, if the police don't follow the law, or violate someone's rights, the case can be thrown out, because on that issue, it is not about whether or not the person is guilty, but whether or not an individual's rights were protected. When did you become so ignorant about this? Plus, it does not sound to me like this is a case of great brutality, as you allege. There was an out of court settlement, probably quite large, the 13 year old girl is now the mother of three living in Hawaii and has asked more than once that the charges be dropped. This has been going on since the 1970's. Has Justice been served yet? I think so.



To all the apologists

 Mon, 07/12/2010 - 23:30 — Miles (not verified)

To all the apologists here.

The man groomed, drugged and sodomised a 13 year old! He should be put on the register along with every other devious, perverse paedophile.

You all sound like she asked for it? She was 13, he was an older man and why should he be treated differently from every other paedophile, just because he made a few decent films and has a lot of money.

A few of you have questioned the integrity of the girl concerned - how can you do this, she was a child?

What if it was YOUR daughter?

I for one will not watch any of his films and I hope he'll be bought to justice.



The topic is, was, and will

 Tue, 07/13/2010 - 00:00 — Anonymous (not verified)

The topic is, was, and will be incendiary.
I will not comment about Polanski per se or his
acts per se as these are addressed by comments above. I address myself to Robinson's text
and his choice of words and figures of speech.
He uses "rat", "rodent" etc. where "scumbag"
would do as well. I sense some subterranean
veit-harlan style anti-semitic impulses in Robinson's rhetoric.



I would suggest that if the

 Tue, 07/13/2010 - 00:20 — Anonymous (not verified)

I would suggest that if the iraq and afghanistan damages aren;t enough, perhaps too disuatnt from a juicy sex crime for you, if boycottiung a directoir's films makes sense, then you all should look very hard at what you thus are suggesting we do to teh Catholic Church... I mean come on: HUNDREDS OF YEARS of SERIAL SODOMY and abuse of children... and a COVERUP TO BOOT! Polanski's not even in the GAME and you all have your panties in a bunch? Well, get SERIOUS about it! go after the real professionals. The kids still being hurt TODAY need your help. now. And they;re in YOUR neighborhood. Now. Or is that too close to reality for ya?
Yeah.. go boycott a film... feel proud.

sheeshe.... buncha loser lunkhead fair-weather morality spineless jerks.



To last

 Tue, 07/13/2010 - 00:31 — Miles (not verified)

To last poster..

Anti-semitic? Are you joking? think you're showing your own prejudice here, I've never thought of Jews as being rodents.

So if you criticise someone who happens to be Jewish for being a paedophile, you're anti-semitic.

get real.



Don't worry, I boycott the

 Tue, 07/13/2010 - 00:46 — Miles (not verified)

Don't worry, I boycott the Catholic Church as well.



Yo, I don't think one should

 Tue, 07/13/2010 - 01:32 — Anonymous (not verified)

Yo,

I don't think one should ever argue for a human's - or indeed any being's - confinement. It's unnatural to cage.

It's a shame movie directors and actors don't sway court decisions in more everyday cases.

In this matter, note that the victim has dealt with the ripples from such a blow. The thing to do is to pity the perpetrator for being so far from himself. Let's stop punishing each other: You only embolden the bad vibes by passing judgement, and passing judgements on.

Out for now.



"Every time this case is

 Tue, 07/13/2010 - 05:01 — Anonymous (not verified)

"Every time this case is brought to the attention of the Court, great focus is made of me, my family, my mother and others. That attention is not pleasant to experience and is not worth maintaining over some irrelevant legal nicety, the continuation of the case."—Samantha Geimer CNN: Woman in case against Roman Polanski seeks dismissal (January 13, 2009)

"My views as a victim, my feelings as a victim, or my desires as a victim were never considered or even inquired into by the district attorney prior to the filing. It is clear to me that because the district attorney's office has been accused of wrongdoing, it has recited the lurid details of the case to distract attention from the wrongful conduct of the district attorney's office as well as the judge who was then assigned to the case."—Samantha Geimer MSNBC: Victim in Roman Polanski case urges dismissal (January 13, 2009)1



I was also sensitive to the

 Wed, 07/14/2010 - 14:53 — Anonymous (not verified)

I was also sensitive to the imagery Robinson used to characterize Polanski.

We have offenders living in our community without ankle bracelets, not under house arrest, and far greater threat in terms of what they could do to children.

"This individual has violently raped 2 minor females and assaulted, beaten up, and forcibly sodomized one minor male. Pleaes show this person's picture to your child and tell them to watch out for this guy. He lives at XYZ ))) Street, Apt 4 etc"

6'4" white muscular tattoos unshaven. (Not to give tattoos a bad rap.)

Perhaps people are so worked up about RP because our system has failed so miserably where it really matters.

If the Swiss want to put him a flyer to send home to the children's parents in the school district (or whatever it's called in Switzerland), that's up to them, now. I have a feeling they're not going to bother, and they have a far better reputation than the U.S. in how they raise children and protect them.