Polanski arrested
Roman Polanski has been arrested in Switzerland, apparently on his way to a film festival. (link: New York Times)
I, a passionate movie fan, say: Hell yes. Finally. I was actually shouting and pumping my fists.
Hervé Temime, Mr. Polanski’s lawyer in Paris, told France Info radio that “there is no reason, either in law or in fact, nor on the terrain of the most elementary justice, to keep Roman Polanski in prison for even one day.” Mr. Temime, citing “the extravagant circumstances” of Mr. Polanski’s arrest as he arrived late Saturday at Zurich’s airport on the way to being honored at a local film festival, asked for the director’s release and said he intended to fight extradition.
Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, described Mr. Polanski’s arrest as “a bit sinister” and said he and the Polish foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, were jointly writing a letter expressing concern to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Nearly 100 entertainment industry professionals, including the movie directors Pedro Almodovar, Wong Kar Wai and Wim Wenders, urged in a petition that Mr. Polanski be released, saying: “Filmmakers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision.”
"No reason"? He raped a 13-year-old girl, then fled the United States because he didn't want to do time after getting caught and pleading guilty. (Yes, he pled guilty to the more-palatable-sounding "sex with a minor" rather than actual rape charges. But when you're middle-aged and you have sex with a 13-year-old, especially when she resists and super-especially when you're a powerful man and you've given her alcohol and sedatives, there can be no question: you have committed rape.)
"Sinister"? See above.
"Dismayed by this decision"? Perhaps Messrs. Almodovar, Wong, and Wenders, all of whose movies I have strongly admired, should direct their dismay toward their colleague's actions rather than toward the authorities who want him to see the punishment he deserves.
Polanski is a skillful director. I cried at "The Pianist." But I didn't know it was his, otherwise I wouldn't have gone. I still feel manipulated because I reacted so strongly to a film by a man whom I consider to be without morals.
Artistic accomplishment and other forms of power cannot be the basis for a pardon of having preyed on the vulnerable. Neither can the passage of time.
To claim that the gifts someone like Polaski has given the world outweigh the pain he's caused his victim implies that victims don't matter. If you say a distinguished filmography is worth the emotional wholeness of an adolescent, you're saying that adolescent is expendable. If you're against his serving a just sentence because, well, it's the guy who made "Chinatown," then you endorse that idea.
Also, to cite "the extravagant circumstances" of his arrest without acknowledging that he made them necessary by taking extravagant measures -- fleeing the country after confessing -- to avoid capture? That's disingenuous. It's using a technicality to avoid looking at the uncomfortable facts: a man can make impressive art and also commit reprehensible acts in private. By avoiding that, you avoid having to punish someone famous and revered. You avoid conflict, and that's one well-tested way to get along -- by avoiding conflict with the powerful.
But this time, at least, it looks like right might just triumph over fame.
I, a passionate movie fan, say: Hell yes. Finally. I was actually shouting and pumping my fists.
Hervé Temime, Mr. Polanski’s lawyer in Paris, told France Info radio that “there is no reason, either in law or in fact, nor on the terrain of the most elementary justice, to keep Roman Polanski in prison for even one day.” Mr. Temime, citing “the extravagant circumstances” of Mr. Polanski’s arrest as he arrived late Saturday at Zurich’s airport on the way to being honored at a local film festival, asked for the director’s release and said he intended to fight extradition.
Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, described Mr. Polanski’s arrest as “a bit sinister” and said he and the Polish foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, were jointly writing a letter expressing concern to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Nearly 100 entertainment industry professionals, including the movie directors Pedro Almodovar, Wong Kar Wai and Wim Wenders, urged in a petition that Mr. Polanski be released, saying: “Filmmakers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision.”
"No reason"? He raped a 13-year-old girl, then fled the United States because he didn't want to do time after getting caught and pleading guilty. (Yes, he pled guilty to the more-palatable-sounding "sex with a minor" rather than actual rape charges. But when you're middle-aged and you have sex with a 13-year-old, especially when she resists and super-especially when you're a powerful man and you've given her alcohol and sedatives, there can be no question: you have committed rape.)
"Sinister"? See above.
"Dismayed by this decision"? Perhaps Messrs. Almodovar, Wong, and Wenders, all of whose movies I have strongly admired, should direct their dismay toward their colleague's actions rather than toward the authorities who want him to see the punishment he deserves.
Polanski is a skillful director. I cried at "The Pianist." But I didn't know it was his, otherwise I wouldn't have gone. I still feel manipulated because I reacted so strongly to a film by a man whom I consider to be without morals.
Artistic accomplishment and other forms of power cannot be the basis for a pardon of having preyed on the vulnerable. Neither can the passage of time.
To claim that the gifts someone like Polaski has given the world outweigh the pain he's caused his victim implies that victims don't matter. If you say a distinguished filmography is worth the emotional wholeness of an adolescent, you're saying that adolescent is expendable. If you're against his serving a just sentence because, well, it's the guy who made "Chinatown," then you endorse that idea.
Also, to cite "the extravagant circumstances" of his arrest without acknowledging that he made them necessary by taking extravagant measures -- fleeing the country after confessing -- to avoid capture? That's disingenuous. It's using a technicality to avoid looking at the uncomfortable facts: a man can make impressive art and also commit reprehensible acts in private. By avoiding that, you avoid having to punish someone famous and revered. You avoid conflict, and that's one well-tested way to get along -- by avoiding conflict with the powerful.
But this time, at least, it looks like right might just triumph over fame.