(Updated 10/01 12:29 EDT)
In all the controversy over what to do about fugitive film director Roman Polanski, currently in Switzerland awaiting possible extradition to the United States to face a thirty-year-old rape charge in California, the one moment that stands out for me is the reaction of French filmmaker Luc Besson, as quoted in the London Daily Telegraph:
The French director Luc Besson refused to sign the petition calling for Polanski’s release.
He said: "I have a lot of affection for him, he is a man that I like very much but nobody should be above the law. I don’t know the details of this case, but I think that when you don’t show up for trial, you are taking a risk."
"Nobody should be above the law": That’s just straightforward common sense from Besson, the man behind Subway, La Femme Nikita, The Professional, The Fifth Element, Taxi, Unleashed, The Transporter, Taken, etc.
One might well feel sympathy for Polanski and hope that the California legal system would ultimately go somewhat easy on him, but he should have to face the authorities as anyone else would be required to do. Calling for his release, as numerous Hollywood figures have done, is entirely the wrong thing. The principle of equality before the law is the bedrock of a good society, and we undermine it only at great peril.
Update (10/01/09, 12:29 p.m. EDT): Writer-director Kevin Smith (Clerks, Dogma, Reaper, Zack and Miri Make a Porno), certainy no prude, agrees with Besson:
Via @JoeyFace42 "Please don’t be one of those FREE POLANSKI people" Look, I dig ROSEMARY’S BABY; but rape’s rape. Do the crime, do the time.
–S. T. Karnick
Robert, I agree that it took courage for Besson to step forward. Keeping quiet is always the easier way.
I wonder whether Ms. Goldberg bothered to read any of the grand jury testimony obefore bloviating about the case on national television. It would seem to be a requirement for a responsible journalist, but of course The View is not a serious discussion but just a bunch of biddies complaining about things.
My guess is that Goldberg was arguing that rape is not particularly egregious if it does not involve severe physical violence. Thus for logical consistency she must approve of the use of roofies as date-rape drug.
One suspects, however, that her view would be different if different people were involved.
Besson will probably pay for his stand one way or the other. I don’t understand the support for Polanski among the Hollywooden and the Europeans. Just read the transcript of the young girl’s Grand Jury testimony, and you see how casually Polanski acts in his “seduction,” as if he’s done this before, and how fearful the girl was. Contra Whoopi Goldberg, this was indeed a “rape rape.” (I’m still a bit confused on what Ms. G. means by that term.)
Fred, you’re quite right about Polanski having made some stinkers (and I don’t include Tess in that category, though some do). Yet even in these the problem is not a lack of filmmaking talent but instead, in my view, failures of judgment and imagination. In particular, his frequent descents into sensationalism and the pathetic fallacy (such as the desire to portray confusion by actually confusing the audience) often make his films into intellectual exercises rather than involving dramas.
When presented with a powerful screenplay, however, as in Chinatown, Rosemary’s Baby, and The Pianist, he is a terrific filmmaker.
Could this apparent limitation on Polanski’s judgment be a factor in the situation we’re currently discussing?
Warren–I think you’re asking exactly the right question. The controversy over this matter lays bare the great divide between liberals and elitists in this society.
True liberals believe in equality before the law and in liberty to do whatever does not harm others. Elitists believe in imposing their own will over others because they believe their own superiority over the great mass of people qualifies them to rule. For them, Polanski’s status as “one of us” should override silly concerns such as justice, equality before the law, and concern for potential future victims.
Roman was at least occasionally a brilliant filmmaker. If you look at his career he did some stinkers, though. Anyway, it’s for the courts to decide guilt or innocence, and to weigh any mitigating circumstances. It *could* be argued (and I’m not taking this side, I’m just being devil’s advocate) that a lifetime of relatively decent living after this offense indicates it was an aberration and maybe he deserves some leniency even in light of the heinousness of his act. It doesn’t really matter- he must face justice for what he did, for good or ill. He cannot be allowed to excuse himself from the process, especially in light of what he has done (and AFAIK he freely admits guilt) and any country that helps shield him from the process mocks their own justice system as well as ours.
Yesterday I saw the CBS news where Debra Winger was appealing for Polanski’s release. She should be ashamed of herself. As a woman, she should know the trauma that victims of molestation and rape go through. Does this mean that celebrities should get a free pass for their crimes?
Bob, you’re definitely right about Polanski’s brilliance as a filmmaker. In particular, his ability to depict the various faces of evil was quite extraordinary, as evidenced by films such as Chinatown, Rosemary’s Baby, The Fearless Vampire Killers, The Pianist and Oliver Twist.
Polanski is a cinematic genius. Genius, however, doesn’t exempt anyone from paying the price for committing a heinous crime. If Joe Schmo had raped a teenage girl, no one would be defending him. He would have been extradited long ago and served his term. Roman Polanski is not, before the law, superior to Joe Schmo.