I don't propose to summarise VCM's article, nor to link with it. If you wish to read it, it's out there, but should come with a trigger warning. As should the remainder of this blog. But, for the uninitiated, here is why film director Roman Polanski is controversial. In 1977, when he was already very successful, he drugged and raped the 13 year old Samantha. He pleaded guilty in court, so we can all be quite confident when we say Roman Polanski is a rapist. No inverted commas or words like "allegedly" needed here. He did it and admitted it. Then he fled America to a country with no US extradition agreement. He remains out of the reach of justice.
Seems pretty cut and dried, doesn't it? We don't like child rapists. I'd expect Polanski to get the type of press meted out to Gary Glitter. This isn't the case. He has continued to make films and articles like today's surface from time to time.
VCM isn't actually acting as an apologist for Polanski, though her article will inevitably be read that way by many. The element that muddies the waters is Geimer herself, who has been vocal about letting bygones be bygones. Her attitude towards her abuser is extraordinary and, to some, I expect, inspiring. But people seem to find it impossible to respect her wishes without simultaneously allowing leeway to Roman the rapist.
In her article, VCM supports nuanced thinking over simplistic binary responses. Well, allow me to retort. Polanski broke the law, then fled from punishment. He should be brought to justice. End of.
Surely it's not as hard as she suggests to understand more than one thing about a person? I get that his family were killed by the Nazis. I get that his wife and unborn baby were killed by the Mandon gang. Poor bastard. Or, actually, poor Sharon Tate. Poor baby. The focus is always on Roman the Man, how these atrocities gain meaning through their effect on him.
I also get that he's an accomplished artist. Not quite to my taste, but Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown are acknowledged classics, while he draws superb performances from actors in the likes of Death and the Maiden. Well done there.
Utterly separate from those things: he raped a girl.
As far as we know, it's an isolated incident. He's not Saville. Nor is he Stuart Hall, a repellent sexual predator who also pleaded guilty but - crucial difference - did not flee and is now in jail. Saying that Polanski committed "only" one child rape is not letting him off the hook. It's not an aberration, it's a life-defining crime. And anyway, we could always point at a lifetime of dating (sometimes much) younger women. Including 15 year old Natassja Kinski. When he was 43.
Yes, Roman the Paedophile is a complicated person with a variety of aspects. But the rape itself is not so. Why can't people understand that? Why can't people - and here, I don't mean VCM - stop trying to find excuses for him?
Perhaps the most problematic paragraph in this problematic article claims that a "complicating factor is that Polanski's work is filled with beauty and humanity". As if his creation of art should be taken in mitigation for his crimes. It reminds me of 2003, when Polanski got an Oscar for The Pianist. He appeared by video link and got a standing ovation. I felt sick. Let's show overwhelming support for a man who can't appear in person for fear of arrest! Four years earlier, the giving of an honorary award to Elia Kazan led to protests and many actors refused to stand and clap. Kazan told tales in the 1950s and got several people blacklisted. Clearly snitching on Hollywood men is more offensive than raping children. (NB. Polanski was also nominated as Best Director for Tess, made only 2 years after his flight from America.)
Let's be clear: I liked Another Rock'n'Roll Christmas. I don't think it should excuse Gary Glitter's crimes. There's hypocrisy to be seen here - people tend to be more lenient towards accused celebrities who are seen as talented or likeable, while they aim far more bile at those who were naff to begin with.
Following the 2003 Oscars, I posted on a board that I frequented at the time the question: "Should a rapist win best director?" The majority of responses were of the opinion that the two things were separate and that Polanski's background should not be a factor. If he had made an outstanding film, then this fact should be recognised. I can't agree. Surely his status as a rapist-fugitive should trump his status as an artist? Are the Academy really saying that his ability to make a good movie is more important (to them, to anyone?) than his failure to avoid raping a 13 year old? Because if so, can we expect another Glitter Band album soon?
How does he even get to make the film? Presumably every studio that's hired him since 1977 has decided they're OK with his history. Presumably all those actors who have worked with him since 1977 - Harrison Ford, Sigourney Weaver, Hugh Grant, Kate Winslet, Johnny Depp, Jodie Foster, Sir Ben Kingsley, Ewan McGregor - have thought about it and decided that they don't mind working with an admitted child fucker.
I'm not going to condemn Victoria Coren Mitchell for writing a muddled and contradictory piece about this hot potato, any more than I'm going to condemn Jodie Foster (Jodie Foster!) for working with Polanski, or - for example - Caitlin Moran for some of the stupid things she's written of late. All of these people are, I suspect, more intelligent than me. Certainly they're intelligent and have thought hard about their choices and about their writing (though possibly not all their tweets). They are, by and large, forces for good in a society that routinely marginalises and insults successful and talented women. VCM is quite right in her desire to allow Samantha Gaimer's voice to be heard and I wish to disassociate myself immediately from those whose reaction to today's article has been to try to silence the rape survivor. I can agree that she has every right to have and voice an opinion while also believing that her attacker deserves to be ignored at least, imprisoned at best. Is that nuanced? I'm not sure. I think it might be common sense.
Following the 2003 Oscars, I posted on a board that I frequented at the time the question: "Should a rapist win best director?" The majority of responses were of the opinion that the two things were separate and that Polanski's background should not be a factor. If he had made an outstanding film, then this fact should be recognised. I can't agree. Surely his status as a rapist-fugitive should trump his status as an artist? Are the Academy really saying that his ability to make a good movie is more important (to them, to anyone?) than his failure to avoid raping a 13 year old? Because if so, can we expect another Glitter Band album soon?
How does he even get to make the film? Presumably every studio that's hired him since 1977 has decided they're OK with his history. Presumably all those actors who have worked with him since 1977 - Harrison Ford, Sigourney Weaver, Hugh Grant, Kate Winslet, Johnny Depp, Jodie Foster, Sir Ben Kingsley, Ewan McGregor - have thought about it and decided that they don't mind working with an admitted child fucker.
I'm not going to condemn Victoria Coren Mitchell for writing a muddled and contradictory piece about this hot potato, any more than I'm going to condemn Jodie Foster (Jodie Foster!) for working with Polanski, or - for example - Caitlin Moran for some of the stupid things she's written of late. All of these people are, I suspect, more intelligent than me. Certainly they're intelligent and have thought hard about their choices and about their writing (though possibly not all their tweets). They are, by and large, forces for good in a society that routinely marginalises and insults successful and talented women. VCM is quite right in her desire to allow Samantha Gaimer's voice to be heard and I wish to disassociate myself immediately from those whose reaction to today's article has been to try to silence the rape survivor. I can agree that she has every right to have and voice an opinion while also believing that her attacker deserves to be ignored at least, imprisoned at best. Is that nuanced? I'm not sure. I think it might be common sense.
