Should Polanski Have Been Arrested?
Image via Wikipedia
Remember Roman Polanski, director of Chinatown and Rosemary’s Baby? Remember that he’s been living in France for the past 30 years because he raped a 13 year old girl, gave her a bunch of champagne and a Quaalude and then performed oral, vaginal and anal sex on her? Against her will?
According to this morning’s New York Times, Polanski
was arrested in Switzerland on a 31-year-old international warrant as he arrived to attend the Zurich Film Festival, the Swiss authorities said Sunday.
Although Polanski was convicted of rape in a California court, his victim, Samantha Geimer, has since “forgiven him.”
Film Festival Says Roman Polanski Is Arrested – NYTimes.com.
I suppose there are a lot of questions to be asked: should Polanski have been arrested? Was it a crime if the victim says drop it? Why are the French so dismayed by Polanski’s arrest and Americans so gleeful?
According to an article on the CBC,
France’s culture minister says he’s upset and “dumbfounded” by the arrest of director Roman Polanski, a French citizen, by Swiss police.
‘[I] strongly regret that a new ordeal is being inflicted on someone who has already experienced so many of them,” Culture Minister Frédéric Mitterrand said.
The ordeals that Polanski has experienced are indeed many. Polanski escaped Nazi death camps in his native Poland, although his mother died in Auschwitz. Then, after arriving in Hollywood and marrying, Polanski’s wife, the actress Sharon Tate who was pregnant at the time, was murdered by Charles Manson’s followers.
And then, according to Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, a documentary made by Marina Zenovich, he may have been set up for arrest and prosecution by several key players in the LA District Attorney’s office, forcing him into his life in exile in France.
Zenovich’s film implies that Polanski’s arrest and prosecution were far more about a showboating judge, Laurence J. Rittenband, who loved high profile cases, talking to reporters, and generally making a spectacle far more than he loved justice.
Then there’s the girl, now a woman, Samantha Giemer herself, who was encouraged by her mother to go with Polanski to Jack Nicholson’s house (Nicholson was away) and “model” for Polanski for the French Men’s Vogue.
Sound eerily like the parenting going on with Michael Jackson’s “friends”? Yes, but in the mother’s defense she did call the police when she found out about the sex. And at the time Geimer said it was definitely not consensual, but it was also not the first time she had sex nor the first time she’d had alcohol. In other words, rape yes, but a “deflowering of innocence” probably not.
So why are the French dismayed and Americans gleeful? What is the nature of these acts: criminal? culturally specific and therefore difficult to ascribe a single meaning to? And should Polanski have been arrested?
The Americans are so gleeful because there are certain beliefs that are at the center of our culture: children are innocent of all sexual impulses, 13-year-olds are children, and sex with children is a crime because children cannot consent to sex.
These are not just culturally specific beliefs, but historically specific as well. As Michel Foucault makes clear in his second volume of the The History of Sexuality, before Modernity and the invention of Childhood as a category that was separate from adulthood, children were most certainly part of the sexual economy (as well as the work economy- it is not a coincidence that “age of consent” laws and “child labor protection” laws happened at the end of the 1800s). Polanski didn’t just violate his victim by having sex with her without her consent, he violated American notions of childhood purity.
But why are these notions stronger here than in France? Why is “childhood” not held sacred in the same way and why is it not invested with sexual purity in the same way? The answer for that lies in the Victorian Age, of course. Part of what Victorians did in the US and in England was to create racial hierarchies based on sexual ones. White people were sexually more controlled than racial others, but white women were sexually innocent and pure BECAUSE they were childlike. The conflation of white female purity and childish sexual innocence got tangled up with notions of white superiority over “those people” whose children had sex and women were promiscuous. This was at the center of the drawing of the color line in the US, but it was also at the center of Empire in England.
But Polanski is a Polish Jew living in France. The French have their own racial hierarchies, but they’re not entangled with the sexually pure child/white lady in the same way. When France industrialized (later than the US and England) and the bourgeoisie began to dominate not just the economy, but the culture as well, they did not base their claims to power on sexual discipline and purity, but rather having more “taste” and “intelligence.” French panic over Polanski is more about him being a Jew and a certain collective guilty over France’s role in aiding and abetting the Nazis than it is the erotic innocence of the child.
And so we wait as the authorities figure out what to do with “poor” Polanski: send him to jail in the US or name him a brilliant director and have a homecoming parade in France.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
That’s a pretty tangled issue to to be able to take apart, and I was interested in where your examination headed, and how far it went to explain both the legal and the cultural differences between France’s point of view and America’s.
I would guess that if I were to talk about the moral issues you would point out that views of morality are based in part on the same cultural views that you’ve already talked about, but is there part of a perspective on morality that would be useful here, for instance basing his fate (in some kind of imaginary moral court) based on what harm, if any, Polanski did to Giemer? How we’d determine how much harm was done or even what harm means in this context is the tricky part, of course …
Interesting you should suggest “harm done” since the victim found the press and courts were far more difficult for her to survive than the rape itself. So can we sent the paparazzi to jail?
In response to another comment. See in context »Pr. Essig,
The question asked in the headline to your posting is “Should Polanski Have Been Arrested?” the simple and correct answer for me is “mais oui”. I favor the rule of law, there was a valid arrest warrant out for Mr. Polanski’s arrest, and Switzerland has an extradition treaty with US which covers this crime and he is not a Swiss citizen. France did not extradited Mr. Polanski because the crime in question is not covered under the extradition treaty with the US andMr. Polanksi is a French citizen. I am not so naïve as to imagine that the extradition of some so famous would be so simple, so cut and dry. California law is clear, Mr. Polanski had a trial and was convicted by a jury of his peers, and I am guessing that Swiss law allows for this action. If Mr. Polanski is a victim of injustice, then he needs to make that case to the Swiss and / or California courts.
However, after eight years of the lawlessness and rule by diktat by the Bush administration, I for one favor, as a general rule, that laws should be followed.
So few journalists, including bloggers who conduct actual research, provide meaningful context across national borders and cultures. Thank you for serving as an exception. Your analysis of American v. French actions and reactions is fascinating from start to finish.
I’ll second this. I’m a candyass, bourgeois American liberal living in Far White suburban Houston, and I find Essig’s analysis insightful fresh.
On another note, if Polanski is sent to American jails, he’d definitely have to serve out his sentence in solitary confinement, for his own safety.
In response to another comment. See in context »I mean, he did violate the law. But if the victim doesn’t want any sort of punishment, and he hasn’t done anything since, I’m having a hard time summing up the energy to demand he be taken off to the gallows. Plus, he’s a damn fine director.
If only we always took child-rape as seriously. In fact, women/girls have struggled to assert their right to be be free from molestation in spite of their perceived lack of purity. So, really, what difference does it make if this was rape, but not a “deflowering of innocence?” I’m sorry, but being a holocaust survivor or a surviving spouse does not excuse drugging a person and anally raping her. He has been evading the law in the US for long enough, and I for one don’t care what motivated the prosecution.
Then there’s the girl, now a woman, Samantha Giemer herself, who was encouraged by her mother to go with Polanski to Jack Nicholson’s house (Nicholson was away) and “model” for Polanski for the French Men’s Vogue.
I’ve never understood why parents such as Geimer’s (and the parents of Michael Jackson’s little sleepover buddies) are never investigated and charged with child endangerment. This is not meant to divert blame from Polanski, but really! Sure, tell your 13-year-old daughter to go “model” for a famous director and make sure you don’t accompany her.
I also don’t interpret Geimer’s mother contacting the police as anything other than laying the groundwork for a big, fat civil lawsuit payday.
Laurie I don’t think he should be arrested, the whole thing is pretty silly in my book, but as you point out so well there is a lot going on here. First I’ll say where I’m not in agreement with you, I think Frances reaction has more to do with Polanski being an artist than a Jew, they have always been more tolerant of the artist in such matters. Frances reaction to Britain’s treatment of Oscar Wilde comes to mind.
There certainly are reasons why a prosecutor should be pressing charges when the victim says to drop it, cases of domestic violence are a perfect example, this is not one of those case. Really is too much to ask the DAs of this country to show some common sense in deciding what cases to pursue and which should be dropped. As has been pointed out there is also the issue here of the mother’s behavior.
And of course there is the entire issue of just how seriously fucked up this country is when it comes to sex. I understand why from a legal stand point we have to decide an age of sexual consent, but as I think you’ve alluded to some young adults happen to be very sexual, others aren’t, often these case really do need to be examined on a case by case basis. From my view point it really has to do with the issue of exploitation, I don’t have the feeling Polanski exploited this child-young woman, now the mother may be an entire another story.
Laurie, that’s one stimulating article. Having spent much more time in continental Europe than the US, I’d have to say you characterise the attitudes there well. Plus, two of the greatest films ever made were directed by Polanski: Cul-de-Sac and Chinatown. And it is refreshing that you don’t tow the politically correct line… up to a point. Because I agree with becklyy. What difference does it make if she wasn’t a virgin, or that he had more than his share of tragedy in his life? She was a 13 year old girl, and he was 44 year old man. He raped her, sodomised her. Now, it was a long time ago, he’s an old man, and I don’t think he should be locked up either. But you start making excuses for, or rationalising child rape, and where does it end?
Oh, I hope it didn’t come off as if I were making excuses for him. He’s a horrible person. His behavior (and not just with her- he also had a 15 year old girlfriend at the time) is repulsive. I was trying to figure out why the French Minister of Culture thought Polanski was the victim in all this. But I am also not convinced he did as much harm as the PRESS afterward to the young woman whom he raped. At least I’ll take her word for it.
In response to another comment. See in context »But besides her age keeping her from making an informed consent, wasn’t she under the influence of the drugs he gave her? Even an adult might not be capable of giving consent with enough drugs and alcohol in her. And the victim did testify that she repeatedly told him “no”. You don’t need to be a Victorian to understand that no means no.
I think Americans are gleeful because seeing a rich, well-connected powerful person be subject to the rule of law is gratifying. And the French don’t really think we’re serious about those laws.
In response to another comment. See in context »This is an excellent piece. I am especially fascinated by the Victorian racial/sexual hierarchies you discussed, as those continue to operate in our contemporary society.
Yes,I agree with you. Unlike Freud, Foucault argued there was no real break between Victorianism and modernity. That “we are all Victorians.” And I have to say, it does seem to be the case. Or at least we are all living in the shadow of Victorianism.
In response to another comment. See in context »I wish we were all as energetic and engaged as the Victorians.
In response to another comment. See in context »Laurie,
I appreciate and agree with your analysis of our Victorian notions of childhood asexuality and purity, and, again, suspending the issue of force, I think the important point here is that any relationship between an adult and a child as well as between an employer and employee are by their nature unbalanced. Polanski appears to have exploited both those relationships. I guess the French have a different view of égalité than I do.
It is my understanding that Polanski did a plea deal with the District Attorney’s Office. He would plea guilty and get small jail time…an evaluation of his mental health…the idea was to avoid trial where the accused didn’t want to be part of…big circus trial. He plead out…a routine event that happens in thousands of cases in America. After serving his 42 days he was then told that the judge intended to throw the book at him. Now had Polanski been aware of this at the start I suspect he would have opted for the best attorneys he could find and fight it out in court. That option was now off the table by a very clever and unethical move by the D.A. and a judge with a suspect history. So a man who has survived Hitler as a child might be paranoid about the state especially when openly double crossed. I would run too.
Nothing like reading a bunch of leftists twist themselves into pretzels to excuse child rape. It’s so fun to read how sick you all are when you think you are talking amongst yourselves and don’t self-edit. The man drugged and raped a child. Then skipped the country after sentencing. What difference his occupation, the Nazis, a bunch of years passing, or any of your other soft-headed dangerous ideas mean eludes me. Ideas have consequences. If you spent less time staring at your navel, while thinking about your feelings, you might have more time for critical thinking skill development.