Dominic Lawson: Let's not forget what Polanski did
The film director has been treated with extraordinary indulgence
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Getty
It was on his arrival in Zurich to pick up yet another lifetime achievement award that Polanski was arrested, at the request of the US Justice Department, which has sought him ever since 1978 when he fled rather then face prison for a crime to which he had pleaded guilty.
enlarge
A man who drugged and sodomised a 13-year old girl would not usually receive the uncritical support of the political and literary establishments. On the other hand, Roman Polanski is not your common-or-garden paedophile: he is possibly the world's most admired film director.
It was on his arrival in Zurich to pick up yet another lifetime achievement award that Polanski was arrested, at the request of the US Justice Department, which has sought him ever since 1978 when he fled rather then face prison for a crime to which he had pleaded guilty.
To say that the Swiss Justice Ministry's swoop on the 76-year-old French citizen has aroused outrage in high places would be an understatement. France's Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner denounced the arrest as "sinister". Polanski's would-be hosts, the Swiss Association of Directors, are angrier still, calling it "a grotesque judicial farce and a monstrous cultural scandal". In the UK, the novelist Robert Harris – who is working with Polanski on a film of one of his books – said that he was "shocked and stunned... it strikes me as disgusting treatment." The United Nations has stepped in: the Bulgarian Director-Designate of Unesco, Irina Bokova, declaring that "Polanski is a world renowned intellectual... even though I am not aware of any details, this is shocking."
Ms Bokova should acquaint herself with the details of the original case. She might even find them quite shocking, too. In 2003 the Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David Wesley unsealed the grand jury testimony of Samantha Galley taken 26 years earlier. In it, the 13-year old, who aspired to become a model, described how Polanski offered to take photos of her for French Vogue... in the house of the film star Jack Nicholson.
"Q. What did you do when he said, 'Let's go into the other room'?
A. I was going 'No, I think I better go home', because I was afraid. So I just went and I sat down on the couch.
Q. What were you afraid of?
A. Him.... He sat down beside me and asked if I was OK. I said 'No'.
Q. What did he say?
A. He goes 'Well, you'll be better'. And I go, 'No I won't. I have to go home. He said 'I'll take you home soon'.
Q. Then what happened?
A. Then he went down and he started performing cuddliness... I was kind of dizzy, you know, like things were kind of blurry sometimes. I was having trouble with my coordination... I wasn't fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go."
Q. Did he ask you about being on the pill?
A. He asked, he goes, 'Are you on the pill?' and I went, 'No' and he goes 'When did you have your period?' and I said, 'I don't know. A week or two. I'm not sure'... He goes, 'Come on. You have to remember'. And I told him I didn't.... and right after I said I was not on the pill... and he goes... and then he put me – wait. Then he lifted my legs up farther and he went in through my anus.
Q. Did you resist at that time?
A. A little bit, but not really, because...
Q. Because what?
A. Because I was afraid of him."
This testimony took place barely two weeks after the incident – Samantha Galley did not obey Polanski's demand that she not tell her mother about "our little secret."
We can predict the sort of defence that Polanski's present-day supporters will make in the coming days. They will not be so crass as to suggest, as the new head of Unesco did, that because he is a "world-renowned intellectual", he should be judged differently from lesser beings – although I'm sure that some of them believe it.
They will suggest that the 13-year-old girl was mature for her age and complicit. Samantha Geimer (as she now is) has already said to those who want her somehow to take the blame, "You weren't there. You don't know." And what if she had been partially complicit? Is it less heinous because the renowned film director used his fame and the promise of his support to seduce a 13-year-old?
His supporters will also point out that Ms Geimer herself has previously urged that the proceedings be dropped, because they are embarrassing her family. She certainly deserves even more sympathy on that score; it is one of the perennial problems with rape cases that the victim will very often prefer her assailant to remain unprosecuted, rather than face the ordeal of cross-examination at the hands of his lawyers.
Polanski himself has never, so far as I know, expressed any contrition for what he did. At the time of Bill Clinton's impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky affair, the director observed that, "There's a different justice for people who are public figures than for those who are not", with the implication that somehow he too had been a victim of unfair double standards over matters of sexual behaviour.
The truth is that Polanski has been treated with extraordinary indulgence because of his fame. When in 2003 Polanski was nominated as best director for The Pianist, but didn't attend the Oscar ceremony because of his outstanding arrest warrant, the event's host, Steve Martin, joked to the Hollywood audience "Roman Polanski is here...GET HIM!" Polanski won that evening, and received a standing ovation in absentia.
I do not deny his genius, nor his contribution to cinematic art; but I also share the view expressed by the historian Lord Acton that "if we may debase the currency [of the moral code] for the sake of genius, or success, or rank, or reputation... then it serves where it ought to reign".
If that means nothing to Polanski's defenders among the literati, let them think of this: if it were their 13-year-old daughter who had been drugged and sodomised, would they still feel that the perpetrator was in fact the victim?
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
In Australia the arts helped cover up for a writer who retired to penertrate primary school age boys on a pacific island. And simultaneously we all see them spending their establishment hand out to write/film anti establishment stories about evil child rapists.
As far as the girl's testimony, it was heartbreaking, and unlike Polanski who skipped to France this young lady was hounded by the press relentlessly.
But I would like to hear more of your point of view, stop down to one of the waterfront Bar's in Brooklyn, we would love to talk to you.
s
Is everyone forgetting....Polanski, a 44 year old man, CONFESSED to the RAPE (oral, vaginal and sodomy) of a 13 year old child, after coaxing and intimidating her in to getting drunk (on Champagne) and giving her drugs (half a tablet of Qualude). These are not allegations, he has confessed to them. He then was not man enough to face punishment but fled like a common criminal. A 44 yr old Paedophile who intoxicates and sodomizes a 13 yr old child....everyone rising to his defense should have their heads examined.
Polanski pleaded guilty because he was told his sentence would be reduced. The girl has also stated that he did NOT rape her but that it was consensual sex. As somebody has said already, it's only called rape because she was under age in that particular location.
I think you're all acting like Outraged from Turnbridge Wells, to be honest.
Now he has been caught . He should serve his punishment . If you ask me it should be a more substantial custodial sentence because he has evaded the consequences for so long .
One comparison worth considering from U.K perspective . Ronald Biggs .
This Polanski case , concerning such despicable conduct is far more worthy of this sort of bulldog determination to get their man .
In this particular set of circumstances , contrary to justified and popular anti- U.S sentiment over so many present day issues , I say BRAVO to the U.S .
BARRY HOY , HONG KONG
Your stand must be applauded.
The likes of Polanski must face justice; race, religon, creed, personal circumstances must never cloud the evil a person does. All those who defend Polanski are guilty by association and must be viewed as potential paedophiles.
If find it truly unbeliveable the amount of support that is being expressed in the media for a convicted rapist. I wonder how they would feel if the victim was someone know to them personally.
I admit Polanski is a great director and I also concede that Polanski suffered enormously with the murder of his wife Sharon Tate but Polanski's artistic skills have nothing at all to do with this carnal crime committed against a 13-year old. Art and crime are not mutually exclusive in fact they often intersect but art does not make crime any less criminal. How many others did he rape. Put him on trial.
Will Bush be prosecuted for defrauding us into two wars? Unlikely.
Will Cheney be prosecuted for an illegal policy of torture? Unlikely.
Will some Afghan get eight years for lying to a federal agent? Probably.
"Boy arrested for torturing cat" - Oh that'll be Blair's fault for taking us to war!
"Banks bring about downfall of economy" - If Bush hadn't started the war the banks never would have done that!
For goodness sake, Polanski's crime is nothing to do with the Middle East, Afghanistan, American or British foreign policy. Go and find an article that's actually related to those stories, if you're so desperate to have at least one moan per day about Bush and Blair.
Forgive me if i did not include Prime Ministers and Presidents. They commit mass murder with impunity (Sanctions - illegal invasions...)
Polanski? If this guy did commit the crime as described - then yes, he should face criminal proceedings.
David
To that end, everyone has an interest in seeing justice done because that is the guarantee that justice will be done if you are accused or if you are attacked. This is why the sentences for jumping bail, or interfering with a criminal prosecution, or for perjury are so high. Frankly, Polanski was stupid and short-sighted to flee, because the sentence that he will get for doing so will undoubtedly exceed what he would have received for the offence. Given his age, he should expect to spend a considerable portion of the rest of his life in gaol whether that is in Switzerland whilst he fights extradition, or the US. After all, would you let this man out on bail? His word is not exactly his bond, is it?
Starlingni: Well, you're just as bad as the 'outraged'. You put forward conjecture for what reason? The discussion is about the moral confusion surrounding a man who is guilty of molesting a child.
Feeling strongly about a child abuse case should be natural and normal. Being 'too cool for school' is a waste of time.
if you read a biography of Polanski you will read that he does like young girls "very young girls"
depraved ? Yes thats pretty well established.
this girl was drugged and sodomised - so what has the school uniform got to do with it ?
Oh yes - nothing - just your ramblings in the defence of a paedophile rapist.
With his money and celebrity status - the idea he pleaded guilty to a crime he
did not commit is lunacy. He plea bargained - he admitted his guilt.
Your efforts to excuse this creep are sickening.
Let's not forget that.