Roman Polanski

Everyone is weighing in on Roman Polanski. It’s becoming one of those cultural dialogues where everyone must state where they stand on the issue and spread their wings and let everyone know how they feel about something that they have absolutely nothing to do with and which will remain unaffected by general opinion. 

So here’s my two cents. I don’t much care. This whole affair has reminded me that I have still never seen TESS, but it’s now on hold at the library. Other than that, I’m annoyed and bored with everyone’s Facebook postings and Tweets on the matter. I very much like Repulsion and Rosemary’s Baby and MacBeth and The Tenant and Knife in the Water and Chinatown. He was a good director (I haven’t liked anything more recent than The Tenant), but that has nothing to do with him as a person. He’s undeniably fascinating. He narrowly survived the Holocaust (the only one in his family who did), and his wife was murdered by Charles Manson’s cult. This gives him license to be moody and sullen, but clearly it does not give him license to drug a rape a 13-year-old girl. 

That was over thirty years ago. If charges had never been brought against him, the statute of limitations would have run out. But charges were brought. He appeared in court. A plea bargain was reached (time served plus monetary wishwash). However, the judge reneged on the plea bargain. That’s when Polanski skipped out and left the country – living in virtual self-imposed exile ever since. The legal waters are tricky. The plea bargain wasn’t fair, but neither was the Judge’s actions. 

One side argues that what he did was not so bad and should be forgiven – a sentiment echoed (though not fully) by the victim who clearly wishes to leave this affair behind. The other side argues with a vicious puritan bloodlust that he should be strapped down and serve the rest of his existence in a cell. Technically, he’s met with the terms of the plea bargain. It was the Judge’s desire to make Polanski an example (something I am NEVER a fan of) that made Polanski an outlaw - outside of his own actions, of course. It seems to me like the fair thing to do now is try Polanski for being a fugitive from justice. That would reduce the victim’s role in this whole mess, which seems to be what she wants. Metting out punishment now seems useless as a deterrent. He doesn’t appear to have gone on a raping spree in the thirty years since. 

What he did was terrible. Still, I often ponder the absoluteness with which one foul deed can condemn an otherwise good man, while one miraculous deed is unable to redeem a villain. I understand that certain behaviors are not to be tolerated in polite society – not even in small portions. It’s the vitriol that disturbs me. I’m not going to shed any tears if Polanski gets appropriate jail time through a reasonable process. There is a legal system in place. It’s sometimes shaky, but it requires our faith and trust to work accurately. Of course, at times, it requires our watchful eye and criticism. However, I hope the shouting matches and unmitigated outrage are sparse. I’m already sick of hearing about it, and no trial has even started yet. 

On the other hand, if you want to watch some good horror movies this Halloween, any number of early Polanski moves are excellent choices.