rivka | (no subject)

An intelligent man trying to evade justice will throw up all kinds of confusing chaff in order to make good his escape. That some people are confused by the chaff is entirely to be expected; that's what it's for. That some refuse to change their initial judgement, formed under the influence of the confusion, isn't surprising, alas.

I saw somewhere a fabulously apropos Orwell quote (in a longer essay critiquing a different popular artist): "If Shakespeare returned to the earth to-morrow, and if it were found that his favourite recreation was raping little girls in railway carriages, we should not tell him to go ahead with it on the ground that he might write another KING LEAR."

The person commenting noted that clearly, Orwell was wrong; people like Whoopi Goldberg, Woody Allen, and Debra Winger would be LINING UP to say that raping little girls in railway carriages wasn't the rape sort of rape, etc.

I have been really repulsed and infuriated by the number of people who have gone public with their defenses of Polanski. It is disgusting.

Maybe we need a special prison where specially valuable criminals could be shut up with pen and paper and nothing to do but write more.

We could call it the Reading And Writing Gaol

That's a beautiful article.

The Polanski apologists make me want to throw up.

Neither have I. I always figured I'd get around to watching Chinatown one of these years. Now, I guess not.

What's more troubling is keeping up with the list of celebrities who do not deserve my attention on any subject ever again ever.

Also, even if all he'd actually done was have consensual underage sex, the age-of-consent laws exist precisely to protect young girls against situations where a much-older man sets out to deliberately exploit them. I actually think 18 is kind of absurd as an age of consent; I think 16 is more reasonable, and I think statutory rape laws should not apply to teenagers who are consensually screwing around with teenagers.

But none of those caveats would apply here: she was thirteen, not sixteen or even fourteen; he was in his forties; he got her drunk and gave her drugs.

But also, SHE DIDN'T CONSENT. HE RAPED HER.

She didn't just "not consent". She begged him to stop. She begged him to let her go home. She said no, and no, and no.

And he kept going.

Poor, exiled rich guy.

I was about to post the same article. Thank you.

I love that essay, because she's saying flat-out what everyone keeps trying frantically to evade.

(In her personal blog at http://kateharding.net/ , where she has a little more flexibility of expression, she adds that she feels a certain degree of dismayed amazement that no one ELSE seems willing to publicly state the obvious.)

Thanks for the link.

Here's another good one:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/lucyjones/100003657/whoopi-goldberg-defends-roman-polanski-it-wasnt-rape-rape/

It's the very definition of privilege: private law. The apologists are saying that there should be a special law that applies to creative, successful people, and that it should be different from the law that applies to everyone else.

Kirstie Alley is mighty peeved about the redemptionists, as well:

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b146725_kirstie_alley_on_roman_polanski_dont.html?utm_source=eonline&utm_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=rss_topstories

I liked her comment about how "rape that isn't rape" is akin to Jeff dahlmer claiming that he didn't really "murder" those people, he just admitted to trying to make them into zombies...

Let him come back to Hollywood--IF he registers as a sex offender.

Yeah. I'm disappointed and disgusted that there are people who think he should get off free instead of paying for what he did. So he couldn't get into the US. Big deal.

The law is the law. Nobody should be above the law, not kings, and not Roman Polanski.

Edited 2009-09-30 21:59 (UTC)

I have seen several Roman Polanski movies. I even liked some of them ("Rosemary's Babym" "The Pianist," "Death and the Maiden."

Nontheless, I am as appalled by his apologists as Ms. Harding is, for exactly the same reasons.

That the woman who was the child he raped reportedly wants to put this behind her is understandable. But as another blogger (I've lost track of which one) pointed out, justice is not for the victim alone - justice is for *all* of us. And that larger "us" is not served by the notion that being talented enough, famous enough and rich enough somehow renders one above the law.

In this case, I think that justice is particularly "for all of us". I think that it is important to keep the details of what Polanski did in our minds. But he'll never face justice for those charges in a way that will satisfy us. He was allowed to plead guilty to sex with a minor in exchange for the dropping of the charges related to the rape and drugging and all the rest of it. The case now is really about how he violated a court order to return for his sentencing for the only charge that we can hold against him because he realized that he knew that it would mean that he would have to spend time in jail-jail instead of rehab or probation. Neither you nor I are allowed to jump bail whether we are accused of rape or jaywalking, and having an Oscar doesn't get you out of that either.

I can't sufficiently express my sorrow for what Ms. Geimer had to endure and my gratitude for her giving what must have been unpleasant grand jury testimony, but she doesn't get to write get-out-of-jail-free cards either. First, the part of the case that involved her is over, so the system isn't even trying to traumatize her. And second, if she is looking for closure, then I would claim that it is a result of Polanski's continued cowardice and not the endurance of the justice system.

Even before reading the article I was disgusted by the people wanting to not see Roman Planski prosecuted or complaining about the unfairness of his arrest. After reading it, I'd like to see him penetrated anally - with a broadsword.

Yes, Kate Harding was even more brilliant than usual on this topic. It's mostly her writing that's keeping my head from exploding. I mean, he drugged and raped a child who said no and begged him to stop, jumped bail and left the country to avoid consequences. He has never expressed remorse and in fact subsequently engaged in a sexual relationship with another girl who was below the age of consent. He's an unrepentant fugitive serial child rapist. I just don't see the moral gray area here. And yet, people seem determined to look for it.

I decided when the Pianist came out that while I normally try not to let my opinion of the artist affect my opinion of their art, I couldn't give money to a child rapist. And now I have to decide if I want to give my money to people who sympathize with a child rapist. Sigh. And I was really looking forward to Terry Gilliam's latest movie too.

It's not so much seeing his movies that seems to do it, as personal proximity. His fiercest defenders all seem to have worked with him, or at least met him.

So, clearly, he's a siren, and his powers only work by contact.

The only Polanski I've seen was his Romeo & Juliet, watched in high school (in the early 90s). The prof was trying to give us an 'exciting,' 'scandalous,' 'modern' production of the play, but all it did for me was confuse me, bercause (a) 60% of the cast were nigh-identical petite cute round-faced brunettes, and (b) the first scene is a masked ball.

I couldn't tell Romeo, Juliette, five of thier buddies, and TYBALT apart till 2/3 of the way through, and I'd READ the play at that point! There was a lot of sex, though, which mollified much of the class (without teaching them any Shakespeare).