Well, he’s not “wanted” anymore. When the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired premiered at Sundance in 2008, it seemed like an epilogue, the wrapping-up of a story which would never have a real ending. Today, with Polanski in the custody of Swiss authorities, it’s become clear that the story was not over after all. And as this film – available for instant viewing or rental on Netflix – reveals, the tale of Polanski’s crime, prosecution (or persecution), and exile is anything but a clear narrative with good and bad, right and wrong, clearly marked. Nonetheless, Wanted and Desired displays a general sympathy for the director’s plight as he is jerked back and forth by a publicity-seeking judge. The still used above is from the 1961 Polanski short film The Fat and the Lean; that’s Polanski himself, acting in his own film, running across a field toward the Eiffel Tower, fleeing a lumbering fat old man. Obviously crafted years before the filmmaker’s legal predicament, the simple, almost allegorical footage is nonetheless cleverly employed by the documentary to illustrate the complex situation Polanski found himself in. It also suggests Wanted and Desired‘s general attitude toward its subject.
On March 10, 1977, a 13-year-old girl was taken to Jack Nicholson’s home in Los Angeles. The movie star was out of town, but his good friend Roman Polanski (who had directed Nicholson to wide acclaim in Chinatown) was escorting the girl, an aspiring model named Samantha Gailey, to the house for a photo shoot. The shoot, for French Vogue, echoed a star marking spread Polanski had orchestrated for Nastassja Kinski years before – Kinski, then 15, became Polanski’s lover shortly thereafter. It seems Polanski had a similar trajectory in mind for his even younger subject. She was coaxed into disrobing for some pictures taken in a jacuzzi and before long, the thin veneer of professionalism had slipped away. Champagne followed, accompanied by a chopped-up Quaalude, and then, according to Polanski, a seduction. According to Gailey, it was rape. She reported the crime soon after and suddenly she and Polanski were at the center of a media whirlwind – one which only began to fade when the director stepped onto an airplane heading for France and never returned to face sentencing (he had submitted to a plea bargain which demoted the rape to statutory rape, although Gailey maintains to this day that she was taken advantage of).
The ensuing controversy, media attention, and psychological distress were not without precedent for the playboy director. Indeed, his entire life – and work – had been haunted by violence, paranoia, and persecution. A Holocaust survivor, whose parents were victims of Hitler’s genocide, Polanski had grown up in Communist Poland, where he distinguished himself at the state film school. In Poland, the director created several memorable short films, including one in which two anonymous peons emerge from the sea, fully dressed, carrying a wardrobe. As they proceed through the streets of a Polish city, they are harassed by bullies, and eventually the two wounded souls return to the sea, wardrobe and all. Many of Polanski’s signature touches are already present in this early work. Firstly, of course, there is the defeatist, dispiriting conclusion, in which the fantastical figures return to their watery home, still carrying their beloved furniture like a broken promise.
Furthermore, Polanski himself makes an appearance as a cruel sadist (he’s one of the bullies who harass the wardrobe-carriers), presaging his later memorable cameo in Chinatown in which he cuts a private eye’s nose as punishment for being “nosy.” Interestingly, in other films Polanski casts himself as the victim rather than the villain: his persona easily slips back and forth between the sense of persecution and the perversion of power, as if he can’t decide whether he is being abused or desires to abuse others (perhaps one is the result of the other). However, there’s one more element present in the early film which is perhaps the most compelling in light of Polanski’s crime – and in Wanted and Desire, it’s suggested by Roger Gunson, assistant district attorney and, apparently, amateur “auteur” critic.
Every Roman Polanski movie has a theme: corruption meeting innocence over water, as Gunson points out. Cue footage of the young brute performing calisthenics on the sailboat in – you guessed it – Knife in the Water; the body being dragged out of the secret reservoir in Chinatown; Rosemary of Rosemary’s Baby floating on a mattress in her sea dream before being raped by Satan himself… and then, the actual snapshots taken by Polanski of a nude Gailey in the hot tub. The water’s clear enough and so, unfortunately, is the innocence – looking at Gailey’s eyes in these photos we see a fresh-faced child, barely even an adolescent, certainly not old enough for a 44-year-old man to consider having sex with.
As for the corruption, in his four decades of life experience Polanski’s mindset and psychological makeup had essentially been poisoned by repeated trauma. Any lingering innocence that survived the Final Solution and the Polish police state – perhaps that which was represented in his delight with beautiful wife Sharon Tate in the late sixties – must have been extinguished in 1969 by a madman with a scraggly beard, a battered copy of the White Album, and a swastika scrawled on his forehead.
When Charles Manson’s followers butchered the pregnant Mrs. Polanski, the filmmaker was not only subjected to naturally extreme grief and trauma but to the indignity of questions surrounding he and his wife’s lifestyles: accusations of orgies, infidelities, even connotations of Polanski’s involvement in the gruesome deaths hung in the air. It didn’t help that within several months, the director was out and about with scores of beautiful women, or that he decried the press but continued to parade in the public eye. (Later on, this penchant for high living would get him in trouble: allowed to go to Europe during his sentencing, in order to work on a film, he was photographed squeezed between two pretty young things at Oktoberfest, an embarrassing picture which may have seriously debilitated his standing with the judge.) Yet confronted with the appearance of frivolity, Polanski observes that different people deal with grief in different ways: some enter a monastery, some go looking for a whorehouse. Obviously he belongs to the latter type, but if his stated goal of these years was to “have fun” it was with an increasing edge of desperation.
Five years after the killings, when Chinatown hit screens, its writer Robert Towne expressed frustration with the downbeat ending. He had envisioned an exposure of corruption, and not the sickeningly powerful vindication of the charismatic but monstrous Noah Cross whose public crime, denying water to L.A. so that the city will starve and be forced to the sea (enriching himself in the process) is dwarfed by his private crime, the rape and impregnation of his daughter. The film ends with the daughter killed and the teenage granddaughter returned to her father/grandfather’s custody. Jack Nicholson’s detective, having inadvertently facilitated this mayhem in an effort to do good is led away from the scene of the crime and informed, “Forget it, Jake, it’s Chinatown.”
So who is Polanski? Jake Gittes, a misguided man besieged by others, or Noah Cross, a corrupt, venal lecher who abuses his power? Is he the dancing young man making a wily escape for the Eiffel Tower, or the venal actor/husband of Rosemary’s Baby, evading culpability for crime against an innocent female so that he can live it up and continue his career? The documentary poses this question initially when it contrasts the image of Polanski in the American and European press. Richard Brenneman, a reporter interviewed in Wanted and Desired, notes:
As the case progressed, I was struck: how could the same man be two different things to two different sets of press? The European reporters looked at Polanski as this tragic, brilliant, historic figure. Here was this man who had survived the Holocaust, who had survived the gassing of his mother, and then had come here and developed his own voice, had maintained his own voice against the power of the Hollywood machine. And the American press tended to look at him as this sort of malignant, twisted dwarf who had this dark vision.”
After facing this quandary, Wanted and Desired essentially backs off the analysis in order to follow the twists and turns of the legal drama. The documentary leaves little doubt that Judge Laurence J. Rittenband presided over a legal fiasco, soliciting tips from inappropriate advisors, changing his mind arbitrarily and without appropriate justification, and asking participants to make a farce out of justice for the amusement of the cameras. When Rittenband was eventually removed from the case, after Polanski had already fled the country, Samantha Gailey felt even more exploited and abused by the legal system than by Polanski.
Exposed from then on to ridicule and rumors, she has recently asked that charges be dropped against the director, whom she has publicly forgiven, maintaining that he has paid a price and that she wants to move on with her life, as a middle-aged mother of her own children. Polanski too has children, and a wife, in France, where he was accepted with open arms. He indeed re-invented himself in Paris (where he was born, as well, before returning with his parents to Poland) and as the film concludes, there is a sense that, despite the lack of conclusion a certain resolution has been achieved.
Now that sentiment is no longer feasible, and so old questions re-emerge. Most of those interviewed in the movie are defensive or non-committal on the subject of Polanski’s crime, but some are actively hostile toward the victim: the French papers, so nobly defensive of the suffering artist, exposed every salacious fact they could about Samantha Gailey, whose name could not even be revealed in the American press. At one point in the documentary, the lawyers are discussing cutting up the 13-year-old’s panties, trying to make sure each side got a spot of semen on their sample (Judge Rittenband had decreed, Solomon-like, that the exhibit be divided in half, with one portion going to the prosecution, the other to the defense). The figures, now aging, struggle to suppress smiles as they discuss the ridiculousness of grown men in suits tearing apart a teenage girl’s underwear. Then the camera pulls back, the silly music stops, and Samantha herself is revealed sitting next to one of these men, trying to mask her obvious discomfort at the restrained amusement.
Wanted and Desired, then, never forgets Samantha Gailey’s suffering (Gailey has since changed her name and tried to move on with her life). But it has trouble holding Polanski’s feet to the fire. Roman Polanski himself is not interviewed, though he met with Wanted and Desired‘s director in Paris. His crimes are stated coldly, typed out across the screen in fact, but he is barely held up to scorn and ridicule the way Judge Rittenband has been. When he wins at the Academy Awards for The Pianist in 2002, we see the audience rise to impassioned applause as Harrison Ford announces that the Academy will accept the award on the director’s behalf (never mind that many of these same people sat on their hands or even booed when Elia Kazan received an honorary Oscar three years earlier – as if informing, however venal, is worse than rape). And Polanski is shown accepting inclusion in the French Academie de Beaux-Arts, an honored member of a great and prestigious society, his mistakes long since forgotten and forgiven.
Yet the film does conclude with the same interview which began it, in which a reporter sits across a restaurant table from Polanski and presses him on the subject of his life-changing encounter in the late 70s. “When the newspapers and the magazines and the books talk about you and little girls, is there anything in it?”
“Well,” Polanski responds, dodging the gravity of the accusation, “I like young women, let’s put it this way. But I think most men do actually.” Then he stares at the questioner, as if challenging him to go further. The reporter does, and Polanski continues to dissemble before acknowledging the case his questioner is alluding to. Clearing his throat, theatrically, he reaches across the table, diving into a basket full of nuts and then cracking one open. “What,” he inquires, “would you like me to say about it exactly?” The trace of a smirk breaks across his calm expression, and as the creepily childlike score of Rosemary’s Baby emerges on the soundtrack, the effect is somewhat sinister.
Then, in the end, we’re back in that restaurant, and a meal is brought to the table. Ever charming, Polanski grins boyishly and proclaims, “I think it was a wonderful idea to do this, this interview over, over this lunch but the night is getting into the dinner, and case of you have in mind finishing this interview, I want to ask you if you intend to end on this note, or do you think there’s something more to my life than my relations with, uh, young women?”
Today, the answer to that question just got a little more complicated.
[Originally this post provided a link to my piece, which was first posted on the Examiner. As of 1/29/10, it has been moved here in its entirety.]
An interesting read. Quite frankly, I’m weary of the impassioned comments on either extreme in this case.
While there are plenty of mitigating circumstances, from a legal perspective, one cannot deny the fact that a crime occurred. It’s also true that, were it not for the questionable actions of the original judge in the case, Polanski would not have fled the country and the legal process would have been satisfied without Polanski ever having spent any more time in prison.
Whatever the legal outcome might have been, moral justice is something the law cannot effect. We simply do not know whether Polanski has acknowledged, to himself or anyone else, whatever moral wrongs he committed. Putting him in jail again would not seem to change that.
It is not a decision easily reached. Many in the artistic community are clamoring for his unconditional release. But this would in effect make a mockery of the legal system, regardless of whether or not the original victim has withdrawn charges. In the end, Polanski is likely to get a slap on the wrist, but he still needs to face justice for what he did.
Two comments I largely agree with. Pierre is right that Polanski’s self-imposed exile was largely due to the legal mishaps and the feeling that justice was at the whim of this once publicity-seeking judge. Also, that moral justice and legal justice are not necessarily the same though obviously we try to align the two as best we can.
David, you’re right about the mockery were Polanski to be released “unconditionally.” A lot of of people, including some I respect, are head-over-heels furiously pro-Polanski on this matter. I think he’s one of the greatest directors of all time, no doubt, but this idea that it’s artists who get persecuted inordinately has its flip-side in the implicit notion that somehow, because of his “standing” in society (but he’s a member of the French Academy! He’s an Oscar winner!) Polanski’s above the law. That makes me squeamish to say the very least.
And frankly, I’m still smarting over the enthusiastic applause Polanski garnered when Kazan was hissed and booed. Both are great directors (yes, Polanski gets the edge here but you can’t discount the man behind On the Waterfront), both made what I would consider to be major and extremely harmful mistakes, both never showed any regret for their actions. Though to a certain extent it’s apples and oranges, Polanski’s crime was worse than Kazan’s – I’m no fan of informing, but is an informer really wore than a rapist? Yet because Polanski’s victim was a 13-year-old girl rather than figures in the industry, and because his action didn’t come down on the politically incorrect side of the aisle, there was virtually no controversy surrounding his reception – in fact the applause even had a defiant ring. It’s true that Kazan’s was an honorary Oscar, a lifetime achievement award, while Polanski’s was for a single film. But as the Oscar was honoring Kazan’s artistic achievement, not his personal or political decisions, I don’t think the distinction is merited.
Also, I’d be remiss not to point you to Tony Dayoub’s excellent response to my post on Cinema Viewfinder:
http://www.cinemaviewfinder.com/2009/09/polanski-conflict.html
“But there is something I can’t get past which has always made me a bit uncomfortable. There is a sense of entitlement inherent in Polanski’s behavior towards the whole episode.”
Apologies to those who read the piece early, as there were some spelling errors which I just corrected. Of the subtle kind, but still, kind of embarrassing. Always spell-check!
Good review! I have not seen this documentary yet, but I do know of it. I’ll venture an opinion on the case. I say ‘enough is enough!’ The statute of limitations has expired and the victim has joined in in demanding Polanski’s release. The cultural community has asked that the charges be dropped. Outcrys from abroad have been deafening, and few want him held accountable anymore. The judge in the case is no longer with us. A hardline stand is catering to right wing zealots in America. This episode is frankly an embarrassment.
Joe, the problem is that the situation has to be resolved somehow, and unless I’m mistaken, it’s up to a judge to do so. Legal matters are often inconvenient, but that doesn’t mean they should be disregarded – something right-wing zealots in America are usually doing themselves. I don’t think the statue of limitations matters, because Polanski is not on trial. He’s already admitted his guilt – the issue is how the sentencing is carried out. The original judge really dropped the ball in this regard, and for this among other reasons I’m quite certain Polanski will not see any time in prison, or even in court. But despite the outcry from the cultural community, artists are no more above the law than any other citizen – that’s my take on the situation anyway.
I am at a school computer right now, but have read this review (yes I did see this film last year) and these fascinating comments. I will be responding sometime after lunch today. The piece is one of Joel’s finest, no question about that.
Excellent and respectful discourse going on here and a very objective review by Joel. This topic is incredibly incendiary and I’ve seen disturbing arguments on both extremes. One thing I do have to always mention is that statute of limitations doctrine has nothing to do with this case. Polanski was charged with six offenses originally (including rape) and pled to a lesser charge (unlawful sexual relations with a minor). There is no issue of statute of limitations here because he was charged in a timely manner. The legal issue is really the fact that he is a fugitive, having fled before sentencing for several reasons. In addition, the argument that the victim just wants to forget the whole thing does not hold much water under the American criminal justice system, as I said before, it is not Victim v. Polanski, but the People of California v. Polanski. If we were to limit prosecution to crimes were the victim wanted revenge, a lot of guilty people may get off. It’s simply not sound policy. I just hope that this thing gets resolved once and for all so that all the parties can move on.
Dorothy – We literally must have been typing these thoughts at the same time, because touch on the exact same issues! 🙂
Pretty uncanny. Great minds, right? 🙂 By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of this whole situation.
Thanks for clarifying the statute of limitations as it applies to this case, Ms. Porker. It doesn’t change my position, but it does give further creedence to the prosecution’s case.
I suppose I can see both sides of this debate, but at the same time the idea that he should simply be released without any punishment is ridiculous. A lot of the points that are brought up as reasons that Polanski should be released simply have no bearing in the argument. The statute of limitations has run out? WRONG… statute of limitations has absolutely nothing to do with it, he plead guilty to the crime. He got his chance at the trial or plea within the statute of limitations. The fact that the victim may have said she wants to the see the charges dropped also has no bearing… it’s the state that charges defendants.
I guess the thing that ultimately bothers me the most about the case is the artistic community universally coming together in painting Polanski as someone who has been overly persecuted for this crime. Nothing could be further from the truth. He plead guilty then ran — that’s indisputable. As has been mentioned throughout the ‘net and on various blogs, I’d be willing to be that if this were a Roman Catholic priest who had plead guilty to such charges and then ran for 30-years they’d likely already have him in a noose and ready to drop the floor out from under him. Yet since it’s an incredibly talented director then he simply shouldn’t have to face it at all? That’s incredible to me.
MovieMan brings also up an incredibly astute point in how there is something seriously wrong when Roman Polanski receives applause and acclaim like he did and yet Elia Kazan is booed and hissed off the stage.
This post probably comes off as much more impassioned than I actually am on the issue — I’m posting all my thoughts in one spot, at one time, so I’m sure it comes off as more heated then it is. Oh well. I think the whole thing has been mishandled by nearly everyone involved, as both the documentary and MovieMan point out. I love Polanski’s films and don’t let the personal issues intrude when appreciating his work. And I think that he has had some incredible hardship at various stages of his life which have been well-documented, but I still don’t think that entitles him to any kind of a pass.
I didn’t see this before I wrote my above response, but it’s very well-argued. I too am queasy about the rather one-sided way many cultural commentators, particularly on the other side of the pond, or portraying this matter. To say all of this is too much is one thing, but your analogy with the Catholic priest is just right on the money. The situation is really not different than a priest who had a 13-year-old boy over his house, got the boy drunk and then raped him despite the boy’s protestations. In that case, the priest would be universally reviled. Why is this different?
Joel, our esteemed friend Dave Hicks, who returned to his annual ‘best films’ series today with RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK for 1981, is headed to law school. It surprises me not that he is in his element here. Bravo!
I haven’t seen this documentary, hence I’m not in the best position to judge, and I am loathed to judge anybody. The little I know of the Polanski case is that, though the charges brought against him are potentially damning, so is some of the evidence against the presiding judge.
It’s true, this was long ago, and I wish Polanski no harm and will mourn as a cineaste if he goes down for this, but that would in no way lessen the impact of what was done. Yes, some 13 year olds can look a lot older. True. But the advance of time is surely not a valid argument. I mean, by that argument Eichmann should have been left in South America as so much time had passed after his crimes. Totally different scale, but the same argument.
What I do find hypocritical is the Swiss government handing him over – must have been money involved, it’s the only thing they understand. They covered up the loot of the Third Reich but couldn’t stay neutral regarding one film director (reason being Polanski wouldn’t be able to pay as much as the US authorities, whereas with the Nazis they could pay for silence and neutrality). There needs to be a proper investigation not fuelled by hysteria. It won’t happen in America, never does, where everything is a show event, but one can hope.
It all reminds me of the case of Chris Langham, star of TV comedy masterpiece The Thick of It, was charged with possession of paedophilic images on his computer and sent down. I can differentiate between the performer and the man, but what he did was still wrong and he had to pay, and he’ll pay with not just with the current custodial sentence but by the loss of his career afterwards.
It’s true that the Swiss arrest should seriously be looked at as self-serving. Still I wonder if we can assume that the US authorities heightened their efforts to collar Polanski after they were embarrassed by this documentary? Would you agree with this Mr. Bocko?
That’s a fascinating suggestion, Peter, and to be honest it never occurred to me. I did wonder why there was a sudden renewed effort to capture him after all these years.
Allan’s response is above is also excellent, and I too have to wonder about the Swiss. Kind of adding insult to injury when you think about what happened to Polanski’s parents with the Swiss-backed Nazis, not that this in any way justifies his own actions.
Mr. Bocko, to be truthful I did not come up with this theory myself. I read it in a news editorial right after the arrest. It seems to be a commonly-held position. I know that Sam buys it completely as he related it to me by e mail.
Polanski raped a child. Period. He has never paid for it with the loss of his freedom, never done hard time in prison–which is what he deserved then, and deserves now. Living the high life in Europe as a “fugitive” doesn’t really count.
Polanski’s defenders are enamoured of his fame, his great skills as a director. They would not be defending Joe Schmoe.
The documentary clearly reveals that Polanski has never come to terms with his crime. Smugly, he speaks of his taste for “young women.” What happened is that he violated a little girl after rendering her helpless with drugs and alcohol. What is it about this crime that his defenders fail to understand?
I agree if it were that cut and dry, Margaret, but there are shades of grey amidst the black and white. If it’s certain he did this and there were no extraneous forces at work here, then yes, he should be punished, but we live in a world which loves to condemn for the purpsoe of column inches and cash, not out of any real sense of justice.
Remember this is a country, and a city, where Hollywood stars have often been pursued by young girls made to look older than they are so they can make a fortune out of statutory rape charges (something going right back to the days of Errol Flynn, who was arraigned for statutory rape of a girl on a yacht and it was medically proven he never set foot on the yacht, but people had already condemned him out of hand. This is not what happened here, of course, but for this to happen there must be a sick interest in such things, and the media circus surrounding those earlier trials would have been reapplied. These things are very private affairs and the circuses surrounding them, staged to the minute, are almost as invasive as the crimes the defendants are charged with.
Frankly, it all leaves a very distasteful taste. The charge, the futore, the judgemental approach of people who like nothing better than a good self-righteous stoning, Let the courts decide the outcome. What amazed me is that several people I have seen writing “Polanski should rot” lines on various websites have been the self-same people who poured their heart out about Michael Jackson, a man who probably had predilections towards boys and girls a lot younger than an aged up 13. Hypocrisy, thy name is Joe Public.
This is an unfair comparison. Unlike Mr. Polanski, Mr. Jackson went through the entire justice system and was acquitted on every single count brought against him. Polanski pled guilty to this offense then fled in fear (rightful or wrongly) of a questionable judge right before sentencing. The two situations are simply not analogous.
Also, Jackson was denied a childhood and actually very infantile in all aspects of his life. Maturation never occured. Having millions and deciding that he wanted to have a zoo, the type he wanted to visit as a child – he did at ‘Neverland’, or have slumber parties that his tyrannical father never allowed for and with those that he could relate to, kids, didn’t make him in any way a criminal. Add to the mix, pushy parents out for a buck – and he set up for a great fall.
There’s something about Polanski in this situation that is sick. Even though he made two of my favourite films of the 20th century (‘Rosemary’s Baby’ and ‘The Pianist’). He should do the time. They have zimmer frames now.
Yes Dorothy indeed. Allan and I are not in agreement here as far as Michael Jackson is concerned. All indications now point toward his complete innocence.
You know, more than most, my feelings about Mr. Jackson, Sam. I’ll just reserve my comments henceforth, but needed to respond to that because it struck me as such a facile non-argument.
I do Dorothy, and we’ve shared our frustrations and heart break. His music is still playing in this house regularly.
Speaking of which, I owe you some pretty cool stuff. I have copied most of it but just received a new batch, so I’ll be sending everything as soon as possible.
Oh boy Dorothy!!! Thanks ever so much for always thinking of me!
I don’t wish to be labeled as a defender of Mr. Polanski. Sexual abuse is a crime and particularly damaging when minors are involved. I would like to point out, however (to Margaret), that Polanski indeed was incarcerated for 47 days (or 42 depending on the source). During this time he cooperated with the authorities and underwent psychiatric evaluation. The resulting report stated that additional incarceration was considered not necessary.
While some may feel that incarceration for that amount of time is not enough punishment for the crime to which he plead guilty (sexual intercourse with a minor), this was the determination of the criminal justice system at the time.
Things went south, of course, when the presiding judge, responding to political pressure, failed to honor the plea agreement. In the context of the prior circumstances of his family in Europe, his status as a French citizen, and his experiences with the media and legal system regarding the murder of his wife, he made a choice — wise or not — to leave the country rather than take his chances with what likely appeared to him as untenable circumstances.
If I had faced a similar choice, I cannot say I would not have done the same thing as did Polanski.
I, too, saw the 2008 documentary on this case and beg to differ on Margaret’s conclusion that Polanski “clearly . . . has never come to terms with his crime.” I don’t believe any definitive conclusion on that point can be made by observers within the general public.
Once again, I’m not defending what Polanski did. What I am saying, however, is that the nature and circumstances of the crime do have bearing on nature and severity of punishment. Although adult sexual interaction with a minor is a crime under most circumstances (and let’s remember that the legal definition of “minor” varies from state to state and country to country), the record suggests that the victim in this case did not present as a “little girl,” nor did her mother present her as such. Further, the record indicates that the victim willingly accepted drugs from Polanski and had engaged in sexual activity previously.
Please understand — the factors I’ve just described do not mitigate the crime committed. However, they do provide a clearer picture of what occurred.
I firmly believe that adults must be held accountable for illegal activity and harm that they cause involving minors. At the same time, though, when highly charged words and phrases are used, such as “rape,” “little girl,” and “helpless with drugs and alcohol,” and “living the high life in Europe,” I feel we need to step back and look more closely at the specific information that’s available.
At the time of this particular incident, the prevailing culture in Topanga Canyon (which is where the crime occurred) was not only aware of but more accepting of the activities described. At that time, a “whole lotta” sexual and drug-related activity was occurring involving 13-year-old girls and adult males in the entertainment industry. Many underage females were seeking out such activities with entertainment celebrities with the purposes of enhancing their careers and financial fortunes — or just for kicks. Parents, as well, were either explicitly or implicitly allowing this to occur.
I do not say these things to whitewash the crime that occurred. Rather, I think our knowing as much as we can about the specifics of the situation will give us a better understanding not only of what happened, but how such a thing could have happened.
Pierre, your context is appreciated. Your point about the time served in Chino is well-taken. I disagree with some of what you right. Margaret is correct in ascertaining that Polanski’s public statements suggest he has absolutely no regret about what occurred with Mrs. Gailey (or Geither, which I think was a name she took later). No, we can’t make a definitive statement on his feelings, but we can make an educated guess.
Also, while it’s true that Polanski did not seize some stranger in an alley and violate them while they kicked and screamed, it’s not fair to discount the word “rape.” She may have been experienced, and she may have accepted drugs from him, but she has always maintained that she asked him to stop and he ignored her requests. That’s enough to call it “rape”.
Your point about the prevailing culture in the area is something I have always thought about. We know what happened with Polanski, but I’m willing to bet that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps that’s the real reason the applause was so deafening at the Academy in 2003. I would never point fingers at specific individuals without evidence, but I would not at all be surprised if it was revealed that many beloved icons and well-regarded leaders of the industry had done exactly the same thing back in the 70s.
Just look at the whole Mackenzie Phillips/incest thing – I’m willing to bet that, unfortunately, that sort of thing was not so incredibly unheard-of either.
I am on the same wave-length as Pierre de Plume in that the ‘language’ used for this crime was and still is inflamatory.
Great comments. Though I responded individually to many of them, I’d just like to highlight Dave’s straight-to-the-point contrast with how Catholic priests in similar situations are regarded, and Peter’s suggestion that perhaps the documentary influenced the U.S.’s increased aggression in pursuit of Polanski. Neither point had occurred to me.
“The situation is really not different than a priest who had a 13-year-old boy over his house, got the boy drunk and then raped him despite the boy’s protestations.”
Just as Dorothy is absolutely correct to dismiss comparisons to the Michael Jackson case, I don’t believe the Polanski case is analogous to that of a priest and a 13-year-old boy. My understanding is that Polanski’s crime occurred during the girl’s second, private photo shoot with him and that the first shoot had featured partial nudity. Regarding protestations, the victim in the Polanski case clearly sent mixed signals.
Again — I fully understand that these factors do not mitigate the crime.
Pierre, I can’t respond in full at the moment, but I was under the imrpession – from the documentary and other sources – that there was only one photo shoot. If what you say is correct, I don’t think nudity in a photo shoot is a “mixed signal” and even if it was, it would be no different than a boy cooperating with a priest’s request, however uncomfortable it made him. It’s just a less extreme version of the same situation that arose later. I still think the analogy is an excellent one for framing the hypocrisy of some of Polanski’s defenders (not including you in that category, by the way, lest I be misunderstood).
“That’s enough to call it ‘rape.'”
MovieMan — I have no dispute with you about whether or not a rape occurred. It clearly did. What I was suggesting is that the word “rape” — and other words and phrases that have been used on this subject — are highly charged and that, when used in certain contexts, can become inflammatory, thus tending to undermine the discourse.
I guess we’ll have to simply disagree on our interpretations of Polanski’s remarks about his and other males’ attraction to young women. To my ears, he wasn’t referring specifically to the victim or to minors in general.
He was, though, Pierre, because the question was clearly about that case as Polanski himself acknowledged in his follow-up response. And the smirk comes after asking, “what exactly would you like to know?” when the interviewer presses him on the point “the question is HOW young”). The conclusion that Polanski is not going to apologize for his crime, and seems to think it’s fairly harmless, is pretty inescapable watching this clip, as it has been with other statements he’s made since.
MovieMan — My reference to the nudity was not intended to be part of the “mixed signals” I mentioned. although I do see where it could be included as such. I was thinking more of her past experience with and knowledge of drugs. I’m also suggesting that, given the culture of the time, the girl’s mother may indeed have been unwise or even negligent in allowing her daughter to be privately photographed with Mr. Polanski.
I don’t get it. Thirty years have passed. Polanski has not had the freedom to come back to the states since his exile. The judge on the case was a press-seeker botching the job for a lime-lite. The girl in question was a cooze looking for a shot in front of the camera and most likely willing to fuck for it. The mother of said girl agreed to the meeting knowing full well of Polanski’s taste for young skin (Natassia Kinski anyone? 15 years old). The girl has dropped the charges and both she and Polanski have gone on with there lives. No brainer. Leave the guy alone. If anything, the mother should have had her goddamned head examined for allowing this. And poor Jack Nicholson stuck with the bill to clean his pad after the party. Totally ridiculous. Roman should walk.
Dennis, you’re way off on this comment. 1) This line of reasoning comes dangerously close to the “she asked for it” defense. The girl was 13. End of story. I think the epithet you use is completely inappropriate in the situation. 2) The girl has not dropped any charges. They were not hers to drop. She has continually asserted that she was raped, not that she had consensual sex, and the requests she has made that the matter be ended are mostly for her own sanity and that of her family’s. At any rate, as others have pointed out, the state brought the charges, not Samantha Gailey. 3) Whatever culpability the mother holds has nothing to do with whether or not Polanski is guilty of the crime, which he is. 4) We’re a nation of laws, not a nation of “eh, it was a while ago, she was a skank, let it go”. Everyone requesting Polanski’s release – what exactly are they asking for? Obama’s intervention? A national referendum? An abandonment of criminal justice system’s duties? Polanski, whatever the end result of his tribulations, is currently a fugitive from justice. Whatever outcome he or his defenders seek has to be made within the system – it seems like the cultural community wants someone to wave a magic wand and set Polanski free. Or perhaps they are asking the Swiss authorities to do so – given their past malleability, maybe that’s not such an unwarranted hope.
On the other hand, yeah, I always felt kind of bad for poor Jack too – guess it goes to show you should be careful who you leave your keys with when you go away for the weekend…
Pierre de Plume, I wonder what you mean when you say that Polanski’s victim did not “present as a little girl,” and that she “sent mixed signals.” I think it’s fair to call a 13-year-old a child, with immature judgment. The fact that a jaded middle-aged man (Polanski) was drawn to her sexually and behaved in violently inappropriate ways was his fault–not hers. It’s not even clear if Gailey understood that Polanski wanted to photograph her partially nude; her mother should have known and prevented it, but Gailey seems to have had an unusually stupid and unprotective mother. Even if Gailey understood Polanski’s plans to photograph her in this mode, it’s a huge leap from that to the claim that she gladly consented to being drugged and sodomized by him.
Gailey said then, and has always said (inspite of great pressure to change her story) that she told Polanski No. We have no evidence to the contrary. Initially he was charged with numerous crimes. These were plea-bargained down to statutory rape, not because he was innocent of the others, but because this was the one that could be easily proven.
A director’s work–and in Polanski’s case, so much of it is brilliant–is not “evidence”. Yet I often ponder the ending of Chinatown, which caused so much bitterness between screenwriter Robert Towne and Polanski. As is well known, Towne had written an escape for the abused daughter of the ruthless L.A. mogul, and his downfall. Polanski was content with nothing less than a 180-degree twist: the adult incest victim should die violently; the aging abuser should live and prosper; and his newest victim, his granddaughter, was in the wings.
It isn’t evidence. But it’s food for thought.
Excellent comment, Margaret. I tried to address what you talk about in my own piece: I think Polanski had a peculiar abuser/abused perspective. This manifests itself both in how he dealt with his protagonists in his film – veering from identification to torment (sometimes his point of view in Rosemary’s Baby seems to be Rosemary’s at other times the demonic onlooker reveling in the decadence and wicked irony) – and how he casts himself in his own roles. Perhaps because of his own childhood, he simultaneously has a wounded sense of being hunted and haunted, of being a victim or – as he describes himself in relation to Judge Rittenband – “a mouse made sport of by an abominable cat.” Yet at other times he is the cat and the film notes his reputation as someone who was perhaps himself a Satanist – a wicked little pixie who’d sold his soul to the devil. The divide manifests itself in the American vs. European opinions of Polanski, which is addressed in the lengthy quote I included. But one side is not right while the other is wrong: they’re both onto something.
This is a difficult situation. Yes, there is no statute of limitations for this case (sorry about that Joe) but the time has really come and gone for any justice here, at least from a legal standpoint. At the very least we must be suspicious of the motives behind this arrest and impending extradition both from the Swiss authorities who engineered Polanski’s detention, and the American prosecutors who are pushing for him to be brought here. While I won’t get into, nor defend the original act with a 13 year-old girl, and I fully understand the pain still felt by many over the lack of closure, I think we also need to gage worldwide opinion, which is prodominantly on Polanski’s side. The prevailing opinion is that the Americans botched the affair, and at this point aren’t entitled to save face. We can apply any kind of moral argument, but the timing here, within a year of the release of the documentary that Joel reviews at the head of this thread, after years of apparent disinterest (or least no desire to look into methods to bring this longtime fugitive from out of protective net) makes his Swiss arrest look shoddy.
Yes, Polanski’s entitlement ‘defense’ as broached by Joel and Tony Dayoub is nauseating as is his refusal to apologize, but in the end this does not mitigate what I see as severe technical mistakes that have now reduced the whole affair to an attempt to avoid complete embarrassment.
The bottom line is this: no matter what any of us thinks, he is sure to get off here with close to nothing in punishment. You can bet on it.
“The bottom line is this: no matter what any of us thinks, he is sure to get off here with close to nothing in punishment. You can bet on it.”
This is likely correct.
My final comments on the whole thing are just how annoying it is that such a defense is thrown up for Polanski… when, if I was a gambling man (which I am), I would be that if this were just a rich corporate executive who had done this and then been detained there would be absolutely no outcry for him. It seems to me it’s the fact that it is an undeniably brilliant artist and director that many are so quick to give him a pass. Maybe that’s just how things go, which I can understand… but it still just seems wrong.
Excellent point there Dave. I suspect you are right!
A man rapes a child. He is tried in a court of law and is punished. If there is a flaw in trial proceedings, then the ruling can be appealed. The sentence is discretionary to the extent the defendant shows genuine remorse and in the light of extenuating circumstances. The rest is hogwash.
A very nice, short summation. The idea that the judge may have imposed a heavier sentence as some sort of justification for his running for 30 years has never worked for me either. If the judge really had sentenced him to 50 years as some claim as the reason for his running, everything I’ve seen has said that it would have been appealed and overturned.
Would I have fled if I had been in the same position, with the same vibes being sent by the judge? I don’t know, maybe, but even if I would have that doesn’t excuse it.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Sam. Maybe it’s true that world opinion is predominantly on Polanski’s side: “Let him go, let it be over, (especially because he’s so brilliantly talented).” But I assure you there will also be a sizable number of people in the world who, for the rest of Polanski’s life, will always–and let me repeat that word: always– consider him to be at the exact moral level of those tourists who go to Thailand to take advantage of unprotected children. These sex criminals are sometimes arrested, and we see them on television, in custody, hats pulled over their faces because they hope to protect their identity. There is no way for Polanski to shield his identity. Dennis will probably have his wish, and Polanski will walk–but I doubt that it will be peacefully.
Margaret, thank you kindly for all you have done here on this thread. Your knowledge and uncompromising opinions are most welcome and appreciated!
Excellent comments Margaret.
Pierre: “Things went south, of course, when the presiding judge, responding to political pressure, failed to honor the plea agreement.”
I would also add that when a man spends 43 days locked for such a crime, there would and should be an uproar and it is not unreasonable to expect political pressure. The politicains are so compromised by big business and shady dealings but even they can’t be blind to simple human decency.
Hi Margaret — I’m glad you responded. I’m suggesting that the victim looked older than a little girl, that she knew what quaaludes are and took some. I’m not suggesting she gave Polanski permission or encouragement at any time that sex would be okay — although it’s possible she may have. (Even if she did, Polanski was in the wrong.)
You’re right, it is fair to call a 13-year-old a child, with immature judgment. You’re also right that it was his fault. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the victim gladly consented to sodomy, though it appears quite possible she quite willingly accepted the quaaludes, immature judgment notwithstanding.
I also agree that the victim said no — if not at first, certainly at some point. I believe Polanski plead guilty to sexual intercourse with a minor as opposed to statutory rape — which of course is the same thing other than the wording.
Perhaps Polanski’s revised ending more closely resembled his supposed world view, which seems more cynical and more “that’s Chinatowney.”
MovieMan — Our respective readings of Polanski’s comments are different. Among other things, I saw a man who at that moment carried wounds from his past, someone feeling a combination of defiance, pride, pain, anger and conflict over his participation in a media “event” whose subject he’d prefer to not discuss in public. I think he intentionally answered the question in a contrary way because he resented his being obliged to answer it. My reaction was that he’d rather have people think he was unremorseful than to be “forced” into wearing his heart on his sleeve.
Pierre,
That goes along with my reading of Polanski’s vision in his work – the dual role as victim/victimizer. But at what point does the self-imposed mask of brute stop becoming a mask? At any rate, it’s true we can never really know what goes on in someone’s mind. But for that very reason, we have to go by their public statements, and Polanski has never said anything to indicate he feels the slightest remorse. That’s all we have to run with at the moment in assessing his sense of “entitlement.”
Pierre, I too find it fascinating to speculate how Polanski’s past (in particular, his experiences during the Holocaust, the loss of his mother, and later the murder of his wife) feeds into his dark vision of the world. But his vision isn’t fully explained by the tragedies that happened to him. Elie Wiesel, Primo Levi, Wladyslaw Szpilman (The Pianist) and thousands of other artists went through worse, and for the most part their art does not reflect this almost unrelieved pitch-darkness. If anything, Polanski’s experience during the Holocaust gave him a close look at self-sacrifice and astonishing courage: he was protected, and saved, by Catholic families at great risk to themselves.
The closest I can come to understanding his artistic response is this: subconsciously or not, although Polanski clearly sees the cruelty and evil of the abusers he portrays (as in Chinatown), he also sees them as strong. He craves the security of that strength–at whatever moral cost–for himself. He sees inflicting pain on others, even shattering their lives, as a sign of that strength, a safeguard against ever becoming a victim oneself.
Pierre de Plume has wisely mentioned the closing words of his most famous film (except perhaps The Pianist) as encapsulating Polanski’s world view: “That’s Chinatown.” I think one could argue he might just as well have said, “That’s Polanski.”
That’s a great observation, Margaret. Whether or not it is true of Polanski himself, it’s certainly true of the artistic vision he presents to the world: the ambivalent awe and agony with which he faces evil.
Bobby J — Regarding Polanski’s time served, what “should be” and what is the law are often two different things. The number of days he served for his crime was not unprecedented at that point in time.
Pierre, my dear friend, thanks for imparting your incomparable expertise to the entire thread right from the get-go. You are the best!
Mr. Polanski has earned this arrest. It’s been a long time coming. He’s a pedaphile.
Carol, why don’t you tell us what you REALLY think? LOL!!!
Polanski shouldn’t get away scott free, but I agree with Sam that the time to enact justice is probably long gone.
Thanks for making your debut here Wendy, and yes we’re on the same page here.
If you caught someone at large, would the fact that time has passed on mean anything, or should he pay for his crimes. The analogy drawn between a priest doing the exact same thing is quite appropriate. Nothing really changes in human nature. It like the lord of the manor doing whatever he likes. Artists don’t deserve any more consideration than any other citizen.
This entire affair has become an international joke. It’s another excuse for other nations to aim their ire at the United States. So, even if there is some justice in this long overdue arrest, it’s a no-win situation. So it’s best they just save face and give him a slap on the wrist and send him on his way.
Thanks very much for that astute insight Joanne. Again, I’m in agreement.
“and Polanski has never said anything to indicate he feels the slightest remorse.”
Somehow I’m reminded of Meryl Streep’s character in “A Cry in the Dark.”
Tony (above) speaks the truth when he says “the rest is hogwash.” We can debate this matter ’til the cows come home (and I can already see them from the barn). To me, making statements like, “He’s a pedaphile [sic]” are generalized and do little to add to the conversation.
The legalities of this mess will resolve themselves one way or the other. Meantime, one might hope that Polanski deals with whatever neuroses, psychoses or traumas he may have encountered — a responsibility we all have to ourselves.
thanks Sam, your a top dude….
“ambivalent awe and agony with which he faces evil.”
Good ideas and descriptons, Margaret, MovieMan et al.
And thanks, Sam.
[…] Extraordinarias Jaws Kings and Queens Lawrence of Arabia Nights and Weekends Rocco and His Brothers Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired Syndromes and a Century The Wild […]