Signed. I appreciate very much the fact that the petition calls him 'an admittedly significant artist'. One of the many things bothering me about the whole affair is the inability, or refusal, of people to separate the issue from the art. This goes for both sides - the willingness of his defenders to handwave the crime because the art is great (some of it, anyway; I'll never be able to forgive him for Pirates), and the readiness of many of his critics to dismiss, often venomously, an entire oeuvre because of the crime. But then, that's far from unique to this case.
Robert Harris's recent op-ed piece in Tuesday's NYT, while hardly unbiased, nicely sums up one of the other issues bothering me: Why now? Finally, while I don't believe his relatively blameless later life in any way makes up for his excesses in the '70s, as someone who somehow managed to live through that terrible kidney stone of a decade I can't help remembering that Polanski wasn't alone in behaving very badly back then. Many of us did things in the '70s that we deeply regret now. I shudder to think that those actions, rather than the rest of our lives, should be held up as defining us.
I should make perfectly clear that I don't think Polanski's past 20 years as a respectable family man somehow erase his crime. And I do agree with those who have pointed out, on earlier posts here, that he dug his own grave when he ran.
A request was made to Interpol several years ago for assistance in apprehending Polanski. The State Department gave a statement on Monday (I think) that outlined their attempts over the years and some near misses.
This is Polanski’s biggest problem: The judge’s terms were reasonable. He gave Polanski three months to surface in L.A. and even hinted that the director would probably not serve jail time if he appeared. And yet Polanski refused. From the point of view of prosecutors, Polanski practically dared them to act.
Hmm. Thanks for the link. A film crit friend, meanwhile, has sent me this. As my friend put it, 'It will be too strange for words if it turns out that Polanski's lawyers rubbed authorities the wrong way by making assertions based on info from the doc that was, uh, made up.' She also points out the anti-Semitic comments, and I've seen others elsewhere - yet another disturbing undercurrent to this case.
I don't have any trouble with the "Why now?" question. It may have been a happy confluence of international politics, opportunism, renewed publicity from a documentary, and extra arrogance from Polanski (who had refused to enter countries when there were rumors he might be arrested for extradition before). Late is still better than never. And I'd rather justice be served late and maybe for the wrong reasons, still affirming that it is not okay to rape a child and that there is at least an ideal of equal justice for all to aspire to, than have justice not be served at all. I think it's pretty disingenuous to accuse people of "pornographic relish" when detailing what Polanski did. It's bloody well necessary when people start denying what he did was rape and try to age up a 13 year old girl by calling her a "young woman."
I don't have all that much trouble with separating art from artist. Artistic greatness doesn't equal moral greatness . . . as exemplified by Percy Bysshe Shelley, Lord Byron, Ezra Pound, by ever so many others. It may be easier to come to terms with when the artist is dead and not profiting from people consuming their work, but Pound's poetry doesn't change his misogyny or fascism. Polanski is a great director. That does not negate the fact that he is an unrepentant pedophile, a predator and a rapist.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-10-01 07:51 am (UTC)Robert Harris's recent op-ed piece in Tuesday's NYT, while hardly unbiased, nicely sums up one of the other issues bothering me: Why now? Finally, while I don't believe his relatively blameless later life in any way makes up for his excesses in the '70s, as someone who somehow managed to live through that terrible kidney stone of a decade I can't help remembering that Polanski wasn't alone in behaving very badly back then. Many of us did things in the '70s that we deeply regret now. I shudder to think that those actions, rather than the rest of our lives, should be held up as defining us.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-01 08:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-01 04:09 pm (UTC)A request was made to Interpol several years ago for assistance in apprehending Polanski. The State Department gave a statement on Monday (I think) that outlined their attempts over the years and some near misses.
In December 2008, Polanski attempted to have the case/plea/sentence dropped from the record. http://www.doublex.com/section/news-politics/roman-polanskis-arrest-his-own-fault?page=0,1
And for a while, it seemed as if Polanksi’s strategy might work. Earlier this year, a new judge was willing to consider dismissing the case against him. But first, he wanted Polanski to show up in court. Polanski, however, would not appear.
This is Polanski’s biggest problem: The judge’s terms were reasonable. He gave Polanski three months to surface in L.A. and even hinted that the director would probably not serve jail time if he appeared. And yet Polanski refused. From the point of view of prosecutors, Polanski practically dared them to act.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-01 04:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-01 04:38 pm (UTC)I don't have all that much trouble with separating art from artist. Artistic greatness doesn't equal moral greatness . . . as exemplified by Percy Bysshe Shelley, Lord Byron, Ezra Pound, by ever so many others. It may be easier to come to terms with when the artist is dead and not profiting from people consuming their work, but Pound's poetry doesn't change his misogyny or fascism. Polanski is a great director. That does not negate the fact that he is an unrepentant pedophile, a predator and a rapist.