Right and Wrong on Roman
I’ve been formulating my thoughts on the whole Roman Polanski thing. It has been on my mind after all, it does intersect between two of my favourite subjects: film and the law. Hell, if we could somehow work delicious cookies into the mix, we’d have ourselves a trifecta.
I know there area lot of big egos in Hollywood, but I was honestly surprised that Harvey Weinstien had the gall to come out with an argument in Polanski’s favour that basically boiled down to “drugging and raping a 13-year-old, whatevs.”
I mean, talk about jumping headfirst without looking. He says that Polanski has already suffered for his “so-called crime.” (Child rape, Harv. If you’re going to try and convince people that that’s not immoral/illegal, I’d recommend using a stronger argument than just a smug hyphenate. )
Yes, while Roman might have suffered by not being able to pick up his Oscar (probably stings a bit) and having to live in France for 30 years (that one, not so much), I sincerely doubt most legal minds would consider that a sentence. Unless the US has switched from an incarceration model of justice to the less popular “exile to a beautiful and vibrant country” approach. (If that’s the case, I’m driving to the border tonight, knocking off a liquor store and hoping for Italy.)
Harvey doesn’t come out and say it, but everyone who wants the US to drop the case again Roman is doing it for one reason: he’s a good filmmaker. Really. I love his work, I’m not going to deny that. But at the same time, no matter how you and “Marty” Scoreses may wish otherwise, artistic minds are subject to the same laws as everyone else. Society as a right to punish those that harm other people. And to punish those who flee the law to avoid their sentence.
Even if, as a society, we agree that Chinatown was pretty sweet. The artist’s bad deeds should never be excused by the quality of their work.
Now, on the flip side of that, you’ve got Rex Murphy arguing in the Globe and Mail that Polanski’s child-raping ass should be stripped of the term artist. Murphy’s argument is just as misguided (though not as morally-reprehensible.) While the artist’s morals shouldn’t be judged on the quality of his work, it’s also not fair to assume the opposite: quality work can only come from the morally sound.
Murphy argues that the word artist has lost it’s meaning when applied to a “ill-co-ordinated puppet on stilts or the latest pop tart ululating her dream to be the next Madonna.” I don’t disagree with him there, but no objective observer would argue that Polanski falls into those categories. I’m sure that if Rex was asked if Polonski’s films were art BEFORE the crime was committed, there would be no disagreement. But he’s letting his knowledge of Polanski’s horrible, criminal deed colour his perception of the man’s work.
In pointing to “real artists,” Murphy mentions Beethoven and da Vinci. But Beethoven was a man who believed in the monarchist system, where the common person had no voice. And I doubt very strongly that Murphy would agree with da Vinci’s views on race relations, or women’s rights. The modern, sophisticated person would think them outdated, possibly barbaric. But we separate the person, and their flaws, to judge their work on the merits alone.
It’s a clarity that only comes when one looks at things objectively. The Mona Lisa is art. So is The Pianist. The latter was made by a criminal. And he should go to jail.
EDIT: Edited for some HTML errors that kept popping up. Also, my first go around, committed the faux pas of not linking to either Weinstien or Murphy. My bad.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
It should be noted that Polanski made a plea bargain and then the judge reneged on it. It wasn’t until then that he jumped bail. So there’s that layer to it as well.
Reply
That’s true, Dan.
Not saying there weren’t strange, perhaps improper, things that went on in the case.
But if a judge refuses to abide by the plea bargain, the accused can change his plea before the sentence is handed down. Then you’re back to square one: a trial.
The next step in the process isn’t “flee to the UK, and then France.”
Reply
Also, how come on your blog I have a picture and you don’t?
Reply
Because I am both 1)Too lazy to get a picture and 2) not photogenic.
Also, I see the HTML is still screwed up and the spaces are still wrong in the post. Going to need to get a new theme, I think.
Reply