The Three Disgraces: Roman Polanski's Defenders
Domenica Marchetti
Contributor
Posted:
10/1/09
You know what I can't believe? I can't believe there is even a debate going on about film director/confessed pedophile Roman Polanski. The guy skipped town to avoid a legal sentence in a plea deal that he agreed to. He needs to be brought back to face the consequences of his despicable actions, as Bonnie describes here. That is the law in our country. Period. As you said, Mary, creative talent does not excuse criminal acts. Just as disgraceful as Polanski's craven behavior of avoiding the law for the past three decades is the misguided, contorted reasoning of those who have come to his defense or sought to explain away his actions. I am thinking of three high-profile people in particular:
1. Whoopi Goldberg, the actress and talking head on ABC's "The View," said this the other day: "I know it wasn't rape-rape. It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape." Yesterday she clarified her comments, saying that what she was referring to was the charge that Polanski ultimately pled guilty to; not rape, but rather having unlawful sex with a minor -- or, put another way, Ms. Goldberg, statutory rape.
The other five original felony charges Ms. Goldberg pointed out on Wednesday -- furnishing a controlled substance to a minor; perversion; sodomy; committing lewd and lascivious acts upon a child of under 14; and rape by use of drugs -- were dismissed as part of a plea bargain.
I guess Ms. Goldberg is right -- it was not rape-rape. According to the unsealed testimony of the victim, which Bonnie links to here, Polanski plied the girl with drugs and champagne and, in spite of her repeated protests, forced himself on her orally, vaginally, and anally. So, I guess that would be rape-rape-rape, rather than rape-rape.
2. Harvey Weinstein, the Hollywood producer, called for Polanski's release, writing that the arrest was "a shocking way to treat such a man," especially one who had suffered through the Holocaust and the murder of his wife, Sharon Tate, by the Manson family. He is now circulating a petition in support of Polanski.
"I will be organising the effort myself by emailing everybody I know to sign the petition," Weinstein wrote in the Independent. "I'm not too shy to go and talk to the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and to ask him once and for all to look at this."
So magnanimous and compassionate when it comes to aiding his Hollywood peer, and yet when it comes to Polanski's then-13-year-old victim, this is all that Weinstein could muster: "Whatever you think about the so-called crime, Polanski has served his time."
I guess Mr. Weinstein didn't want to get bogged down in any gory details of that "so-called" crime -- an odd omission from the producer of "Inglorious Basterds" and "Grindhouse."
3. Anne Applebaum, the Washington Post op-ed columnist offered perhaps the most outrageous defense of Polanski. She sought to minimize the crime by calling "bizarre" the decision by a U.S. judge to pursue the case after "so many decades." That reasoning itself seems bizarre to me when, in the next breath, Applebaum excuses Polanski's "original, panicky decision to flee" because of the tragedy he and his family suffered during the Holocaust (which took place some three decades before Mr. Polanski committed child rape).
Applebaum asserted that Polanski has already paid dearly for his crime "in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film."
After a blogger pointed out that Applebaum is married to the Polish foreign minister, who had indicated he might lobby for clemency on behalf of Polanski, she defended her position and said she was offended by the implication that she might be acting as a spokesman for her husband.
I'll give her that; I'm of the opinion that Applebaum is mistress of her own views. Too bad they are so misguided.