During the 3+ year existence of isitjustme (the anniversary was July 26 in case you wish to write it down), there has never been the need for a retraction or apology. (Unless you count the apology for comparing Dick Cheney to a flatulent baboon. We apologized to the baboon.) The reason for this hubris might be that isitjustme is never wrong. A more likely explanation is that I don't remember what was written from one day to the next and therefore can't recall the reason for the apology. Nevertheless, before I forget the reason for this mea culpa, allow me to elaborate.
In a posting dated 9/28/09 I opined that the US government certainly had better things to do than pursue a 76 year old film maker on a 31 year old statutory rape conviction. It was suggested that Roman Polanski should be left to live out his remaining years sipping chardonnay, munching camenbert and wondering what the French see in Jerry Lewis. This ill-considered position was taken merely as a response to the fanfare arrest in Switzerland and the knee-jerk reaction of the French. Now, like the French, I too, must reconsider.
In 1978, nine years after the tragic murder of his wife at their Beverly Hills home, Polanski drugged and seduced a 13 year old girl at the home of Jack Nicholson. Not a 17 year old starlet who looked 22. Not even a willing 15 year old. The child was drunk and doped with half a quaalude. The original charges included: rape with the use of drugs, sodomy, and lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under 14. Polanski admitted the crime when he was arrested and rather than be tried and sentenced to 10 or so years in Soledad prison, he pled guilty to a lesser charge of "engaging in unlawful sex with a minor". How that differs from statutory rape, you will have to ask the legislators of California. Fearing that his plea bargain would be ignored by the presiding judge, Polanski beat feet for England then France where, as a French citizen, he could avoid extradition.
Now that the Swiss have handcuffed Polanski to a giant cuckoo clock awaiting a one way trip to the good old USA, the Hollywood community has rushed to the defense of one of their own. Whoopie Goldberg, who has one daughter and two grand daughters, had the colossal chutzpah to suggest that "it wasn't rape-rape". Apparently, in the confused mind of Ms. Goldberg, if the attacker doesn't jump out of the bushes and beat the hell out of the victim, it's not rape. Really? Would that be true if the perp hadn't directed Chinatown?
In another world-turned-upside-down moment, Woody Allen has weighed in as a supporter of the "free Roman" movement. Woody, who subscribes to the tenet that, when it comes to seducing young people there's no place like home, has added his name to the more than 100 Hollywood heavies who believe that Polanski has suffered enough. Clearly, waiting til Monday for Sunday's Times and denied the joy of watching the Dodgers in person is a cross too terrible to bear. Death, where is thy sting? When Woody Allen is the guy defending your morals, you had better have a good lawyer.
Movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, the person circulating the petition to free Polanski, has opined that poor Roman has served his time. He accuses the US government of criminal conduct for reneging on the plea agreement in 1979. He asserts that the "so-called crime" pales in comparison to the unequalled oeuvre amassed by this great artist. Jesus, where is the blacklist when you really need it?
Just in case you are on the fence about this (old crime...victim who forgives the perp...old man...great director) remember the interview that Polanski gave in 1979 to Martin Amis. He said (pardon the language) "...if I had killed someone, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see. But fucking and the young girls...everyone wants to fuck young girls". Even if that were true, most people wouldn't feel justified in including champagne and quaaludes in the seduction. But then most of us aren't great artists, thank God.
No comments:
Post a Comment