Roman Polanski

I was a little kid in the Simi Valley when a maniacal hippie group holed up in the hills near my home.  I knew nothing of them until the spectacular Tate/LaBianca Murders in August, 1969.  At that time, I remember wondering about the husband of Sharon Tate: the newspapers referred to him knowingly, but I had never heard of Roman Polanski.  It wasn't until many years later, after I'd become a fan of (some) of his work, that I found out that he was a fugitive living in France because he had been convicted of drugging and raping a 13-year old girl in California in 1977.

I began my boycott of Roman Polanski films at that point.  I would like to see "Chinatown" again, but I won't.  Now, it turns out that my boycott list will grow a bit longer to include Whoopi Goldberg films (boy, really straining the willpower: can I resist the "Ghost" reruns?  And "Sister Act", oooh, that hurts.)  I'd say I was going to boycott "The View" but since I've never watched it, I think that wouldn't be entirely honest.   Many creative types and celebrities have signed a petition protesting the arrest of Roman Polanski in Switzerland.  It reads as follows, and as traditional, I'm including my comments:

Petition for Roman Polanski

We have learned the astonishing news of Roman Polanski's arrest by the Swiss police on September 26th, upon arrival in Zurich (Switzerland) while on his way to a film festival where he was due to receive an award for his career in filmmaking.

The reason for his travel is important to the cohesiveness of their argument that he be given a legal pass.

His arrest follows an American arrest warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals.

Well, yes: morals.  In this case the "morals" in question were also "laws."  The two often coincide, but it's  hard for amoral people who consider themselves above the law to keep track.

Filmmakers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision. It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him.

Bad translation alert.  Also bad grammar alert, which may or may not be contributing to the general lack of logic in this paragraph.  Maybe the next paragraph will clarify.

By their extraterritorial nature, film festivals the world over have always permitted works to be shown and for filmmakers to present them freely and safely, even when certain States opposed this.

OK: Film Festivals are like the United Nations General Assembly (in more ways than one, as it happens.)  If a contemporary filmmaker of Polanski's stature needs to attend a film festival, he should have Cinomatographic immunitiy, like diplomatic immunity.

The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no-one can know the effects.

Here we get into the not-very-tall grass of international law: neutrality doesn't apply to criminal cases where there is an extradition treaty.  It applies to, like, war stuff.  And not "culture wars," which this is a part of.  And I love the "opens the way for actions of which no-one can know the effects."  I think that means "We can't keep track of what crimes we've committed where and our lawyers go on vacation in August."

Roman Polanski is a French citizen, a renown [sic] and international artist now facing extradition. This extradition, if it takes place, will be heavy in consequences and will take away his freedom.

Better translation: Roman Polanski is a French citizen, a renowned international artist, [ and is] now facing the threat of extradition.  This extradition, if it takes place, will entail serious consequences and will take away his freedom.  Well, yes.  Think "Tess." Life imitates art!  But, while we're thinking about "Tess," which was a visual feast and pretty incomprehensible, Tess gets raped and eventually kills her rapist.  She's chased by the law and is apprehended. While she's on the lam, she stops for the night at- Stonehenge! and drapes herself artistically across one of the big stones and artistically goes to sleep.  When dawn arrives on the Salisbury plain, her eyes flutter open and her field of vision is ringed by mounted men peering down at her.  She says- and no, I'm not kidding- "Have you come for me?"  I was in a packed movie house when I saw this and I burst out laughing.  It would not be the first time that I would incur the hatred of hundreds of movie goers.  The other time was at "The Da Vinci Code."

Filmmakers, actors, producers and technicians - everyone involved in international filmmaking - want him to know that he has their support and friendship.

So write him a letter.

On September 16th, 2009, Mr. Charles Rivkin, the US Ambassador to France, received French artists and intellectuals at the embassy. He presented to them the new Minister Counselor for Public Affairs at the embassy, Ms Judith Baroody. In perfect French she lauded the Franco-American friendship and recommended the development of cultural relations between our two countries.

And your point is? Judy Baroody's job is going to suck if Roman gets extradited.

If only in the name of this friendship between our two countries, we demand the immediate release of Roman Polanski.

In the name of Franco-American friendship, we demand the release of the child-rapist Roman Polanski.

Is now a good time to call these people Cheese-eating Child-Raping Surrender Monkeys?

For my boycott list:

John Landis, Martin Scorcese, Woody Allen (surprise!) Tilda Swinton, Pedro Almodovar, David Lynch (surprise!) Jonathan Demme, Terry Gilliam, and a lot of people I've never heard of (mostly French.) I note, however, that despite the "big names," there aren't that many of those, and that the list really isn't much.  The Americans who signed are either so big (Landis, Scorcese) that even a scandal like this can't touch them, or they are so past their sell-by date/ not a box office draw that it doesn't matter (Allen, Swinton- who is probably suffering from delusions that anyone cares what she thinks.)

A friend sent this to me with the note of surprise that it came from Salon- fortunately, it's making the rounds. I've already seen Kate Harding's article cited at NRO.  She's pulling no punches with the Left's hypocrisy and I can't help but think that there is a large but silent group even within Hollywood that finds all of this pretty disgusting.

Comments

[aelfheld]

There is no crime the Left will not excuse - as long as it is one of their own that has committed it.

[Michael Adams]

None of this exists in a vacuum. For the Leftist, childish innocence is a bourgeois convention. Like all the other perversions, to do it is to strike a blow against the bourgeoisie. Why else would there be demands that we change marriage and inheritance laws to placate less than 1.5% of the population? (The "gays.") Ninety percent of the people in this country have sexual intercourse before marriage. Yes, it was fun. Yes, I'd have had a happier life if I'd listened to the wisdom of the elders. But, thirty nine years ago, destroying the purity of the youth was another blow against bourgeois patriarchy. Of course, ninety nine percent of the people espousing such krep had never noticed how patriarchal pre-capitalist societies are. (Hint: There's a lot more patriarchialism in a third world society than in a capitalist one.) Mara Natha!