JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

New feature Personalise your news, save articles to read later and customise settings View Demo

Hi there! Beta version

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

National Times

Repulsion: Polanski's horror story

Miranda Devine
October 1, 2009

Opinion

Video settings

Please Log in to update your video settings

Video will begin in 5 seconds.

Video settings

Please Log in to update your video settings

France wants Polanski freed

The international tug of war over Roman Polanski has escalated as France and Poland urges Switzerland to free the 76-year-old director on bail

How sickening is the chorus of sycophants and enablers defending Roman Polanski, the 76-year-old Polish director arrested at a Zurich film festival over a three decade-old statutory rape case.

Polanski has been a fugitive from US justice since he skipped bail after being charged over the rape and sodomy of a 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson's Los Angeles home in 1977.

According to the girl's sworn testimony before a grand jury two weeks later, he lured her to the house with the promise of photographing her for French Vogue and plied her with champagne and Quaalude before attacking her, despite her repeated requests for him to stop. He pleaded guilty to statutory rape - having sex with a minor - before fleeing the country.

John Shakespeare

Illustration: John Shakespeare

Now that justice has, belatedly, come calling, we are treated to all manner of sophistry employed by politicians, commentators and celebrities and France's "cultural elite" to justify Polanski's crime.

We've had Woody Allen, of all people, other famous film directors and actresses signing a petition demanding "the immediate release of Roman Polanski''. The actress Debra Winger, the president of the film event, described the arrest as "philistine".

In France, where Polanski has lived for 30 years, the Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, described his arrest as "sinister" and the Culture Minister, Frederic Mitterrand, said: "In the same way that there is a generous America that we like, there is also a scary America that has just shown its face.''

Back in the land of the casting couch, the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein issued a statement: "Whatever you think of the so-called crime, Polanski has served his time.''

When a 43-year-old grooms a 13-year-old girl for sex it is an actual crime, not a "so-called crime".

But even feminists couldn't see a problem. Whoopi Goldberg said on television what Polanski did "wasn't rape-rape".

Joan Shore, the co-founder of Women Overseas for Equality, wrote on The Huffington Post: "The 13-year old model 'seduced' by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies.'' She had met Polanski once and was "utterly charmed by Roman's sobriety and intelligence".

The Sydney pedophile Phillip Bell was also described as charming. Charm is one of the hallmarks of men who groom children for sex. They have to be plausible enough to convince other adults responsible for protecting children they are harmless.

The emptiness of Polanski's defenders is revealed in the transcript of his victim's testimony. Polanski had her mother's permission to photograph her and it was the third time he had done so. He gave her champagne and part of a Quaalude before convincing her to undress and step into a jacuzzi for a photograph. He undressed and got in, telling her to join him in the deep end.

She said: "No. No I got to get out.' And he goes, 'No, come down here'. And then I said I had asthma and that I couldn't. I had to get out because of the warm air and the cold air or something like that."

She told the jury she feigned asthma, "because I wanted to get out".

When she went inside he followed her. She pretended she needed to go home for her medicine. He kissed her.

"And I was telling him 'No', you know. 'Keep away'. But I was kind of afraid of him because there was no one else there.

"And then he went down and he started performing cuddliness."

When she was asked what that meant she described him performing oral sex on her. ''I was ready to cry. I was kind of … I was going. 'No. Come on. Stop it.' But I was afraid.''

She describes how the alcohol and Quaalude had affected her. "I was kind of dizzy, you know. I was having trouble with my co-ordination like walking and stuff.''

Then Polanski had sexual intercourse with her. "I was mostly just on and off saying 'No, stop'.

"But I wasn't fighting really because there was no one else there and I had no place to go."

He asked if she was on the Pill. She said she wasn't.

He said, "Would you like me to go in through your back. And I went no'.'' Then he sodomised her.

I have not included the most graphic parts of her testimony, published on the Smoking Gun website.

Polanski's victim, Samantha Geimer, now 45, sued him years later and won a civil settlement. She has said she does not want him pursued further because she doesn't want the trauma of more legal proceedings and media interest.

Polanski's defenders make much of this, as if justice depended only on the attitude of the victim.

They say he has been punished enough, that he suffered as a child of the Holocaust, or that the murder of his pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, by the Manson Family caused him grief. But bad people can have tragedies befall them. Bad people can be talented. It doesn't make them good.

Polanski was a sexual predator. Who cares if it was three decades ago? Who cares if his wife was butchered? Who cares if the victim has grown up and absolved him? None of that is the point. If he were a Catholic priest arrested for child sex abuse 30 years ago there would be no pleas for leniency, nor should there be.

Polanski's defenders complain those who think he should face justice are "shrill". But the shrillness is from them. It is the same tone we heard from the defenders of Bill Henson's right to photograph nude 13-year-olds, who branded those opposed to exploiting naked pubescent children as philistines gripped by "moral panic".

In this cowardly age, cultivated people seem terrified of being seen as unsophisticated on such matters.

devinemiranda@hotmail.com

56 comments

  • While it's an unfortunate blow to the film industry, I don't think we can allow our emotions to rule, in this or any case. The just thing is to accept that he committed a crime and must serve for that. I've been momentarily tempted to follow the argument that he's been punished enough, but as soon as I think it through, I can only say, there is no reason he should be exempt. We can't let our emotions override justice.

    Oh, andI don't think it's at all appropriate to bring Henson into this. It's a different matter entirely.

    Commenter
    KillerPython
    Date and time
    October 01, 2009, 8:19AM
  • It would be interesting to hear the responses from the Woody Allens and French politicians if it had been their 13 year old daughter. I'd wager that 30 years would not make their desire for justice any less potent. The fact that a rapist/paedophile is also capable of producing exceptional works of art/film/literature does not in any way reduce the gravity of what he has done.

    Commenter
    JW
    Location
    Sydney
    Date and time
    October 01, 2009, 8:51AM
  • I don't always agree with you Miranda, but on this one, thanks for finally stating the truth. How does anyone support this guy?

    Commenter
    GD
    Location
    Sydney
    Date and time
    October 01, 2009, 9:02AM
  • There is no defence for what he did and he deserves to be punished no matter who he is. You cannot, however, compare his acts to Bill Henson's photography. I've seen better paraphrasing in high school essays than your remarks with respect to Whoopi Goldberg's comments. You've simply lifted the most sensational phrase from her comments without any context at all. She was trying to clarify with the producers whether the act was rape in the usual sense of the word or if it was statutory rape. Poor choice of words yes. Petty, lazy journalism definitely.

    Commenter
    Greg
    Location
    Sydney
    Date and time
    October 01, 2009, 9:08AM
  • I agree!

    about time someone in the media said it

    Commenter
    Enver
    Date and time
    October 01, 2009, 9:19AM
  • Thank goodness for your article. I am sickened by Polanski's defenders who view the rape of a minor as incidental. The fact that he is an award winning director should not deflect from the seriousness of his crimes. He has not served the time - he fled the country! The fact that his victim has decided not to pursue this further is a reflection of her decent character & desire to move on with her life, not a reflection of him.

    Commenter
    bkm
    Location
    Sydney
    Date and time
    October 01, 2009, 9:23AM
  • "Who cares if his wife was butchered? Who cares if the victim has grown up and absolved him?" Geez Miranda - calm down a bit. No need to get hysterical. Yes I agree he should face justice - however there is a difference between justice and what you are proffering here. We just need a mob with torches in front of you and the scene will be complete!

    Commenter
    Stephen
    Date and time
    October 01, 2009, 9:49AM
  • There is no doubt that what Polanski did was regrettable. However, had he been incarcerated in 1977 we would have missed out on at least one great film and several other very good ones and i think weighing up the social good vs the social bad - the social good wins out. There are not many people in the world that meaningfully contribute and he has been one. I think that his case should be taken in the context of both this and the amazing misfortune he has suffered in his life. So yeah, let him go...

    Commenter
    chris h
    Location
    sydney
    Date and time
    October 01, 2009, 10:03AM
  • Agree with Devine's every word. And the countries that gave Polanski sanctuary are also contemtable.

    Commenter
    myxl
    Location
    Mudgeeraba QLD
    Date and time
    October 01, 2009, 10:58AM
  • It is very hard to understand the position of the various European Government ministers on this matter - surely there is never a justification for an adult doing this to a 13 year old child.

    And as for the reports (see "Polanski has done his time: victim" in the Australian for instance) that suggest he has the support of the victim, this is nonsense. She may well feel that she does not want to be involved in this after all this time, and her wishes should be respected, but she is not saying that what he did was alright. In fact, she is the one who has done the time, and then some.

    We do not let elderly priests off, nor should we let elderly film makers off. He should go back to the US and face the music.

    Commenter
    Old Leftie
    Date and time
    October 01, 2009, 11:07AM

More comments

Comments are now closed

More Related Coverage

Polanski's past suffering entitles him to sympathetic treatment

2 Oct Sexual abuse , particularly of children incenses and outrages, threatening our safety. Yes the act is horrible. No revenge does not repair. Polanski is both wronged and wrongdoer.