Roman Polanski and His Defenders

Devaluing Children, Another “Liberal” Policy?

David C. Stolinsky, MD
Oct. 5, 2009

Recently director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland on a fugitive warrant, based on his fleeing to avoid sentencing for a crime he committed in 1977. He was 44 when he took a 13-year-old girl for a “photo shoot” at a house he was using in Los Angeles. According to Polanski, they had “consensual” sex. Well, no, actually.

First of all, a 13-year-old cannot consent. The age of consent in California is 18. Anyone who is over 21 and engages in sexual intercourse with someone under 16 may be guilty of a felony. The youth of the victim plus the disparity in ages makes it a crime.

Second, alcohol and drugs impair the ability to give consent. Reportedly, Polanski gave the girl alcohol and Quaalude, a tranquilizer that was later banned because of its toxic effects and widespread abuse.

Third, the girl denied consenting. She testified that she repeatedly said “No.” Apparently there was some part of “No” Polanski did not understand. Read the grand jury transcript, but prepare to have your heart broken as you learn a new meaning for “cuddliness.”

Polanski was charged with rape, sodomy and giving drugs to a minor. But to save the young victim the additional pain of testifying, Polanski was allowed to plead guilty to sexual intercourse with a minor. He believed he would be sentenced to the time he had already served during psychiatric evaluation. But when it appeared that he would have to serve additional time, he fled the country and has remained free ever since.

Moving to France, Polanski dated older women − for example, Nastassja Kinski, who had reached the advanced age of 15. Ms. Kinski had been “discovered” a year earlier by director Wim Wenders, who was among the signers of the petition to free Polanski. Isn’t it nice to have friends?

Not satisfied with living in a French villa and enjoying the adulation of his fans and colleagues, Polanski had his lawyers file a petition to have the charges dropped. Unwisely, the lawyers alleged misconduct by the judge (who is dead) and by the district attorney’s office (which is very much alive). Perhaps as a result, the extradition request was renewed, so when Polanski went to Switzerland for a film festival, he was arrested.

What Polanski did years ago is one thing. As a survivor of the Holocaust, and of the murder of his pregnant wife Sharon Tate, he is entitled to sympathy for his past suffering, though this does not reduce his guilt. But the reaction of the Hollywood “elite” is something else entirely. Like Polanski’s crime, it evokes revulsion.

Comedian Whoopie Goldberg, that font of liberal wisdom, opined that whatever Polanski did, it wasn’t “rape-rape.” Well, actually, yes it was. He was charged with penetrating the 13-year-old both vaginally and anally, which seems a classic example of “rape-rape.” Whoopie added, “We're a different kind of society; we see things differently. Would I want my 14-year-old having sex with somebody? Not necessarily, no.” Not necessarily? Indeed they do see things differently.

Movie producer Harvey Weinstein spoke up, recalling that Polanski had been awarded the French Legion of Honor. Does this fact increase the prestige of Polanski, or decrease the prestige of the Legion of Honor? Weinstein called what Polanski did a “so-called crime.” Would you want your family anywhere near people who think a middle-aged man having nonconsensual sex with a 13-year-old is not a crime?

Actor-director Woody Allen added his name to the petition urging that Polanski be freed. As you recall, Allen had known his longtime girlfriend’s daughter since she was a little girl, then became romantically involved and married her − though she was in effect his stepdaughter. Apparently Allen believed that this would not decrease his credibility when speaking on the subject of sex with minors. In Hollywood, he was probably correct. Elsewhere, people might think differently.

Director Martin Scorsese added his name to Polanski’s supporters. In the film “Taxi Driver,” he directed 12-year-old Jodie Foster in the role of a young prostitute named “Easy.” Yes, she was a superb actress, even at that young age. But who can say what psychological damage was done by having her act out the role of a prostitute? She was a real child, not a cartoon.

“Art” cannot justify child abuse. In fact, “art” has no relation to morality. The commandant of Auschwitz arranged weekly concerts of classical music. Perhaps Beethoven helped him run the death camp more efficiently. If people weren’t elevated by the Ninth Symphony, why would we expect them to be elevated by “Rosemary’s Baby”?

Many film personalities signed the petition. But as others have asked, how many of these people would have defended him if he were Father Polanski? Not one, I think.

Like other groups, movie people tend to stick together. This is natural. What is unnatural − in all senses of that word − is that movie people believe themselves to be above the laws that apply to us “ordinary” people:

·         The Sundance Film Festival accepted a film showing men having sex with horses. Reviewers called the film “surprisingly tasteful” and “elegant, eerily lyrical.” Unlike the reviewers, who are horses’ posteriors, the opinion of the horses themselves was not reported.

·         A film depicted semi-nude Dakota Fanning being raped. The 12-year-old was described as “seductive.” This is a common excuse by abusers. The film was screened at Sundance and had a limited release, though thankfully not at a theater near me.

·         An exhibition open to children showed actual human corpses skinned, dissected and covered with plastic. The bodies may have been dissidents executed in China, but no one protested. A new exhibit will show corpses in sexual poses. Will pedophilia now be outdone by necrophilia? Will the two be combined? Stay tuned.

Some people see nothing wrong with filming a “documentary” about humans having sex with animals. After all, we’re just animals, aren’t we? Some people see nothing wrong with using a 12-year-old girl to act out a rape. After all, she’s just an actress, isn’t she? Some people see nothing wrong with using corpses as entertainment. After all, they’re just pieces of meat, aren’t they?

These people are saying, “If enough viewers find it entertaining, we will make money – no matter what it is. What’s wrong with that? What are you, some kind of a prude? What’s your problem?”

My problem is that these people make films that influence how we see the world − and how the world sees us. Is it any wonder that Americans are often seen as sex-obsessed, money-grubbing, untrustworthy narcissists? Look at the people who portray us to the world.

My problem is that I object to treating human beings, especially vulnerable ones, like disposable objects. We fought World War II to defeat the idea that some people are less than human − and can be used or discarded at our convenience.

My problem is that I refuse to stand by idly while a professor of “bioethics” at an elite university teaches that newborn babies up to a month old can be killed if they are “defective” or just unwanted. He later increased this to up to three years old.

My problem is that I become upset when I read that our president, when a state senator, three times opposed bills that would require care for babies who were born alive after “failed” abortions.

My problem is that the Hollywood “elite” disguise themselves as pro-child, pro-woman humanitarians, but when the disguise slips, what lies beneath is revealed.

You see, I agree with Hubert Humphrey that nations are judged by how they treat those in the dawn of life, the very young; those in the twilight of life, the very old; and those in the shadows of life, the disabled.

And my problem is that the way things are going, we won’t rate very highly.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He can be contacted at dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com