Roman Polanski, France, etc.

I'm one of the few Americans who can understand why France is reluctant to go to war with Iraq, even though I myself think that regime change in the Middle East is in order. (However, I disagree with Bush's reasons for attacking Iraq, just as I think that we should've toppled the Taliban long before al-Qaeda's attacks on 9/11.) However, I think that it is absolutely galling that the French have always refused California's requests to extradite Roman Polanski for a crime that he committed. A few decades ago, he sexually assaulted a 13-year-old girl, and he fled the U.S. just as he was about to be punished. Polanski has lived in France since that incident, and the French have always told us to go **** ourselves whenever we tried to bring him to justice.

Yes, it's true that that girl (now a grown woman) has publicly said that she has forgiven him, but her forgiveness does not usurp the fact that Polanski committed a sex crime--AGAINST A CHILD. In fact, the woman's forgiveness is like saying that if someone can elude the law for long enough, he or she can be pardoned for simply being lucky enough to go unpunished.

Well, this past weekend, the French gave Polanski's 'The Pianist' 7 Cesars, including Picture and Director. (The British BAFTAs also gave Picture and Director to 'The Pianist'.) Undoubtedly, 'The Pianist' is a good, maybe even great, work, but the fact that people are still willing to work with Polanski despite his ugly past saddens me.

Leni Riefenstahl made a movie called 'Triumph of the Will'. It is hailed as a masterpiece of cinematic invention, skill, and proficiency. Even though it is also acknowledged that Riefenstahl herself never joined the Nazi Party or committed any atrocities against any other human being, she is still denounced for making a movie that glorified the Nazi Party.

I propose that, in the same vein, Roman Polanski be viewed in a similar light. He has made great films like 'Chinatown', 'Repulsion', etc., but he is a criminal who should be judged for his full measure as a man, not just as an artist.

John, the art itself is still incredible, but the man's actions give me pause, be him Polanski, Chaplin, or Errol Flynn. I, too, love 'The Adventures of Robin Hood', but I think less and less of Flynn every time I see the movie.

It's said the difference between a law-abiding citizen and a criminal is that the criminal gets caught. In this case, Polanski admitted his actions. The offense occurred in Jack Nicholson's house, yet Nicholson was untouched by the event.

Are we to hold the sins, real or imagined, of every filmmaker against him in judging his work? We'd have very few films left to enjoy. In the classic case, notorious womanizer Errol Flynn boasted that his favorite haunt was Hollywood High. Should that stop me from relishing The Adventures of Robin Hood? I think not.

John

Well, John, the art wouldn't exist without the artist. If we are to take the full measure of a man, we must look at both what he has contributed to humanity's growth as well as what he has done to hurt other people. While it's true that many individuals' positives outweigh their negatives in the cosmic scheme of things, their ugly sides are, nevertheless, disgusting. That's just what I think...

Maybe it's the natural-born critic in you. You were born to be judgmental.

John

All I have to say is that I want to bear Roman Polanski's children.