Did you know read what Debra Winger, standing in as Zurich Film Festival jury president, was quoted saying with regard to Roman Polanski’s recent arrest? “We hope today this latest order will be dropped [as] it is based on a three-decade-old case that is all but dead but for minor technicalities,” she said. “We stand by and wait for [Roman Polanski’s] release and his next masterwork.”
What? Does she even know what she is saying? Does the addition of “minor technicalities” in that statement make it any better? I would be interested to hear her explanation as to these “technicalities,” and if it’s that simple why wouldn’t Polanski have returned to the U.S. since he fled 31 years ago? Doesn’t Polanski’s continued time abroad as well as requests to have the charges dropped insinuate he would return if he wasn’t worried about facing the music these minor technicalities?
Like I said when I posted the news saying director Roman Polanski was taken into custody in Zurich and was facing extradition to Los Angeles, I wasn’t going to get into the debate as to what should and what should not happen, but Winger’s insistence that the entire matter be washed away because it’s a 31-year-old case is plain and simple lunacy. The only reason it’s a “three-decade-old case” is because Polanski fled the United States and hasn’t returned since.
Yeah, I know all about Judge Laurence J. Rittenband’s treatment of the case and his fear his original sentence would be looked at as too lenient, which caused him to botch the entire proceedings only to watch Polanski runaway without sentencing, but that by no means implies the matter has been resolved.
The facts of the case are simple, Polanski plead guilty to unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl, an incident that also included at least half a tablet of Quaalude as well as champagne. None of that has changed and I’m not sure how a matter of 31 years plays a part.
David Thomson at The Guardian gives the best rundown of the facts of the case and the incidents that led us to where we are today:
The explanation comes quickly. It needs no more than a single paragraph. On 11 March 1977, Polanski was arrested in the lobby of the Beverly Wilshire hotel by Detective Philip Vannatter (a cop who would figure in the OJ Simpson case). The Polish film director was charged as follows: giving Quaaludes to a minor; child molestation; unlawful sexual intercourse with that minor; rape by use of drugs; oral copulation; sodomy. The girl was 13, though Polanski would say that she looked older.
The rape had occurred in the house of Jack Nicholson, a place Polanski used as he wished. In the legal negotiations that followed, Polanski never denied the charges, but they were dismissed under the terms of the plea bargain by which he pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor. With a view to proper sentencing, the judge – Laurence Rittenband – ordered that Polanski be confined for psychiatric examination. That led to 42 days’ confinement in the Chino State Prison over the 1977-8 period. In that examination Polanski was passed as fit to stand trial. It was the director’s understanding that the 42 days in Chino would satisfy punitive instincts. There might be a fine, too, but he would be freed. Then, just before sentencing, Polanski heard that Rittenband was ready to break the agreement – because he feared public criticism of a verdict that seemed too lenient on Polanski. And so, fearing further imprisonment, Polanski broke bail and flew by British Airways to London in February 1978. He has never been back to the US.
All of this was covered in Marina Zenovich’s 2008 documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (my review here) and is the reason for a lot of people coming out of the woodwork insisting he already served his time and just because the judge feared there would be public criticism of his decision doesn’t mean a decision at one point was not reached.
Is 42 days in the Chino State Prison and an assumed fine enough of a punishment? Yes or no, does it really matter? It’s what was expected to be handed down and Polanski was ready to oblige. It’s here we get to Debra Winger’s defined “minor technicalities,” but if they were so minor I don’t think Polanski would be in the situation he is today.
In the non-stop attempt to cover this circus we find some pushing their own product as The Auteurs did a round-up of Polanski chatter from around the web all while being sure to shill the fact they have Polanski’s Knife in the Water available for free online streaming. While you’re there maybe you’d like to buy a Criterion Blu-ray or two eh?
The Hollywood Reporter hits us with the most important news saying production on his upcoming film The Ghost is left in limbo… Uh, no kidding. He’s in jail.
Tom O’Neil has his own concerns, polling his readers asking “Did Roman Polanski really deserve to win the Oscar?” and then wondering “What do you think is Roman Polanski’s greatest film?,” all while Joe Leydon recalls a 1986 interview he had with Polanski in which he asked him about his possible return to the United States. The interview can be found here.
Next are the belligerent rants of others that are getting worked up over some facts while dismissing the previously mentioned Judge Rittenband run around and arranged plea. Whether you like it or not, Rittenband’s part in this is a very important piece of the conversation.
While I rarely read or agree with David Poland he wrote the sanest and most down-to-earth piece on the matter realizing everything involved in this case cannot be looked at singularly, but as the several pieces to a messed up pie. It’s the reason I said I couldn’t weigh in with an opinion.
Of course, while I say this the legal mumbo-jumbo is already underway as France has appealed to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for Polanski’s immediate release from Swiss jail. Jack Lang, a former French culture minister, was quoted in the New York Times saying, “Sometimes, the American justice system shows an excess of formalism, like an infernal machine that advances inexorably and blindly.” Hard to find fault in that statement, but does any of that make a difference? Didn’t Polanski still commit statutory rape? To which you say, Didn’t he already serve his 42 days? Hard to argue either side, but 42 days seems to have a stronger case regardless of whether you think it is a fitting punishment.
Others bring up the fact Polanski survived the Holocaust where his mother was killed in Auschwitz. Later in life, his wife, Sharon Tate, and the child she was carrying were slaughtered by the Manson gang. Taking that part of the story even further there’s the coincidence that Susan Atkins, one of the Manson gang and someone who admitted knifing everyone in sight that night, died in prison just last week. Oh, and yes, Samantha Geimer has since forgiven Polanski, but last I checked that doesn’t matter once you’ve already been convicted. However, the first two facts surely played a part in Polanski’s 42 days in Chino for psychiatric examination. So they have already played their part.
Then there are the theories as to why Polanski was even arrested at all and Jeff Wells points me to a Michael Wolff article at Newser saying the reason is revenge, a chance for the prosecutor to cover his ass and the inevitable press coverage. I don’t know about the revenge stuff, but Wolff’s continued insistence that Zenovich’s documentary kick-started everything is on the button and is what makes everything that is going on right now far from coincidental. It’s a calculated saving face effort, but where things go from here is unforeseeable.
David Poland’s final statement is the one statement I can wholly agree with:
Finally, I must say, if the US does not demand extradition of [Polanski] in this situation, then the charges must be dropped fully. Holding him on a string of the threat of prosecution is not right if the government does not feel strongly enough to prosecute.
This needs to come to an end and if the United States needs to decide if this is important enough to move forward on or just drop it entirely.
