ART MAKES ITS OWN MORALITY
-Marilyn Monroe
Roman Polanski is a fairly well known and talented director. His works include Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown, and The Piano and he is acclaimed as a great artist with film. He also was convicted of drugging and raping a thirteen year old girl in 1977. The girl, now in her forties, wants to drop the whole thing because she does not want any publicity or legal problems, but she admits that he did the deed.
Polanski was allowed by the judge to fly to Europe to work on a film (Tess) before sentancing, and the man just stayed there. In an interview he scoffed at the charges, saying "everyone wants to f**k young girls" and claimed the girl acted very grown up and sexually experienced and was not a virgin. According to the trial, Polanski slipped the girl Quaaludes, then raped her as she kept saying "no" to each forcible sexual act despite the drugs, just as a reminder.
Now, after 32 years, Polanski is being held by the Polish police and is going to be extradited to the United States to serve his sentence. In his 70s, Polanski is fighting to stay in Europe and free. OK that much you probably know from any news or blogs you've come in contact with.
You probably also know that people such as Whoopi Goldberg, Salman Rushdie, Wes Anderson, and other actors and intellectuals are all arguing that he shouldn't be punished. Goldberg said it wasn't rape rape (probably thinking it was Statutory - as in illegal to have sex with a minor, but consensual). Their arguments tend to boil down to this: he's such a great artist, you have to make allowances for their eccentricities, and look at what they've contributed to society! Art is so important and necessary that it erases sins of the past, like penance for atheists.
Which begs the question: what, exactly, can you get away with as long as you're a significant artist? Bill Henson's stalking children in schools and photographing naked children is defended because he's supposedly such an artist. What could he get away with because of this artistic talent? Rape apparently is one such crime, Ace has a whole topic with multiple suggestions of crimes allowed due to talent and art.
But seriously, at what point does justice and ethics get negated by artistic ability? When does the line get drawn? If someone can drug and rape a young girl yet be defended and not face justice, is there anything an artist cannot do and be protected because of his talent? What about art makes people think that justice is irrelevant?
Even in that case, the judge tried really hard to find a way to give Polanski a minor sentence, even going so far as to work with the defense and prosecution to script the outcome. Other than a guilty conscience and hoping things they've done don't come out in the light of day, what could possibly motivate these people to defend such a monstrous act? Those of you who are parents, especially of girls: is there any level of artistic achievement and contribution to society that could possibly let someone drug and rape your daughter, then walk free? Clearly Polanski was counting on it.
There isn't from where I'm sitting. And I'm an artist.
Polanski was allowed by the judge to fly to Europe to work on a film (Tess) before sentancing, and the man just stayed there. In an interview he scoffed at the charges, saying "everyone wants to f**k young girls" and claimed the girl acted very grown up and sexually experienced and was not a virgin. According to the trial, Polanski slipped the girl Quaaludes, then raped her as she kept saying "no" to each forcible sexual act despite the drugs, just as a reminder.
Now, after 32 years, Polanski is being held by the Polish police and is going to be extradited to the United States to serve his sentence. In his 70s, Polanski is fighting to stay in Europe and free. OK that much you probably know from any news or blogs you've come in contact with.
You probably also know that people such as Whoopi Goldberg, Salman Rushdie, Wes Anderson, and other actors and intellectuals are all arguing that he shouldn't be punished. Goldberg said it wasn't rape rape (probably thinking it was Statutory - as in illegal to have sex with a minor, but consensual). Their arguments tend to boil down to this: he's such a great artist, you have to make allowances for their eccentricities, and look at what they've contributed to society! Art is so important and necessary that it erases sins of the past, like penance for atheists.
Which begs the question: what, exactly, can you get away with as long as you're a significant artist? Bill Henson's stalking children in schools and photographing naked children is defended because he's supposedly such an artist. What could he get away with because of this artistic talent? Rape apparently is one such crime, Ace has a whole topic with multiple suggestions of crimes allowed due to talent and art.
But seriously, at what point does justice and ethics get negated by artistic ability? When does the line get drawn? If someone can drug and rape a young girl yet be defended and not face justice, is there anything an artist cannot do and be protected because of his talent? What about art makes people think that justice is irrelevant?
Even in that case, the judge tried really hard to find a way to give Polanski a minor sentence, even going so far as to work with the defense and prosecution to script the outcome. Other than a guilty conscience and hoping things they've done don't come out in the light of day, what could possibly motivate these people to defend such a monstrous act? Those of you who are parents, especially of girls: is there any level of artistic achievement and contribution to society that could possibly let someone drug and rape your daughter, then walk free? Clearly Polanski was counting on it.
There isn't from where I'm sitting. And I'm an artist.
posted by Christopher Taylor at 8:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home