Sunday, October 04, 2009, 11:09 AM
Movies, Celebrities, In the News, Stop the Presses
By Kevin Moreau

Memo to Roman Polanski's apologists: Shut up already

You won’t often find me suggesting that celebrities shouldn’t be allowed their right to free speech, regardless of whether I agree with them. Most of the time, their hearts are in the right place.

But here’s a little friendly advice for Martin Scorsese, Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen (really?) and the rest of you speaking out about the “unfair” arrest of Roman Polanski: Shut up. Please.

Why, exactly, should I feel sympathy for a Hollywood figure who exploited his fame to rape a 13-year-old girl, and then fled the country?

“Polanski served his time,” his defenders say. “He pleaded guilty to ‘unlawful sexual intercourse’ and agreed to undergo a 90-day psychiatric evaluation. But then the mean ol’ judge indicated he might change his mind and make him serve extra time! So he did the only thing he could do: He went to Europe.”

Oh. Well, when you put it that way—he’s a coward.

There are conflicting reports as to exactly where the plea bargain stood at the time Polanski fled. But what’s not in dispute is that he sodomized a 13-year-old girl (he’s never denied this, nor expressed any remorse for it), and that the legal process was not completed.

“But he’s a genius. He directed ‘Chinatown.’”

You’ve seen “Chinatown,” right? Do you get the irony there? Besides, even geniuses aren’t above the legal system.

“You don’t understand. His mother died in the Holocaust. And his wife, Sharon Tate, was brutally murdered by Charles Manson and his followers.”

Yes, what happened to his wife and mother was horrible—which makes it more disgusting, not less, that he would perform such a violent act on a young woman, altering her life forever.

“You’re not getting it! The poor guy has suffered enough.”

Must be tough—living the high life abroad, continuing to make movies, even winning an Academy Award for “The Pianist.”

More to the point: Personal suffering isn’t the same as justice. Even if Polanski had been living in rags the last 30 years, it wouldn’t alter the fact that, to properly answer for his actions, he must be subject to our legal system. All the talent in the world can’t change that fact—just ask Michael Vick or T.I.

Those gentlemen could also tell him that if he’d taken his punishment like a man three decades ago, instead of high-tailing it out of Dodge, Bobby Petrino-style, when things didn’t go his way, he might have come out of the experience a better person, and earned some measure of redemption.

Polanski obviously hasn’t changed. Maybe finally getting his day in court will benefit him in a way no number of awards or apologists ever could.

THANK YOU! You have written what I have thought ever since the story of Polanski's arrest broke. These celebrities' defense of this narcissistic cowardly rapist has been hypocritical and disgusting, and shows a flagrant disregard for law as well as a trivialization of women and children's needs and rights.

Sara Anne
Sunday, October 04, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Amen, Kevin! I know I'm your co-worker, but I had to weigh in. I almost wrote about this myself I was so infuriated by it. I agree with Sarah Anne. and I also wonder how well his ducking the law would go over if he were just some unknown guy without much money. Why do money and celebrity always get child molesters off the hook?
I realize RP's victim says she wants the case dismissed, but that always happens in these cases that drag on for so many years while the public rallies behind the rapist. The child grows up with the ever increasing realization that her suffering doesn't matter and stardom and money will always keep her attacker from facing justice, so she just gives up. -- Steph

Stephanie Ramage
Monday, October 05, 2009 at 11:00 AM