Do successful artists get a pass for their moral failings or crimes?
he was already convicted, he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. no.
I think he got a seriously unfair trial because he was a famous artist. This doesn’t mean I think he’s innocent, but he still deserved a fair trial.
Paragraphs 5 and 6
He didn’t get a pass for rape.
Re: Do successful artists get a pass for their moral failings or crimes?
Yes, they do all the time. Is that obvious? Perhaps you should specify what you mean by “pass” if you want there to be any conversation here. As it is asked, the answer is a simple yes.
I couldn’t care less about this. It would have been legal in Spain and dozens of other countries. The US has lost its mind on this issue when parents are being thrown in jail for taking pics of their kids in the bath tub and teens are being marked as “sexual predators” for life for snapping pics of their own boobs on a cell phone.
I don’t think that has anything to do with the question at hand, Tom. I feel we should stay on topic. Do successful artists get a pass for their moral failings or crimes? The answer is yes. Is anyone dumb enough to disagree with that? Maybe we can shut this thread down already.
Yes, they do. And yes, they should (tongue planted firmly in cheek).
Anyone else remember when Dr. Dre threw D Brown down a stairwell after kicking the shit out of her?
Oh wait I think he went multi-platinum next week…
I don’t know if it’s so much that he’s a famous artist as it is that the crime was relatively “minor” back when it was committed and 30 years have passed. Some celebs get the book thrown at them to make a point. I don’t think Chris Brown got off light. I had to do like 20 hours of community service back in high school because I got caught with a beer at a party. That community service was a royal pain in the *ss!! How many hours did Brown get?
Also, we do as a society kind of accept that most artists are half crazy. So we kind of give them some slack, yes.
A great escape artist, indeed. Haha…
I’m done telling people rape is bad on this forum (since the other side insists on arguing about legal technicalities). Trying to keep it light here now.
Don’t worry, I’m pretty sure he’ll eventually get away with this, and then hero’s welcome. Roman Poon-lanski.
If you’re insisting to be serious, here you go…
Nina Burleigh: Genius and Young Flesh
Is the question, “Do successful artists get a pass for their moral failings or crimes?”
“Does Roman Polanski deserve a pass for statutorily raping a girl before that term existed?”
The answer to the first question is yes, of course. The answer to the second question is no, of course not. This thread is out to cause a lot of confusion. There are simple answers here, people.
My submission, and in my opinion the broader moral takeaway of Roman Polanski’s life on two or three levels;
The past is not the past; it is ever present, always lurking, and returns as it will.
Well wait. What does “pass” mean in this case? I think that’s where things are getting confused.
Do I think Polanski deserves to serve a sentence for the crime he pled guilty to? Yes (though I think he would argue that he already did, since the plea deal stipulated that he would serve time under psychological evaluation, which occurred). Do I actually care that he committed statutory rape, as it pertains to my view of his films? No, of course not.
I think that Polanski was given an unfair trial. The judge just wanted the publicity. And on another note, for Polanski, in Poland it wasn’t socially unacceptable to have sex with 13 year olds. That was a cultural difference that Polanski didnt fully understand. I think that after all of these years, he doesn’t need to serve a sentence 30 years later for what he did. I’m sure he had a long enough time to think about what he did and how it might not be the right thing to do in America of all places.
The only interesting thing about this thread is that we now have a Shotzi and a Shitzi on The Auteurs.
They’re the same person. He just changed his name.
This question was discussed & debated along with a lot of other legal and moral issues related to Polanski’s past and present situation.
That Thread has the title: Polanski Arrested Again
One simple answer to the original question here is “Sometimes yes and sometimes no.” It seems to me that if the question is supposed to be a factual one, then we can draw up a list of various artists who committed crimes or had moral failings (who doesn’t?!) and see how many “got a pass.” T. S. Eliot and Richard Wagner (among many others) were notorious anti-Semites but never really received any significant “comeuppance” for that moral failing during their lifetimes. Other artists were punished for SUPPOSED moral lapses (Oscar Wilde comes to mind).
In film, an only slightly similar case to Polanski’s involved Sergei Paradjanov (Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, 1964).
Although Paradjanov graduated from Moscow’s VGIK film school and studied under Dovzhenko, his Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors was not well received by Soviet authorities, who still pushed the Party Line of Socialist Realism. Subsequent charges followed. He was accused of homosexuality, rape, pornography, and even bribery, for which he spent four years of a five-year sentence in a labor camp—even though Andrei Tarkovsky, Luis Bunuel, Jean-Luc Godard, Francois Truffaut and I all tried to free him.
Do I know whether Paradjanov was guilty of these charges? No. I do know that he didn’t get a “pass.”
Yes, because they are most likely to have “heavy influences” (upper hand) on what may seem a normal trial. I’m sure if a regular person would have pled guilty of rape to a 13 year old girl and before his sentence, he lefted the country. There would have been a bigger issue and, I’m also sure there would have been some type of actually public manhunt. Also it would have been a hell of a lot harder to forget what happen let alone FORGET and FORGIVE the man who did it. Why run if you are not guilty? Why Plea guilty? I don’t understand…. (shaking head)
I hate that America is still after him for this. Even the alleged victim wants it to be over. I feel bad for Polanksi in a way. I’m sure he knows it was a mistake and I doubt it’s happened again. Dude just wants to get on with his life. He’s just living peacefully. Leave him alone.
I feel like Rosemary’s Baby’s theme is the score to his life.
Patricia: Why run if you are not guilty? Why Plea guilty? I don’t understand…. (shaking head)
Polanski served time under psychological examination for about 45 days. The understanding he had with the judge is that he would serve this time, and then be let out. When he got out, the media went crazy over the apparent slap on the wrist he was given by the judge, so the judge decided that he was going to disregard the plea agreement and see Polanski sentenced to 50 years in prison or some crap like that. Being that Polanski had French citizenship, he fled the country in order to avoid this. I think it’s pretty clear that he wasn’t fleeing any and all punishment. He was fleeing what he perceived to be, and pretty much was, an unfair legal proceeding. We can sit here all day and argue about whether the initial agreement to serve time under psychological evaluation was a good punishment (I think it was far too light, myself), but the bottom line is that he pled guilty and submitted himself to that punishment, believing that it would put the ordeal to an end. When he learned that the judge was going to pull a switcheroo on him at the last minute, he fled.
We shouldnt care about the artist but their craft…and oeuvre…
To quote Jonathan Richman, “Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole.”
But I think the question/debate has been less framed in terms of your question but in terms of what Polanski went through in his life (which doesn’t need reiterating here obviously). In that case, I wouldn’t say it excuses what Polanski did but it does mitigate it. In that regard, I think that unless you’re tied to a needlessly retributive and vengeful notion of justice, you should be thinking “enough already.”
@Ari: Normally, I would not take such mitigating circumstances into account in sentencing an admitted sex offender (notice I did not use the word “rape” because, legally, that is not what he pleaded guilty to), except to perhaps knock a year off his sentence.Polanski’s status as an artist also should have no bearing on the disposition of his case, except maybe he could teach screenwriting classes in prison.
However, it may be that the mitigating factors in his life WERE taken into account in terms of the original sentencing recommendation that all parties agreed to, before the judge went rogue. After all, his first 42-45 days were spent in a psychiatric facility, undergoing evaluation. The report from those doctors may have led to the plea agreement, and they MAY have taken into account his awful early life and death of Sharon Tate, etc.
If that’s the (legal) case, then I’m all for going back to the original sentencing recommendation, before the judge welched. Unfortunately, given the current climate about child molesters and Polanski in particular, the L.A. prosecutor may want to tack on charges related to the director’s fleeing the jurisdiction. And, if Polanski is extradited, I don’t imagine that he’s going to get bail — even with an electronic ankle bracelet.
Frank, I think your hypothesis is probably correct in understanding how Polanski and his lawyers arrived at the plea. Which is why I’m surprised that many so-called liberal commentators are getting into this very retributive and mildly self-righteous “law and order” mentality about this case (getting all huffy with the law is the law and no extenuating circumstances can be admitted, etc,etc). In terms of restorative justice, I think Polanski has paid the price although he might need a more public display of contrituion (although I would guess the legal situation he’s in does not allow this now). His victim has forgiven him and does not want him to go to prison (the fact that people say this is irrelevant baffles me). In terms of rehabilitation, he certainly isn’t a recidivist threat either (although I guess one could argue that shacking up with Nastssja Kinski when she was 16 or so sorta suggests he never gave up his taste for young women but she was legal where he was and consent was never an issue).
BERN, Switzerland — Roman Polanski lost the first round Tuesday in his battle to avoid extradition to the U.S. for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl. Already locked in a Zurich cell for the last dozen days, Polanski learned he will remain incarcerated for an extended period as the Swiss Justice Ministry rejected his plea to be released from custody.
That squeaking sound? Screws being tightened.
i agree w/ this:
he’s rehabilitated…he raped this girl soon after his own wife (quite pregnant with his baby) was murdered by the Mansons.. and .he contributes massively to the betterment of the Film world .
How Pirates, Frantic, or Bitter Moon can be considered bettering the film world is beyond me.
Still, he’s probably one of the greatest child-molesting directors of all time.