Post by Canada Cowboy on Apr 1, 2009 16:51:27 GMT -8
This is from a piece I wrote for my high school newspaper back in 2003. I generated a lot of debate with the piece, so let's see if the same thing happens here.
*****
In the 2003 Academy Awards, the Best Director Award went to a man by the name of Roman Polanski. This veteran filmmaker, who has been in the industry for several decades, was finally awarded his first Best Director Award for the movie The Pianist. However, this award was not without controversy, as it came almost exactly thirty years after he had committed a heinous crime. It was a conflicting chapter in his life that required him to flee the United States, and even as he received the award, the reaction to how this crime should be dealt with remains very mixed.
To understand the significance of this discussion, one must understand the background to Roman Polanski’s life. Roman Polanski was born in 1933, just before the Second World War. He was a young boy when Nazi Germany invaded Poland, capturing his family and placing them into concentration camps. Polanski himself managed to escape the concentration camp with the help of some Polish ranchers, and later on he would learn that his mother had died during the ordeal. His life was greatly altered by this, as the films he went on to make all involved war or psychological horrors. But the event that would most affect his life occurred in 1969, when his wife, actress Sharon Tate, who appeared in one of his films, was brutally murdered by the Charles Manson gang. Tate was eight months pregnant at the time, and was close to giving birth when the Manson gang stabbed her several times, killing both mother and baby. Polanski was in London at the time, and was extremely traumatized by her death. This was evident in the films he created after, such as Macbeth and Chinatown, which featured several scenes with horrific violence and bloodshed, with some even resembling the Manson murders.
This would continue on until the fateful night of March 10, 1977, when Polanski invited a young, thirteen-year-old model for a photo shoot, sedating her with alcohol and drugs and proceeding to raping her. It is believed that Polanski was aware of the act he had committed, as he surrendered himself to police, who charged him with rape and child molestation. However, before his trial could even begin, Polanski left the United States for France, where he was still a citizen. As France had a limited extradition treaty with the United States, meaning it could refuse to extradite its own citizens, Polanski would not be required to return to face trial. This would lead on until the present day, where he was awarded an Academy Award in 2003, and can continue to make films freely.
The main issue surrounding my investigation is to see how people of today will react to the Polanski incident, given his crime and the decision of the Academy Awards to give him the Best Director Oscar despite it. In this analysis, one can clearly see two sides of the man known as Polanski: one is of a talented director and filmmaker, capable of making some of the most thrilling, entertaining, meaningful films the world has ever seen; the other is of a hardened criminal, capable of manipulating a young girl into sex and planning an escape route for himself to escape the law. Because of this, I have turned the issue into a survey, interviewing people by informing them of the Polanski incident and giving them several options as to which one fit their reflections best.
And because of the time that had passed between the rape and the modern day, my approach to the investigation also required a splitting of the age groups. Since the event occurred more than thirty years ago, I decided to interview people based on their age as well, as I believe that it will influence how they choose their answer to the survey question. The two groups are those who are born before the rape occurred, and those born after the rape occurred. This is to better reflect those who may have been alive to see some of Polanski’s works prior to the crime, and therefore better understand him as a moviemaker. Twenty individuals from each group are randomly selected for the test.
The question posed is as follows: “Given your knowledge of Roman Polanski’s career as a director, and your knowledge of his crime and subsequent fleeing of the United States, which of the following choices best reflects your stance on what needs to be done to deal with the problem?”
1 = Polanski should be unconditionally forgiven for the crime and be given movie awards of any sort based completely on his own merit.
2 = Polanski should be forgiven on the condition that he must serve some punishment for his crime, but the movie awards should still be rewarded to him based on his merit.
3 = Polanski should not be forgiven for his crimes, and must serve punishment for them, but the movie awards should still be rewarded to him based on his merit.
4 = Polanski should not be forgiven for his crimes, and must serve punishment for them, even if punishment means stripping him of any movie awards, despite his merit.
The results are as follows:
Those born before 1977:
1 = 3 people, 2 = 6 people, 3 = 11 people, 4 = 0 people
Those born after 1977:
1 = 2 people, 2 = 6 people, 3 = 7 people, 4 = 5 people
From those born after 1977, or the younger generation, it can be seen that the choices are much more spread out, with a wider range of people supporting each option. Those born before 1977, or the older generation, tend to favour Choice 2 and 3 more. It also true that, from both groups, Option 1 of unconditionally forgiving Roman Polanski for his crime was not among the most popular choice. It may be interpreted that no matter the age group, the fact that Polanski drugged a raped a minor was a factor in the decision of the interviewee, which most likely led to them not choosing Option 1.
However, those choosing Option 1 indicated that despite having been officially charged, no trial took place thanks to Polanski fleeing the country. In their explanation of choosing Option 1, the interviewees had indicated that guilt can only be determined via a fair trial, and without one Polanski must be assumed innocent. Since the question never dealt with what should be done to bring Polanski back to the United States for a trial, they explained that their answer was based on the lack of a trial, which meant Polanski must be deemed innocent. Any speculation over the rape cannot be deemed as reliable unless it went through rigorous court examination, and until then, Polanski must be left free.
But one problem Option 1 posed for many of those choosing the other options was that it seemed to take too relaxed an approach to the entire issue, even without an official trial. Regardless of whether a trial had taken place or not, the police still laid charges, as they had done at least an initial investigation on the crime scene to conclude that Polanski was the suspect. Moreover, the fact that Polanski knowingly left the country just to avoid a trial was too large a detail to ignore, as they pointed to the fact that even today the United States considers him a fugitive and wants him arrested “on the spot” should he return. If Polanski is innocent, as many of the supporters claim, then why will he choose not to have a trial? And given that he is still making films and profiting from them, is it fair that he could live with complete disregard for what happened? While those choosing Option 1 would say that this was a result of the absence of a trial, many other interviewees don’t feel it is the best option, and stayed away from this choice.
Option 2 is a more popular choice, as six people from each age group chose it as closest to reflecting their personal beliefs. However, the reasoning behind each person choosing this option is quite different, mainly due to what the interviewees said as the “ambiguous nature” of the answer. Option 2 states that “Polanski should be forgiven on the condition that he must serve some punishment for his crime, but the movie awards should still be rewarded to him based on his merit.” The ambiguity lies in the conditional part, where Polanski must serve some sort of punishment. While many interviewees agreed that punishment was needed, there was nothing in the answer that stated what type of punishment would be offered. This led many interviewees to come up with their own styles of punishment that they felt fit the crime best, causing confusion among answers.
For example, many interviewees advocated for jail time or probation, making it so that Polanski won’t be as free to wander and intermingle in society. However, given the restrictive nature of this punishment, one might argue that it would be more difficult for Polanski to make his films that showcased his talents. Many of Polanski’s more recent projects, such as the award-winning The Pianist, are shot in various places in the world. If such a restriction was to take place, Polanski’s movement would be limited, meaning he might not have the ability to make films as freely and showcase his talent to the world. And given the second part of the statement: “the movie awards should still be rewarded to him based on his merit,” it might work against the original intent, which is to allow Polanski’s work to be judged fairly, as by not allowing him to work as freely, it would limit how much of his talent he could actually put into use. With his merit limited thanks to the punishment, can one still judge his talents in a fair manner?
Option 3 was the most popular choice between both age groups, as a majority of people from the older generation and seven from the younger one believed that the best policy was to keep the crime in mind, and not offer forgiveness that easily to Polanski, especially when he left the country mainly due to his knowledge of the consequences of his crime. However, they don’t believe that the movie awards, including the Academy Awards, should punish him by refusing to award his talents, indicating to me that their views on his talent and his crime are separate. The majority of those choosing Option 3 explained that “a crime is a crime” and that no matter who the culprit was, the law must be upheld and be equally administered to everyone. Although they agreed that The Pianist was a great film, and Polanski did deserve his Oscar, his talents are irrelevant to how justice should be upheld. Even a talented man such as Polanski must atone for his mistakes, and that means he must return to the United States to face trial.
For most of these interviewees, Option 3 represented, in their words, the “middle way” to deal with the problem. They felt that it best addressed the crime aspect and the talent aspect of Roman Polanski in the fairest way possible. However, this option was not without its own flaws, as it put into question how clearly one could draw the line between the man’s talents and the crime. For example, the interviewees decided that the crime should be dealt with separately from his talents, but should Polanski not to return to the United States, as he had been doing for the past three decades, then one can only wonder how this justice can truly be served. Moreover, one alternative to forcing Polanski to deal with the crime may be to declare a boycott of his films. Since he is still profiting from his films, a boycott will squeeze his finances, and ultimately punishing him by pushing him out of business. Under this scenario, the line between crime and talent becomes blurrier, as a boycott may result in him not winning awards that would have recognized his talent. So for Option 3, the distinction may not be as clear as most interviewees hope for.
Option 4 was chosen but none of the older group, and five members of the younger group. This option involves punishing Polanski for his crime in any means possible, including a boycott of his films and refusal to hand out the Academy Award to him. It was not clear why the entire older group stayed away from this option, but many felt that blurring the line between crime and talent would create a difficult precedent for the criminal justice system. The younger group, however, was clearer in justifying why they want Polanski punished in any way possible. The five individuals choosing this option are all around the same age as the victim, who was thirteen at the time. Feeling that they might be in a similar situation as her, these interviewees feel that they must do everything possible to keep someone like Polanski off the streets, as to ensure their own personal safety. If it means crossing the line between crime and talent, then it is justified to have him punished via a boycott of his films.
But of course, the obvious glaring fault with this option is that the blurring of the line between talent and crime ultimately leads to a dilemma in precedence. In both the justice and movie awards system, there must be a precedent set for how verdicts must be handled. To have them intermingle is questionable at best, as it will violate impartiality. Both court judges and awards judges are expected by the public to hand out rewards and punishment based on validity of the evidence, and nothing else. The movie awards are based on the director’s merits and the film’s quality, and to throw in any of the director’s personal events into it may violate the conditions. Moreover, one may argue that many other celebrities and filmmakers have had brushes with the law before, and that they may be punished the same way. Under this condition, it will become very difficult to award any film based on merit, as the backgrounds of each member of the cast and crew must be considered. It may very well be that sometimes, the “worst” film of those nominated may actually garner the award, which officially destroys the entire reason behind handing out such awards in the first place. In this sense, Option 4 may be considered very unrealistic.
In all, this survey alone shows that even with different age groups, and different understanding of the events in Polanski’s life, the reaction to what should be done is still very mixed. And even within answers themselves, there is disagreement over what type of outcome is most desired, as each answer merely reflected what an interviewee want, not necessarily stated their exact thoughts. But one thing is for certain: the issue may never be resolved until Polanski does return to face trial in the United States, as only a solid re-examination of all the events can make the picture clearer. And since Polanski has continued his exile for more than three decades, one may never have a concrete answer to dealing with this talented, yet controversial, director and filmmaker.
*****
Again, feel free to comment. If you do choose an option, then perhaps give me a reason. I'd like to see how you compare with those I surveyed.
*****
In the 2003 Academy Awards, the Best Director Award went to a man by the name of Roman Polanski. This veteran filmmaker, who has been in the industry for several decades, was finally awarded his first Best Director Award for the movie The Pianist. However, this award was not without controversy, as it came almost exactly thirty years after he had committed a heinous crime. It was a conflicting chapter in his life that required him to flee the United States, and even as he received the award, the reaction to how this crime should be dealt with remains very mixed.
To understand the significance of this discussion, one must understand the background to Roman Polanski’s life. Roman Polanski was born in 1933, just before the Second World War. He was a young boy when Nazi Germany invaded Poland, capturing his family and placing them into concentration camps. Polanski himself managed to escape the concentration camp with the help of some Polish ranchers, and later on he would learn that his mother had died during the ordeal. His life was greatly altered by this, as the films he went on to make all involved war or psychological horrors. But the event that would most affect his life occurred in 1969, when his wife, actress Sharon Tate, who appeared in one of his films, was brutally murdered by the Charles Manson gang. Tate was eight months pregnant at the time, and was close to giving birth when the Manson gang stabbed her several times, killing both mother and baby. Polanski was in London at the time, and was extremely traumatized by her death. This was evident in the films he created after, such as Macbeth and Chinatown, which featured several scenes with horrific violence and bloodshed, with some even resembling the Manson murders.
This would continue on until the fateful night of March 10, 1977, when Polanski invited a young, thirteen-year-old model for a photo shoot, sedating her with alcohol and drugs and proceeding to raping her. It is believed that Polanski was aware of the act he had committed, as he surrendered himself to police, who charged him with rape and child molestation. However, before his trial could even begin, Polanski left the United States for France, where he was still a citizen. As France had a limited extradition treaty with the United States, meaning it could refuse to extradite its own citizens, Polanski would not be required to return to face trial. This would lead on until the present day, where he was awarded an Academy Award in 2003, and can continue to make films freely.
The main issue surrounding my investigation is to see how people of today will react to the Polanski incident, given his crime and the decision of the Academy Awards to give him the Best Director Oscar despite it. In this analysis, one can clearly see two sides of the man known as Polanski: one is of a talented director and filmmaker, capable of making some of the most thrilling, entertaining, meaningful films the world has ever seen; the other is of a hardened criminal, capable of manipulating a young girl into sex and planning an escape route for himself to escape the law. Because of this, I have turned the issue into a survey, interviewing people by informing them of the Polanski incident and giving them several options as to which one fit their reflections best.
And because of the time that had passed between the rape and the modern day, my approach to the investigation also required a splitting of the age groups. Since the event occurred more than thirty years ago, I decided to interview people based on their age as well, as I believe that it will influence how they choose their answer to the survey question. The two groups are those who are born before the rape occurred, and those born after the rape occurred. This is to better reflect those who may have been alive to see some of Polanski’s works prior to the crime, and therefore better understand him as a moviemaker. Twenty individuals from each group are randomly selected for the test.
The question posed is as follows: “Given your knowledge of Roman Polanski’s career as a director, and your knowledge of his crime and subsequent fleeing of the United States, which of the following choices best reflects your stance on what needs to be done to deal with the problem?”
1 = Polanski should be unconditionally forgiven for the crime and be given movie awards of any sort based completely on his own merit.
2 = Polanski should be forgiven on the condition that he must serve some punishment for his crime, but the movie awards should still be rewarded to him based on his merit.
3 = Polanski should not be forgiven for his crimes, and must serve punishment for them, but the movie awards should still be rewarded to him based on his merit.
4 = Polanski should not be forgiven for his crimes, and must serve punishment for them, even if punishment means stripping him of any movie awards, despite his merit.
The results are as follows:
Those born before 1977:
1 = 3 people, 2 = 6 people, 3 = 11 people, 4 = 0 people
Those born after 1977:
1 = 2 people, 2 = 6 people, 3 = 7 people, 4 = 5 people
From those born after 1977, or the younger generation, it can be seen that the choices are much more spread out, with a wider range of people supporting each option. Those born before 1977, or the older generation, tend to favour Choice 2 and 3 more. It also true that, from both groups, Option 1 of unconditionally forgiving Roman Polanski for his crime was not among the most popular choice. It may be interpreted that no matter the age group, the fact that Polanski drugged a raped a minor was a factor in the decision of the interviewee, which most likely led to them not choosing Option 1.
However, those choosing Option 1 indicated that despite having been officially charged, no trial took place thanks to Polanski fleeing the country. In their explanation of choosing Option 1, the interviewees had indicated that guilt can only be determined via a fair trial, and without one Polanski must be assumed innocent. Since the question never dealt with what should be done to bring Polanski back to the United States for a trial, they explained that their answer was based on the lack of a trial, which meant Polanski must be deemed innocent. Any speculation over the rape cannot be deemed as reliable unless it went through rigorous court examination, and until then, Polanski must be left free.
But one problem Option 1 posed for many of those choosing the other options was that it seemed to take too relaxed an approach to the entire issue, even without an official trial. Regardless of whether a trial had taken place or not, the police still laid charges, as they had done at least an initial investigation on the crime scene to conclude that Polanski was the suspect. Moreover, the fact that Polanski knowingly left the country just to avoid a trial was too large a detail to ignore, as they pointed to the fact that even today the United States considers him a fugitive and wants him arrested “on the spot” should he return. If Polanski is innocent, as many of the supporters claim, then why will he choose not to have a trial? And given that he is still making films and profiting from them, is it fair that he could live with complete disregard for what happened? While those choosing Option 1 would say that this was a result of the absence of a trial, many other interviewees don’t feel it is the best option, and stayed away from this choice.
Option 2 is a more popular choice, as six people from each age group chose it as closest to reflecting their personal beliefs. However, the reasoning behind each person choosing this option is quite different, mainly due to what the interviewees said as the “ambiguous nature” of the answer. Option 2 states that “Polanski should be forgiven on the condition that he must serve some punishment for his crime, but the movie awards should still be rewarded to him based on his merit.” The ambiguity lies in the conditional part, where Polanski must serve some sort of punishment. While many interviewees agreed that punishment was needed, there was nothing in the answer that stated what type of punishment would be offered. This led many interviewees to come up with their own styles of punishment that they felt fit the crime best, causing confusion among answers.
For example, many interviewees advocated for jail time or probation, making it so that Polanski won’t be as free to wander and intermingle in society. However, given the restrictive nature of this punishment, one might argue that it would be more difficult for Polanski to make his films that showcased his talents. Many of Polanski’s more recent projects, such as the award-winning The Pianist, are shot in various places in the world. If such a restriction was to take place, Polanski’s movement would be limited, meaning he might not have the ability to make films as freely and showcase his talent to the world. And given the second part of the statement: “the movie awards should still be rewarded to him based on his merit,” it might work against the original intent, which is to allow Polanski’s work to be judged fairly, as by not allowing him to work as freely, it would limit how much of his talent he could actually put into use. With his merit limited thanks to the punishment, can one still judge his talents in a fair manner?
Option 3 was the most popular choice between both age groups, as a majority of people from the older generation and seven from the younger one believed that the best policy was to keep the crime in mind, and not offer forgiveness that easily to Polanski, especially when he left the country mainly due to his knowledge of the consequences of his crime. However, they don’t believe that the movie awards, including the Academy Awards, should punish him by refusing to award his talents, indicating to me that their views on his talent and his crime are separate. The majority of those choosing Option 3 explained that “a crime is a crime” and that no matter who the culprit was, the law must be upheld and be equally administered to everyone. Although they agreed that The Pianist was a great film, and Polanski did deserve his Oscar, his talents are irrelevant to how justice should be upheld. Even a talented man such as Polanski must atone for his mistakes, and that means he must return to the United States to face trial.
For most of these interviewees, Option 3 represented, in their words, the “middle way” to deal with the problem. They felt that it best addressed the crime aspect and the talent aspect of Roman Polanski in the fairest way possible. However, this option was not without its own flaws, as it put into question how clearly one could draw the line between the man’s talents and the crime. For example, the interviewees decided that the crime should be dealt with separately from his talents, but should Polanski not to return to the United States, as he had been doing for the past three decades, then one can only wonder how this justice can truly be served. Moreover, one alternative to forcing Polanski to deal with the crime may be to declare a boycott of his films. Since he is still profiting from his films, a boycott will squeeze his finances, and ultimately punishing him by pushing him out of business. Under this scenario, the line between crime and talent becomes blurrier, as a boycott may result in him not winning awards that would have recognized his talent. So for Option 3, the distinction may not be as clear as most interviewees hope for.
Option 4 was chosen but none of the older group, and five members of the younger group. This option involves punishing Polanski for his crime in any means possible, including a boycott of his films and refusal to hand out the Academy Award to him. It was not clear why the entire older group stayed away from this option, but many felt that blurring the line between crime and talent would create a difficult precedent for the criminal justice system. The younger group, however, was clearer in justifying why they want Polanski punished in any way possible. The five individuals choosing this option are all around the same age as the victim, who was thirteen at the time. Feeling that they might be in a similar situation as her, these interviewees feel that they must do everything possible to keep someone like Polanski off the streets, as to ensure their own personal safety. If it means crossing the line between crime and talent, then it is justified to have him punished via a boycott of his films.
But of course, the obvious glaring fault with this option is that the blurring of the line between talent and crime ultimately leads to a dilemma in precedence. In both the justice and movie awards system, there must be a precedent set for how verdicts must be handled. To have them intermingle is questionable at best, as it will violate impartiality. Both court judges and awards judges are expected by the public to hand out rewards and punishment based on validity of the evidence, and nothing else. The movie awards are based on the director’s merits and the film’s quality, and to throw in any of the director’s personal events into it may violate the conditions. Moreover, one may argue that many other celebrities and filmmakers have had brushes with the law before, and that they may be punished the same way. Under this condition, it will become very difficult to award any film based on merit, as the backgrounds of each member of the cast and crew must be considered. It may very well be that sometimes, the “worst” film of those nominated may actually garner the award, which officially destroys the entire reason behind handing out such awards in the first place. In this sense, Option 4 may be considered very unrealistic.
In all, this survey alone shows that even with different age groups, and different understanding of the events in Polanski’s life, the reaction to what should be done is still very mixed. And even within answers themselves, there is disagreement over what type of outcome is most desired, as each answer merely reflected what an interviewee want, not necessarily stated their exact thoughts. But one thing is for certain: the issue may never be resolved until Polanski does return to face trial in the United States, as only a solid re-examination of all the events can make the picture clearer. And since Polanski has continued his exile for more than three decades, one may never have a concrete answer to dealing with this talented, yet controversial, director and filmmaker.
*****
Again, feel free to comment. If you do choose an option, then perhaps give me a reason. I'd like to see how you compare with those I surveyed.