Polanski, Neitzsche and the real meaning of Rape
I took a class on Friedrich Neitzsche when I was in college back in the late 80s. When we were studying his Genealogy of Morals, my professor presented an example: if Picasso had been a pedophile, should his works be discounted as great works of art because of this behaviour? For Neitzsche, the answer would be no. My recollection of this particular philosophical argument is most likely oversimplified, but my understanding of his argument was this: Western society and culture have placed morality at the pinnacle of a triangle of character traits. This means that morality trumps all other characteristics. For Neitzsche this was problematic, as a human being is made up of multiple characteristics that ultimately determine the complete nature of a human being. Some of those traits will be good and some will be bad and some will be neutral. They shouldn’t be weighted. One trait shouldn’t be given more prominence than any other. This resonated with me. I agreed. And I still do. Back to my professor's example…I don’t believe that an artist’s work should be condemned if that artist’s behaviour in other areas is less than stellar. If Picasso had been a pedophile that should reflect on that aspect of his character not diminish the genius of his artwork. This said the opposite should be true as well. The genius of someone’s art, should not determine how his or her behaviour in other ways is judged. The recent emergence in the news cycle of the Polanski case has raised a number of issues. I want to address as many of them as I can…because for the most part they are all irrelevant. The most relevant one most people are ignoring.
Here’s the list of what I’ve read that has stuck out in my mind:
The justice system is corrupt
The trial wasn’t fair and was stacked against Polanski
It happened over 30 years ago
The girl, now a woman, has forgiven him
Why is the mother of the girl not being talked about?
It wasn’t “rape rape.”
The justice system is corrupt and the trial wasn’t fair and was stacked against Polanski
I agree. There are serious problems with our justice system and many of our laws. This system is unfairly weighted against those who do not have the financial recourse or societal status to maneouver themselves fairly through it. The laws are the same. They are based on Christian morality instead of on human ethics. And yes, I make a distinction and also acknowledge that there is often overlap. Why is marijuana illegal and alcohol is not? Because in our society drugs are bad! Alcohol is not seen by the common man as being a drug. I hate to tell you, but it is. I disagree with the illegal status of marijuana and I think the law should be changed. It would solve a lot of problems. It is pure hypocrisy to make a distinction between these two drugs (especially as marijuana has proven medicinal uses that are highly beneficial), yet we have. And the laws about the sale and purchase of marijuana are unfairly weighted against those who grow, sell and use it. I, too, have problems with the laws regarding rape. They are unfairly weighted against the victims of the crime. Is it institutional sexism? Of course. Do they need to be changed? Absolutely. Those who say that the system worked against Polanski…well, that’s a rarity. Whatever the law is and was, he broke it. He may not like it, but the law is currently the law. Work to get it changed. Work to change the system. But until you do, you have to live in the system that we have…whether you like or not. And if I had my way, based on the crime he committed, it would be a lot tougher sentence than he probably would have gotten. And here I note what rape is really about:
Rape is a crime of violence. It is a crime of power and control over its victim. It is not about sex…
It happened over 30 years ago
And? So? If he hadn’t already been tried, the statute of limitations would have run out, but he was tried. He escaped before sentencing. Why wasn’t he already in prison? Oh, right, because he had the financial recourse to post bail. Does it make him any less guilty? That is a rhetorical question. And let us remember what this crime is really about:
Rape is a crime of violence. It is a crime of power and control over its victim. It is not about sex…
The girl, now a woman, has forgiven him
This woman has forgiven her rapist. I applaud her for that and wonder what she has gone through over the years to be able to do this. Having never experienced what she has gone through, I would never want to deny her ability to speak out. But we are talking about two different things. Her feelings, her forgiveness are about her. The law is something different. It is separate from personal choices. The two are most definitely connected, but it doesn’t mean that one should over rule the other. Polanski’s crime still needs to be punished under the law. If it’s not, it just perpetuates the double standard precedent that this country has.
Rape is a crime of violence. It is a crime of power and control over its victim. It is not about sex…
Why is the mother of the girl not being talked about?
Apparently the mother dressed her daughter provocatively and claimed she was 21. This is abhorrent to me. My question is why wasn’t the child taken away from the mother for her own protection? Regardless of the mother’s culpability in this, Polanski still committed a crime. Perhaps the mother should be prosecuted as an accessory, but having an accessory doesn’t diminish the culpability of the perpetrator.
Rape is a crime of violence. It is a crime of power and control over its victim. It is not about sex…
It wasn’t “rape rape.”
I don’t know what this means. It is one of the most illogical phrases I have ever heard. And the fact that it came from a woman saddens me beyond belief. I am shocked at you, Ms. Goldberg. How is it possible that this phrase came out of the mouth of an actress who portrayed a young woman who had similar crimes committed against her? Wasn’t it you, Ms. Goldberg, who played Celie Johnson in the 1985 adaptation of Alice Walker’s The Color Purple. A book, and film, which deals with a young woman being sexually molested by her stepfather against her will? I think it was. You even received an Academy Award nomination for this. When you were making this film, did you believe that the character of Albert was not a criminal? As I recall, Albert was the villain. Then again, perhaps I misunderstood the message of the film…
It was just a movie, though. So perhaps my example here is irrelevant. Yet, it seems to me that those who are supporting Polanski are basing it on his artistic abilities and creative genius - his ability to make movies…and because communities protect their own even if the same behaviour in someone from another community would be condemned. So, I think it’s fair game to bring up this particular example. And I ask you return to my comments about Neitzsche…
I think that it is appropriate to say here that I admire Roman Polanski as a director. Artistically, I think he’s brilliant. Here’s my question for Mr. Polanski:
Why not just serve the time? The sentences for rape are not a lifetime (sometimes I feel that is an unfortunate situation as the sentences are too short). Serve the time for the crime you committed. Get out of jail and go back to making brilliant films. Perhaps the experience, and possibly repentance, would have provided you with a whole new direction and insight for your art.
Of course, I wonder how the Hollywood community in all of its hypocrisy would have received you after serving time. They stand behind you now, but would they have stood behind you then had you accepted your punishment? I can't speak for the Hollywood community. And perhaps it’s a small consolation, but I would have.
And again, let me say this:
Rape is a crime of violence. It is a crime of power and control over its victim. It is not about sex…
This is the real issue that no one is talking about. It is the real issue behind the crime of rape. And it is the one thing that most people don’t comprehend. Rape is a crime of violence. It is not about sex. All of those people who are supporting Polanski are making his crime about sex and not about rape. I’m not a prude when it comes to sex. I believe that America is a prudish, old lady when it comes to issues of morality and ethical behaviour, and I say so often. But this case isn’t about sex. This is a case of a 43-year-old man sodomizing a 13-year-old child. If that’s not about power and control and violence, I don’t know what is. I will say it again: it isn’t about sex. Anyone who diminishes this to sexual proclivities obviously doesn’t understand rape.
Here’s the list of what I’ve read that has stuck out in my mind:
The justice system is corrupt
The trial wasn’t fair and was stacked against Polanski
It happened over 30 years ago
The girl, now a woman, has forgiven him
Why is the mother of the girl not being talked about?
It wasn’t “rape rape.”
The justice system is corrupt and the trial wasn’t fair and was stacked against Polanski
I agree. There are serious problems with our justice system and many of our laws. This system is unfairly weighted against those who do not have the financial recourse or societal status to maneouver themselves fairly through it. The laws are the same. They are based on Christian morality instead of on human ethics. And yes, I make a distinction and also acknowledge that there is often overlap. Why is marijuana illegal and alcohol is not? Because in our society drugs are bad! Alcohol is not seen by the common man as being a drug. I hate to tell you, but it is. I disagree with the illegal status of marijuana and I think the law should be changed. It would solve a lot of problems. It is pure hypocrisy to make a distinction between these two drugs (especially as marijuana has proven medicinal uses that are highly beneficial), yet we have. And the laws about the sale and purchase of marijuana are unfairly weighted against those who grow, sell and use it. I, too, have problems with the laws regarding rape. They are unfairly weighted against the victims of the crime. Is it institutional sexism? Of course. Do they need to be changed? Absolutely. Those who say that the system worked against Polanski…well, that’s a rarity. Whatever the law is and was, he broke it. He may not like it, but the law is currently the law. Work to get it changed. Work to change the system. But until you do, you have to live in the system that we have…whether you like or not. And if I had my way, based on the crime he committed, it would be a lot tougher sentence than he probably would have gotten. And here I note what rape is really about:
Rape is a crime of violence. It is a crime of power and control over its victim. It is not about sex…
It happened over 30 years ago
And? So? If he hadn’t already been tried, the statute of limitations would have run out, but he was tried. He escaped before sentencing. Why wasn’t he already in prison? Oh, right, because he had the financial recourse to post bail. Does it make him any less guilty? That is a rhetorical question. And let us remember what this crime is really about:
Rape is a crime of violence. It is a crime of power and control over its victim. It is not about sex…
The girl, now a woman, has forgiven him
This woman has forgiven her rapist. I applaud her for that and wonder what she has gone through over the years to be able to do this. Having never experienced what she has gone through, I would never want to deny her ability to speak out. But we are talking about two different things. Her feelings, her forgiveness are about her. The law is something different. It is separate from personal choices. The two are most definitely connected, but it doesn’t mean that one should over rule the other. Polanski’s crime still needs to be punished under the law. If it’s not, it just perpetuates the double standard precedent that this country has.
Rape is a crime of violence. It is a crime of power and control over its victim. It is not about sex…
Why is the mother of the girl not being talked about?
Apparently the mother dressed her daughter provocatively and claimed she was 21. This is abhorrent to me. My question is why wasn’t the child taken away from the mother for her own protection? Regardless of the mother’s culpability in this, Polanski still committed a crime. Perhaps the mother should be prosecuted as an accessory, but having an accessory doesn’t diminish the culpability of the perpetrator.
Rape is a crime of violence. It is a crime of power and control over its victim. It is not about sex…
It wasn’t “rape rape.”
I don’t know what this means. It is one of the most illogical phrases I have ever heard. And the fact that it came from a woman saddens me beyond belief. I am shocked at you, Ms. Goldberg. How is it possible that this phrase came out of the mouth of an actress who portrayed a young woman who had similar crimes committed against her? Wasn’t it you, Ms. Goldberg, who played Celie Johnson in the 1985 adaptation of Alice Walker’s The Color Purple. A book, and film, which deals with a young woman being sexually molested by her stepfather against her will? I think it was. You even received an Academy Award nomination for this. When you were making this film, did you believe that the character of Albert was not a criminal? As I recall, Albert was the villain. Then again, perhaps I misunderstood the message of the film…
It was just a movie, though. So perhaps my example here is irrelevant. Yet, it seems to me that those who are supporting Polanski are basing it on his artistic abilities and creative genius - his ability to make movies…and because communities protect their own even if the same behaviour in someone from another community would be condemned. So, I think it’s fair game to bring up this particular example. And I ask you return to my comments about Neitzsche…
I think that it is appropriate to say here that I admire Roman Polanski as a director. Artistically, I think he’s brilliant. Here’s my question for Mr. Polanski:
Why not just serve the time? The sentences for rape are not a lifetime (sometimes I feel that is an unfortunate situation as the sentences are too short). Serve the time for the crime you committed. Get out of jail and go back to making brilliant films. Perhaps the experience, and possibly repentance, would have provided you with a whole new direction and insight for your art.
Of course, I wonder how the Hollywood community in all of its hypocrisy would have received you after serving time. They stand behind you now, but would they have stood behind you then had you accepted your punishment? I can't speak for the Hollywood community. And perhaps it’s a small consolation, but I would have.
And again, let me say this:
Rape is a crime of violence. It is a crime of power and control over its victim. It is not about sex…
This is the real issue that no one is talking about. It is the real issue behind the crime of rape. And it is the one thing that most people don’t comprehend. Rape is a crime of violence. It is not about sex. All of those people who are supporting Polanski are making his crime about sex and not about rape. I’m not a prude when it comes to sex. I believe that America is a prudish, old lady when it comes to issues of morality and ethical behaviour, and I say so often. But this case isn’t about sex. This is a case of a 43-year-old man sodomizing a 13-year-old child. If that’s not about power and control and violence, I don’t know what is. I will say it again: it isn’t about sex. Anyone who diminishes this to sexual proclivities obviously doesn’t understand rape.
Comments
Post a Comment