Kate Harding had a characteristically fabulous and enraged post up on Jezebel yesterday about the sickening spectacle of 138 of artists signing a petition in support of Roman Polanski. And while I'd hoped to stay as far away from this mess as humanely possible, the petition itself and the debate in Jezebel's comments raise artistic issues--and ethical ones--that are far too important to let go without comment. So let's take the petition contention by contention, shall we (all statements in bold are from the text of the petition)?
Contention 1: His arrest follows an American arrest warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals.
1978, I'll grant the petitioner. But the use of the word "morals," implying a subjective judgement, is misleading. What Polanski is wanted on is actually a "moral turpitude" case. Moral turpitude is defined as "conduct that shocks the public conscience." Rape is included on that list. So is murder, voluntary manslaughter, fraud, and arson.
Contention 2: It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him. By their extraterritorial nature, film festivals the world over have always permitted works to be shown and for filmmakers to present them freely and safely, even when certain States opposed this.
It makes sense to me that international film festivals should be havens for free speech. That in no way means they should be free crime zones. And the idea that artistic events are cheerful zones of peace and prosperity everywhere is naive and silly. Events organizers aren't stupid. They don't hold major film festivals in Taliban-controlled regions where it's likely artists' safety couldn't be assured. If they wanted to honor Roman Polanski, and have him come to accept that honor, perhaps the festival's organizers should have held the event in France. The norm that artistic events are sacrosanct is not universal. And while I think there's a case to be made that they should be, in the name of artistic expression, I would be curious to see someone make the argument that artists have the same right to be free from arrest and questioning on their way to and at artistic events in the same way members of Congress do. The risk of artistic repression may be that severe in some places, but it is not the same in all places. And artistic freedom should never become the refuge of a rapist.
Contention 3: The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no-one can know the effects.
This argument rests on the idea that Roman Polanski has an inherent right of freedom to movement and travel. He does not. He has not since he fled the country. He is a wanted felon, not simply on the child rape charges to which he pled guilty, but on flight from justice charges. Polanski is aware of this, and has structured his travel arrangements accordingly over the past three decades. That he misjudged this time is due to idiocy on the part of him and his handlers, not on any rank violation of international law or free speech. The idea that Polanski's arrest represents some sort of contradiction of the values of artistic events only holds if he had the right to move in the first place. The idea that his arrest represents a slippery slope towards the repression of art is true only if he was arrested because of his artistic output. This is not remotely the case.
Contention 4: This extradition, if it takes place, will be heavy in consequences and will take away his freedom.
Why yes! It will!
Contention 5: If only in the name of this friendship between our two countries, we demand the immediate release of Roman Polanski.
Speak for yourself, Woody Allen. And West Anderson. And Sam Mendes (you're British, dude). And Mike Nichols. Normally I hate the elitist-Hollywood-types meme, but this grates.
So what are we to do with the artists who signed this petition? A boycott is impractical for those of us who love popular culture, and virtually guaranteed to be ineffective if implemented on a mass scale. A more targeted boycott of Polanski's work over the past three decades, when commercial failure might have made it more difficult for him to evade justice, might have been effective once, but that time is long past. I don't know what recourse anyone really has to express dissent to these artists for their regrettable decision to sign this petition. But journalists should ask a lot of questions (Wes Anderson's about to start promoting a childrens' movie, folks!). The citizens of Los Angeles should be absolutely outraged about the idea that fellow residents of their city think rapists should get off if they're talented. And the rest of us should think about the economy of celebrity wrongdoing.