Pole-Axed

Shortly after the shocking saga of the "Americans finally get around to arresting Roman Polanski" saga, those loveable geezers at The Guardian took it upon themselves to speak for the French nation. Because sweeping generalisations about race are obviously wrong, apart from when it's about the French. You can say anything like you about the French. Because they're French. So, according to the Guardian, the French were thoroughly écoeuré about the whole affair, and felt it was just a piffling little matter that the Americans were getting all het up about because of chemical inbalances caused by their colossal obesity. They would think that, they are French.

To support their case, the Guardian printed a bit of an oul' vox pop, in which most of the Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys said they thought hey, man, it was a long time ago. About halfway through, a different voice popped up. "If he had sex with a child he should go to prison for the rest of his life." You won't be bowled over when I say that one was from London.

Just for clarity (because I'll be offering a "but" shortly); Polanski being arrested is nothing but a good thing. I'm all for the idea of art being separated from life, but seeing him given a standing ovation for The Pianist was as repugnant a thing you could hope to see on television. The applause wasn't for the Pianist, it was for Polanski himself; a man who may well be damaged, but clearly isn't a pleasant chap in any way, being embued with some sort of ersatz goodness because he's made films of such beauty. What he did was vile, and he should be punished for it. That's kind of how the justice system works, unless you're very wealthy or Charles Haughey.

Obviously, the sudden emergence of defence from Hollywood's glitterati, and the bizarre pronouncements of Whoopi "rape-rape" Goldberg, would be hilarious if it wasn't so shocking. It's worth making the point, however, that there's more than an outbreak of luvviness here. We're talking about the seventies; this is the era in which Linda Lovelace was routinely beaten during the making of Deep Throat, or sometimes by her husband pointing an M-16 rifle at her head. That was pornography, certainly. But in the 70s, spiritual home of the exploitation movie, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that what Polanski did was commonplace. Hence the narrative of a "little mistake". Hollywood sees Polanski as a scapegoat for a crime carried out by hundreds and hundreds of directors / producers / casting directors / leading men; being offered up as a sacrificial lamb for a crime that was entirely endemic.

The only sane answer to this is: good. One person being punished ain't enough, but it's better than none. The reason that Hollywood stars haven't come out and said it is partly because it would expose how bonkers the argument is, and partially because it would tarnish the shiny myth of Hollywood in which they still believe. Before criticising Goldberg, it's worth asking exactly what she may have been asked to do to get a part. Viewed in that context - the context in Polanski's rape of a 13 year-old isn't an isolated horrendous event, but a sordid backstory that underlines the entire history of the American film industry - the Hollywood's defence of him makes more sense. It also makes it even more grotesque; by defending Polanski, they defend the ongoing practices at the bottom end of the Hollywood market, and the now-famous casting couch. They defend a rotten institution.

Already it's become par-for-the-course to call Polanski a "child rapist", and I don't think it's splitting hairs to say that's not accurate. Nothing against the "rapist" part, even if plea-bargaining only has him guilty of sex with a minor (read any account of what happened, and it's pretty damn clear). However...

...and here my ground gets sticky...

A 13 year-old is not a child.

That isn't say that 44 year-olds can go around drugging them up and fucking them, or that 13 year-olds don't need some form of protection from the wider world. Nor is it to even begin excusing what Polanski did. Jesus, how many ways can I say it; I'm absolutely delighted that the slimy little bastard has been arrested.

We throw the world "child" about way too easily. Random women in streets "jail for life" isn't a serious problem; an inability to deal with minors in. Suffice it to say that, if you don't agree that a 13 year-old isn't a child, then cast your mind back to when you were 13. Did you like being called a child then? Or did you want to be treated like an adult?

One moment, feral 13 year-olds are the scourge of the society and tearing the world apart. The next, they're prey to sleazy men in raincoats or dog-collars. There's a bottom line here; 13 year-olds are people. Sure, they're desperately inexperienced people, who see the world as a giant satanic mass because they're pumped full of contradictory hormones. But calling Polanski a "child-rapist" implies that teenagers should be protected from the outside world, wrapped in warm-milk scented blankets, and allowed to play at being grown-ups with no ill consequences. In fact, being a teenager is when you first discover what "consequences" actually mean.

Shouting "child rapist" at the man makes him seem a cartoon monster, a useful hate-figure. He's not. He's a symptom of a world where this was acceptable.

To sum-up. Polanski didn't abuse a six year-old; had he done the same thing to a woman of 18, or 26, or Jennifer sodding Aniston, it would be exactly as disgusting and as indefensible. He's not a child rapist. Legally, he's not even a rapist, except in the purely statutory sense.

He is, however, a horror of a man who drugged and raped a defenceless woman. That woman was just one among countless who had to suffer the same thing, in a world where it was tacitly accepted; that world's elite are desperately, shamefully, trying to cover up and excuse that insitutionalised brutality.