Polanski presents a series of ghost and shadow figures: Lang's original ghostwriter, who is found dead — washed up on a nearby beach, his successor who seems fated to follow the clues the first ghost has left behind, the prime minister's wife who is the real power behind the throne, a college professor and old classmate of Lang's who seems inexplicably sinister. Harris, who cowrote the script with Polanski, has stated in an interview that Blair had ostensibly been a ghostwriter to President Bush when giving public reasons for invading Iraq. There are shadows within shadows.
There is a scene in the middle of the film, when Lang, surrounded by advisors, learns that he has been accused of war crimes and can no longer go home to London or any country that is part of the International Criminal Court. Frustrated, he asks, "Where can I go?" and is informed that he can remain in the U.S., or travel to China, India, and maybe a few places in Africa — all countries who are not members of the Court or its jurisdiction. Polanski is definitely pointing to his own situation, but the self-reference, which could have been maudlin, isn't. It is a grim fact of both Polanski's and Brosnan's character's existence that they have been living like quasi-prisoners for years. As beautiful as the beachfront island estate is where Lang resides, it is also a bunker.
In 1977 Polanski pled guilty to a single count of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, Samantha Geimer, who was 13 years old at the time. Polanski admitted to having sex with the girl, and did 42 days in prison for the crime, but fled the U.S. before final sentencing, as he was convinced the judge in the case would not give him a fair hearing. He has lived as a fugitive ever since, initially fleeing to France, where he became a citizen, and was protected from extradition to the U.S. Geimer has long since moved on from the original crime and just wants the courts and the media to leave her family and even Polanski free to lead their lives, as she feels they have both been misused by the legal system.
Polanski also has a house in Switzerland, and was able to come and go until September 2009, when the U.S. insisted he be put under house-arrest awaiting extradition. Many in the film industry, including Woody Allen, Wong Kar Waï, Patrice Leconte, David Lynch, Michael Mann, Tilda Swinton, Wim Wenders, and Tom Twyker signed a petition protesting the director's arrest. The U.S.'s extradition request was ultimately rejected by the Swiss and Polanski is once again "free."
.jpg?t=20130517094513)
Article comments
1 - Butch
He admitting what he did was wrong, so all should be forgiven. After all, he only anally raped a child after drugging her. As you say, he already served 43 whole days while awaiting sentencing.
He was a coward who fled the country when faced with the prospect of a real punishment.
Elizabeth, since you seem to sympathize with Mr. Polanski, would you propose forgiving such crimes regardless of whether or not the perpetrator happens to be a professional entertainer?
2 - xoxoxo
This is an article about a film and its director, who I believe, is one of the best. Polanski and his crime will always be inextricably linked. I don't excuse his past behavior, but it is impossible to write about him and not consider it, or the many other extreme experiences he has had in his life. I specifically linked to his victim's statement because she, above all, urges people to move on. She considered the matter settled, but there are some, still trying to make headlines about the 34 year-old crime, that won't. I am interested in the divide between the art and the artist. I strive to judge a work on its own merit, regardless of the morals or behavior of the artist.
3 - El Bicho
Yes, but if you consider the matter settled, then why bother decreeing he's paid his price when it's not your call to make? You set yourself up for distraction, and do your position no good by minimizing his actions and bringing up the victim's feelings, which have no legal bearing.
4 - xoxoxo
Geimer considers the matter settled. I have an opinion about this film. I suggested that we should focus on the art, but I do allow that he will forever be linked to his crime. It's part of who he is and also part of his art. It's impossible to write about Polanski and ignore it. I couldn't, while writing this piece, and neither can these comments. This is just a really good film, but I guess it is overshadowed by his ghosts.
5 - Butch
It's actually quite easier to discuss his work without talking about his criminal background. But you chose to make it part of your review. Write a review of the movie (which is the product of many people's skills) or write a commentary about Polanski as a person.
Samantha Geimer's opinion on the matter is really quite irrelevant, as Bicho pointed out. So is yours.
By the way, are you unaware that movies are not art? They are a product designed primarily to make money by entertaining as many people as possible.
6 - xoxoxo
Sorry you haven't seen any artistic movies. Every artist I know has always wanted to make money from their "product" with as many people getting to see it (or hear it, in the case of musicians) as possible.
7 - Boeke
Some movies are very artistic, even if one restricts that judgement to movies that are visually artistic. Fellinis "Amarcord" and Kurasawas "Dreams" come immediately to mind.
8 - Butch
Movies, like many forms of entertainment, can be artistic without actually qualifying as art.
Artists create their work (not mere "product") without monetary gain being their primary motivation.
Roman Polanski is a film director. An entertainer. A creator of expensive product that requires costly marketing in order to recoup the financial investment. Works of art do not need multi-million dollar ad campaigns. Polanski movies do.