Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley says Polanski's arrest was simply a matter of concluding a legal proceeding that has been in limbo since the filmmaker fled the United States in 1978.
Professor
Wojciech J. Burszta, chair
of cultural anthropology at the Higher Institute of Social Psychology, is
interviewed by Magdalena Zakowska of the Gazeta
Wyborcza, on the Polanski affair
GAZETA WYBORCZA: Who is Roman Polanski now?
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: He is a prominent film director. An older man who has
regulated his life. A father of teenage children. An active creator. But he's
also a man burdened with a very serious accusation that we
unaccountably forgot over the past 30 years. And not only us - the whole
world forgot or was willing to act as if nothing happened. If Switzerland hadn't
acted, that would probably have been the end of it.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: You say he has "regulated his life"? …
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: Well, he himself has emphasized in interviews
and in his autobiography that after the tragic death of a pregnant Sharon Tate,
he didn't want to start a family, didn't want to have children, and he especially
didn't want to have a son. He didn't see himself in a long-term monogamous
relationship. After that traumatic experience he had a different idea of how to
live - he wanted to be an artist in perpetual motion. He chose for himself a
fate of a global artist with a nomadic lifestyle.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: But today he's the father of two children, married
20 years to the same wife.
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: And in that sense his life has been regulated. But at
the time of his marriage to Emmanuelle Seigner, he
was already fifty. He finally became a respected citizen.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: But he hadn’t settled the case from 1977.
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: Absolutely not.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: What was California like in 1977?
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: Setting aside his act of sexual intercourse with a
minor, Polanski knew what he was doing. By the 1970s it was precisely in
California that the sexual counterrevolution had begun.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: But perhaps this counterrevolution hadn't yet
registered in the minds of its potential victims?
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: Polanski was certainly aware of these
changes. His trial was not the first in this series. There were more
bizarre examples, like the case of Harry Reems,
one of the leading actors in Deep Throat. In
1974 Reems was accused by a reverend in a Tennessee parish of disseminating obscene materials. The FBI arrested him in his New
York apartment and extradited him to Tennessee where he was convicted. He was
the first actor in American history to be accused and convicted by the federal
government of taking a part in a film. It was a very well-known case. Hollywood
stars and New York elites stood by Reems. He appealed
twice and the trial lasted four years. He was acquitted in 1978, but by
then he had become addicted to drugs and alcohol. He never returned to the
cinema - if one could call it that, of course.
Box covers for the 1974 film
'Deep Throat.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: When did that crusade begin?
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: 1969 was a symbolic year, when the federal government ceded to states and counties the right to define certain crimes. From there came a new law in California, by which any sexual act with a child was automatically classified as rape. It was a time when Americans told themselves that the sexual revolution had gone too far. Organizations were formed like Feminist Women Against Prostitution. It was pretty amazing - on the one hand were evangelicals and the U.S. government who wanted to return to the idealized American morality of 1950s, and on the other were feminists protesting against the commoditization of sex.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: So Polanski belonged to an era that was about to end; the era of the sexual revolution, the great experiment in social mores …
Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, Swiss justice minister and member of that country's Executive, the Federal Council: Why did she decide to arrest Polanski now - since the filmmaker has had a home there for years? The Swiss government now says it had no choice but to fulfill Washington's request.
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: And the representatives of that era were the first
to be hit by the counterrevolution. Especially in film. It was during that time
that Marvin
Miller, one of the best known pornographic magazines editors, who was
convicted [for disseminating obscene material], initially for 60 years; then,
after several appeals, the punishment was dramatically reduced. This was the
era of the trial against Larry
Flint, publisher of Hustler, and then the attempt on his life that
left him partially paralyzed. In those days, movie ratings were introduced -
with general admission and X for adults only. Those were the days - as it was
then called - of the battle against so-called Hollywood pornography. In
California there was an obsession with fighting child pornography. Hundreds of
organizations were recruited to the cause. Hollywood felt a hot breath on its neck.
The mid-seventies in the U.S.
were the time of a great crusade called the second evangelization of America.
Polanski must have known it.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: From what you're saying it's not so much that Polanski
chose a fate as a global artist, but the road to perdition.
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: Perhaps it was like that. Those were paradoxical
times. On the one hand there was an anti-sexual crusade, a crusade against
child pornography which merely gave cover to pedophilia; and on the other - a
series of the Hustler covers featuring young, smoothly-shaved women
stylized as children. And above it all, there hovered an atmosphere of decline.
It was a fin-de-siecle of the counterculture.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: What was it the end of?
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: Of anything extreme. It was time to relish certain
elements of the counterculture. It wasn't only about the limits of sexuality,
but about drugs. This was a very important element of the times.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: Who was Polanski in all of this?
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: He represented the bohemian artistic who did things
differently. Things that from today's perspective are often condemned - both
from an artistic and an ethical point of view. He was operating on the edge of
art and pornography. It was one great provocation.
SWISS JUSTICE MINISTER AS A VAMPIRE CATCHES POLANSKI
GAZETA WYBORCZA: How does our perspective on America differ from the
one we had at those times?
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: Their conservative revolution also changed our
way of thinking. An image of the 60s and 70s has been created that portrays those times
as being without ideology, or if there was an ideology, it was completely
false, a failure, dangerous for national identity, for social structure, for
the family. The conservative revolution cemented this image. Today we are returning
to certain values of the counterculture. So in the eyes of conservatives, it's
even more important to prosecute those associated with those times. That
includes, of course, Polanski.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: Polanski doubly offended America. First, by committing
a crime, and second - by escaping justice.
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: Of course. There were a number of such trials at the
time, but only Polanski fled, even though the trial of Harry Reems was much more unfair. It was there that the real
hatred, bigotry and propaganda were concentrated. But Reems
fought it in court to the very end. Those trials took place and today, no one
remembers them. It would probably be the same with Polanski's trial. It's an
irony of history.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: But for three decades - we also forgot the Polanski
case.
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: Yes. But that says more about our morality and vision
of the world. In any case, the case wasn't much talked about [in Poland] during
communist times. No one was interested in making a monster of Polanski. A veil
of silence descended, especially since he managed to escape from those horrible
United States.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: Polanski was a national treasure back then?
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: And he still is. But we've minimized the issue of
his crime from the beginning. We still do - we're talking a lot about
Polanski, but not a word about that girl. And when we do, it's, "she
wanted it, she dressed provocatively, perhaps it was even pleasant to
her." There's a fundamental difference between American and Polish views
of the case. There, a child is to be protected. If Americans are afraid of anything,
it is, first of all, that someone might shoot them; second, that someone might
harm their children. In Poland we talk a lot about children, but more often
than not, we talk about the unborn. Violence within the family is still
acceptable, so the question of what age a child is inviolable is relative.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: Except that today, after Polanski's arrest, the
situation is more complicated. We're not talking about those events in one
voice.
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: I think it's been quite therapeutic, because it has
begun a very important conversation. It's not a discussion about Polanski -
whether he is or isn't a national treasure. It's about who we are. What kind of
morality we have.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: And your conclusions about this discussion?
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: Somewhat pessimistic. Because so far, on one hand we
have hardcore universalists who have one basic argument - "imagine that it
was your daughter," and on the other, the relativists, who suggest that
the girl isn't innocent herself, as Daniel Olbrychski [a Polish actor] did on the Monika Olejnik
show. And this is a fundamental cultural issue: to what extent is a law universal
- how much should it be subject to national, cultural interpretations?
Roman
Polanski and his victim, Samantha Geimer,
as
she looked as a thirteen-year-old in 1977.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: And what's your opinion?
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: In this case, the cultural standard should be that
we, as a nation, agree: no matter what the context, whether she's a young
prostitute, a Lolita or a retarded child, she's always a child.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: But Daniel Olbrychski isn't
the only so-called relativist among us.
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: Let's perhaps call them contexters.
Because in Poland - I don’t know why - "relativists" have a negative
association.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: So contexters have other
arguments, too. For instance, that in Poland and many European countries,
Polanski's case would have expired by now. It happened 32 years ago. Here no
one would prosecute. But in California there is no expiration for such cases.
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA. Right. They will pursue him to the bitter end. But
he knew that that full well. He's been hunted for so many years. The law is the
law, and one must respect it.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: But should we perhaps respect our law, and not that
of the United States, Malaysia or China?
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: This is a question that each of us must answer. But certainly
the absence of a perpetrator from the place where a crime was done doesn't negate
what happened then.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: The contexters
next argument is that this was 32 years ago, and Roman Polanski is a different
person today.
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: We are all different after 30 years. I am also different.
I can say that I'm a better man today. But that doesn't change the assessment
of who I was 30 years ago. There are different concepts of identity. From the
Church's point of view, we can, for instance, atone for our sins by entering a
monastery. There is also the notion of the forgiveness of sins.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: Roman Polanski paid compensation to Samantha Gailey [the girl he raped in 1977]. She says she has
forgiven him.
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: But we also know the argument of the other side: the
victim, who was a child, cannot forgive - a trauma associated with such an
experience may not reveal itself for decades.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: Can talent be a mitigating circumstance?
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: Perhaps in the context of a damned artist. But I don't
think Polanski was such an artist. The romantic image of a damned artist was
about nonconformity, about negating the world as it is - its poverty, its
incomprehension. My impression is that, led by a false sense of national
interest, we're trying to make a damned artist out of a great artist. But it's
not like that.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: Why does everyone feel like they need to take a
position on the Polanski case?
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: It is your fault - the media's fault; you demand
opinions from everyone. But I think that's good. Except that the most important
part of this discussion is taking place in homes, in private conversations and within
families. We must, as a society, answer some fundamental questions. Who is a
child? Who is an artists? How far can we go to defend our fellow countrymen?
What arguments can be used in his defense? This is to vivisect ourselves. It
sounds strange, but it's good that we have a reason to do this. I hope
something comes out of it.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: Why it is so satisfying to see the fall of an idol?
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: This is the eternal, universal mechanism of pulling
down a pedestal. But today - thanks to the electronic media - we can appreciate
the scale of this phenomenon. This is something incredible. It's a carnival
that never ends. We've been saying for years that American justice has been
hunting Polanski. But now our own Polish hunt for Polanski has begun. He's our
witch. I say "witch," because "sorcerer" has a much more
positive connotation.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: What's to be the fate of this man?
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: We are undoubtedly witnessing some kind
of destiny. A Jewish child who miraculously survived the war; the death of
pregnant wife; the commission of a crime for which there is no forgiveness; an
escape; and finally - prison. And on the other hand - decades of artistic
success. He's one of the best known directors in the world.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: The tabloids are screaming: "He'll die in
prison."
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: An extraordinary biography for an extraordinary man.
Such people and events have always generated legends. We're not just saying this - such
a story has been constructed before our eyes. It's a story of guilt and redemption.
Perhaps the redemption will be death in prison - but we like such a chain of
events. Polanski's biography is the perfect example. We're discussing this,
too. Has he already atoned for his crime? Is prison necessary for redemption? The
Church knows the concept of mercy.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: But people don't.
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: Exactly!
GAZETA WYBORCZA: Will we burn this witch?
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: I'm afraid so. Six years ago there was the premiere
of The
Pianistat the Warsaw Philharmonic.
President Kwasniewski along with his wife, the prime minister, the foreign minister
and the minister of culture were all there. There was a standing ovation to pay
homage to a great artist. Nobody contacted the public prosecutor then.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: There's the mechanism: "If only I knew ..."
But everybody knew!
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: I doubt it. We're talking about a narrow circle,
about 30 percent of our society. Those events weren't common knowledge. I
recently asked some young people, my students. They knew nothing about it -
there was no interest. And do you think this was common knowledge in the Polish
countryside?! But today, thanks to the tabloids, people in the countryside have
learned of what he did. So the judgment today is far more
harsh. In this way, many people no longer hide behind ignorance; they
also fulfill their need to condemn and to see things in black and white.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: And once we burn this witch, will we be any better
off?
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: I still hope this isn't about that. That through this
case we will call things by their names. That we shall look more closely at
ourselves, our uncles, aunts, and that we will look more closely at our
children.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: This is a positive scenario. And the negative one?
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: I am most afraid that we'll begin to penalize
everything. That we'll deepen the mistrust. I still have in my mind an event that
happened some years ago. In Paris a little girl got lost. She was crying. I was
watching her - and for an hour nobody came up to her.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: You included.
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: I knew little French, but at last I went over to
her. And when I did, everyone looked at me as if I were a pedophile. It wasn't
only because they were afraid of such glances that people didn't intervene. On
the issue of pedophilia, we are now at an early stage - about where the United
States was 32 years ago. This is now our crusade.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: But this crusade is taking place under different
circumstances. Thanks to the media, the debate you are talking of is taking place
at such an inconceivable pace. Perhaps it will be over before the stake is lit?
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: But the wood is already burning. Polanski has been
pulled down from his pedestal. He's already been condemned - morally. What
could be aired out has already been aired out. And I have no doubt that a closer
analysis of his biography during those years has begun.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: In the American crusade of the 70s, Hollywood became
the incarnation of evil. Will today's crusade also turn against the artists?
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: Of course. The myth that all well-known artists are
also intellectual authorities is dead. In the course of the debate, the intellectual
vacuity of some of these people, has been revealed. As has their viewing their
own world as an island where they have somewhat different rights to assess what
is good and what is evil. They will not be pleased. What Krzysztof Zanussi [a well-known Polish director] and Daniel Olbrychski said was surely a shock for many - including me.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: Are you saying that today, we cannot defend Roman
Polanski?
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: By separating the creator from his art. Without
denying his guilt, which Polanski has admitted to, but bearing in mind its
cultural context. There is a pattern to historical cycles called periods of moral panic. In England during
the 1960s, there was just such a panic related to the fight against the
subculture - the Mods fought the Rockers. In the time
of AIDS, there was a panic about drug addicts and homosexuals. Now there is a
moral panic about pedophilia. These people today are seen as devils in human
skin. They are even more dangerous than those of previous groups, because they
don't have a sub-culture, they aren't visible, don't move in groups - they are
just like us. We are at the height of this panic and in the context of
Polanski's case, this should be especially remembered. So that Polanski isn't
equated with pedophilia.
GAZETA WYBORCZA: Let's imagine that Polanski is deported, condemned
and serves his time. After leaving prison, he makes another film. And there'll
be another premiere at the Warsaw Philharmonic.
Might it look like the screening of The Pianist six years ago?
WOJCIECH J. BURSZTA: Of course! There'll be even more of an uproar over
it. Especially since it won't be a comedy, like the vampire movie, or a
historical drama, like The Pianist. It will be a tragedy.
