Roman Polanski

 

October 1, 2009  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s time for Roman Polanski to come in and take care of the situation. He has an opportunity here to show great moral leadership, and to show that he considers himself subject to the law. Otherwise, he’s out in the wilderness, and can’t be taken seriously as a moral agent. Socrates was given a chance to flee, but didn’t: he couldn’t accept a life of moral wandering and rootlessness. None of us is an unconditioned being, and therefore it’s only just that we not act in such a way that implies it.  
 

Polanski has been given great things by civilization and has also given great things in return, but the accord we all strike with that settled life is that we obey the strictures if we want the benefits. It’s disingenuous to proclaim the right to possess the good things of life, yet flaunt order. To be fully a member of his civilization, Polanski must demonstrate his commitment to the flip side of the coin.    

 

No one is morally perfect, myself included, but what he did was so lacking in moral compass, such an act of depravity, that it must be addressed, and not swept under the rug, even if Polanski is a genius. He must come before his society and face the punishment appropriate to his actions. I am certain that Polanski is no longer the man psychologically who committed the original crime, but he is definitely still the man who hasn’t come in from the moral cold.  

 

He needs to show us he feels remorse about what he did: you can’t unring the bell, to be sure, but you can absolutely ring the bells that still can ring (as Leonard Cohen wrote). That is, Polanski can ring the bell of mea culpa, and submit himself to the bar of justice. Those fighting extradition on his behalf, or signing petitions for him, or making this into a cause célèbre, portraying him as a victim, do him no favors. They feather their own nest at his expense.  

 

Some say he should be left alone because it’s been thirty-two years, and enough is enough. But I don’t believe Polanski has that argument available to him. The reason why this has gone on so long is simply Polanski himself, remaining voluntarily in the outback of moral life. To say Polanski should be left alone is to claim that none of us should be morally noble, and that we should, rather, just do what we wish and avoid the consequences. To aver that Polanski should be left alone is to have a certain moral vision of humanity, sure, but a vision asserting only the smallest of human motives as its zenith.