Polanski Case: '70s Culture and Today

There is a really bizarre article in the New York Times today by Michael Cieply, "In Polanski Case, ’70s Culture Collides With Today."

Cieply uses Woody Allen's film, Manhattan, to illustrate that in the '70s it wasn't unusual for middle-aged men to have sex with very young girls.

That's nuts.

At the end of “Manhattan,” the celebrated movie romance from 1979, a teenager played by Mariel Hemingway delivers some good news to the 42-year-old television writer, portrayed by Woody Allen, with whom she has had a long-running sexual affair.

“Guess what, I turned 18 the other day,” said Ms. Hemingway, in what was framed as a poignant encounter. “I’m legal, but I’m still a kid.”

That was then.

Roman Polanski’s arrest on Sept. 26 to face a decades-old charge of having sex with a 13-year-old girl stirred global furor over both Mr. Polanski’s original misdeed and the way the authorities have handled it — along with some sharp reminders that, when it comes to adult sex with the under age, things have changed.

Manners, mores and law enforcement have become far less forgiving of sex crimes involving minors in the 31 years since Mr. Polanski was charged with both rape and sodomy involving drugs. He fled rather than face what was to have been a 48-day sentence after he pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor.

But if he is extradited from Switzerland, Mr. Polanski could face a more severe punishment than he did in the 1970s, as a vigorous victims’ rights movement, a family-values revival and revelations of child abuse by clergy members have all helped change the moral and legal framework regarding sex with the young.

Mr. Polanski’s lawyers — including Reid Weingarten, a Washington power player — are likely to argue that Mr. Polanski does not even qualify for extradition from Switzerland, because he was set to be given a jail term of less than one year when he fled to France in 1978.

But Stephen L. Cooley, the Los Angeles County district attorney, has signaled that he believes much stiffer penalties may be in order. Questioned by reporters just after Mr. Polanski’s arrest, he said the filmmaker had received a “very, very, very lenient sentence” that “would never be achievable under today’s laws.”

In 1978 officials argued that the plea agreement would spare Mr. Polanski’s young victim the notoriety of a trial. But the soft deal was also in tune with the more permissive times, when sex with the under age was often winked at, especially among entertainment world sophisticates.

“The sort of thing that would get guys arrested now was very common back then,” said Michael Walker, who made a study of the Los Angeles sex-and-drugs scene for his 2006 book, “Laurel Canyon: The Inside Story of Rock-and-Roll’s Legendary Neighborhood.”

Mr. Polanski was treated by the authorities, including Judge Laurence J. Rittenband, not so much as a sexual assailant but as someone in the mold of Isaac Davis, Mr. Allen’s character from the movie “Manhattan”: that is, as a normally responsible person who had shown terrible judgment by having sex with a very young, but sophisticated, girl.

Contemporary reports in The New York Times and elsewhere captured a whiff of that attitude. In one article by The Associated Press, published in The Times on Sept. 20, 1977, Judge Rittenband scolded Mr. Polanski for taking advantage of his victim even as he was “noting the teenage girl ‘looks older than her years’ and was sexually experienced.”

A 28-page probation officer’s report completed in September of that year presented a broadly sympathetic portrait of Mr. Polanski and his behavior, even while acknowledging that the victim, Samantha Geimer (who has since publicly identified herself), had offered grand jury testimony of forcible rape.

Submitted by the acting probation officer Kenneth F. Fare, and signed by a deputy, Irwin Gold, that report, which recommended against further jail time, said “the present offense appears to have been spontaneous and an exercise of poor judgment by the defendant.”

In a further conclusion that appeared to shed blame on the victim, it said, “There was some indication that circumstances were provocative, that there was some permissiveness by the mother,” who had allowed Ms. Geimer to spend time with Mr. Polanski. And, in a conclusion that might particularly jar readers today, it pointed toward evidence “that the victim was not only physically mature, but willing.”

The probation officers quoted a pair of psychiatrists as saying that Mr. Polanski was not “a pedophile” or a “sexual deviate.” And in an extraordinary bow toward his reputation as a filmmaker, and the supposed difficulty of adjusting to life in the United States, the report said:

“Possibly not since Renaissance Italy has there been such a gathering of creative minds in one locale as there has been in Los Angeles County during the past half century. While enriching the community with their presence, they have brought with them the manners and mores of their native lands which in rare instances have been at variance with those of their adoptive land.”

Both the law and sentencing practices have changed since Mr. Polanski was arrested. Robert Weisberg, who teaches criminal law at Stanford University’s law school, said Mr. Polanski would face a stiffer punishment now, even for the single unlawful sex charge.

What's the point?

That Hollywood was filled with degenerates in the '70s?

That Woody Allen's movie reveals it was acceptable for middle-aged men to have sex with 13-year-olds?

That's ridiculous.

Mariel Hemingway played the role of the girl in Allen's film. The charcter was 17, now the age of consent in New York.

Manhattan's plot didn't involve the drugging and raping of a 13-year-old, although there was no question that Woody Allen's character was screwed up.

Furthermore, I don't think a 1979 movie by Woody Allen should be cited as the basis for illustrating that the culture as a whole was different then, that when Polanski drugged and raped a child it's important to realize that the '70s were "permissive times, when sex with the under age was often winked at, especially among entertainment world sophisticates."

Good grief.

“The sort of thing that would get guys arrested now was very common back then,” said Michael Walker, who made a study of the Los Angeles sex-and-drugs scene for his 2006 book, “Laurel Canyon: The Inside Story of Rock-and-Roll’s Legendary Neighborhood.”

Very common?

That's sick, and frankly, not true. Polanski was arrested back then.

Patterico's Pontifications points out that the age of consent in California at the time Polanski committed the crime was 18.

"The age of consent in California was 18 when Polanski anally raped a 13-year-old child. And it has been 18 since 1913, as the U.S. Supreme Court explained in 1981."

That's probably why Polanski was arrested in spite of the alleged permissiveness of the '70s, and all that winking going on, "especially among entertainment world sophisticates."

I don't get why the Leftists are falling all over themselves to present a defense for Polanski.

Why would anyone want to be an apologist for someone who preyed on a child?

According to Cieply, Polanski just did what men did back then. In effect, he's being victimized by the redefinition of his crime in today's era of "family-values revival."

That's BS.

What Polanski did was illegal then. It's illegal now.

Period.