Rage, Roman and Repulsion

Upon hearing the news of Roman Polanski's arrest Sunday, and after arguing, discussing and thinking about the horribly mishandled case, especially by the late Judge Laurence Rittenband, and of course, the wrongful actions of Polanski towards young Samantha Geimer in 1977, I posted my take on Polanski's brilliant Repulsion at the Huffington Post. From Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown, Tess, Death and the Maiden, Bitter Moon and other pictures, I've always contended that Polanski has depicted women with complication, humanity, ugliness and most important, empathy. Polanski is an artist, an acute observer of life's darkness and absurdities on the level of Dostoevsky or Nietzsche. I write this not to defend statutory rape, I write this to study the visions of a troubled, talented human being, a human being who has gone through real horror himself and a human being who also happens to be one of the greatest filmmakers alive.

But before discussing Repulsion, I wrote this, very briefly at the Huffington Post: "I'm not going to go into my Roman Polanski defense. I've been doing this all morning, nearly ranting and raving over my views on the matter, and have grown frustrated and depressed. But in short, I'm not happy about his arrest. So, I would rather discuss one of his greatest pictures, a brilliant portrait of female sadness, alienation, sexual neurosis turned to psychosis. A movie all women should watch -- his masterpiece Repulsion."

This caused a flurry of outraged comments. Though many readers appreciated my essay, many slammed me for what they thought read as a defense of Polanski through his movies, Repulsion in particular. The Washington City Paper's blogger The Sexist wrote: "Congratulations, the Huffington Post’s Kim Morgan:You win the prize of penning the most disgusting defense of Polanski I’ve read to date!"

Well if I get a prize, I'll hand a gold statue to The Post News blogger who wrote a bizarre, creepy take on my piece: "Kim Morgan claims she’s setting aside her arguments for the right to rape children, and instead does some film criticism of Repulsion in an effort to suggest that Polanski can’t be a rapist, because he understands women , and their dark desires -- hint, hint, his 13-year-old victim was asking for it when she cried and said no and begged to go home.  Polanski knows women better than they know themselves, she says.  He knows, apparently, that 13-year-olds are dying to be raped, even if they continue to say no after the fact by pressing charges... Morgan’s insinuation that rape is some secret desire of women everywhere, and especially of junior high school girls."

I'm not sure how to respond to this this Andrea Dworkin-style foaming of the mouth, other than, I'm happy that she actually dug into my piece this deeply and at least saw some of the dual desires of women. Or, rather, what she views what I see. Even if she erroneously believes I'm saying Polanski can't be a rapist, because he understands women. And even if she thinks I'm a sick fuck. 

And here from, Wet Asphalt: "Frankly, this argument is the most blatant example of starfucking to be found and that Repulsion is in fact a piece of shit has no more bearing on the argument than does the fact that Chinatown is a masterpiece. The ONLY reason a 'film and culture' writer like Kim Morgan would be 'ranting and raving' at all about anything related to this case is because Roman Polanski is a famous person and Kim Morgan is a starfucker."  Yeah. I've got no response to that one.

Though I understand the sensitivity and complexity of the matter, I find some of the hysteria bordering on insane. The emails I've received range from polite disagreement to articulatete salvos, to bizarre wishes that I should be or had been raped for my current defense of Polanski. Since I was 13 many years ago, and a woman myself, it's interesting to me that defenders of rape don't stop to think that perhaps, I might actually know a thing or two about such matters.

My stance has been that I believe the case should have moved along as originally settled by all parties, and not turned into the witch hunt it has become. Even, Roger Gunson, the Assistant DA who led the original prosecution, has expressed his problems with Judge Rittenband's conduct and stated that "under those circumstances" he wasn't surprised that Polanski fled. And I think that, for the sake of Samantha Geimer, this should have been laid to rest decades ago.

I'm re-running my piece on Repulsion, a movie I have deep, personal feelings for, again (I've written about it many times here) and not to defend the man's original actions, but to explicate his art and empathetic depiction of women. Here, again, Repulsion.

Erotic Rotting Rabit:

Roman Polanski knows women because he understands men. He knows both sexes because he understands the games both genders play, either consciously or instinctively. He understands the perversions formed from such relations and translates them into visions that are erotic, disturbing, humorous and, most important, allegorical in their potency. One should not (as so many did with his misunderstood Bitter Moon) take Polanski's films literally, for they are often heightened versions of what occurs naturally in our world: desire, perversion, repulsion.

Film writer Molly Haskell said that at the core of Polanski's work is the "image of the anesthetized woman, the beautiful, inarticulate, and possibly even murderous somnambulate." Her observation is astute, but it's followed by the tired criticism that in all of Polanski's films, including Repulsion, "the titillations of torture are stronger than the bonds of empathy." Of course. Polanski's removed morality is exactly why he is often brilliant: He is so empathetic to his characters that, like a trauma victim floating above the pain, he is personally impersonal. He insightfully scrutinizes what is so frightening about being human, yet he doesn't feel the need to be resolute or sentimental about his cognizance. He is also, consciously or subconsciously, aware of the darkness he explores, especially in his female characters, who could be seen as extensions of himself. 1965's Repulsion proves as much.

Starring ice goddess Catherine Deneuve, Repulsionis one of the most frightening studies of madness ever filmed. Deneuve plays Carol, a nervous young manicurist who shares an apartment with her sexually active sister (Yvonne Furneaux). At first Carol goes about her days in the salon, where she quietly tends to bossy old ladies' fleshy cuticles; walking outside, where she unsuccessfully avoids the leering glances and advances of men; and languishing about the apartment, where, with disgust, she listens to the noises of her sister's lovemaking and silently despises the men who visit. She exhibits a pathological shyness and repression that slowly spiral into madness after her sister leaves on holiday. Carol's dementia creates perplexing hallucinations: sexual acts with a greasy man whom she simultaneously loathes and lusts after; greedy hands poking through walls and kneading her soft flesh; and the moving and cracking of walls. Left alone, she is able to act out what she is so afraid of: the dark sludge of desire.

The obscure, slippery and decayed complexities of such desire are conveyed brilliantly in Repulsion. The diseased atmosphere of Carol's womb is meticulously created with Polanski's use of camera angles, sound effects and images of clutter. Though music is used effectively, Polanski relies more on amplifying the sounds of everyday life -- the ticking of a clock, the voices of nuns playing catch in the convent garden, the dripping of a faucet -- to convey the acute awareness Carol acquires in response to her fear. Polanski also dresses the film with pertinent details that further exemplify both Carol's madness and the aching passage of time: Potatoes sprout in the kitchen, meat (rabbit meat, no less) rots on a plate and eventually collects flies, various debris of blood, food and liquids form naturally around Carol. The film's inventive use of black-and-white film, wide-angle lenses and close-ups creates an unsparing vision of sickness, and Deneuve's performance is effectively mysterious. The viewer, however, is able to empathize with Carol, which is how she lures us into her web in the first place. As Polanski cameraman Gil Taylor muttered during filming, "I hate doing this to a beautiful woman."

And yet, one lovesdoing this to a beautiful woman, especially one like Deneuve. Deneuve's loveliness makes Carol's madness more palatable (her unfortunate suitor thinks she is odd, but he can't help but "love" this gorgeous woman), but eventually it becomes horrifying. Carol is not simply a Hitchcockian aberration of what lies beneath the "perfect woman," she is the reflection of what lies beneath repressed desire -- in men and women. Polanski has a knack for casting women who are nervously exciting (Faye Dunaway in Chinatown is a blinking, twitching mess), and therefore dangerous to desire. He makes one insecure about longing for them.

And Deneuve is certainly nerve-racking. She is so physically flawless that she often seems half human: An anemic girl, she can barely lift up her arm, yet at the same time she is highly sensual, an ample, heavily breathing woman with more than a glint of carnality in her dreamily vacant eyes. Deneuve makes one feel the confusion of a corrupted child: She is an arrested adolescent who, like an anorexic, cannot face her womanliness without visions of perverse opulence and violence. Carol is the personification of sexual mystery -- she is what lurks beneath the orgasms of pleasure and pain. What Polanski finds intriguing and revolting is perceptively female, making Repulsion a woman's picture more than women may want to know, or care to face.

Comments

[Jerry]

I just watched this again yesterday.
Excellent piece.
I forgot how uncomfortable a film it is too watch. I would have to say it is one of his best.

We are getting our fair share of criticisms to for doing show about Polanski this Sunday.
Once again, great article.

[The Siren]

"Though I understand the sensitivity and complexity of the matter, I find some of the hysteria bordering on insane."

Yep. As always, a thoughtful point, fearlessly expressed. You've always been willing to buck the crowd.

I personally am glad he's finally being extradited, on the bedrock liberal principle that rich well-connected famous people, even geniuses, should not be above the law. But it isn't like we just caught the Zodiac killer.

Repulsion is far from my favorite Polanski, but between you and Glenn Kenny I may need to revisit it.

[twitter.com/x818]

Thanks, you made some great points, as usual.

My theory on why now is that its payback for the reaction to "Wanted and Desire" which made the LA District attorney office seem like a bunch of fascist retarded starfuckers (which they are).

ps. and "statutory rape" is the correct term

[olmer]

very good post,
thank you for that

from france

[Andy]

Thank you for your thoughtful and reasonable words. Polanski is an artist and I also love "Repulsion" in all its complexity and sensitivity. Polanski did commit a crime and there should, finally, be some sensible resolution to this decades-ago tragedy. That does not, however, mean that I don't have great compassion for a man who has suffered more in his lifetime than probably any two dozen of us. If I had gone through what he has in his life I really can't begin to think where I would have ended up.
I can't begin to fathom these rabid, hysterical cries for vengeance from those who want his head on a platter. Who exactly is supposed to benefit from putting this 76 year-old man who has lived a blameless life for the last 31 years behind bars now? And no, I have never been molested or had a child of mine molested, but if that had been the case I would like to think that I would still retain some sense of fair play and take all related facts into consideration,including the victim's wishes, before passing final judgement.

[moseby]

@Peteski

there is nothing statutory about drugging and sodomizing a 13year old girl that is saying no. that is just rape. statutory rape would imply the under-aged girl willingly participated but the adult should have know better. this is certainly the former, not the latter.

[EDJ]

It's bizarre the way people can't have a discussion about film without demonizing the other side (Witness John "You Should Feel Bad" Rosenbaum.

Sorry for the onslaught Kim you're one of the good ones.

[Cathryn]

I cannot believe people think this man has suffered. I have been in foster care, been an orphan, been abused. this man was able to live out a full life, buy several mansions, marry, father two children, practice his art, befriend powerful people, and win an Oscar. I like how you are so careful to call rape 'his actions'. It was a rape, you know. A rape. Repeat that word to yourself. He sodomized a 13 year old girl as she begged him not to. that's rape. Your defense of him is sickening.

[Mort Seidlmann]

Hi Kim,

Due respect, but lawyer here:

There is no jurisdiction in America where a proposed plea deal between a prosecutor and defense counsel is something that controls the judge.

Part of the "advisement" that is on the record in connection with the plea itself is that the prosecutor is agreeing to make a specific sentencing recommendation, and the defendant's acknowledgment that the recommendation is not binding on teh judge. The judge ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS has the right to reject that.

Why? Because of cases like this. Because if the judge decides that influence, power, press, media, politics or some other consideration is keeping the prosecutor from recommending the right punishment that fits the facts to which the defendant has pleaded guilty.

One more thing: Typically, where there is a sentencing recommendation deal, the prosecutor agrees that if the Court does not accept the recommendation, there will not be an objection to the defendant withdrawing his plea.

In other words, if the judge did not sentence this powerful Hollywood big shot to "time served" (40 ish days) like he hoped, he could have withdrawn his plea and TAKEN HIS CHANCE WITH THE JURY ON THE ORIGINAL CHARGES.

The fact that he ran rather than either risking the higher sentence or taking his chance with the jury tells me everything I need to know.

By the way: As a man, I just feel the need to reiterate: When a woman says NO and signals her lack of assent to sex in any way, the man who keeps going is a RAPIST.

[The Miller Test]

I don't think anyone wants to condone or excuse what he did to that girl -- some of us are merely trying to understand his unraveling by watching his films.

Polanski has all the trappings of a successful man, yes, but I would not say the man has lived a "happy" or "free" or "full" life in the last 40 years since Sharon Tate was murdered.

And his victim has asked the prosecutor's office to halt further action against Polanski. Take from that what you will.

As someone who has been raped, there is just a point where you need to move forward and stop repeating the word "rape" to yourself over and over again -- and stop dwelling in your victimhood.

[twitter.com/dtipson]

The fault for there not being any resolution to the case is all Polanski's, and it's simply ridiculous to try and lay the blame elsewhere. The whole reason that he is 76 now... is that he ran away from taking responsibility for his despicable actions. All the handwaving irrelevancy about the judge or prosecutors doesn't excuse what he did or mean that he should have been able to evade punishment, and then on top of that rewarded for that evasion just because he made some great films. Being a great artist, and also being a rapist who should face the consequences for that are not mutually exclusive.

Or can any rapist claim immunity from paying for their crimes if they promise to make some great films?

[Noiresque]

Kudos for sticking to your (sunset) guns and defending your opinion, the complexity and thoughtfulness of which I applaud.

I feel separating the art from the artist is vital. Otherwise, if it were possible to know every deed and instinct, society at large would deem no one worth knowing.

[Katel]

We have to seperate art from the artist. Ezra Pound, and Richard Strauss were Nazi Sympathizers. Wagner was antisemitic. Anne Sexton had inapropriate sexual contact around her daughter. etc. etc.
I love Roman Polanski's films. He is one of my favorite directors.
That said, sodomizing a drugged under aged girl is about as much rape as a person can do. He should go to jail for the amount of time that any average person drugging and sodomizing a girl would go to jail for- I guess then he would have to register as a sex offender and go door to door in his neighborhood and let people know that he is a rapist. I don't care if his judge did this that or the other thing. If you rape a child you go to jail and then when you've paid your debt to society people can choose whether to appreciate your work on their own merit or appreciate the fact that Roman is a deeply troubled individual. I am always going to wonder if he has had sex with more underage girls.

My favorite polanski film is THe Tenant.

[Chris]

Maybe you are getting more sympathy for your position here, but the man raped a child of 13. A child about 30 years younger than him at the time. A child who kept trying to get him to stop. He raped her vaginally and then anally after drugging her with Champagne and Valiums and then left her sitting in the car alone. What part of pedophile or rapist don't you understand?

[Mort Seidlmann]

@The Miller Test:

The fact that victims of these horrible crimes need closure and to move on, does not mean that society has to let their offender's off the hook for the breach of the social contract.

The lack of "closure" for this victim, in part, is a function two things: (1) the complete absence of resolution caused by Roman himself by leaving; and (2) a great big fat check associated, no doubt, with a civil settlement agreement that undoubtedly requires the victim not to oppose dismissal of the charges.

[Reno Sepulveda]

I have mixed feelings about this. I'd like to see him extradited and sentenced. I'll hate having to put up with the media gushing all over themselves for the next six months. But they will do that anyway.

[Marcus Miller]

My secretary had an interesting observation yesterday about the perplexing position of many women on the arrest of this scumbag for the drugging and rape of a 13 year old.

She noted that in private conversations, men are braggarts about the, ah, physical characteristics of women they have slept with; but that women are braggarts about the "stature," the social position, and the wealth of the men they bed. Its the old story of the exertion of sexual power to completely own and control a man.

Her point, which she put more bluntly than I could have expected (and more bluntly than I'm comfortable writing here), was to say that she thinks many women are being obnoxious about this arrest because many of them on some level would like to be able to say that they slept with R.P. They think, she says, that the woman was not ultimately a victim so much as she's got a desirable feather in her cap. Some of them, she thinks, are actually jealous.

The victim helps move this line of thinking along, my secretary says, by acting like the abused spouse who loves her man so much that she's sitting there with a shiner begging the cops not to haul away the abusive husband.

Me, well, I join the guy above in thinking that this is probably mostly due to a payoff, and/or some kind and fatigue on her part.

[doug]

in a civil and just society, the law applies equally to all. do you agree with o.j. jurors because he won a heisman trophy and had a 2,000 yard season? or were those not creative enough acts for you to justify the crime of double murder? in your world, where do we draw those lines? do geniuses and artists get to satisfy any perverse or criminal desire? do they live by a different set of standards? who sets those standards? the hollywood screenwriters guild? literary critics? sportswriters? you have let your respect for the man's art hijack what ought to be a deeper and more profound sense of justice.

[Rick Herrick]

"My stance has been that I believe the case should have moved along as originally settled by all parties, and not turned into the witch hunt it has become."

Then you should be happy with the capture and eventual extradition of Mr. Polanski. This will allow him to return to Los Angeles and deal with the actual settlement that he's allowed to sit fallow for the last 30 years. The "witch hunt", such as it is, is strictly on Mr. Polanski's part: HE'S the one who fled, HE'S the one who has not returned to deal with the legal mess left behind him, and HE'S the one who refuses to go back without an extended legal fight, in spite of the claims of a number of mitigating factors that (according to his supporters) should result in the judgment against him being thrown out on appeal.

Surely, if these mitigating factors are so convincing, Polanski's lawyers and supporters should be rushing to purchase his return ticket to LAX. That would get him into court that much more quickly and end this "witch hunt" with alacrity.

And think: Mr. Polanski would be able to return to L.A. to pick up his next Oscar in person! And the injustice would final be over.

[Eric Rickstad]

Very well done piece. Your last line sums it up perfectly. Repulsion is one of my favorite films, and my favorite Polanski film. Most of his work deals with one theme, women and how their sexuality defines and often undermines them in society.It is at once their greatest, most alluring, luring, and powerful of qualities, and the singular quality that makes them most vulnerable.

[Sarah]

"And I think that, for the sake of Samantha Geimer, this should have been laid to rest decades ago."

Oh please. The people who are appropriating the victim's wish to move on (and who wouldn't want to move on after being drugged, RAPED and SODOMIZED by a 44 year old RAPIST at the age of 13?) are not doing so out of concern for her mental well being.

They are doing so out of cocern for Roman Polanski and respect for his body of work. Period. Anyone who cares about victims of sexual assault should be cheering his arrest, not decrying it. Her lack of closure for 30 years is a direct result of HIS actions, not law enforcments. He raped her, he pled guilty, then he skipped the country.

Justice, these 30 years delayed, must be served.

[sheila]

I'm with The Siren, Kim. Thanks for your beautiful words and thoughts.

[Courtney]

I have a degree in film, I have respect for the work of Roman Polanski, but I the only thing I am upset about is that they did not arrest him sooner.

I don't care if he cured cancer and saved a million puppies from drowning! He not only committed a crime, but he fled the country. If he had done his time originally, this whole thing would have been over years ago. He had to make things worse by fleeing. I'm sorry, but he has not "suffered enough" for this. I am sure there are thousands of prisoners who would be more than willing to spend decades in Europe making movies rather than in jail.

This poor woman, the victim, who has obviously moved on with her life, is being forced to remember all the trauma again. This is not thanks to the law, but thanks to Polanski stringing this out as long as possible. It would have been a humane thing to have turned himself in or not to have run away in the first place. He is basically victimizing her again.

[Ian Burns]

Put aside who Roman Polanski was/is.Lets pretend that Roman Polanski was/is a construction worker,or a school teacher,or maybe a shop worker of some sort.Everybody writing on this site would be happy or even relieved that finally a child rapist had been apprehended.I admire some of his films and I cannot imagine what the blackest moments of his own life must have been like,but I am glad he has been arrested and I hope that the American justice system gets to finally deal with him.

[ProfessorWoland]

Rape-victim: "No."

Roman Polanski: "Don't worry, I understand women."