The life of an artist
Forgive me if the heading seems misleading, but I was wondering whether there was any further news about Roman Polanski's fate, and I came across this thoughtful post among some comments on an article by Simon Heffer on www.telegraph.co.uk.
Allectus
on October 04, 2009
at 08:03 PM
The Polanski case raises a number of questions, some easier to answer than others.
1) Does he deserve to be punished for his crime? Certainly.
2) Should his punishment be mitigated by his wealth, celebrity or his accomplishments? Most of us probably think not.
3) Can we fully enjoy the work of an artist, given the knowledge that they have committed an heinous crime? On the whole, yes. It is perhaps easier to "suspend our disbelief" in archaic value systems than to suspend our condemnation of Polanski's crime, or even our disapproval of the unfashionable vices of artists like Britten and Eric Gill, but the mental exercise is essentially the same. I for one have never had a problem with this (although I probably would if I were nearly affected by the artist's crime). Indeed, the crimes and vices of artists often add an extra dimension of interest to their work.
4) Is his punishment in the public interest? This is a much trickier question. If Polanski were to be punished, who would benefit? The victim is no longer interested in pursuing the case. Polanski's great artistic talent would probably be stifled forever. The only people who would be pleased would be those who never liked Polanski's work, and those (many of whom, I suspect, would also belong to the former group) for whom the downfall of others, particularly the rich and famous, always seems to bring about a delicious combination of Schadenfreude and a self-righteous moral uplift. Right? Unfortunately, no. If the law allows Polanski to escape the consequences of his actions, then we will lose our respect for it. The rule of law and respect for the law is vital for the functioning of any civilised society, where ordinary people need to enjoy a realistic expectation that they can live their lives and go about their business unmolested. So, it would appear, it is in the public interest that Polanski be punished.
The case seems clear cut, but I still have reservations. Why do I find myself asking why I feel so unambiguously glad that Polanski escaped justice in 1977? After all, he went on to do some splendid work. But if it was fortunate that Polanski escaped justice in 1977, why would it not also be fortunate if he were to do so now? Might he not go on to do more great work?
This dilemma brings to mind the words of Oscar Wilde, "It is well for our vanity that we slay the criminal, for if we suffered him to live he might show us what he had gained by his crime." It is perhaps going too far to suggest that Polanski has shown us just this, but it is hard to deny that great art sometimes draws inspiration from human wickedness. This inspiration can come from the perspective of the sufferer or the perpetrator of evil acts, and Polanski has the benefit, if it can be so called, of both.
This brings us to the question, distinct from 3) above, of whether we should appreciate Polanski's art in view of his crime, and the fact that he has escaped justice? This question would perhaps be more interesting if his crime were more clearly interwoven with his art. What if it offered some profound insight into the darker side of our own natures? Is it ever right to benefit from insight or knowledge purchased at the price of another's suffering? - even if that suffering is past and unpreventable?
To the fans of Michael Winner, and others uninterested in profound insights, the answer remains as clear as before. But I still can't help thinking that in a hundred years time, when nobody cares about Polanski the man, or about his victim, they will still be watching 'The Pianist', and probably cursing the fact that Polanski never got the opportunity to make any more great films. These are awkward questions for which I can find no easy answers.
Allectus
on October 04, 2009
at 08:03 PM
The Polanski case raises a number of questions, some easier to answer than others.
1) Does he deserve to be punished for his crime? Certainly.
2) Should his punishment be mitigated by his wealth, celebrity or his accomplishments? Most of us probably think not.
3) Can we fully enjoy the work of an artist, given the knowledge that they have committed an heinous crime? On the whole, yes. It is perhaps easier to "suspend our disbelief" in archaic value systems than to suspend our condemnation of Polanski's crime, or even our disapproval of the unfashionable vices of artists like Britten and Eric Gill, but the mental exercise is essentially the same. I for one have never had a problem with this (although I probably would if I were nearly affected by the artist's crime). Indeed, the crimes and vices of artists often add an extra dimension of interest to their work.
4) Is his punishment in the public interest? This is a much trickier question. If Polanski were to be punished, who would benefit? The victim is no longer interested in pursuing the case. Polanski's great artistic talent would probably be stifled forever. The only people who would be pleased would be those who never liked Polanski's work, and those (many of whom, I suspect, would also belong to the former group) for whom the downfall of others, particularly the rich and famous, always seems to bring about a delicious combination of Schadenfreude and a self-righteous moral uplift. Right? Unfortunately, no. If the law allows Polanski to escape the consequences of his actions, then we will lose our respect for it. The rule of law and respect for the law is vital for the functioning of any civilised society, where ordinary people need to enjoy a realistic expectation that they can live their lives and go about their business unmolested. So, it would appear, it is in the public interest that Polanski be punished.
The case seems clear cut, but I still have reservations. Why do I find myself asking why I feel so unambiguously glad that Polanski escaped justice in 1977? After all, he went on to do some splendid work. But if it was fortunate that Polanski escaped justice in 1977, why would it not also be fortunate if he were to do so now? Might he not go on to do more great work?
This dilemma brings to mind the words of Oscar Wilde, "It is well for our vanity that we slay the criminal, for if we suffered him to live he might show us what he had gained by his crime." It is perhaps going too far to suggest that Polanski has shown us just this, but it is hard to deny that great art sometimes draws inspiration from human wickedness. This inspiration can come from the perspective of the sufferer or the perpetrator of evil acts, and Polanski has the benefit, if it can be so called, of both.
This brings us to the question, distinct from 3) above, of whether we should appreciate Polanski's art in view of his crime, and the fact that he has escaped justice? This question would perhaps be more interesting if his crime were more clearly interwoven with his art. What if it offered some profound insight into the darker side of our own natures? Is it ever right to benefit from insight or knowledge purchased at the price of another's suffering? - even if that suffering is past and unpreventable?
To the fans of Michael Winner, and others uninterested in profound insights, the answer remains as clear as before. But I still can't help thinking that in a hundred years time, when nobody cares about Polanski the man, or about his victim, they will still be watching 'The Pianist', and probably cursing the fact that Polanski never got the opportunity to make any more great films. These are awkward questions for which I can find no easy answers.
posted by Pierre at 8:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home