‘Ghost Writer’ and moral standards for moviemakers

Should movies be penalized for the moral failings of their makers?

I ask because “The Ghost Writer” happens to be a fantastic movie, and it happens to be made by Roman Polanski. The director, famous for “Rosemary’s Baby,” “Chinatown” and other films, is also infamous for being convicted in 1977 of rape of a 13-year-old girl.

Polanski fled the United States before sentencing and remained a fugitive until his arrest last fall in Switzerland. He’s currently under house arrest in Switzerland while fighting attempts at his extradition.

In the time of his exile, Polanski continued to make films, many of them good ones. Among these was 2002’s “The Pianist,” a riveting piece of historical witness about the Nazi occupation of Poland. The movie won a handful of Academy Awards, including a Best Director Oscar for Polanski.

Now we have “The Ghost Writer,” a political thriller about the autobiography ghostwriter (Ewan McGregor) for a retired and embattled British prime minister. (Interestingly, when the prime minister, played by Pierce Brosnan, finds himself facing criminal charges, he is advised to seek asylum in America.)

“The Ghost Writer” isn’t a masterpiece – for that, look to “Chinatown” – but it is a crackling thriller, full of intense performances and intricately directed. But should I be praising it, given the clear crimes – and apparent unwillingness to take responsibility – of its director?

I’d argue that the two things – Polanski’s art and his actions – should be separated. Movies, more than most art forms, become their own distinct entities – something greater than, and independent of, the hundreds of people who work on them (including the director).

In other words, “The Ghost Writer” is not Roman Polanski. And no matter how much we may despise his actions and his seeming lack of repentance, giving the movie zero stars is not the equivalent of extraditing its director.

Of course, that leaves the more difficult question of whether or not I would be comfortable awarding Polanski with the Best Director Oscar if I truly felt he had done the best job of directing in a given year. I’m not sure my reasoning could take me that far. How about you?

Login to comment

IMPORTANT Did you have an account on the old ThinkChristian.net site? Click here transition your account. This will sync all your comments with your email address.

Comments (8)

Josh, I am right with you. I have long been of the camp of separating a piece of art from the author, director, artist, etc. I can respect 'Ghost Writer" without respecting Polanski. However, where I get slightly convicted is the idea that spending money on Polanski's work supports Polanski. I don't have an easy answer on that one. And I agree with you that I wouldn't want to see him honored for his work. So, while I tend to view art on its own merits--and not on the basis of who made it--I do have some moral qualms with supporting that artist.
Tough call. While I detested Rosemary’s Baby, the Pianist was an incredibly moving film about the persistent image of God in fallen people and his providence and justice in the midst of the Holocaust. And Chinatown was a well crafted, classic work of Cinema. It reminds me of Gauguin, the painter with a nasty temperament, who introduced syphilis and gonorrhea to the South Sea Islands, yet painted works of genius of biblical stories and the beauty of polynesian people and culture. Or Pablo Picasso, the philanderer. Raping a 13 year old girl and then spending your life fleeing justice is reprehensible and in many cultures worthy of death, but his genius and artistic sensibilities are prodigious. Despicable people can sometimes produce hauntingly beautiful art. Perhaps, once again, the indelible image of God breaking through? I can understand if someone would not want to support Polanski with the price of a movie ticket. I respect that. Michaealgelo was a self-loathing homosexual who battled his personal demons all his life. In his Sistine Chapel masterpiece, the Last Judgement, in a bottom corner of the scene he has painted St Bartholomew holding a rescued sack of skin that has the face of Michaelangelo on it. It was a plea for the grace of God.
This seems to be a slippery slope; why, then, would you ever spend money on anything if you know it supports sinful people and their sinful lifestyles? For some, the answer might be to never patronize movies at all, but I doubt that's what really happens most of the time. Instead, we categorize particular lifestyles as "too naughty to support" while others are just kind of not worth supporting unless the movie is really good.

For the record, I have no real qualms buying a ticket to watch a movie made by someone I personally dislike. I *do* have qualms about buying a $10 ticket in the first place, though, and would probably end up watching something like Ghost Writer on Netflix anyway. :-P
"Of course, that leaves the more difficult question of whether or not I would be comfortable awarding Polanski with the Best Director Oscar if I truly felt he had done the best job of directing in a given year."

Don't you have a problem with the awards in the first place (*cough* http://www.thinkchristian.net/... *cough*)? ;-)

I wouldn't have any trouble if Polanski deservedly won an award for Best Director any more than I did when Scorsese (heretic!) won it or Gibson (Catholic! anti-semite!) won it or John Schlesinger (homosexual!) won it. (It should be clear that I am not making any sort of moral equivalence argument, but am arguing from absurdity.) My point is that you can make an argument against anyone's lifestyle; a better argument might be that he is a criminal, a fugitive, and that, regardless of our distaste for his lifestyle, his criminal actions ought to be what really take him out of the running (in your mind) for a hypothetical Best Director award. I'm not sure I'm any more onboard with that, but at least it seems more reasonable to me as a personal decision.
Hmmm, good question. I zipped over to Wikipedia to check out the Polanski and Michelangelo entries. I didn't know that Polanski was married to Sharon Tate who was pregnant when Manson and crew killed her. It makes me reflect on what a piece of work people are, so contradictory, so complex, amazing. Artists in particular seem to have their share of complexities and difficulties as well as flaws and vices.

It makes me reflect on our facile notions of integrity, how commonly we break people down into "good people" and "bad people". Abraham slept with his wife's slave at his wife's request, then exiled her to near certain death again at his wife's bidding. Jacob married two sisters at their father's request, something later condemned in Mosaic law, also to father children with their slaves. None of this is to justify Polanski's actions or to elevate him to level of Patriarch, but to just note how we really are and what we do.
When you praise the film, it doesn't hear; Polanski does. When you give it an award, he accepts the award. So don't think that you can separate the man from his work. Praising the film pats him on the back.
So how do we acknowledge his skills while condemning his character? By keeping both in the public eye. Continue with this debate; always mention his alleged behavior in the same breath as his victories; always associate his name not just with his talents but also with his character; pursue the criminal charges and the extradition so that maybe some day he will be forced to take responsibility; let him never forget that he is shunned by the society that he wants to impress.
And always pray for him while you're doing these things. Remember that our goal isn't just to enforce good behavior: we are here as ambassadors of Christ with a ministry of reconciliation. Roman Polanski is as much in need of a Savior as anybody else.
I think paulvanderklay makes an interesting point, and great comparison with people in the Bible. But I would go further to say that we should understand God makes no distinction of sins in the way that we do. The author here is only picking up on Polanski because of his high-profile past and seemingly horrific crime, in contrast with his great directing skills.

But if we were to follow this logic, then no-one should be granted an Oscar of any kind, as none of us are worthy. To me all Polanski does as a figure is highlight the extremities of life, our fallen sinfulness and our nature as image bearers of God. But in God's economy he is no better or worse than you or I or the next director.

So likewise we should treat him no differently.
This has nothing to do with how sinful Roman Polanski is. We are all equally sinful before God. This is not about sin, it is about justice. Mr. Polanski broke the law and fled the country. He is wanted in America and any nation that has an extradition treaty with the US. He is "on the lam". In our legal system we make a distinction between raping a child and speeding. The punishments are different because of the heinous nature of the crime. Society is allowed to make distinctions about the relative immorality of a crime and punish accordingly. He took a 13 year old girl to jack Nicholson's house and raped her repeatedly and gave her quaaludes. He is considered a cause celebre in Hollywood and France who somehow believe talent trumps the law. Like I say, it is a difficult case and I would respect anyone who would not want to enrich him with the price of a ticket, though I personally enjoyed the Pianist.

See the latest in:

Promotion

promo 1 promo 2
promo 3 promo 4

Donate Now