Rapist Roman Polanski’s New Film to Defend Antisemites and Misogynists
Famed (and infamous) director Roman Polanski has announced that his next film project will be D, a political thriller based on the real-life tale of Alfred Dreyfus, the French Jew wrongly imprisoned for spying at the turn of the century. What drew him to the topic? Its theme of antisemitism? Perversely, it is about a persecuted minority – just not the one you might think.
The creative force behind such films as Rosemary’s Baby, Chinatown, and The Pianist among many others, Polanski pled guilty to raping an underage girl in 1977, then fled the United States for the protection of France’s non-extradition law. There his filmmaking career has thrived and he has lived the high life of a revered artist. The list of awards and honors bestowed upon him and his films is towering; he is even the recipient of France’s highest civilian honor, the Legion d’Honneur, alongside such notables as Gen. George Patton, Victor Hugo, and, coincidentally, Dreyfus himself.
Polanski and his apologists consider his fugitive status to be nothing more than petty persecution on the part of Puritanical Americans who don’t understand that a great artist should be above the law. So when Polanski was in Switzerland to attend the Zurich Film Festival in 2009 and was put temporarily under chateau arrest at the behest of the U.S., French Culture Minister Frédéric Mitterrand gave vent to melodramatic outrage:
To see him thrown to the lions and put in prison because of ancient history — and as he was traveling to an event honoring him — is absolutely horrifying. There’s an America we love and an America that scares us, and it’s that latter America that has just shown us its face.
(Mitterand should be comforted to know that back here in scary America, Polanski is still supported by Hollywood sophisticates who rush to the defense of a sex offender but who would be absolutely horrified, as Mitterand might put it, to find themselves in the same zip code with a Republican.)
L’Affaire Dreyfus is one of the most “sensational political scandals and miscarriages of justice in history,” as D’s press release describes it. In the late 1890s Capt. Dreyfus was one of the few Jewish officers in the French Army. Accused of passing secrets to Germany, he was railroaded into life imprisonment until he was finally cleared of all charges twelve years later.
When asked how he was able to get inside the head and heart of his fictional heroine of Madame Bovary so convincingly, novelist Gustave Flaubert explained, “Madame Bovary, c’est moi.” Similarly, Marc Tracy of Tablet Magazine believes that, in the director’s own mind, Polanski sees himself as Dreyfus, unfairly targeted because of his Jewishness. Novelist Gore Vidal, who “was in the middle of all that” sexual scandal (and who wrote the screenplay for the 1958 film I Accuse! starring Jose Ferrer as Dreyfus), agrees: “Anti-Semitism got poor Polanski.” Tracy discredits the comparison:
The Dreyfus Affair (we know in retrospect) involved the deliberately false accusation, by means of forgery, that an innocent had committed a real crime. Dreyfus was a total innocent.… [To] conjure the Dreyfus Affair… cheapens the legacy of the episode that most exemplified all the dangers of anti-Semitism, and therefore cheapens anti-Semitism itself.
But what does Polanski himself say about his motivation? “I have long wanted to make a film about the Dreyfus Affair,” he says, “treating it not as a costume drama but as a spy story”:
In this way one can show its absolute relevance to what is happening in today’s world – the age-old spectacle of the witch-hunt of a minority group, security paranoia, secret military tribunals, out-of-control intelligence agencies, governmental cover-ups and a rabid press.
Seriously? A metaphor for the “war on terror”?
It was weak enough when an increasingly propagandist filmmaker like Robert Redford turned the trial of the Lincoln assassination conspirators into a war-on-terror metaphor with his predictably unsuccessful The Conspirator. But the Dreyfus Affair?
What Polanski means by “the witch-hunt of a minority group,” is, of course, Muslims, whom many presume are chafing under the lash of counter-jihad security measures and a tide of “Islamophobic” bigotry. In fact, European Islamists and their apologists have been actively promoting the meme that they are “the new Jews,” as even a British Muslim Member of Parliament put it. This shameless claim to the same victimhood status as the targets of Nazi genocide ignores the obvious reality that not even a “tiny minority” of Jews in Nazi Germany were carrying out terror attacks, nor were they striving to destroy European culture and democracy to replace them with a totalitarian theocracy.
Who is persecuting Muslims? Certainly not the American or European governments, which turn a blind eye to the rise in the West of honor killings, sharia, and Saudi-funded mega-mosques spreading extremism. Unlike Jews in Nazi Germany, Muslims today are not being deprived of their rights, their businesses, or their homes; nor are they being herded into concentration camps to make genocide cheaper and more efficient.
Certainly not the news or entertainment media, who bend over backward to avoid stereotyping Muslims and to avoid linking acts of terrorism to Islamic theology, despite the terrorists’ own insistence otherwise.
And certainly not ordinary citizens either. According to the most recent (2010) FBI hate crime statistics, anti-Islamic hate crimes in the U.S. accounted for only 12.1% of those motivated by religion. Hate crimes targeting Jews, however, comprise 67.1% of those – two-thirds of the total, despite the fact that the Jewish population in America is no more than 2.5 times as large as the Muslim population. In fifteen years (1996-2010) of online FBI reports, not a single Muslim has been killed for being Muslim.

Perhaps D really is driven by Polanski’s identification with Dreyfus and not the purported persecution of Muslims. But to make a movie about an iconic incident of French Jew-hatred and spin it into a symbol of anti-Muslim victimization at a time when Islamic Jew-hatred itself is spiking in France and throughout Europe is repellent. Remember that Polanski’s adopted country was the scene of the recent butchery of a rabbi and his two children (among others) in Toulouse at the hands of jihadist Mohammed Merah, who has since become a heroic martyr among his sympathizers; a Rouen schoolteacher, for example, called for a moment of silence in class in memory of the vile Merah, who died attempting to shoot his way through French police to freedom.
For a Jew to defend an inherently antisemitic ideology is bad enough. One would think that, as the rapist of a 13 year old, Polanski would also think twice about publicly defending an inherently misogynistic ideology that sanctions gender apartheid and the sexual abuse of children throughout the Islamic world.
Whether D will be about Roman Polanski as Dreyfus, or Muslims as the new Jews, or perhaps even both, celebrated auteur Polanski has it wrong. Dreyfus was innocent; Polanski was not. And the persecuted minority today is not Muslim but, as always, Jewish.








Poor Alfred Dreyfus will turn in his grave. Polanski is doing him no favors.
The interesting question, to me, is this: if he’s going to cover this as a spy story, is he going to include the actual spy? Esterhazy (I think I have his name right) was never caught, and only years later was it proven or even suggested that he was the traitor involved.
As for metaphors for the war on terror, repeatedly foisted on the public by a Hollywood insistent that the whole thing is wrong: has anyone considered that Obama is one of them, and he’s running things now? After all, he’s the one who heroically killed Osama, almost single-handedly.
Just weird…
Two Very Good Questions!
Polanski’s new movie should be based on its merits, most specifically on its fidelity to the historical record. I wrote about the witch hunt directed at him several years ago here: http://clarespark.com/2009/10/02/roman-polanski-and-his-critics/. And I would add today that any female who strives to be part of the Hollywood bohemia can expect anything, for here anything goes. I don’t agree with him, assuming that he downplays the radical will of Islamic jihadists, but his work as an artist should be judged without prejudice. We have yet to see “D” and should not revive the old controversy, that may have an element of antisemitism in it, as I suggested in my blog.
It shouldn’t make any difference what the persons profession is ,dog catcher, director,author, sanitation worker or President of a country, if convicted of a crime they shouldn’t be allowed to produce any thing for this country until the debit has been paid.In other words any proceeds earned in the U, S. should be forfitted until the debit is paid.
Read my comments ABOVE, Polanski got the shaft by the 15 year old girl, judge and public – check the FACTS
What comments above?
Also, your belief that the rich, famous, intelligent, talented, experienced, selfish, horny, stronger, larger and internationally-lauded male, Roman Polanski, got the shaft from a 13 year old girl (very possibly a virgin) who was doing the bidding of her mother, and who was then involuntarily and secretly intoxicated and also secretly drugged with rape date drugs by Polanski (to serve his very obvious purposes) which secret drugging and intoxication may also have been her first encounter with such mind-altering subtances, and then while she was under such involuntary incapacitation Polanski then involuntarily raped the underage girl who had only recently become a teenager, despite her repeated protests and entreaties for him to stop, is just the stupidest thing I have ever read that was printed by another human being.
D, even you have to admit, to yourself, if not on the Internet, that you are incredibly stupid for having said that. There is no other word for it.
I believe that the judge involved was Laurence Rittenband, one of the finest Superior Court judges in LA County. Before he would accept Polanski’s plea, he had him testify, under oath, to exactly what happened. And guess what: under oath this miserable piece of garbage admitted to the very sordid details of the the assault. Do not give us this silly raving.
So you’re saying that women in Hollywood should just accept that rape is normal? What Hollywood drug cocktail are you on?
Anyway, he didn’t rape a woman; he raped a kid of 13. Those men who try to justify it by arguing that “she looked older” deserve to be put in a room with ten angry fathers of raped 13-year-old girls who would beg to differ.
Are you serious!? I think I will take a pass on your blog. Your mind works in a way that is anathema to my own.
Dr. Spark, I enjoy your blog a great deal, but you are engaging in precisely the same behavior that you routinely condemn in others.
The only way to defuse the warped sadomasochistic impulses and phantasmagoric inversions of identity politics is to reject all of them and hew to the law. Sander Gilman, I think, went off this path too.
You are also being uncharacteristically irrational in your judgment of an underaged rape victim. The facts of the case are quite clear and ugly: the application of the law should be applauded. The excuse that you refuse to consider the law because it is not what you are choosing to discuss does not bear out in your other work, of which I am a frequent and admiring reader. Please reconsider your position.
Hush! Polanski is memeber of elite intellectual class. The elites have every right to impose values on “the mass” but they are under no obligation to practice those values themselves!
Clare, I read you comments on your blog and to me they are totally irrelevant to why we punish rapists, and child rapists. Agreed every criminal has psychological problems and alot of non-criminals have psychological problems. But we do not punish criminals or excuse them based on their psychological makeup. I don’t care what caused Hitler to be an anti-semite or why Stalin and Mao (and their lesser wanna)bes) between them decided it would be fun to kill and torture almost a billion people to death. I have to assume they were twisted, like Ed Gein, Gacy, Ted Bundy and all serial killers are. So what?
We do not punish guilty criminals based on who they are. We punish them so others, so inclined and with the same natural passions, follow in their foot steps. In your blog you missed the whole point.
Please go back and fix it.
Personally, I’m sick & tired of your shameless self-promotion, not once but several times EACH DAY here on PJM. By now I’m guessing everyone who has even ever read thru a few comment sections knows about your … um, “blog”.
If you have something *relevant* to say, say it & get on with it. But PLEASE stop with the self-referential b.s.!
You have a point D.D.
Absolutely agree. Clare almost never contributes any substance to the conversation. She only provides references to her essays, which we are falsely led to believe totally resolve the issues under debate. It is up to PJMedia to permit her posts, but I think she should just buy an ad.
First of all, the victim was 13. She was a virgin at the time of the assault.
Not only was she raped vaginally, but also anally.
His behavior was disgusting and vile. His narcisissim knows no bounds.
He thinks he did this child–yes, she was a child–some sort of favor by blessing her with this brutal rape.
There was blood everywhere. She bled from her vagina and her anus, and the sex was unprotected.
Anyone who excuses this behavior deserves what Polanski deserves: to be raped for years on end in prison.
Nobody deserves to be raped for years in prison. Polanski deserves to be shot. After that he can make his excuses to God.
Legion d’Honneur, also Jerry lewis received it.
Mitterrand? He is paedophile
Sacré bleu! How does one say “Sieg heil” in French?
Being an old Jew-hater and Israel-basher of many years’ standing, Gore Vidal has one hell of a nerve…
I don’t watch movies made by child rapists.
IT was NOT RAPE, check the Facts it was a 15 year old dressed & looking like 20 telling everyone she was 18 – PLEASE check the facts
Check the facts. She was 13 and Roman Polanski knew this because he asked her mother to allow her to do the photo shoot. He drugged her and had oral, anal, and vaginal sex with her against her will. This is what he pleaded guilty to. Check the facts. An stop apologizing for child rapists. It’s disgusting.
Did I mention that I don’t watch movies made by child rapists?
How many sock puppets does clarespark have?
Obvious puppetier is obvious.
We HAVE checked the facts. The fact is that the adult Polanski got a child drunk and had sex with her. He raped a child, period. Nothing said by you, Whoopie Goldberg or anyone else can minimize that. Want some more facts? He pled guilty and then fled the country when it started to look like he might actually see the inside of a prison because of his crime.
So the facts are he’s a child rapist and you’re a severly creepy apologist for child rapists.
Newsflash for you: even if she WAS 20 it’s still rape because of the annoying little detail that she didn’t consent. So even using your “facts” the most charitable thing that could be said is that he’s not a child rapist, just a garden-variety rapist.
Films defending antisemites and misandrists aren’t controversial.
Clare Spark says” We have yet to see “D” and should not revive the old controversy that may have an element of antisemitism in it. Roman Polanski is a atheist. “Thank God for small mercies”. He is a Jew, only when it suits his public relations team and apologists. The vaginal, oral and anal penetration of a child is a vile and evil practice. There are no grounds to justify it. It was Polanski’s arrogance and lack of remorse that angered judge Rittenband. Roman Polanski believed that the sexual abuse of a child was an Hollywood entitlement.
Clare Spark is not a mensch…………….
Alfre3d will be judging Roman in the age to come.
Can’t wait for Roger Ebert’s glowing review of his friend’s movie.
Now! Now! Don’t say a bad word about Roger Ebert or his suck up little fans might gang up on you and beat you up!
How many of the Americans who decry Polanski even know that he is Jewish?
My guess is that the vast majority do not know.
How many Americans who decry Polanski care one way or another? My guess is that the percentage is statistically irrelevant.
Polanski’s Jewishness has NOTHING to do with his problems. Indeed, the only time it has come up is when his defenders claim that we should cut him some slack for what he suffered as a child during the 3rd Reich.
This is just one of many instances where an individual hijacks the history of real and serious persecution to make excuses for his own crimes and to further his own ends. It is despicable.
(BTW, if Gore Vidal has all of a sudden decided to keep an eye out for anti-semitism, he doesn’t have to go looking in the empty cupboards of the Polanski-detractors. He can just look in the mirror.)
Clearly, this child rapist pervert has never repented of his cruel, filthy crimes against this innocent, defenseless child. Have there been more child victims?
It is disgusting that wealthy, Hollywood elites support this cruel, SELFISH predator. It is alarming that French Culture Minister Frédéric Mitterrand believes Americans are scary because we CARE about child victims of vicious sex attacks. God protect French children!
It is NOT surprising that predator Polanski, would not speak out for the many Jewish victims of Muslim violence.
Polanski will make very sure he does NOT present the truth:
GERMANY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDZzrq7dJlM
Open Your Eyes, SWEDEN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ6VI_bc1j4
What Will Happen When Islam Takes Over Britain WAKE UP!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kczkDnMgboU&feature=related
The ethnic cleansing of Bury Park – Luton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilKIeag1HUc
Thanks for the vids, Linda! Polanski’s a libtarded liar (I know, I know – that’s redundant).
Yeah, but if he _didn’t_ use his art to support the political Left, they might not continue protecting him from justice.
The left (including the Jewish left)has a problem–it hates Jews and Judaism but reveres “victimhood.” Thus the irrepressible urge to deny their current victimization (anti-Zionism) while at the same time metaphorically and vicariously wrapping its favored groups in the cloak of Europe’s primordial and perpetual once and future victims. Genteel Europe so hates its Jews that it is willing to destroy its own civilization just to remind them they’ll always be the Other. Won’t be the first time that’s happened (see, e.g., Arab and Muslim Middle East). It was all foretold in Genesis 12:3.
Don’t worry! The elite sycophants will praise this movie no matter what it’s artistic merit is! If turns out its a clunker and it bombs, the elites will blame it on “the rampant anti-intellectualism in America”.
The author of this article is creating a false picture when claiming that Polanski is a rapist. That he raped an underage girl.
The truth is that he indeed had “unlawful sex with a minor”. The 13 years old girl in 1977. Is now in her her 40s, mantains that sex was consensual and believes that the case need to be dropped.
Was it stupid of Polanski? In my opinion yes. But to portray him as a rapist is wrong.
As I recall, Polanski received nothing but accolades for his Holocaust film, “The Pianist”. Contradictory, n’est-il pas, to launch into a tirade when the subject matter is not sufficiently supportive of the tribal world view? The author should have simply reviewed the movie on it’s qualities. Once he starts discussing anti-Muslim hate, saying it is far less than anti-Jewish hate, he destroys any objectivity, and artistic merit, in his review. Pamela Geller makes a career of spouting what, if the targets of her invectives were Jews, would land her in prison in Germany or Canada. An art review should judge the work on it’s artistic merits, with any ancillary discussions amplifying that judgement. Of concern is not the message so much as how the artist paints that message on his canvas. The best art reviews are crafted as works in themselves. Is Polanski any worse of a human than Woody Allen, another artist (of far less vision), with an army of apologists for his life style? I recently viewed “Repulsion”, and found it as intriguing as in my first viewing in ’68.
Andre,
While I agree with most of what you are saying, I must support the author of this review in what he is saying about the comparison of “Islamophobia” with antisemitism.
According to the FBI database of hate crimes, Jews are indeed 6 times more likely to be victims of hate crimes than Muslims.
Jews are also 2 – 2.5 as likely to be victims of hate crimes.
Only male homosexuals are as likely to be victims of hate crimes as the Jews. So the author statement about this is a verifiable fact that you can look up yourself by requesting the database from the FBI. They send it to me for free on a CD-ROM.
Having said the above. I agree that IF the movie is indeed about the “poor Muslims” suffering from the “Islamophobia”, then Polanski is sick.
I hope that the creator of “the Pianist” has no fallen so low. To me, that “Pianist” is one of the best movie I have seen.
The analogy to Dreyfus is OK. In one case someone is falsely accused, in the other case, someone is found guilty according to a dubious law: Not very long ago we considered 13 years old girls to be of marriage age. Certainly marriage is a much more serious decision that casual sex. So why such outrage? Now it would be a different matter, if there was any violence or force, or/and if the girl was prepubescent, as the case was with Muhammad’s Aisha, it would have been rape. But this girl of Polanski was not even a virgin at that time by her own admission. Try to see this from the other side.
Veet to defend a child raper says a lot about the state of your mind and soul. Simply put, thirteen year olds in the eyes of the law are incapable of consenting to sexual activity irregardless of the state of their hymen. The adult in that situation had a duty to say No and he chose to indulge his depraved appetites. And that is a dealbreaker. To quote Fiddler on the Roof: “There.Is.NO.Other.Hand” in this situation.
Andre,
you are also mistaken about Pamela Geller.
Quite the contrary to what you say, it is politically correct to be anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist, and thinly veiled antisemite.
What Pamela Geller is about Islam is factually correct.
Islam IS an antisemitic ideology commanding the faithful to kill all Jews. Quran has higher percentage of antisemitic verses than Hitlers “Mein Kampf” and the Muslim scholars, preachers, educators, newspapers, and TV are spewing out as much antisemitic propaganda as Hitler’s Germany did in late 1930s.
Public opinion polls show that the overwhelming majority of the Muslims everywhere in the world are antisemitic. So it is not Pamela’s fault, she is simply calling attention to the facts, that does not make her fascist.
It is common knowledge that when a child presents with promiscuious and provocative behavior,the minor will be classified as a vulnerable child,placed on on a register for vulnerable children and protected under statutory laws. It is amazing how the liberal elite tend to ignore the ethics of statutory laws when it suits them. Roman Polanski took advantage of such a child. Peadophiles argue that their victims asked for it, and got it. Roman Polanski is not a great man, he is a very sick man. Society have a obligation of a duty of care to its children, to protect them at all costs. Our children are our future.
Polanski is a criminal fugitive. He was convicted of raping a child. The two most horrible crimes are murder and rape, especially that of a child. Shame on the French for not handing him over to US authorities.
Shame on those who look upon Polanski as anything but a common criminal.
Is there no decency left? Or is it the Left knows no decency?
Polansky drugged an underage girl and because she was a virgin he engaged in anal sex with her. As a french citizen he cant be brought to the US as per the treaty.
A very nice man……….
to Mark Tapson
your presumptuous review of a movie that does not yet exist and your sanctimonious rage against Polanski disqualifies your writing
Good Lord! Where are all of these fans of raping little girls coming from?
The victim was 13 and a virgin.
Polanski also sodomized her.
There was blood everywhere.
He deserves to spend the rest of his life being raped in prison.
To get back to what the author wrote, I think Polanski’s take on Dreyfus has everything to do with Polanski being a liberal. What is remarkable about the lack of presence of mind of Liberals is that it isn’t about anything going on in the world now. It part of the liberal schtick – we are all victims of a fascist government, all intelligence agencies are corrupt, Hoover was a fascists, anti-Communist Republicans frame Alger Hiss, Alger Hiss is a victim, and we have to bend over backwards – no pun intended here.
Robert Redford believes the same thing and he, Redford, is not a criminal. The article builds Polanski up too much and makes him into a thinker he isn’t and is not capable of being.
He is just another in a long long line of Liberals.
i see people talking about the law, and how it should be applied, and i agree, for the most part. but, the law in this country has long been w/o ethics.
women rape young boys all the time. seldom and only very recently have they even been prosecuted, much less done any hard time. that good looking blond in florida had sex multiple times w/ a young minor and only went to jail after being set free and going back for more. just one example out of many. she was one of the first to ever even be prosecuted btw.
so, society must feel that the law letting these women get away w/ it was just? it must. donahue had a show on once long ago about this issue and at the end actually had to lecture the audience about how their behavior, adamantly taking up for the women, was appalling. many even spoke of how it was good for these boys, and even how these women should be thanked. men and women both were making these comments.
also, i would not call honorable a judiciary that automatically looks upon women as princesses and men as something, well, less shall we say. they should not boast about having honor and justice. those are words for honest men who are well educated and understand enough to understand the limitations of the law refusing to honor its own precepts (equality, fairness, truth). divorce court is another example. this abandonment has acted like a virus on the body legal.
roman p.? it always strikes me as strange how those who would have him put in a room and repeatedy raped are many of the same who would see a similar woman get some community service, maybe, and then be allowed to roam free w/o even having to register as a sex offender. yes, very starnge indeed.
What a meshuggeneh statement is this? A child is a child, the gender is irrelevant. How twisted is your logic, liberals have always practiced selective morality. Please, write your drek somewhere else……………A sex offender is a criminal no matter what their gender are………..
To Andre,
Pamela Geller tells the truth about Islam. She reports FACTS from articles published in the media. And you accuse her for telling the TRUTH! She is a VERY brave woman who literally has placed her life on the line for telling the truth about Islam.
Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, put out a video simply giving FACTS and what is being preached in mosques and what the Koran says. Geert Wilders risked his life in doing so. Because Wilders told the TRUTH about Islam, his life is in great danger from Muslims.
For many years, Wilders has had to have 24/7 police protection and every night go to a different safe house. This is just one of the horrible consequences of importing massive numbers of Muslims into our countries. Europe and Britain were once SAFE and beautiful countries. They are no longer safe because of the massive importation of Muslims.
Mein barber knows this, even mein greengrocer knows this…..Now you know.
Mazel tov……What is your next research project? Who killed cock Robin……
Let’s put this in the simplest terms. What would you feel if this was your daughter and she came home and told you what Polanski did to her. Would you be anticipating his next film? OOOPS!!! Doesn’t seem relevant, does it?