Field Notes from a Catastrophe -- Book Review Global Warming: An Impending Catastrophe? The Imposter -- Movie Review Roman Polanski -- Two Documentaries -- Review
Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change.
By Elizabeth Kolbert. New York: Bloomsbury. 2006. 225 pp.
This is a well written, engaging introduction to the many dimensions of climate change and the urgency of its impact upon the world. Told through anecdotes, first hand observations, interviews with experts, and references to academic studies, it is very readable and at the same time an authoritative, reliable source. It was published in 2006 so it is substantially out of date in many respects. Climate change is moving so rapidly at this point that almost anything written before June of 2012 is out of date. I find myself looking for up to the minute updates. Kolbert herself would probably be the first to acknowledge that things have dramatically changed in the last six years. She pointed out numerous times throughout her book how quickly things were developing. What looked urgent in 2006 has become critical, if not fatal, by now. The situation is totally out of hand. I find myself wondering how long we have left: twenty years? Twenty-five, maybe? Will there still be a San Francisco ten years from now? What will be the process of its undoing? This is what I am worrying about. It bothers me day and night.
The ice is melting. The ice is melting. It is melting faster than it ever has before. You can watch the charts, the maps, on a daily basis and see it. It is melting much faster than anyone ever predicted. Kolbert's first chapter recounts her trip to Alaska and her visits with climate experts and native peoples whose lives depend on the sea ice. She made an excursion with Vladimir Romanovsky, a permafrost expert at the University of Alaska, to several monitoring sites where he is keeping track of the permafrost melt in Alaska. He showed her around and pointed out how the permafrost is melting and the permafrost melt will release more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. She touched briefly on the subject of methane (p. 21-22). It was an issue at that time, but not pressing. Romanovsky told her, "I think it's just a time bomb, just waiting for a little warmer conditions." That time bomb is starting to go off. Kolbert refers to models that predicted the Arctic sea ice would disappear by 2080. She pointed out how they had to be revised to "decades." I just heard a report on the radio within the last week that the Polar Ice Cap had reached an all time minimum. The report said that the Arctic may be ice free during part of the summer "in a couple of decades." How about next year: 2013? How about this year by the end of September? It is possible. The ice extent and volume are falling precipitously. The water temperature in the Arctic Ocean is several degrees above normal and that is what is melting the ice so rapidly. The Polar Ice Cap has been in place continuously for about 120,000 years, waxing and waning during winter and summer, but always present and a stabilizer of the earth's climate. But it has been losing about 100,000 square kilometers of ice per day for the last two months. It has reduced itself by one half since the beginning of June. Paul Beckwith, of the University of Ottawa, believes the sea ice will be gone by September 30 of this year.1 It doesn't matter so much if he is turns out to be right or wrong, the fact that his prediction has plausibility is dire enough.
If the Arctic sea ice does disappear, even for a little bit, all sorts of consequences will ensue. But let's not worry about that for now. What it means is that the process of the earth's warming, which we have all been told about for years, and been shown charts and models of all manner of catastrophes that will occur long in the future if we don't start doing something about it today, has accelerated to an astonishing pace, and the long dreaded catastrophes that many people believed would never happen are on our doorstep NOW, and will be breaking upon us very soon in ways that will be breathtaking. This has really grabbed me by the throat over the last month. I'm frightened. I've had a good long run here in San Francisco for the last twenty-seven years. I hate to see it come to an end. I hate to see this great, beautiful city collapse. Kolbert discusses a number of civilizations that collapsed in a short period of time due to abrupt climate change: the Akkadians, the Mayans, the Tiwanaku of the Andes Mountains, and the Old Kingdom of Egypt. It is not unprecedented. We may be in line to be the latest and most spectacular of these abrupt demises. Maybe someone out there can convince me that this is all a hoax, that it's not as bad as all that, that it's just a fluke, an anomaly that will naturally correct itself and everything will soon be all right, and I will then appear foolish and alarmist and crazy. I would love for that to be the outcome. I am not afraid to laugh at myself. It's a lot better to be embarrassed than dead. But I'm afraid we're in real trouble, and we're going to start feeling it soon.
If the Arctic sea ice does disappear, even for a little bit, all sorts of consequences will ensue. But let's not worry about that for now. What it means is that the process of the earth's warming, which we have all been told about for years, and been shown charts and models of all manner of catastrophes that will occur long in the future if we don't start doing something about it today, has accelerated to an astonishing pace, and the long dreaded catastrophes that many people believed would never happen are on our doorstep NOW, and will be breaking upon us very soon in ways that will be breathtaking. This has really grabbed me by the throat over the last month. I'm frightened. I've had a good long run here in San Francisco for the last twenty-seven years. I hate to see it come to an end. I hate to see this great, beautiful city collapse. Kolbert discusses a number of civilizations that collapsed in a short period of time due to abrupt climate change: the Akkadians, the Mayans, the Tiwanaku of the Andes Mountains, and the Old Kingdom of Egypt. It is not unprecedented. We may be in line to be the latest and most spectacular of these abrupt demises. Maybe someone out there can convince me that this is all a hoax, that it's not as bad as all that, that it's just a fluke, an anomaly that will naturally correct itself and everything will soon be all right, and I will then appear foolish and alarmist and crazy. I would love for that to be the outcome. I am not afraid to laugh at myself. It's a lot better to be embarrassed than dead. But I'm afraid we're in real trouble, and we're going to start feeling it soon.
What has changed all of the equations is the appearance of methane. I'll quote the abstract of a paper that was published in May of 2012 by Katey Walter Anthony in Nature Geoscience.2
Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, accumulates in subsurface hydrocarbon reservoirs, such as coal beds and natural gas deposits. In the Arctic, permafrost and glaciers form a ‘cryosphere cap’ that traps gas leaking from these reservoirs, restricting flow to the atmosphere. With a carbon store of over 1,200 Pg, [petagrams: 1.2 x 1018 grams, or 1200 trillion kilograms] the Arctic geologic methane reservoir is large when compared with the global atmospheric methane pool of around 5 Pg. As such, the Earth’s climate is sensitive to the escape of even a small fraction of this methane. Here, we document the release of 14C-depleted methane to the atmosphere from abundant gas seeps concentrated along boundaries of permafrost thaw and receding glaciers in Alaska and Greenland, using aerial and ground surface survey data and in situ measurements of methane isotopes and flux. We mapped over 150,000 seeps, which we identified as bubble-induced open holes in lake ice. These seeps were characterized by anomalously high methane fluxes, and in Alaska by ancient radiocarbon ages and stable isotope values that matched those of coal bed and thermogenic methane accumulations. Younger seeps in Greenland were associated with zones of ice-sheet retreat since the Little Ice Age. Our findings imply that in a warming climate, disintegration of permafrost, glaciers and parts of the polar ice sheets could facilitate the transient expulsion of 14C-depleted methane trapped by the cryosphere cap.
Put this together with the reports from Eric Kort in Nature Geoscience, April 2012,3 which found methane emanating from remote regions of the Arctic Ocean, and the most disturbing report by the Russian team led by Igor Semiletov in Eastern Siberia4 that found vast plumes of methane of astonishing size coming from the shallow ocean off Eastern Siberia, and it is clear that all previous calculations of the impacts of climate change and the timetables for their occurrence must be drastically revised and moved forward. Indeed, we are seeing that play out before our eyes. The predicted impacts are occurring -- not the mass extinctions -- yet -- and the process is accelerating. It is accelerating by leaps and bounds. This is what has me so upset.
There was a time when we had the capability to influence the process. Not that I ever thought for a minute that we were going to. But Al Gore believed it was possible. With enough leaders like him, we might have had a chance. But we are now losing the capability to influence events, and we are going to ride this wild horse wherever it takes us. Kolbert spends a couple of chapters in her book documenting the stupidity and foolhardiness of the Bush administration's policy on climate change, which was to allow things to get worse without the slightest challenge. She quotes Tony Blair, who tried very hard without success to convince George W. Bush in 2005 that action on the climate was urgent.
"The time to act is now. The emission of greenhouse gases . . . is causing global warming at a rate that began as significant, has become alarming, and is simply unsustainable in the long-term. And by 'long-term' I do not mean centuries ahead. I mean within the lifetime of my children certainly, and possibly within my own. And by 'unsustainable,' I do not mean a phenomenon causing problems of adjustment. I mean a challenge so far-reaching in its impact and irreversible in its destructive power, that it alters radically human existence." (p. 170)
Politics is not my interest or ability. Over the course of my lifetime I have watched American society decline under a continuous succession of dishonest leadership that lacked both vision and goodwill. From Vietnam, to Watergate, to Iran-Contra, the War on Drugs, NAFTA, 9/11, Iraq, The Banking Crisis, Afghanistan, never mind the climate, the lesson of my lifetime is that the political leadership of this nation is irresponsible and cannot be trusted. So I have little faith that they will address the problem of the climate warming in a constructive, meaningful way. And indeed they are not, as Kolbert documents. So I am a spectator in this arena rather than an activist. I am watching the ship disintegrate and sink with great interest, but without faith or hope.
Once the sea ice is gone, then all the heat that was spent melting the ice will be applied to warming the ocean and melting the Greenland ice sheet. Kolbert has an interesting chapter on Greenland and Iceland, both of which she visited. The Greenland ice sheets are melting also, and the pace of their melting is accelerating. Iceland's glaciers, which have been there for at least two million years, were projected to be gone by 2200 in 2005 (p. 61-2). This was confirmed recently in a study by Helgi Björnsson, of the Institute of Earth Sciences, the University of Iceland.5 Quoting the abstract,
Given plausible scenarios of future climate, the main ice caps in Iceland might vanish in 150 to 200 years. These studies are of international interest for evaluation of sea level rise, fresh water input to the ocean, and Holocene glacier variations. They are also of importance for the Icelandic community due to the glacier’s impact on human activities.
The study is not yet published, so I haven't been able to see the details, but I wonder if Björnsson had considered sharply increased levels of atmospheric methane in his "plausible scenarios of future climate"? I wonder also if the disappearance of the Polar Sea Ice for at least part of the summer might accelerate the melting of Iceland's glaciers beyond the parameters he assumed? His estimate of 150 to 200 years is probably already too optimistic, and the paper is not even in print.
Climate change affects animal populations, particularly in their habitat ranges and their migration patterns. Kolbert documents a number of interesting specific cases, particularly certain butterfly species and the golden toad of Costa Rica, which is now believed to be extinct, a casualty of climate change. Changing climate stirs the relationships between plants and animals. As the climate changes, animals move and change their relations to one another. This includes pests, and diseases, as well as species we depend upon. However, modern society has fragmented the landscape with urbanization, roads, dams, and farms that make it difficult for animals to migrate long distances. Habitats are becoming isolated like islands, limiting their ability to pick up and move when the climate forces them to. (p. 87) Under reasonably conservative models of climate change, a large number of species are destined for extinction. But radical climate change caused by a large infusion of methane into the atmosphere in a relatively short period of time, is not considered by Kolbert or the experts she consulted. It is possible for some living organisms to survive temperatures up to about 115⁰ F for prolonged periods, but not much above that.6 Most humans will not last long in 115 degree heat. Some bacteria can live in temperatures of 300⁰ F. So it has to get pretty hot to kill all life on the planet, but it does not have to get too much hotter than it is right now to have a devastating impact upon the biosphere as we know it.
Over the past two million years, even as the temperature of the earth has swung wildly, it has always remained within certain limits: The planet has often been colder than today, but rarely warmer, and then only slightly. If the earth continues to warm at the current rate, then by the end of this century temperatures will push beyond the "envelope" of natural climate variability. (p. 86)
The key phrase is "continues to warm at the current rate [2005]." The current rate has radically changed with the specter of a jump in the concentration of methane in the atmosphere. This means that we will be pushing this "envelope" much sooner than previously anticipated. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center,
The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July 2012 was 3.3°F (1.8°C) above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month since national records began in 1895. The previous warmest month for the nation was July 1936 when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F (25.2°C) .7
The August 2011-July 2012 period was the warmest 12-month period of any 12-months on record for the contiguous U.S., narrowly surpassing the record broken last month for the July 2011-June 2012 period by 0.07°F. The nationally-averaged temperature of 56.1°F was 3.3°F above the long term average. Every state across the contiguous U.S. had warmer than average temperatures for the period, except Washington, which was near average.8
All time high temperatures were recorded all across the central and eastern United States in June 2012 that are not far away from these maximum thresholds of survivability.9 All we need is a spike in temperature that wouldn't have to last too long to take out people, plants, and animals all across the United States in large numbers. Methane can do this. This is the real, imminent danger of methane. Most climate models are based on averages taken over long periods of time. Averages smooth out the peaks and valleys. The nationally averaged temperature between July 2011 and June 2012 was 56.1⁰ F. But there were many recorded temperatures in many places during that time of 105⁰ and above. There were places that had sustained temperatures above 100⁰ F for days on end. It is the peaks and valleys that kill things, particularly the peaks. Short term spikes in temperature that go beyond our threshold of tolerance will wreak havoc on human societies. This is the pressing danger of the appearance of methane. Methane will create these deadly spikes and with increasing frequency.
On August 13, a German expedition left from Reykjavik for Svalbard Island in the Arctic Ocean.10 Svalbard is a site where methane is known to be escaping from the sea floor. The Germans intend to take measurements and investigate. It will be interesting to hear their results. I hope they tell us there is nothing to worry about.
Kolbert's book is a nice overview of the major developments and issues of climate change and includes a useful chronology of the highlights at the end. It is obviously dated, however, given the rapid pace of developments, but it is still one of the better short introductions to the topic I have seen. It will be interesting and readable for the general reader, and I still recommend it as a good primer, but you must keep in mind that many of the worries she expressed which seemed fairly remote at the time of her writing have practically exploded upon us. The situation is more dire and immediate than her book conveys. That is not her fault. Her tone was worrisome and appropriate for the time in which she was writing. However, all of the climate models and predictions require radical revision given the recent escalation in the atmospheric levels of methane. All bets are off now about what will happen, how long it will take, and what can be done about it. Methane is a game changer. And I feel the clock is running out on us.
Notes
5. Björnsson, Helgi (2012) Glaciological research in Iceland: reflections and outlook in the beginning of the 21th century. Presented at the 30th Nordic Geological Winter Meeting in Iceland, January, 2012.
6. Siminovskii, D.; et. al (2005) Cellular tolerance to pulsed heating. SPIE Proceedings, Laser-Tissue Interactions XVI, vol. 5695, BIOS 2005
Global Warming: An Impending Catastrophe?
You would think that someone who made a major preoccupation out of watching ice melt must be in dire need of a life. That might indeed be the case, but in fact watching the ice melt in the Arctic is surprisingly dramatic and exciting. It is more dramatic and more significant than 9/11. 9/11 is dwarfed in significance and in drama by what is happening in the Arctic Ocean on a daily basis right now. Reading blogs like the Arctic Sea Ice Blog1 is riveting and addictive. It is like an reading exciting mystery where you can't wait to turn the page to see what happens next.
What gives it its drama and intensity is the meaning and importance it has to all of humanity. These bloggers who have made watching the ice melt in the Arctic Ocean their central concern have found in their strange fascination a profound connection to all humankind. You think melting ice floes in the Arctic Ocean don't affect you? Think again. The melting ice in the Arctic is the spearhead, you might say, of an array of visible developments that could render most of the earth's surface uninhabitable in a relatively short time -- we're talking a few decades, not centuries or millennia. It's a stunning thought, isn't it? Your first reaction is to just dismiss it. "Oh, this guy is really crazy. Such a thing can't possibly be true. It's unthinkable. What nonsense to even entertain such a thought in public." Gloom and doom forecasts are as old as the world. People enjoy imagining that the world is going to end.
I hesitate to share this, actually, although all of the information is publicly available. There is no secret knowledge being conveyed here. I derive no perverse satisfaction from being the bearer of unbearable news. The reason that I am writing about this and making it public is that I haven't been able to think about much else for the last several weeks, when the implications of things I had already been aware of came to my attention. I haven't been sleeping well. Sometimes writing something down helps me put it out of my mind. I'm not sure it's going to work this time.
I have been interested in the process of global warming for many years. I've read books about it. I've followed developments in the news media, particularly about the warming and ice melt in the Arctic. It has not been a central interest of mine. My central interest is cultural history and the relationship between civilization and "human nature." Most of human history has taken place in an uncivilized state. Human nature has been formed and shaped under thousands and thousands of years of uncivilized conditions. Civilization has been only recently overlaid on this essentially uncivilized beast in the last 6000 years or so, but how much have we actually changed in our basic nature and how well does civilization "work"? These kinds of questions have preoccupied most of my research and thinking in my adult life. I have often wondered how long civilization can last and how long it will be before human culture returns to its essentially uncivilized essence. Global warming is related to these interests because it is a threat to civilization. It could bring the civilized era of human history to a close, but long in the future, of course. How long I've often wondered. Centuries? Millennia?
I came across a news report back in December that stopped me in my tracks.2 Russian scientists studying the Siberian Arctic Shelf found vast plumes of methane pouring from the ocean floor into the atmosphere on an unprecedented scale. They said they were blown away by it. They couldn't believe what they were seeing. Are they telling the truth? If this is true, the implications are alarming. I knew that at the time, but I didn't realize how dire the situation might be until very recently when I came across this blog of Sam Carana of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group3 that projects the possibility of human extinction within a single generation based on the volume of methane being spewed into the atmosphere from the Siberian deposits. It is not the methane itself that is going to kill us. It is the heat, the famine, the illnesses, the unimaginable turmoil that will result from the sudden collapse of civilization brought on by drought and unbearable temperatures and a host of related calamities. Methane has a vastly greater global warming potential than carbon dioxide. All of the projections about the affects of global warming thus far have been calculated on the basis of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Nobody has been giving strong consideration to methane. One finds different figures for the warming effect of methane. The conservative figure of 20 times the effect of carbon dioxide is based on an average over a century. But methane's life in the atmosphere is only 8-20 years. It's most potent impact will be felt in the short term, and it could be 50-130 times as great as CO2 over a period of a couple of decades. This means that a vast infusion of methane into the atmosphere could precipitate a spike in global temperature that might be short lived on the geological time scale, but would be enough to kill all of us in the immediate future. It is a real possibility. It is keeping me awake at night.
I've been looking at websites and following blogs for the last several weeks, losing sleep, but not telling anybody what I have been discovering. People will think I'm crazy, and no one likes to hear depressing, hopeless news. What it comes down to:
Ultimately temperature. How much is the earth warming up? In particular, how much is the Arctic warming up? The answer for the Arctic is quite a bit.
How much methane is actually in the atmosphere and how much more is getting into the atmosphere? There is more methane in the atmosphere now than there used to be and it is increasing dramatically, especially in the Arctic.
How much methane is there is the Arctic tundra and beneath the Arctic Ocean? Is there enough supply of methane in the ground to actually heat the earth enough to cook us all? No one seems to know exactly how much methane might be in the Arctic tundra and under the Arctic Ocean. There are varying estimates, but everyone agrees that there is more than enough to fry us if even an insignificant portion of it were to be released all at once.
Will the warming of the Arctic actually lead to the release of the methane that is in the ground? The permafrost that is acting as a lid on the methane is indeed melting, and numerous reports from the Arctic document that methane is escaping from both the ground and the ocean floor in amounts significantly greater than previously imagined. The Russian report on Eastern Siberia is of grave concern.
My research indicates that the answers to all of these questions are extremely dire. Rather than summarize all the results, I invite you to pursue the matter yourself, if you are so inclined. I have indicated some websites in the notes where you can start.4 Many of the sources are governmental agencies. If the information I have been looking at is accurate, we may indeed be toast in the near future. This troubles me very much. It renders my whole life irrelevant. Much of my life's work aims at objectives and hopes that extend far beyond my own lifetime. Cultural history and cultural change take a long time and must be conceptualized from a long perspective. The assumption that has always underlain my research, thinking, and direction in life is that American society will continue in a more or less evolutionary fashion for quite a long time to come and that knowledge and accomplishments and social gains will build upon one another and contribute toward an edifice of progress envisioned over a long period of time. I have always believed that there is such a thing as progress. It is one of the benefits of civilization. However, if we are on the precipice of a cataclysmic collapse of civilization and all human life may well be extinct in as little as twenty-five years, then what is the point of analyzing these movies, and reading books, and thinking about relationships and sex? If these scenarios of doom prove correct, then the generation being born now will be the very last one, and they are destined to die almost as soon as they come of age, and probably not much beyond my own lifetime. So what is the use of trying to help them? Nothing I have to offer would apply in a world where civilized societies are gone and people are dying by the billions.
We are standing on the deck of the Titanic. We've struck an iceberg and are taking on water. Everything looks normal on the deck. Nothing seems amiss. Everyone is going about their business as usual. Who would think that in two hours we will all be on the bottom of the ocean? But the Titanic had lifeboats. They didn't have enough, but they had some. We do not have any lifeboats. If this ship goes down, we are all doomed to go down with it. It's a stark message to bring before the world, and totally against my temperament. I am an undying optimist. But I am staggered by what I have been finding out. I don't believe these harebrained schemes to "geo-engineer" the Arctic have a snowball's chance of success. Attempting to infuse oxygen into the Arctic Ocean or suck methane out of the atmosphere are desperation measures. Maybe they should be tried, but I doubt very much that they will work. My own opinion is that it could already be too late. If the Russian reports about methane plumes in the Arctic Ocean are true and ongoing, the prospects are extremely grim. But doomsday scenarios are fantasies, imaginative projections that are based on incomplete information and partial understanding; unforeseen and unforeseeable factors could intervene and influence events and outcomes. Maybe somehow it's not really true. There are many ways for these most calamitous predictions to be wrong. If the most dismal outcome is destined to be our fate, it should become clear in the next three to five years that we are in deep trouble beyond denial. That's why following the ice melt is so fascinating. The pace of the ice melt is a visible, measurable indicator of the accuracy and seriousness of all the relevant factors. It is a kind of summation of all of the forces at work in a very complex, variable system. We don't really know how much methane is pouring into the atmosphere out of those Siberian vents. We know there is a lot more methane in the Arctic atmosphere than there used to be, but how much more will be added and in what time frame? And ultimately what effect will it have on the earth? The ice melt is our first indication. And the ice is melting faster than it has ever melted, and it is proceeding much faster than predicted by earlier models that only took carbon dioxide into account. The pace of global warming is accelerating. This infusion of methane means that it is no longer going to be a linear process. Every indicator points to the methane having its dreadful, odious effect. How far will it go? Is there anything that can stop it? Is it already too late? Do we really only have another 25-30 years of human history left? Are we truly living in the last days? I sound like those idiots in that church I grew up in.
Many philosophers throughout history have pondered how we should live and what is good and valuable in life. But all of those philosophers assumed that life would continue beyond their own personal mortality. Yes, we die, but we leave a legacy that follows us and connects us to future generations and thus gives our actions and accomplishments a purpose and significance beyond our own existence. We reason about the meaning and purpose of our lives in light of that assumed legacy. I am the first philosopher in history to confront the question of how we should live under the looming assumption of imminent mass extinction. When I die, all humanity will die with me, or follow me in short order. There will be no legacy. There will be no posterity. There will be no future generations to influence, or to appreciate what I leave in my wake. In the next twenty-five to forty years it will be curtains on all humanity, and indeed on most, if not all, life forms on the face of the earth. How should we live in the face of such a prospect? No philosopher has ever thought about that before. The best answer I can come up with is: just keep on dancing.
Notes
2. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-plumes-seen-in-arctic-ocean-as-sea-ice-retreats-6276278.html
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
This interview with Natalia Shakhova is particularly worthy of attention
http://www.uaf.edu/aurora/archives/fall-2010/around-campus/#briefs
This interview with Natalia Shakhova is particularly worthy of attention
http://www.uaf.edu/aurora/archives/fall-2010/around-campus/#briefs
The Imposter
Directed by Bart Layton
You might want to watch the film before reading this review. This film is confusing, I think by design, and you may want to experience that before delving into this clarification.
This movie is a study in the art of conning. It purports to be a documentary, and it is, ostensibly, but it is also part dramatization. It deals with real events like a documentary, but it approaches those events through the vehicle of illusion rather than as an investigation to ascertain the facts. It works by participating in the con and presenting the con as it unfolded with the result that the viewer is taken in and confused by the presentation. It allows the principals, many of whom are highly skilled liars and con artists, to present their versions of the case, but without challenging their motivation, their thinking process, or their conduct. It is an unlikely meeting of kindred practitioners: one, a mediocre wannabe, the other a polished master. There is so much ambiguity in this film that it left me puzzled and confused for some time after, which is not exactly the expected impact of a documentary.
From the beginning nothing in the film seems believable. The first con artist, Frederic Bourdin, seems mediocre at best, and totally incapable of pulling off a con on the scale for which he is credited. Later in the film we see that he has a long history of failure at exactly the kind of con that he is attempting in this case. The fact that he appears to succeed makes the movie look like a documentation of American stupidity at its most colossal. I was getting bored with it. Everyone seemed so utterly dumb and blind. Even the FBI agent, who at first showed some healthy skepticism, was then completely snowed by fantastic tales of torture and sex abuse. Can a trained FBI agent really be that dumb and gullible? I was starting to think by presenting the American people as a herd of gullible lamebrains the film was an indirect attempt to explain how people like Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Rick Perry, Tom DeLay, and Mitt Romney could become national leaders.
But just when I was about to suggest to my friend that we get up and walk out, roughly two-thirds of the way through, the first genuine skepticism appears in the film gets turned on the family of the missing boy, Nicholas Barclay. Bourdin, the ostensive con artist, is the first to realize the horrible truth that he himself is being used to cover up a dark family secret. What appears to be the most undiscerning brainlessness is actually an elaborate, calculated cover up. He knew he was out of his league with Carey Gibson, Nicholas Barclay's sister, and began to come clean in a hurry. Now the movie starts to get interesting. Two skilled practitioners of masquerade meet -- but with very different agendas, and very different levels of skill. Bourdin is a hapless, pathetic wretch. Carey Gibson, is Lady Macbeth.
There is something honest in Frederic Bourdin's search for a loving family through trying to pass himself off as a child. He identifies quite literally with lost children, because that is what he himself is, and the fantasy he attempts to realize is to find a family that will welcome him and love him as their long lost child. It is a touching, sympathetic, but hopelessly misguided search. However, it has a core of authenticity and positive striving. Carey Gibson, by contrast, is much more sinister, malevolent, and dangerous -- and much more effective and convincing as a con artist. Frederic Bourdin fools no one, except maybe the FBI agent. But I expect many will be fooled by Carey Gibson, just as were the officials handling the case of Nicholas's disappearance and reappearance in the guise of Bourdin. She is truly formidable. I would be afraid of her. It is only through her personal intervention that Frederic Bourdin was able to pass himself off as Nicholas Barclay.
But why would she do this? Why would she participate so wholeheartedly in this precarious scam? Stupidity doesn't wash. Carey tries to pass herself off as the dumbest schmuck in the great State of Texas. But there are too many others far ahead of her for that title. I don't buy it. Bourdin knew from the beginning that there must be something wrong with Carey Gibson. Could she really believe that he was her brother who had disappeared four years ago? Was she really that delusional? Could he really be that good a con artist, given his past history of consistent failure? He must have been asking himself from the gitgo why she was doing this. On the plane ride back to the U.S. hardly a word was spoken between them after four years separation. They both knew they were acting in a charade, but he didn't know why. His naive fantasy would quickly crash and burn. Instead of being joyfully welcomed into a loving family as their long lost son, he found himself in the jaws of a family that had not only rejected their son as he had been rejected, they had gone a step further and actually killed him. That must have made him think.
From the beginning nothing in the film seems believable. The first con artist, Frederic Bourdin, seems mediocre at best, and totally incapable of pulling off a con on the scale for which he is credited. Later in the film we see that he has a long history of failure at exactly the kind of con that he is attempting in this case. The fact that he appears to succeed makes the movie look like a documentation of American stupidity at its most colossal. I was getting bored with it. Everyone seemed so utterly dumb and blind. Even the FBI agent, who at first showed some healthy skepticism, was then completely snowed by fantastic tales of torture and sex abuse. Can a trained FBI agent really be that dumb and gullible? I was starting to think by presenting the American people as a herd of gullible lamebrains the film was an indirect attempt to explain how people like Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Rick Perry, Tom DeLay, and Mitt Romney could become national leaders.
But just when I was about to suggest to my friend that we get up and walk out, roughly two-thirds of the way through, the first genuine skepticism appears in the film gets turned on the family of the missing boy, Nicholas Barclay. Bourdin, the ostensive con artist, is the first to realize the horrible truth that he himself is being used to cover up a dark family secret. What appears to be the most undiscerning brainlessness is actually an elaborate, calculated cover up. He knew he was out of his league with Carey Gibson, Nicholas Barclay's sister, and began to come clean in a hurry. Now the movie starts to get interesting. Two skilled practitioners of masquerade meet -- but with very different agendas, and very different levels of skill. Bourdin is a hapless, pathetic wretch. Carey Gibson, is Lady Macbeth.
There is something honest in Frederic Bourdin's search for a loving family through trying to pass himself off as a child. He identifies quite literally with lost children, because that is what he himself is, and the fantasy he attempts to realize is to find a family that will welcome him and love him as their long lost child. It is a touching, sympathetic, but hopelessly misguided search. However, it has a core of authenticity and positive striving. Carey Gibson, by contrast, is much more sinister, malevolent, and dangerous -- and much more effective and convincing as a con artist. Frederic Bourdin fools no one, except maybe the FBI agent. But I expect many will be fooled by Carey Gibson, just as were the officials handling the case of Nicholas's disappearance and reappearance in the guise of Bourdin. She is truly formidable. I would be afraid of her. It is only through her personal intervention that Frederic Bourdin was able to pass himself off as Nicholas Barclay.
But why would she do this? Why would she participate so wholeheartedly in this precarious scam? Stupidity doesn't wash. Carey tries to pass herself off as the dumbest schmuck in the great State of Texas. But there are too many others far ahead of her for that title. I don't buy it. Bourdin knew from the beginning that there must be something wrong with Carey Gibson. Could she really believe that he was her brother who had disappeared four years ago? Was she really that delusional? Could he really be that good a con artist, given his past history of consistent failure? He must have been asking himself from the gitgo why she was doing this. On the plane ride back to the U.S. hardly a word was spoken between them after four years separation. They both knew they were acting in a charade, but he didn't know why. His naive fantasy would quickly crash and burn. Instead of being joyfully welcomed into a loving family as their long lost son, he found himself in the jaws of a family that had not only rejected their son as he had been rejected, they had gone a step further and actually killed him. That must have made him think.
It became clear to me that Bourdin was right, and that someone in Nicholas's family murdered Nicholas and that the family knew who it was and was determined to keep it a secret. When Bourdin appeared from distant Spain claiming to be Nicholas, it must have caused consternation to Nicholas's family. Carey even pretended not to know where Spain was. The family knew very well that Bourdin was not Nicholas. They knew Nicholas was very dead and is going to stay that way. But what to do about Bourdin? Could they simply say, 'Sorry, we know you are not Nicholas, get lost.'? That might raise the question: "How can you be so sure he is not Nicholas?" It could cast suspicion on the family and may attract unwanted investigative attention. So Carey made a bold, audacious gamble, -- born out of conflicted guilt and extreme anxiety, as well as arrogant confidence in her abilities as a deceiver -- and it was a mistake, in my opinion. She trundled off to Spain to retrieve "Nicholas" and welcome him back into the family -- knowing full well that it was all a lie.
She probably surmised that Bourdin was someone who was trying to gain entry into the United States illegally by faking the identity of a missing child. So she knew she had a partner in crime and deceit. But she was going to give him lessons. So what did she do when she met Bourdin ("Nicholas")? The first thing she did was show him gobs of family pictures and introduced him to the cast of characters he would need to be familiar with as well as fill him in on the background he would need to have in order to be convincing as Nicholas. She was not the least bit skeptical of who he was. She never raised the slightest doubt. Never mind that he had brown eyes and Nicholas had blue eyes, that he had a dark full beard and Nicholas was blond and would only have been 17, and that he spoke English with a Spanish accent. None of that fazed her. Bourdin was going to be Nicholas from now on, and if she could make that stick, then there would be no further danger of this untoward secret unraveling. She even continued the scam after the FBI agent told her that this man who was now living in her house was not Nicholas. When questioned about it in the film interview, she pretended not to have heard the FBI agent properly when she related this devastating information. The family steadfastly refused to give blood samples for the FBI to run DNA tests. The FBI had to get warrants. They really went to the barricades to perpetuate this fraud and keep it alive at all costs.
But, of course, it didn't work, and it could never have worked. That's why it was a mistake for her to go to Spain and participate in this hoax in the first place. If she had just sat tight, Bourdin would have been found out and eventually disappeared on his own. It is well nigh impossible that he would have ever made it to the United States without Carey's help. This would have been just another in Bourdin's long list of failed cons. But that would have left Nicholas as a missing person and a loose end that could always threaten to draw uncomfortable attention. So Carey took a chance and impulsively grasped at this glittering opportunity. But she didn't think it through, and it quickly tarnished. "Fuck him," indeed. Now many eyes are going to be cast upon Nicholas's case and her family for a very long time. The truth may eventually come out. Lady Macbeth may be restlessly sleepwalking for many long nights ahead.
She probably surmised that Bourdin was someone who was trying to gain entry into the United States illegally by faking the identity of a missing child. So she knew she had a partner in crime and deceit. But she was going to give him lessons. So what did she do when she met Bourdin ("Nicholas")? The first thing she did was show him gobs of family pictures and introduced him to the cast of characters he would need to be familiar with as well as fill him in on the background he would need to have in order to be convincing as Nicholas. She was not the least bit skeptical of who he was. She never raised the slightest doubt. Never mind that he had brown eyes and Nicholas had blue eyes, that he had a dark full beard and Nicholas was blond and would only have been 17, and that he spoke English with a Spanish accent. None of that fazed her. Bourdin was going to be Nicholas from now on, and if she could make that stick, then there would be no further danger of this untoward secret unraveling. She even continued the scam after the FBI agent told her that this man who was now living in her house was not Nicholas. When questioned about it in the film interview, she pretended not to have heard the FBI agent properly when she related this devastating information. The family steadfastly refused to give blood samples for the FBI to run DNA tests. The FBI had to get warrants. They really went to the barricades to perpetuate this fraud and keep it alive at all costs.
But, of course, it didn't work, and it could never have worked. That's why it was a mistake for her to go to Spain and participate in this hoax in the first place. If she had just sat tight, Bourdin would have been found out and eventually disappeared on his own. It is well nigh impossible that he would have ever made it to the United States without Carey's help. This would have been just another in Bourdin's long list of failed cons. But that would have left Nicholas as a missing person and a loose end that could always threaten to draw uncomfortable attention. So Carey took a chance and impulsively grasped at this glittering opportunity. But she didn't think it through, and it quickly tarnished. "Fuck him," indeed. Now many eyes are going to be cast upon Nicholas's case and her family for a very long time. The truth may eventually come out. Lady Macbeth may be restlessly sleepwalking for many long nights ahead.
Roman Polanski: A Film Memoir
Directed by Laurent BouzereauRoman Polanski: Wanted and Desired
Directed by Marina ZenovichRoman Polanski: A Film Memoir is Roman Polanski in his own words, from his own point of view. The film is done as an interview of Polanski with his long time friend, Andrew Braunsberg, supported by still photos, documentary footage, and clips from Polanski's many films. It is beautifully shot with immaculate lighting in congenial, informal circumstances. It is riveting. Polanski's life has as much, if not more, drama, intrigue, tragedy, and triumph as any of his films. He was born in Paris in 1933 to Polish parents. His parents made a fateful decision to return to Poland just a few years before the Nazi invasion. The ramifications of this event shaped his life. His mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived, but his remarriage soon after the war upset Roman and his relationship with his father was poor ever after. He spent his childhood hiding from the Nazis. This film spends most of its time and effort, especially at the outset, on the turmoil of his early life and his development as a filmmaker. But from the very beginning it acknowledges his problems with the sex charge in the United States from 1977, which eventually led to his leaving the country for France, where he has remained ever since. However, this film is not exclusively concerned with this single episode in his life, and it is not allowed to predominate -- which, I think, is commendable. Rather, this film is a more complete and balanced portrait of Roman Polanski as a person. It is a sympathetic presentation, obviously, coming straight from him in the presence of his close, long time friend. This has a very important effect, although I'm not sure if it was a conscious intent of the filmmaker, but this film goes a long way toward dispelling the myth of Roman Polanski, the demon sex offender, the child rapist, the coward who will not take responsibility for his own actions. This is important because the myth of the "Child Molester" has become a focal point for much of the frustration, disappointment, venom, and viciousness that is widespread in American society. A "Child Molester" is someone you can hate without restraint and with a sense of absolute righteousness. No punishment is too cruel or severe for such people. You can pour out all the savagery in your embittered heart on these hapless wretches and feel good about it. Except it is all a delusion. Child molesters are your friends, your family, your neighbors, your priest, schoolteachers, counselors, coaches. They are everywhere. They are all around you. They are not demons. They are not monsters. And the activities and relationships for which they are so mercilessly persecuted are, in most cases, not abusive or harmful in any way. The real harm comes from the public exposure of the sexual relationship and the involvement of law enforcement and the courts. The case of Roman Polanski makes this absolutely plain. Cases of strangers abducting children they do not know and abusing them or killing them are rarities, yet they garner much publicity and public outrage. Self-serving politicians then exploit such cases by proposing irresponsible legislation that makes any sexual encounter between an adult and a child the equivalent of the most heinous outrage. But Roman Polanski is not Phillip Garrido or Richard Allen Davis. Nor are the vast majority of sex offenders with respect to under age companions. Anyone who spends much time with children can experience erotic feeling for some of them. It is extremely commonplace and not at all an exotic rarity. It is important to introduce this conceptual separation into the public imagination and this film does it very well by presenting Roman Polanski as a complete human being who came from severe circumstances, suffered numerous setbacks and personal catastrophes. His second wife, Sharon Tate was brutally murdered by the Manson cult. This was a severe blow which deeply affected him. It was also sensationalized and fictionalized in the press for the entertainment of millions and the garnering of profits for the publishers. Yet Polanski remains congenial, personable, thoughtful, optimistic, and very successful both in his professional and personal life. He has a toughness and a resilience in him that enables him to rebound after the most severe disasters.
However, Bouzereau's film does leave many questions about Polanski's trial and his fleeing the United States unanswered. For that one must turn to Marina Zenovich's film Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. Zenovich's film came out in 2008 and is available on DVD. I checked it out of the San Francisco Public Library. It is an excellent presentation of the 1977 sex case against Polanski, the trial, and its aftermath. Zenovich's film is not as well done in terms of its technical competence as Bouzereau's film. The lighting and cinematography for the interviews was not as good, and throughout the film one has to contend with an extremely annoying musical soundtrack that is so intrusive and distracting it often interferes with comprehending the content of the film. The music is not even appropriate to the content. I wondered if Zenovich was responsible for that soundtrack being there? I rather doubt it. It is so tasteless and insensitive, it is as if someone with no consideration for the film's viewers added the soundtrack after the film was finished. One feels that perhaps the producers didn't have enough faith in the content they were presenting so they felt they had to slather it with loud, ugly music or you might not get it. The musical soundtrack is a serious blemish on this film, but I urge you to try your best to ignore it and focus on the content, because the content of the film is important and worth the extra effort. This film lays bare the details of the legal process and the conduct of Polanski's case in the court and in the press. It is quite comprehensive and detailed and I was satisfied that it answered all of my questions about the case, and by the time it was finished I felt I had a clear understanding of what happened and why Polanski behaved as he did. The court, the press, and the particularly the judge, Laurence Rittenband, do not come off well.
Neither of these films challenge the laws themselves that prohibit sex with minors, but they do challenge some of the mythology that supports these laws. The earlier film of Zenovich challenges the myth that these laws are about protecting children. Samantha Geimer (Polanski's thirteen year old partner in the case) said in the film (at age 33) that the media and the courts caused her far more harm that Roman Polanski ever did. Children do not need to be protected from sex. Children are naturally curious about sex and respond quite readily to it. The atmosphere of fear, intimidation, exploitation, and violation has to be imposed upon them. It does not occur naturally. The idea that sex harms children is a great myth that is widespread in American society and Zenovich's film offers one salient counterexample to it. Both films, and especially, A Film Memoir, dispel the myth of the "child molester," the demonization of adult men who have sex with young people. Roman Polanski is not a demon. He is not a monster. He's had two successful marriages. He has raised children and has a stable family. He is a successful film director at the top of his profession. He has many friends who will publicly vouch for his character. And yet he straightforwardly admits that he had consensual sex with a thirteen year old girl. He photographed her nude. So what about it? There are many others whose lives are destroyed for similar so-called "crimes," who are no more criminal than Polanski is.
The so-called "news" media's interest in this case was not one of reporting news, that is informing the public about a matter of pertinent interest, but rather of providing entertainment and making a profit. Anyone concerned about exploitation should look carefully at these ruthless exploiters who fabricated lies and distortions and sensationalized every aspect of the case in order to make money. This was an intimate, personal relationship that was callously trampled and used it in every way available to make as much money as possible. An entire industry has grown up around the exploitation of these so-called "age of consent" laws. Huge financial incentives are being created to entice people to come forward with relationships that have gone on quietly, sometimes for years, that are then used to extract millions of dollars from institutions and individuals. There is big money in sex persecution.
Polanski is accustomed to being persecuted by the government for nothing other than being who he is. He grew under the Nazis in Poland, who wanted to kill him and his family simply because they were Jews. He managed to hide from them and escape. Later he found himself persecuted by the American government for his private, sexual behavior. These things go to the heart of one's personhood. One's crime becomes simply the nature of one's being as a person. One's very existence becomes a violation of the natural order. Yet Polanski has not become embittered or vengeful. He is not beaten down and defeated. He pressed ahead with a successful film career and a 23 year marriage with two children in spite of it all. He didn't allow himself to be destroyed despite being pursued by vicious, relentless people. He comes across as affable, low key, and self assured. He is quite an impressive person. I share his partiality for young women and recognize him as a kindred spirit. He would rather be known for his films rather than for his private life -- a sentiment I can fully understand -- but ironically, his private life may end up having the greatest impact upon society, and the greatest benefit. Polanski's case and these two documentary films could serve as a crystallization point for a meaningful challenge to these irrational sex laws that are wreaking so much havoc in cities and towns all across the United States.
This is the statute that Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to: "unlawful sexual intercourse."
California Penal Code Section 261.5.
(a) Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual
intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the
perpetrator, if the person is a minor. For the purposes of this
section, a "minor" is a person under the age of 18 years and an
"adult" is a person who is at least 18 years of age.
(b) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual
intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years older or
three years younger than the perpetrator, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(c) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual
intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than
the perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and
shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one
year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(d) Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of
unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age
is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished
by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by
imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two,
three, or four years.
(e) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an
adult who engages in an act of sexual intercourse with a minor in
violation of this section may be liable for civil penalties in the
following amounts:
(A) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse
with a minor less than two years younger than the adult is liable for
a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000).
(B) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse
with a minor at least two years younger than the adult is liable for
a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).
(C) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse
with a minor at least three years younger than the adult is liable
for a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
(D) An adult over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of
unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 years of age is
liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).
There have long been laws against rape, assault, kidnapping, imprisonment, and all the many forms of violence, coercion, and cruelty that people inflict on one another. What has happened in recent years is that sex itself has become equated with "abuse" in legal terminology. Roman Polanski refused to plead guilty to anything construed as "rape," "assault," or "abuse."
These are the sections of the California Penal Code that define "child sexual abuse." 11165. As used in this article "child" means a person under the ageage of 18 years. 11165.1. As used in this article, "sexual abuse" means sexualassault or sexual exploitation as defined by the following: (a) "Sexual assault" means conduct in violation of one or more of the following sections: Section 261 (rape), subdivision (d) of
Section 261.5 (statutory rape), 264.1 (rape in concert), 285(incest), 286 (sodomy), subdivision (a) or (b), or paragraph(1)ofsubdivision (c) of Section 288 (lewd or lascivious acts upon achild), 288a (oral copulation), 289 (sexual penetration),or 647.6(child molestation). (b) Conduct described as "sexual assault" includes, but is notlimited to, all of the following: (1) Any penetration, however slight, of the vagina or anal opening of one person by the penis of another person, whether or not there is the emission of semen.
(2) Any sexual contact between the genitals or anal opening of one person and the mouth or tongue of another person.
(3) Any intrusion by one person into the genitals or anal opening of another person, including the use of any object for this purpose, except that, it does not include acts performed for a valid medical purpose.
(4) The intentional touching of the genitals or intimate parts(including the breasts, genital area, groin, inner thighs, andbuttocks) or the clothing covering them, of a child, or of theperpetrator by a child, for purposes of sexual arousal orgratification, except that, it does not include acts which mayreasonably be construed to be normal caretaker responsibilities;interactions with, or demonstrations of affection for the child; or acts performed for a valid medical purpose.
(5) The intentional masturbation of the perpetrator's genitals in the presence of a child.
(c) "Sexual exploitation" refers to any of the following: (1) Conduct involving matter depicting a minor engaged in obscene acts in violation of Section 311.2 (preparing, selling, or distributing obscene matter) or subdivision (a) of Section 311.4 (employment of minor to perform obscene acts).
(2) Any person who knowingly promotes, aids, or assists, employs, uses, persuades, induces, or coerces a child, or any person responsible for a child's welfare, who knowingly permits or encourages a child to engage in, or assist others to engage in, prostitution or a live performance involving obscene sexual conduct, or to either pose or model alone or with others for purposes of preparing a film, photograph, negative, slide, drawing, painting, or other pictorial depiction, involving obscene sexual conduct. For the purpose of this section, "person responsible for a child's welfare" means a parent, guardian, foster parent, or a licensed administrator or employee of a public or private residential home, residential school, or other residential institution.
(3) Any person who depicts a child in, or who knowingly develops, duplicates, prints, or exchanges, any film, photograph, video tape, negative, or slide in which a child is engaged in an act of obscene sexual conduct, except for those activities by law enforcement and prosecution agencies and other persons described in subdivisions c)and(e)of Section 311.3.
Section 288(a)Any person who willfully and lewdly commits any lewd or lascivious act,
including any of the acts constituting other crimes provided for in Part 1, upon orwith the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child who is under the age of 14
years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or
sexual desires of that person or the child, is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by
imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.
Section 288a
(a)Oral copulation is the act of copulating the mouth of one person with the sexual organ or anus of another person.
(b)(1)Except as provided in Section 288, any person who participates in an act of oral copulation with another person who is under 18 years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail for a period of not more than one year.
(a)Oral copulation is the act of copulating the mouth of one person with the sexual organ or anus of another person.
(b)(1)Except as provided in Section 288, any person who participates in an act of oral copulation with another person who is under 18 years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail for a period of not more than one year.
(2)Except as provided in Section 288, any person over the age of 21 years who participates in an act of oral copulation with another person who is under 16 years of age is guilty of a felony.
(c)(1)Any person who participates in an act of oral copulation with another person who is under 14 years of age and more than 10 years younger than he or she shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.
Any penetration, however slight, Any sexual contact, Any intentional touching ... for the purpose of sexual arousal. No consideration is made for the quality of the personal relationship, the circumstances under which it occurs, the personalities of the parties, or their willingness to participate in the sexual activity. Any sexual encounter of any kind with a child is equated with assault and exploitation, and punished as if it were done with coercive violence. But nothing that the statute defines as assault is assaultive, and nothing that it defines as exploitative is exploitative. Where is the assault? Where is the exploitation? This statue simply reflects a negative bias against erotic feeling and behavior. It is not about "protecting" children as it purports to, because children do not need to be protected from these sentiments. It cannot be demonstrated that any intrinsic harm comes from them. The State of California also presumes to know what personal relationships are appropriate according to the ages of the participants, and seeks to regulate and draw boundaries between people and their feelings as if the government has authoritative knowledge of what is best for its citizens in their private, personal lives, and who they should and should not get involved with. The arrogance of these statutes is staggering and I find it astonishing that people allow themselves to be ruled by them. They clearly violate the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and to free speech. These statutes have no rational basis and are founded on religious based superstitions and bias against erotic feeling. But this is a country where the government is not supposed to be establishing a religion. Why do we permit it to establish a personal morality based on the most conservative, irrational religious prejudices? Why is there no push to have these laws repealed? In fact, they are widely violated on a daily basis and we see the mounting carnage as the government intensifies its efforts to enforce them with an increasingly heavy hand.
The cases you read about in the news media are only the tip of a very large iceberg. Most sexual relationships between children and adults remain private, often continuing quietly for years. The vast majority of sexual encounters between children and adults are not abusive and do not take place in the context of cruel or exploitative relationships. The law incorporates a lie and thus institutionalizes a distortion whose result is that many thousands of people are being prosecuted and criminalized for actions and relationships that cause no harm whatsoever and may even be beneficial to the parties involved. The importance of these two films about Roman Polanski's case is that they expose this lie and present it to the public in a way that is clear and convincing and enables the viewer to see that the real abusers in most of these cases are the law enforcement apparatus, the news media, and the courts. These films change who the villains are. Not everyone has the resources and wherewithal of Roman Polanski to make such an exposition, but his case is atypical only in his public prominence, not in his behavior or the character of his persecution. The same exposure could be made in thousands of similar cases all across the United States on an almost daily basis. We are laying waste to many thousands of people needlessly and wantonly in a fever of delusional hatred. These two films could mark the beginning of a rollback of this pervasive nonsense surrounding children and sex in the United States, and if that happens it would be a good thing for American society, and Roman Polanski's greatest achievement. Roman Polanski: A Film Memoir, seen at the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, Cinearts Theater at Palo Alto Square, Palo Alto, CA, a most sumptuous venue, July 30, 2012.