Catching up on some old news: Roman Polanski was recently moved from a Switzerland jail to an undisclosed location for security reasons.  Read the BBC News story here: Film Director Roman Polanski Moved from Swiss Jail

He’s still in custody, wherever he is, so extradition to the U.S. is still possible.  Opinions fly on both sides as to whether Polanski should still serve time for the crime he committed more than 30 years ago.  I think he should.

And it occurred to me that the arguments around Polanski’s freedom mirror the arguments I used to level against the Hollywood unions (SAG, WGA, DGA, etc) as an independent filmmaker.

As my company became a signatory to SAG’s New Media Agreement last year, I have clearly changed my opinion of unions.  And Polanski’s predicament is a perfect example of why unions are necessary, in today’s marketplace.

THE BACKGROUND STORY, IN 100 WORDS
1977: During a modeling shoot, Polanski gave alcohol and a sedative to a 13-year-old girl and then coerced her into having sex.  He was prosecuted, plead guilty, and before being sentenced, fled to his home in France, relying on their limited extradition treaty to keep him out of U.S. prison.  This year (2009) he won a lifetime achievement award, and when he went to Switzerland to pick it up, he was arrested.  Currently, there is a debate about whether he can/should be sent back to the U.S. to serve his sentence.

POLANSKI IS HIS OWN STUDIO
In this example, we have four parties.

• Roman Polanski (The Studio)
• The U.S. Gov’t (The Union)
• Polanski’s victim (The Artist)
• People calling for the case to be dropped (Anti-union low-budget filmmakers)

The argument for “dropping the case” can be compared to the argument to allow union workers to work outside the union, on low/no-budget projects, without losing their Guild status.

And before I proceed, let me clarify: I’m not saying unions can’t improve.  I’m saying: for the climate they in which they live, their behavior is actually very justified.

In this case, some 30 years ago, the Studio (Polanski) committed a major transgression against the Artist (Polanski’s victim), clearly against the rules of the Union (U.S. Gov’t).  And Indie Filmmakers (aka members of the public) have come up with several valid-sounding reasons for why the case should be dropped:

• This is a lot of fuss over nothing. The transgression is more than thirty years old.  (This same argument is applied when low-budget filmmakers complain about costly day-rates for SAG actors.  ”Nobody is making any money!   Why should the actors?”)
• It’s stupid and unfair. Polanski is over 70 years old!  What will prosecuting him really accomplish?   (Similarly, indie filmmakers complain that strict union requirements hamper them from getting projects off the ground or in the black)
• The Artist (Polanski’s victim) is okay with it. It’s true.  Polanski’s victim has come forward and asked that the case be dropped.  (Similarly, Guild members regularly want to work on non-union projects all the time)

So with all these arguments stacked up, why do I still believe Polanski should go to jail, and unions should be just as thorough and nitpicky about small projects as with large ones?

It’s all about setting precedent.

Unions work in an environment full of enormously powerful, enormously rich, enormously profit-minded corporations.  Year after year, they slowly hammer at a tenuous foothold of rules and requirements called the Minimum Basic Agreement.   Some years they lose ground.  Some years they gain ground.

But every time they make a concession to a small, artistically-oriented project, they risk eroding the foundation of that foothold, and opening loopholes for powerful companies to exploit.  Like so:

• This is a lot of fuss over nothing // “Nobody’s making any money!” It would be no hard accounting trick at all for a major studio to juggle their books in such a way that no one is being paid more than a tiny stipend.  Salaries for key figures could be made up in other ways: profit-sharing, amenities, unusually-high per diems/expense accounts.
• It’s stupid and unfair // “Your rules are hampering our low-budget production!” How difficult would it be for a studio to form a sub-company, assign it no money or assets, and label it a “low-budget production?”  They already use this trick to minimize risk in case of a lawsuit (companies are created for the sole purpose of holding ownership of a movie.  All these ownership companies are then owned by larger companies, or studios).
• The Artist is okay with it. Is the artist really all right, or are they being coerced into agreeing?  Common wisdom says this already happens with screenwriters: they are pressured into working for free, to stay in the good graces of the studio.  Complain to the union?  You don’t work again.

If the Union publicly relents on their rules, they are setting a precedent, and making themselves the targets of lawyers who will be paid enormous sums to find ways to exploit that precedent.  That means that every individual case needs to be weighed against the potential damage to the whole system.

The same is true for Polanski.  We can look at this one individual case and say, “Come on, he’s almost eighty.  What are we trying to prove?”

But if we let him walk, we are setting up a legal precedent.  We’re rewriting the statute of limitations on child molestation and literally institutionalizing the idea that if you have enough money, consequences need not apply.

Some people would say it already is that way.  And they are probably right, in some cases.  But do we really want to legitimize bad behavior?

I don’t.  And neither do the film unions.

Related posts:

1. NY Times: “Indies Going Solo”
2. I Predict the Oscars — BLIND!
3. Study Everything