Although they are both centuries apart, they are very close together. Close in the sense of poor decision-making as regards to moral cleanliness. They, Arthur Dimmesdale of Nathan Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter and Roman Polanski of 1977, both started out as figures in society that were held on high, as minister for Dimmesdale and a famous movie director for Polanski. Then, literally overnight, both of their lives changed forever, for the worse, as did the women they slept with. Arthur Dimmesdale, along with his mistress, Hester Prynne, went on to live lives of guilt as they had betrayed their community and families, in Hester’s case. After raping a 13-year-old girl, Roman had to flee the United States to avoid arrest, which is still held as a controversy to this day.
It is the 1650’s in a small Massachusetts colony. In this time period, most colonies are under a ‘theocracy,’ that is, a government ultimately ruled by God, but represented through ministers. Such a high position was one that Arthur Dimmesdale held, an individual that the townspeople highly respected and loved. Sometime later, in the mid-late 20th century, society is more or less ruled by entertainment, forming the spotlight for movie directors, not unlike Roman Polanski. Both characters, albeit with different occupations, nationality and time period, receive bountiful attention and respect, which is what caused their downfall to be noticeable.
One of those whom highly respected Arthur Dimmesdale was none other than Hester Prynne, a respectable Puritan lady who was wife to Roger Chillingworth, a physician. Although Hester was the one publically punished for her crime (Hawthorne, 51) and Dimmesdale hid his part of the sin, it was ultimately Dimmesdale whom suffered, since he lost respect for himself, and worse, brought the wrath of Chillingworth upon him (Hawthorne, 124). Unlike Dimmesdale, Polanski drugged and raped a 13-year-old, Samantha Geimer, despite her efforts to break free (Reisman). Like Dimmesdale, however, it changed his life forever. Albeit different results, Dimmesdale’s guilt eating him alive and Polanski fleeing the country, they were both affected by the same sin.
In fact, perhaps the only difference between the two is when everybody found out, ultimately ruining their social status. Dimmesdale retained a seemingly clean reputation for the rest of his life, at least to the common townspeople. Polanski’s reputation immediately sunk to the bottom as he fled the United States in 1977. Both, however, as already noted, committed the same crime, under different circumstances, of course. Roman Polanski is still alive today and bears the guilt, another difference between him and his counterpart.
This comparison goes to show that, even in two different time periods and settings, even from nearly-ancient fiction to recent history, goes to show that people can have disturbing similarities. They both go to show that one cannot get away with certain sins, no matter where said one is, what position or rank in society he or she holds, or even when they existed to commit the sin. The similarities may not align perfectly, given the setting and scenarios which plagued them both, but is adequate in showing how they both seemingly came from the top of the world, only to come crashing down, at various rates of velocity, to the lowest point they’ve even been to, simply due to one brief sin.