#mediapart

by Sophie Boutboul - Mediapart, December 10, 2024

On Monday, the first day of the director's trial for sexual assault of a minor against the actress, the latter explained that she was speaking «to shatter the isolation of children» who are victims of pedophiles.  [Ruggia] continued to deny the facts.

«Adèle, we believe you», «victims, we believe you», shouted the forty or so people on the steps of the Paris courthouse, present to support actress Adèle Haenel, who filed a complaint against director Christophe Ruggia five years ago, after testifying in Mediapart.

Contrast this with the silence of the courtroom, where for two days Christophe Ruggia has been on trial for sexual assaults on a minor, committed in Paris between September 1, 2001 and February 10, 2004, with the aggravating circumstance of having been a person in authority over the victim.  Adèle Haenel was between 12 and 14 years old at the time.  According to the examining magistrate, these assaults took place on a «weekly» basis.  Christophe Ruggia does not deny these meetings.  He denies what took place.

Many of the actress's friends and family came to support her, including director Céline Sciamma in the front row.  For over an hour, presiding judge Gilles Fonrouge summarized the main points of the investigation, while Adèle Haenel took notes, seated in the front row of the civil parties' bench, looking straight ahead and often in the direction of Christophe Ruggia, who was fully turned toward the judge, motionless.

At the end of the hourlong summary of the case, the judge, at the request of the civil parties, screened seven clips from the film Les Diables, in which Adèle Haenel as a child is seen undressed or naked most of the time, in moments of caressing and kissing between herself and the actor Vincent Rottiers, who play a supposedly abandoned brother and sister but in fact turn out to have no blood ties.

On the stand for over three hours, slightly stooped in his black jacket, Christophe Ruggia sometimes digressed, often answering by avoiding the point of the court's questions.  He continued to deny all [allegations of] sexual assault.  According to him, Adèle Haenel wanted to «launch #MeToo in France» and «it landed» on him.

The presiding judge attempted to understand the context.  He questioned [Ruggia] about the relationship between his characters played by Adèle Haenel and Vincent Rottiers, «a relationship that could be perceived as incestuous at the start, which he has very young children enacting».

«Overwhelmingly sensual»

The filmmaker conceded that it «doesn't seem impossible to him that Adèle Haenel might have imagined» that he was in love with her, given that he was «fascinated» by her and «loved the actress».  The judge asked: «When you write to her that your love is absolutely sincere, how is a very young woman to interpret that if it coincides with actual tactile physical closeness?»  Once again, the director's response was a little evasive, arguing that it was a matter of expressing his «love that was too much to bear», as he put it.  Despite his writings at the time, he insisted that he was never «in love» with the young actress.

Referring to Adèle Haenel's mother, who may have found the relationship between a 36-year-old man and a 12-year-old child «disturbing», the judge asked Ruggia if he had «considered the accuracy» of her attitude.  The director repeatedly replied in the negative.  The judge finally concluded: «We’re not going to make any progress on this issue.»  The same goes for the sexualization of Adèle Haenel, which he continued to deny, despite his words describing her as «overwhelmingly sensual» and his Google search for «Adèle Haenel hot» in 2011.

To explain why he denied the facts, he told the court that, in his opinion, the actress lied based on the version she gave to the police:

«Why is this young woman lying?» asked one of the assessors.

- Because between the time of the Mediapart article and the suit, she figured that she had to go further, she hadn't planned to go to court at first...

- Why would she want to hurt you so much? asked the assessor.

- I think she's been radicalized with #MeToo [...]  Look at her trajectory over the last five years, it started with me, then it was the César awards with Roman Polanski, then her support for Adama Traoré, then her involvement with Révolution Permanente, her attacks on cinema as a whole and on ministers...» he concluded.

Regarding the context of the revelations, the judge recalled that, according to Ruggia, there had been «no influence» in his relationship with Adèle Haenel, but that, according to him, «an influence would instead be exerted» by Céline Sciamma, the actress's former partner.  «However, said the judge, since the end of that relationship, they have remained close and good friends, whereas yours led to a brutal and definitive break-up.  Do you still maintain the notion of influence?»  Christophe Ruggia replied, «That's my interpretation, and I do indeed think she's still under Céline Sciamma's sway.»  Laughter erupted in the courtroom.  The judge called the spectators to order for the «dignity of the proceedings».

At times, Ruggia seemed to half-heartedly acknowledge certain things: «I wasn't aware at the time that she was traumatized by the film, I realized that the fact that we saw each other often was too much for her.»

Asked about the «boundaries» he didn't set, notably in a scene that only he remembers - he describes her «licking his ear» in front of her parents, and his blowing in her ear in response - he again avoided answering. «What should an adult's response be to a child licking your ear?» asked the assessor.  «It's something that couldn't happen these days», he replied. «Who set the boundaries at that moment?  Let's imagine this scene had existed, which everyone but you denies.  Who set the boundaries?» insisted the assessor, without getting a clear answer.

A rally in support of the actress

«We support her, we believe her, we see her.  It's important to show the justice system that we're united, given the tiny number of suits that aren’t dismissed», says Cami, 25, holding a small sign reading «Adèle, you are not alone».  She was one of around forty people who came to support Adèle Haenel on the courthouse steps on Monday, December 9.  The young woman mentions that she herself filed a suit for rape of a minor four years ago, and that she still hasn't heard anything.

Arnaud Gallais, co-founder of the Mouv'Enfants association and former member of la Commission indépendante sur l’inceste et les violences sexuelles faites aux enfants (Ciivise) [the Independent Commission on Incest and Sexual Violence against Children], points out: «When 97% of men assault 81% of young female victims, you can see that for the most part, it's men who rape children.  These are the statistics of impunity, for permission to rape and re-offend, so being here today is also political.»

Vanina, 54, who works in the film industry and wears a «Support Ciivise, I believe in you, I protect you» sticker on her coat, said it was «important for Adèle Haenel to know that we are grateful for her»: «I don't expect much from this trial, but there’s always hope.  As a child of incest myself, my suit was dismissed.»  Colombe, a visual artist, hopes that this trial will not be «another violation» for the actress.

Prosecutor Camille Poch referred again to the «semantic field of sex» that he uses when talking about Adèle Haenel or in his Google searches.  In this context, he noted: «When [Bertrand] Bonello's film was released, if you searched it in Google, it would bring up “Adèle Haenel hot”, so I clicked on it [...]  Yes, she's sensual, that's the heart of the film, she's going to show her body.  Yes, Adèle Haenel had an overwhelming sensuality, which she still has today», he even dared to say.

«He destroyed everything»

Around 7pm, Adèle Haenel was called to the stand.  She approached with a firm, determined step, and delivered testimony that alternated between emotion and anger, pleading for the protection of the child she used to be, and for all child victims of pedophiles.

She would be questioned for a long time about her choice to speak in a press article and not to take her case to court first.  «At the time I spoke in 2019, there were so many dismissals, I'm not telling you anything you don’t already know, I didn't want to add violence to violence.»

Speaking about the film Les Diables, she recounted the «confusion Christophe Ruggia fostered between the love of acting and the love for himself, a shifting of reality»: «There was no longer any demarcation for intimacy, for sexuality, and I found myself being directed to touch myself like in the film [...]  Mr. Ruggia became the main adult in my life, I had a normal life, friends, a brother, and he destroyed everything.»

Asked by the judge about the impact these assaults have had on her, she described how «devastating» it has been, particularly with respect to «disparagement and self-hatred».  She talks about her «depression», the work she has done on herself since 2016.  «These days, things are getting better.»

The judge then asked her again about not referring her case to court. The actress replied simply: «The truth is, I didn't even think about it, I thought the courts would never be interested in my story, what I’d been through in those years, nobody cared about what happened to me.» 

The assessor then asked her about the Saturdays during which she described the assaults, Saturdays on which he bought her snacks: Cadbury Finger blanc cookies and Orangina, her «favorite».

«Can you explain why a 12-year-old child would keep going back?» the judge asked the actress.

- It's horrible, I thought I owed it to him, that it was my fault.  When he drove me home, he told me that the others wouldn't understand, he made the situation seem normal, and I felt obliged to go [...]  I felt indebted to him.»

Adèle Haenel then talked about her response to the assaults that she is denouncing.  She described in detail, speaking more and more rapidly, about what she remembers: «In his living room, it's a half-normalized conversation, thanks to a joke or a laugh, for example, he would come and sit down right next to me, and “you’re too funny my little whale, my baby girl”, I tighen up, I'm on the sofa, I get tense, my body tenses up, he goes on, interjecting a few words as if it were normal, his hand partly on my thigh, “ah là là your top is really cute”, sliding his hand part of the way under my collar, I'm so tense, I curl up as much as possible in the corner of the sofa...  If he thinks I'm resisting too much, he'll stop for a moment, look at me like, “what the hell?” and starts again.»

Adèle Haenel responded to his saying that none of these things ever happened: «He’s a big liar, you’re a big liar, Mr. Ruggia», she said, turning to him.

The actress also told the court about the moment when she said to stop.  «I got up from the sofa, went over to the window and said “this has gone too far, this has to stop”, he was still next to the imprint of my body on the sofa, I said it again, then he brought me back, [...] he was trying to use his film [a project in progress - ed. note] as a reason to keep me because he said I couldn't do that to him.»

Asked by one of her lawyers, M Michelin, about the preparation of the film and the sex scenes in particular, Adèle Haenel explained: «That child should have been protected, it was possible to do so.  I don't think I said much, no one tried very hard to break the silence.»

As her testimony went on, her words became louder, more raw: «Today, I'm an adult, but back then, I was a child.  He says: “You're the one who jumped on my lap, you're the one who touched yourself.”  But who was the adult?  Who was supposed to set boundaries?  I felt disgusting and it was never his fault, all these nasty people around me and he's the nice guy who gave me Cadbury Finger blanc cookies!  I'm sorry I'm getting upset, we're talking about at least a hundred Saturdays... »

As Adèle Haenel spoke, she went back over the details of the assaults and apologized to the court at times: «I'm so sorry, it's stressful to talk about this, he says my statements have changed but no, I’ve always tried to tell it as best I could with the words I had, the shame I had.»

At one point, she returned to one of the court's first questions, namely whether she had thought about the consequences for Christophe Ruggia when she spoke out in Mediapart.  «All I did was protect him when I was a kid, I didn't even think that I had the right to defend myself, that it wasn't okay to be touched like that [...]  There was a total inversion of the meaning of things.  This guy, he pretends there was an equality with a 12- and 13-year-old child, he’s never stopped sexualizing me, saying “she jumped on me, she looked at me with pornographic eyes”, is that even real?  It disgusts me, I'm sorry to get upset but frankly...»

In response to Ruggia's defense that she wants revenge, Adèle Haenel stated: «I'm not driven by revenge, I want justice for this child whom no one protected, who got through it all on her own.»

Her lawyer Yann Le Bras referred to the «rather unusual judicial treatment» his client received, for example a twelve-hour police hearing. «Totally unusual» said the actress, who continued: «I spoke out thinking of the children, thinking about all those who are told “don’t destroy the family” [...]  I spoke out hoping to ease a little of the isolation of all these children, because I've lived this isolation, and I know how it made me want to die.  It's the most important thing I've done in my life, trying to shatter the isolation of children in my situation.»

Adèle Haenel talked about her «shame» and the fact that at first she found it hard to put into words what had happened to her.  To Véronique Ruggia, Christophe Ruggia's sister, who will be heard on Tuesday December 10, she explained that she spoke «half-heartedly»: «I always used the term “second base” with her, I was in a very raw emotional state, so I scratched my head until it bled, and I've never stopped since.  I've always tried to take care of the people I talk to...»

At the end of her testimony, Adèle Haenel explained that when she received the order to refer her case to the correctional court - a document written by the examining magistrate to support her decision to go to trial - she felt very emotional: «Seeing it in black and white, the “consistency” of my words, the “massive psychological repercussions”, wow, it had an effect on me, this recognition, so much isolation around it, I'm proud to have managed to hold it together throughout this process and life that have been so painful.»

[Please don’t repost this anywhere, in part or in whole.  Feel free to reblog, or at least cite your source and provide a link back here.  Asking permission would be nice in an ideal world, but I’m a realist – I know far too well how easy it is to appropriate stuff on Tumblr.  I would be the first to admit that my translations are not perfect – there are some words and phrases that simply do not drop neatly into an equivalent in English, and I constantly fix typos and make changes or corrections in older posts – but they do take a lot of work and time.  Thanks for understanding. - C.]