Is Hollywood Afraid To Be 'Anti-Polanski'?
Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Politics
If you've been arguing with your friends and family about the arrest and detainment of Roman Polanski in Switzerland last week, don't feel bad -- you're not the only one with an opinion. There's a debate brewing in Hollywood over the acclaimed director and his current legal predicament, and everyone has jumped into the fray. Polanski fled from the US after a conviction for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor back in 1978, and with his recent arrest some of the biggest names in Hollywood have been publicly showing support. Recently, filmmakers like Michael Mann, Darren Aronofsky, Terry Gilliam, and Woody Allen (ahem, yes, even Woody Allen) signed a petition demanding the filmmaker's release from a Zurich jail. On the other hand, there is a very real possibility that not everybody is on board the love train, and the problem is that those people aren't talking.
Hollywood is a business, and just like in any other business, reputation can be everything. If you think of Hollywood as the world's biggest high school, then you can see how nobody wants to be excluded from the 'cool table' -- and it doesn't help that the pro-Polanski faction has Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese, and the opposition has Sherri Shepherd and 'Nellie Olsen'. In a piece for the LA Times, writer/blogger Melissa Silverstein said, "I think people are afraid to talk in Hollywood. They are afraid about their next job." Sure, that might sound slightly paranoid, but power players like Harvey Weinstein are writing op-eds in support of the director, so maybe she's not completely off the mark.
After the jump: making excuses and Hollywood vs. Middle America...
In the past weeks I have marveled at some of the rationales for Polanski's 'choices' 31 years ago, but I shouldn't be that surprised. Even if you take the fame factor out of the equation, as a society we're still pretty comfortable with blaming victims and looking for excuses when it comes to sexual assault. No matter what you think about Polanski, you can't tell me it's not disheartening to see sexual crimes against a minor described as a "case of morals" or hear a daytime TV host sum it up as "not rape-rape".
The media has been pitting Hollywood against so-called "Real Americans" for as long as I can remember. With the Polanski case, journalists have gone full steam ahead with the image of Liberal Hollywood being out of touch with moral god-fearing folks in the rest of the country -- which is not only simplistic, it's insulting. In the end, this is no longer about what you think Polanski might have (or might not have) done, because whether we like it or not, moralizing and hand-wringing is not going to change what happened. While the petition made clear that support of the director is because of the issue of freedom of expression for filmmakers traveling abroad, the irony of it all is that in this discussion about "freedom of expression across the world", the only expressions being made are ones that are in line with the status quo.
So what do you think? Has Hollywood truly fallen in line in support of the director, or do you think that celebrities are afraid to speak out to protect their paychecks? Sound off below...
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
10-02-2009 @ 8:31PM
Kate said...
I think a lot of it is the fear of being blacklisted. Polanski makes great movies, but he did something horrible he still hasn't atoned for. What astonishes me are people like Almodovar and Bellucci who should understand what his victim went through and are instead siding with him. Hollywood is an aristocracy and if you don't protect your reputation, you won't get your next job.
Reply
10-03-2009 @ 12:33PM
Mr. R said...
I didn't see anyone standing up for Michael Jackson's victims during his burial either. We love to take sides to aide our cause, it's the self and its circumstances.
I suggest you look more closely to Polanski's case with a legal heart in mind, as horrendous as what he did was. The judge did hand in a sentence which he later backed up from. Polanski was detained in evaluation almost the amount of time that the sentence was plus detention time. I do not condone his actions but the law sets precedents in this cases that may affect other innocent people down the line. A judge should hand in only one sentence per crime as not to put in doubt his abilities.
10-02-2009 @ 8:51PM
eSVee said...
Hollywood has a status-quo. Middle American has its status quo. Everywhere, anywhere has its status quo.
Hollywood is simply stepping in line together- like they do on a lot of issues. A lot of time those issues don't align with Mid-Am.
Its simplistic. But a lot of times true.
Truth is what is spoken and acted on.
Reply
10-02-2009 @ 9:19PM
Teg said...
Its sad that people are too afraid to speak up. Its not something
completely off the mark to say out loud that 'this man raped a child, he should go to jail'. That is their legal system down there. This isn't even an issue of emotions, Polanski himself even plead guilty to the charge.
What these celebrities are saying is that there is a time-limit on justice and if you are famous enough it doesn't matter.
The celebrities that support Polanski support a culture that says its okay to rape and its okay to rape children because rape doesn't exist. It is also saying that if you are famous enough, you can do anything you want to anybody and get away with it.
It is just victim blaming, and I am so pleased this article made a
point of mentioning this. Sexual assault cases always try to blame the victim. In this case if it wasnt "rape-rape" than what is it when she yells "no!". No means no.
And the arguments that she seduced him, yes so all the responsibility lies with the 13 YEAR OLD GIRL, not the 44 year old man.
Polanksi raped a child. End of story. The American legal system says he must serve time.
He deserves to go to jail.
Reply
10-02-2009 @ 10:03PM
John said...
These people should never, ever claim the moral high ground against blacklisting and McCarthyism.
Unless you are superfamous, you can't speak out for conservative causes. You can be blacklisted. Now you can't speak out against a child rapist because you can be blacklisted?
Try being a camaraman and saying that because you evaded justice for your crimes that people should forget. See how far that takes you. What the Hollywood bigwigs have is the feeling of entitlement rights befitting an aristocracy and since that kid was not the child of anyone famous, Polanski had the right to use her as he wished.
Reply
10-03-2009 @ 7:11AM
Mia said...
It's a tricky issue for Hollywood. I don't quite blame them for not speaking out againt Polanski. Imagine yourself in that position that not only one of your most talented got arrested on his way to receive an award, but almost all of your bosses rallied behind him at once. Moreover, it's about the integrity of American justice system, not the opinions of Hollywood celebrities. Silence, another form of disapproval, is the best way to go.
Reply
10-03-2009 @ 12:05AM
Lionel said...
This article is spot on. Hollywood is an extensive but tiered club with some esteemed (and spoiled) club presidents who are big old cool fat cats, and woe betide the dissenting voices. Film festivals too, are club-oriented, always have been and always will be. This Polanski business is important to play out to the bitter end because the result sends a message to men who want to have sex with kids, get this message wrong and you horribly supply tacit approval.
Reply
10-03-2009 @ 12:09AM
Troy said...
While I myself do not agree with them, I'm surprised so few outlets have talked about how the vast majority of Polanski's petition-signing supporters are foreigners. Sure, there will be a Weinstein, Scorsese, and Brett Ratner on there, but the other American filmmakers on that list are ex-Pats. You'll have a David Lynch and Harmony Korine on their too, but they certainly wouldn't call themselves "Hollywood." There's fewer Hollywood types on there than you would think.
Reply
10-03-2009 @ 1:07AM
scottR said...
Remember, most middle-Americans couldn't afford to escape a conviction to France and live abroad for 30 years. It is precisely because Polanski is part of a rich and famous aristocracy of 'artists' that we have the situation in the first place. It has nothing to do with freedom of expression, it is simple international law regarding a crime that Polanski just didn't want to receive a punishment for.
Reply
10-03-2009 @ 1:27AM
Jaded said...
I'm not sure if people are as simplistic as you think. I think the Polanski issue has more to do with the fact that at the time he fled the country according to the plea deal that he had made with the prosecutors he had already served his time. All he had to do was plead guilty in front of the court and he was free. The judge then decided after he plead guilty that he wasn't going to accept the deal and he was going to sentence him for 50 years, which at that time was not the sentence for the crime he was being charged with The sentence at that time was 3 to 5 years. He did this without allowing Polanski to change his plea and take the chance of standing trial for the crime.
I'm personally not a fan of Polanski and I think what he did was reprehensible, but that doesn't mean that the justice system can do whatever they want whenever they feel like it. If that's the case who's to say that the next time someone is arrested for a minor crime (and I'm not saying this one is minor in any way, shape or form) that the judge can't just decide that he doesn't like you and hit you with a sentence that no one else would receive.
Also to all the people who keep saying he's getting special treatment because he's a celebrity, the same can be said for the fact that the judge decided to hit him with a sentence in order to guarantee his reelection. If it hadn't been a celebrity the judge would have agreed to the plea deal.
My bigger problem with this issue is that the United States never contacted France or Poland (Polanski's home country) about their intention of arresting him upon arrival in Switzerland. According to the Geneva Convention international law stipulates that governments have to share this kind of information. This brings us to the next problem, since the United States ordered the Swiss government to arrest Polanski without the authorization of the home country, it's considered kidnapping and an act of terrorism. Now rather than just being an issue of a man fleeing the country it could turn into an international incident that has the United States again defying the laws of the UN. Personally, I don't think that it's worth it, since the victim herself has dropped the charges, and the only crime he can legally be charged with now is fleeing the country.
Reply
10-03-2009 @ 1:02PM
Kevin said...
The judge can not impose sentences beyond what the legislature has imposed as the maximum for his crime. So even if the judge had sentenced him to 50 years he would have had the sentence drastically reduced upon appeal. That and the judge would likely be censured, disbarred, etc. Judges aren't allowed to break the law just because they're judges. This matter is merely complicated by people looking for loopholes to support an artist they like. They simple facts are that he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. I find it shocking that people try and blame the justice system and politics for that. I would find it to be a far more supportable position to say that Polanski deserve the punishment he will receive, but that certain aspects of his trial highlight issues with judicial proceedings. To say that he doesn't deserve jail time or should be let off because the judge was an attention seeking politician is absolutely ludicrous. People should find a better mascot for the wrongs of the justice system than a child rapist.
10-05-2009 @ 10:50AM
Felicia said...
I've heard different versions of this story. I've heard that the judge just wanted him to finish the original 90 day jail time and that would have only been around 50 days. I think the facts here have been watered down as rumors tend to do.
10-03-2009 @ 4:08AM
adam said...
I think polanski should be castrated. Then go to jail and be raped by fella inmates for few years. That would be an adequate punishment for a rapist of a child.
Reply
10-03-2009 @ 5:45AM
Jothie said...
LOL@Jaded
You're a tool and an idiot. So many facts you've gotten wrong.. sooo many. I won't go into detail about the facts in the case you have gotten wrong because clearly you were brainwashed by the fanboi "documentary" about the case. The so called documentary was nothing more then a film made by a super fan to make good ol' child rapist look good.
First off, it used quotes from the grand jury testimony to mislead most of the statements made by the victim.
Everyone that had anything kind to say about the child rapist was given all the time they wanted in the field and the few negative people interviewed(obviously put in so it didnt look so blantantly like a fan film, so they could say "we did both side") were brief and cut off.
They painted this ever-so-happy family life he had with Sharon Tate before the murder. Made him out like he was the best husband in the entire world and he's such a good person because of it.. but they left out that he had numerous affairs and that his wife was deeply depressed because of his womanizing.
Let me ask you this.. what the hell does the judges love life have to do with ANYTHING in the case? ANYTHING? As far as I know there's nothing illegal about ***dating a much younger woman(as long as she is of legal age) and there's nothing illegal about dating 2 women at once. Unlike say..*. drugging and raping a thirteen year old. The only reason to put that stuff in the doc was to make the judge look bad and make Mr Child Rapist look better. The entire documentary was propaganda film to win support in the public for Roman Polanski. Period. It tried to put him in a good light so people wouldnt think about what a horrible horrible man he truly is.
As for your grasp about international law.. LOL... USA are terrorists for having arrested a child rapist? Your ignorance amazes even me. First of all... USA did petition France for Polanski arrest way back when... according to extradition treaties with the US, France has the right not to uphold them in the cases of French Citizens at their leisure. This is one criminal they decided not to hand over. However.. you fucking moron.. the Swiss agreement doesnt exclude the right to turn over an American criminal of foriegn nationality when one enters their country. He's not Swiss. He entered that country with an outstanding US warrant out for his arrest and they OBEYED the law. There is no Geneva Convention treaty that says known criminals can fax their schedule around to see if they'll get arrested for entering a country. How fucking retarded are you?
The victim hasn't dropped any charges.. because someone under age at the time of the crime isn't allowed to. Its not up to them. its up to the courts. Retard. She's forgiven him. Thats not the same as charges being dropped. I've met some poorly informed, stupid retards in my days.. but you take the cake. Congrats on formally being the dumbest person ever on the internet. Please don't reproduce, but if you do and have a daughter... send her to Palanski's house when she's 13.
Reply
10-03-2009 @ 1:38PM
Jaded said...
For someone that is so high and mighty you sure are quick to call people names without actually reading what was written.
First off I never saw the documentary that you are referring to. As I said not a fan of Polanski in any way. The only thing I even actually watched about this case on television was the interview with the victim. The rest I read about from various news sources not just Variety and FOX news. Clearly, you have seen the documentary, and everything else so that you feel entitled to call people disgusting names and use profanity. .
Secondly, I never said anything about the judges personal life. Or did you find that somewhere in my comment that I didn't see? Nor did I say I agreed with what Polanski did, or that he should be let off. As a matter of fact I said that he was a reprehensible person. My problem is with the way the case is being and has been handled.
By the way if I ever do have a child, I'm not stupid or retarded (is that what you called me? three times? seriously) enough to take them to a drug party at an actors house at 13 years and then let them go off and take naked pictures with a 50 year old. Since you suggested that I should do this if I had a daughter that clearly that must mean you are okay with child rape if the person whose child it happens to, you think, is a poorly informed stupid retard. That's pretty disgusting.
My ignorance amazes even you? Do you even realize YOU just called YOURSELF ignorant? I'm not going to argue that one with you.
While you are busy calling people retarded (I've got to go back there since you haven't learned that we don't use that word anymore), please reread your laws on international extradition. I'm assuming of course that you are an attorney specializing in international law since you are telling me I have no grasp of it.
My comment was actually based on interviews with a group of attorneys, not related to the case, who specialize in international extradition laws who said that there is a very good possibility that Polanski's attorneys can use these laws to fight extradition. I'm guessing they are stupid, ignorant, idiots with no grasp of International Law as well.
10-03-2009 @ 8:26AM
megapotamus said...
In one respect and only one respect Polanski is worthy of a touch of understanding. He sees Bill Clinton, notorious rapist of Juanita Broderick, Elizabeth Ward-Gracen (hello Hollywood!) and workplace assaults including Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones but not only is Clinton not subject to the law he parades around the nation and the world gloating and utterly free from even any objection. This is not a knock on show biz, the malady is nearly universal, but you can bet while Polanski defenders are well represented in Tinsel Town, Clinton defenders are 100%. Quite, quite disgusting. The Polanski Defense is nothing more nor less than the Clinton Defense across the board. There is no principled argument that hangs Polanski but exonerates Clinton. There is no principled argument that absolves Clinton but fails to free Polanski. This is worse, by far.
Reply
10-03-2009 @ 10:49AM
CppThis said...
I honestly think that many in Hollywood truly feel that laws and morality are for "the little people" and Polanski, as one of them, is above it all. And anyone who disagrees is to be severely punished. These are some of the same people that are on record as saying they're fans of autocratic states like Cuba where everyone outside the local despot's pseudo-intellectual inner circle have pretty much no rights. There actually are some powerful non-moonbats in Hollywood, including some *gasp* right-leaning ones but they realize that spouting off on random issues makes you look like an arrogant fool. In other words, the B-list is cowed and the A-list understands how stupid the whole thing is--leave it to the justice system to sort out.
Honestly, the media really doesn't have to tint the public's perception of "Liberal Hollywood"--they do a damn fine job of it on their own, as witnessed by the current thing.
Reply
10-03-2009 @ 11:04AM
Captain Blicero said...
Surely Martin Scorsese and Darren Aronofsky aren’t defenders of rapists the world over. In fact, I suspect “Hollywood’s” prevailing decision to stand behind Polanski has little to do with opinion of him as a human being, his art, or his crimes. Polanski cut a deal to plead guilty, served time accordingly, and fled only when it became clear that the presiding judge intended to ignore the plea and assign an arbitrary and exorbitant sentence. Bottom line: the crime at hand is irrelevant; this case is just one more blatant perversion of the American judicial system.
Reply
10-03-2009 @ 1:10PM
Kevin said...
Unless the wealthy Polanski is also the stingiest artist in history than I'm sure he was able to afford attorneys who were skilled enough to notify him that any plea deal he enters into carries not guarantee of acceptance by the judge. Judges and juries dictate sentencing, not district attorneys. By entering into a plea deal with a DA the defendant is increasing the likelihood of receiving a specific sentence, but is my no means ensuring it. The judge decided to impose a harsher sentence. Happens all the time. If he had wanted to challenge it the legal system has fail safes called appeals that allow defendants to challenge any issue raised in the trial court. The american legal system works fairly well; not perfect, but spend a little more time looking into it than you'll find on fox news or in the pages of the new york times and you'll realize how ridiculous its common perception is. After you do that I hope you'll stop making excuses for a child rapist.
10-03-2009 @ 2:42PM
Michelle said...
@ Captain Blicero
This is infuriating. It's been at least four or five days since this story broke. There is no excuse for anyone willing to comment on this matter to be so ignorant of the facts or the law in the Polanski case. Can I assume that you watched the Wanted and Desired documentary? Because your incorrect characterizations of the facts and the US judicial system echo the same dishonest assertions made in a "documentary" that was an appalling whitewash of the case. Please do some independent research before defending a man that is nothing less than a child rapist. I suggest you start here:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-02/the-lost-polanski-transcripts/full/