Dear Hollywood folks
Sep. 30th, 2009 01:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Dear Hollywood folks:
I like you. I really, really like you. Lots of you are really my kind of people: funny, engaging, passionate about making great movies, earnest about progressive change (if a bit shallow in your politics, but lots of us are guilty of that mistake sometimes). I confess: I am more susceptible to show biz gossip than I like to let on, and am liable to click through on the latest celebrity news quickly when no one's looking. I care, guys.
So it is only with the deepest sincerity and concern that I ask you today to shut the fuck up about Roman Polanski already.
Seriously! I don't know what you think you're doing, but it's not helping. It's not helping anyone. It's not helping him, it's not helping the situation and it's really not helping you.
Look, I know there are complexities at play here. I know that the victim has, for most of the last 30 years, wanted to put the case behind her, and since January has wanted the case dismissed. I know that Polanski was on the verge of locking in a plea bargain when the judge fucked him like.... well, like a 44-year-old director fucks a 13-year-old girl, I guess. No one, as far as I can tell, believes that he poses a threat to anyone at this point. I get it.
But please let us return to first principles: this is a man who pleaded guilty to raping a thirteen-year-old girl. That is not usually classified as a victimless crime, Hollywood folks! While the judge's apparent decision to reneg on accepting a plea bargain was a rotten thing to do, it does not reduce or lessen his guilt and it arguably does not justify fleeing justice for 30 years.
So if you want to lobby for his freedom by urging that the judge dismiss the charges, or sentence him to time already served: that is a fine argument! Go for it.
But in the meantime, kindly do not:
Or, as
muckefuck put it so eloquently: I ❤ Luc Besson.
I love you, guys. I really do. Now stop fucking up.
I like you. I really, really like you. Lots of you are really my kind of people: funny, engaging, passionate about making great movies, earnest about progressive change (if a bit shallow in your politics, but lots of us are guilty of that mistake sometimes). I confess: I am more susceptible to show biz gossip than I like to let on, and am liable to click through on the latest celebrity news quickly when no one's looking. I care, guys.
So it is only with the deepest sincerity and concern that I ask you today to shut the fuck up about Roman Polanski already.
Seriously! I don't know what you think you're doing, but it's not helping. It's not helping anyone. It's not helping him, it's not helping the situation and it's really not helping you.
Look, I know there are complexities at play here. I know that the victim has, for most of the last 30 years, wanted to put the case behind her, and since January has wanted the case dismissed. I know that Polanski was on the verge of locking in a plea bargain when the judge fucked him like.... well, like a 44-year-old director fucks a 13-year-old girl, I guess. No one, as far as I can tell, believes that he poses a threat to anyone at this point. I get it.
But please let us return to first principles: this is a man who pleaded guilty to raping a thirteen-year-old girl. That is not usually classified as a victimless crime, Hollywood folks! While the judge's apparent decision to reneg on accepting a plea bargain was a rotten thing to do, it does not reduce or lessen his guilt and it arguably does not justify fleeing justice for 30 years.
So if you want to lobby for his freedom by urging that the judge dismiss the charges, or sentence him to time already served: that is a fine argument! Go for it.
But in the meantime, kindly do not:
- tell us that he should be excused because "he's a brilliant guy, and he made a little mistake 32 years ago"
- refer to raping a thirteen-year-old girl as a "so-called" crime
- attempt to excuse it on the basis that "it wasn't rape rape"
- dismiss the gravity of the issue because Polanski "is not responsible for killing anyone"
Or, as
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
I love you, guys. I really do. Now stop fucking up.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 05:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 10:24 pm (UTC)you forgot " o Refer to something he did at 44 as a youthful indiscretion."
Date: 2009-09-30 05:55 pm (UTC)Re: you forgot " o Refer to something he did at 44 as a youthful indiscretion."
Date: 2009-09-30 05:57 pm (UTC)Re: you forgot " o Refer to something he did at 44 as a youthful indiscretion."
From:Re: you forgot " o Refer to something he did at 44 as a youthful indiscretion."
From:Re: you forgot " o Refer to something he did at 44 as a youthful indiscretion."
From:no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 06:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 05:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 06:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 06:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 06:11 pm (UTC)Second, if I had had Polanski's Auschwitz experience, I know I would have fled rather than ever set foot in a prison. does it excuse the act itself? Hell, no. But the court should have recognized that circumstance and ruled on his misconduct hearing without his physically appearing, since the odds of dismissal or a new trial were significantly non-zero.
Finally, and I know this makes me an evil person: I am really tired of the "but she was only thirteen" argument. I'm not wholly convinced I have a special charter to protect someone else's children's childhood. (I do, however, have a duty to protect the safety of others, no matter their age, so I'm not shirking that here or letting Polanski off the hook -- just saying the age issue seems to be here only as an emotional hot button.)
She was raped; that's enough, whether she was 13, 33, or 93. And, yes, he should be tried and face consequences of that crime. But (please read this carefully, this is not the pro-NAMBLA argument it might seem) I know that age and power inequity are not in all cases the same -- I know that I could have knowingly consented in a lot of situations when I was 13 or 14 -- and [EDIT] while there should be a PRESUMPTION of power imbalance in a case like this subject to legal examination, the real issue here is that, yes, there was a power imbalance, yes, he drugged her, and yes, it was clearly against her will and she said so then and always after. What I am getting at is this: the person responsible for protecting her childhood, legally and morally, is the stupid mother who sent her unattended for a photoshoot. It has pissed me off in this case from day one that we did not bring the force of the law down on this stupid, abusive, and criminal mother.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 06:23 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 06:26 pm (UTC)He fled just before his sentencing, after serving 42 days in prison while waiting for the trial and sentencing (which some are saying was enough jail time).
There have been fewer than 10 attempts to arrest him in 32 years.
Did he rape other girls in that time? who knows?
I'm sure that the mother has suffered plenty, and would change her decision that day in a heartbeat. I'm not sure if Polanski has suffered, or even expressed remorse about what he's done.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 06:40 pm (UTC)The law says otherwise.
Also, i question why you are introducing the red herring of her mother's culpability. She made a questionable decision, but she didn't break a law.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 06:57 pm (UTC)Just correcting you because you seem rather insistent that only you know the facts of the case.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2009-09-30 08:09 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 07:25 pm (UTC)Roman Polanski's 2 crimes are raping a child and absconding before his sentencing. What's the minimum number of years that have to go by for the courts to let a child rapist and jail skipper not have to worry about serving his time?
if I had had Polanski's Auschwitz experience, I know I would have fled rather than ever set foot in a prison.
You know, a good way to avoid jail time is to not rape children. In fact, maybe someone who has an "Auschwitz experience" should have been even more averse than your average Joe to committing acts that could increase his odds of having to go to prison.
I'm not wholly convinced I have a special charter to protect someone else's children's childhood.
I don't even know what this statement means. Is this a contributory negligence argument, like in some states, where if you get in an accident and a jury decides that your bad driving contributed even the slightest to the accident, you can't recover any money from the other, more negligent side? Are you saying that the state should not be allowed to prosecute a child rapist if there was some "contributorily negligent" bad parenting involved?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 08:06 pm (UTC)Except that he wasn't in Auschwitz. If you're going to call other people on their facts you should make damned sure you have your own right.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 06:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 06:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 09:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 07:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 07:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 07:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 10:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 11:45 pm (UTC)I'll just chime in to say:
a) "Word," a la
b) Showing that time and money and power do not especially exempt one from the consequences of one's acts to harm another is a high moral and social good. Even with regard to the individual receiving the long-delayed consequences, but particularly to everyone else. And I say that particularly in this case as a grand fan of the principles that make statutes of limitation a social necessity.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-01 12:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-01 01:47 am (UTC)Throw him in jail!