Dear Hollywood folks

[topaz]

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:

• 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"
  

And above all, whatever you do, DO NOT allow Woody Allen within a HUNDRED MILES of commenting on this case.  I mean, Jesus H. Christ on a camera dolly.

Or, as muckefuck put it so eloquently: I ❤ Luc Besson.

I love you, guys.  I really do.  Now stop fucking up.

Comments

[qnetter]

Not instead of Polanski, of course not. But, yes, I am blaming her.

Do any of you actually remember the case, or are you just working off pre-digested thirty-year-old news? It was very clear at the time that the mother was a somewhat-complicit social climber who was knowingly trading her daughter's baby-doll pre-adult image for a shot at the big time.

[moominmolly.livejournal.com]

Wasn't it also clear at the time that the victim was an immoral little Lolita?

[qnetter]

Look, I'm not making the "she was asking for it" case OR letting Polanski off. But the mother WAS complicit.

[kcatalyst.livejournal.com]

You're ignoring the argument here, which is that your appeal to the newspapers of the time as the ultimate authority of truth is flawed.

[qnetter]

And the courtroom testimony?

What, instead, is the record of truth: the newspaper articles of TODAY? The Wikipedia article?

The verdict is not a record of truth, because it contains no information, only the result of an assessment of the information.

[kcatalyst.livejournal.com]

I haven't held up one particular source as the prime answer. You're the one who has and you've been called on it. You can defend that assessment or not, but randomly making other arguments doesn't help.

[qnetter]

You have to have SOME sources. Sources generated at the time are obviously more comprehensive and reliable that wire service stories thirty-plus years later. I don't see how you could believe otherwise.

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

I'm aware that the girl's mother was seen to be deliberately sexualizing her daughter, and I agree 100% that sending her off unattended was a screamingly stupid thing to do, and I agree that it is a travesty that authorities did not pursue a separate case of child endangerment against her.

That said, this is a distraction from the matter of Roman Polanski's culpability in drugging and molesting a young woman. Bringing it up in this context is essentially to say that the girl was asking for it because of the way her mother dressed, and you need to knock it off.

[qnetter]

You're hearing that because you have "parent ears" on. i'm not saying that.

I'm just saying that I don't understand why people refuse to discuss the ENTIRE case, why they so scrupulously avoid condemning the mother, when venting their rage only at Polanski.

[kcatalyst.livejournal.com]

Perhaps because some of us feel that raping someone is a worse crime than being a really crappy mom.

[qnetter]

Delivering your child to a total stranger with a well-konwn reputation for kinky sex for a private photo session is not very far removed from rape to me.

[kcatalyst.livejournal.com]

That's clear to all of us. And I agree, it's a really, really bad move and as a mother I would not only never even consider it, I would physically prevent a friend or relative from doing if necessary.

My concerns are:

1) far or not, the crucial step that removes it from rape is that rape actually violates someone's consent. as a society and legal system, I would like us to keep our eyes on the prize, as it were and consistently criminalize violations of sexual consent.

2) As qwrrty has already said, responding about the mom in response to this particular post has the rhetorical effect of excusing Polanksi and his jackhole friends by changing the conversation about who the REAL problem is

[qnetter]

If you're talking about the real problem being his friends, sure.

If you're talking about the criminals, I'm offended at the focus on one conspirator and the free pass given the one who has the most responsibility, if not the most culpability for the act. That has nothing to do with my belief about the notion of punishment (stupid) or of 30+ years of pursuit (pointless).

[harimad.livejournal.com]

Being stupid is not complicity. Please don't make me drag out "Was He Asking For It?" That's supposed to be for the unenlightened apes and immoral defense attorneys.

[aroraborealis.livejournal.com]

Wow. I have a really different understanding of the word "rape" than you do.

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

In this case -- this being my journal and me being the one who brought it up -- it's because this post is not about Polanski's behavior but about the appalling attempts of his colleagues in the film industry to excuse it.

[qnetter]

Well, sure. I'm actually reacting to EVERYONE's refusal to implicate the mother any more.

And, to be clear, within the actual scope of this discussion:
- It's rape.
- Any attempt to position this as a morals issue by Polanski's supporters is nonsense, not for any reason having to do with her age, but because it's rape, and rape is not an issue of "comparative morality."
- My feeling about pursuit and punishment would apply to any crime.

[queenmomcat.livejournal.com]

If it's any comfort, that's pretty much exactly how I read it...

[inahandbasket]

The mother's an idiot, and possibly complicit, but she didn't DRUG AND RAPE the girl.
Even if she fully intentionally pimped out her daughter, it doesn't remotely excuse what Polanski did, which is what you seem to be implying.

signed,
- not a parent

[qnetter]

"Complicit" means that she did, in part, drug and rape the girl. If she intentionally pimped out her daughter, it does not excuse what Polanski did, but it makes her a wrongfully-unindicted co-conspirator.

[ceo]

Um, dude, let me remind you of the First Rule Of Holes: When you find yourself in one, stop digging.

One reason people aren't bringing that aspect of the case up much is that it is extremely difficult to bring it up in a way that doesn't sound like making excuses for what Polanski did. Even saying "Look, I'm not making the 'she was asking for it' case OR letting Polanski off" doesn't help.

The main reason, of course, is that it is utterly irrelevant to the fact that Polanski drugged and raped a teenage girl and evaded justice for 31 years.

[kcatalyst.livejournal.com]

Yes, this.

[dr-memory.livejournal.com]

it was very clear at the time

...not in any way that was ever demonstrated in a court of low.

that the mother was a somewhat-complicit social climber

...which is neither illegal in and of itself nor a mitigating factor for a rape charge.

who was knowingly trading her daughter's baby-doll pre-adult image for a shot at the big time.

...which is neither illegal in and of itself nor a mitigating factor for a rape charge. Seriously, if you don't believe me go ask an actual lawyer.

If your assertion is that her mother was an idiot and a terrible parent: I'm with you 100%. But it's also completely and totally irrelevant: it's just as illegal to drug and rape the children of terrible parents as of exemplary ones, and Polanski was not arrested this week for rape, but for being a fugitive from justice.

[desdenova.livejournal.com]

I am obviously late to this party, but what the heck:

So ddo you also blame the parents of kids molested by priests for taking the kids to church? What with pedophile priests & the Catholic Church's hierarcy's ongoing coverups being a widely-known problem?

[qnetter]

After initial public reports, of course, yes, I blame their parents. Without in any way reducing the blame on the priests.