Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
-
posts about #sacdpetition more → 
Letters From Hollywood: Roman Polanski's Rape Of Child No Big Thing
New York, 8:24 PM
Sat Nov 21
25 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jezebel.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
Email | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
Email | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
Email | Twitter
Sadie Stein
Email | Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
Email
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
Email | Twitter
Contributors:
Jenna Sauers
Email
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Lizzie Skurnick
Email
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
| posts about #sacdpetition more → |
Letters From Hollywood: Roman Polanski's Rape Of Child No Big Thing |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/01/09
Bless you for saying it. If I hear one more person say he "had sex with an underage girl" or imply some kind of Puritanical culture, I'm going to CHOKE. A. FOOL.
09/30/09
France is dropping its public support for Polanski. See BBC website
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8283707.stm
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
My only fear is that some asshole is going to launch some sort of ban on Swiss products, avoid accurate timepieces and boo Roger Federer because of their noble move to honor the US Marshalls' fugitive capture request.
I encourage everyone here to pre-emptively do the opposite by eating Fondue this evening with the little fork in a Swiss army knife.
10/01/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
Apparently the majority of the French public is not as supportive of Polanski as Levy and the other artists.
Luc Besson, who is a friend of Polanski's, is so far the only filmmaker who has come out and said that Polanski should serve time.
09/30/09
09/30/09
Two- two people in entertainment have the balls to stand up and say a child rapist shouldn't get a free pass because he made movies.
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
Yes, plea bargains often involve suspended sentences and/or time served, but in this case I understand that he eventually pled to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor." According to the California penal code this can be either a misdemeanor or a felony, and can be punished with up to one year in county detention or two-four years in state prison."
It's pretty safe to say he had at least some more jail time ahead of him. This is aside from the fact that he skipped out on his court dates and had a warrant out for his arrest. Rape or no, if you have a warrant out for your arrest, you will (and should) be arrested, no matter what. No one would be up in arms in a bank robber was extradited from Switzerland. Why so quick to defend an ADMITTED rapist?
09/30/09
If Polanski's rape and sodomy of a child should be forgiven because it happened "30 years ago," should we equally absolve families who are in possession of stolen art from the Holocaust because it happened "60 years ago?"
Why are we being asked to reward the longevity of Polanski's crime? Because he directs movies? Please get some perspective.
09/30/09
10/04/09
09/30/09
09/29/09
From NYT article:
But support was not universal; Luc Besson, a prominent French film director and producer, was not on the list, though he describes himself as a Polanski friend.
“This is a man who I love a lot and know a little bit,” Mr. Besson said in a radio interview with RTL Soir. “Our daughters are good friends. But there is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone. I will let justice happen.” He added, , “I don’t have any opinion on this, but I have a daughter, 13 years old. And if she was violated, nothing would be the same, even 30 years later.
09/29/09
[www.facebook.com]
09/29/09
10/01/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/29/09
I'd like to say, before anything else, that I have no issue with Polanski being taken into custody; it's perfectly just and lawful and should've happened years ago.
However, the "let's boycott anyone who signed the petition" thing bothers me. There are a lot of people on there whose work I respect (Wes Anderson, Tilda Swinton, Woody Allen, etc.), and to be honest, my respect for the art they've produced is not going to diminish simply because I disagree with them on this matter. Their opinion on the Polanski case, whatever it may be, does not render their bodies of work invalid.
I think it's important to be able to divorce one's opinion of a person from one's opinion of their work. Elia Kazan sold out his colleagues to HUAC. Michael Jackson, in all likelihood, molested children. Richerd Wagner was an anti-Semite. John Lennon was fucking terrible to his first wife. I don't see anyone clamoring to boycott the White Album or the Ring Cycle or what have you. And those are people who actually DID despicable things, not just signed a petition in support of someone who did a despicable thing.
Someone compared this to the whole "freedom fries" debacle from a few years back. I can't help agreeing. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
09/29/09
09/29/09
birth of a nation is TECHNICALLY a very important and groundbreaking addition to the cinematic arts (being the first full length film and all), but it GLORIFIES THE KLAN. but does that mean i have to love it and put it on the staff picks wall at the local blockbuster? rudyard kipling may have been an eloquent writer, but his novels and poetry reflect a dark period of imperialism and white racism. you can't forget this fact when its so present in the work itself.
artists are WHOLE PEOPLE who have flaws and we are doing them and ourselves a disservice when we think we can just erase the parts of them we don't like. its up to a person as an art appreciator to decide for themselves how much they're willing to accept.
09/29/09
09/30/09
Along with Huckleberry Finn?
And the fact that Kipling's works reflect an age of imperialism might be a GOOD reason to read them, no? After all, they're valuable documents of how things once were, and they're beautifully written.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but what you're proposing is something like whitewashing history, and diluting the power of art by making it inseparable from its maker.
I mean, the "parts of artists we don't like"? So, what, I shouldn't read a book by an asshole?
09/30/09
09/30/09
My point is that the prejudices of artists slip into their art and therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE to separate the art from the artist. I remember reading Rudyard Kipling in high school if I hadn't raised my hand and directly asked my teacher to address the colonial racism in it, she wouldn't have. We don't like to acknowledge the flaws of those we hold to be genius, but we should. Not only will it give us a better understanding of the art, but it actually creates conversation about why objectionable things are objectionable.
09/30/09
What did you do when Lincoln was discussed in high school? Rail on him for staying mum on slavery for so damn long?
09/30/09
and its not like i proposed a kipling book burning, i just said that we should be aware of and talk about these issues because they are a part of history. and its not even necessarily history--many people still express sentiments similar to those found in the white mans burden when they talk about developing nations. that is exactly WHY it is important to address it. it helps us to understand why people thought how they did back then and also why we think the way we do now. what is so controversial about this? why wouldn't you want to address the cultural context of a work of art when the art addresses it itself?
and as far as your abraham lincoln question goes, i didnt have to bring that up in my american history class because one of my friends did. and everyone in that class learned something new that day and had a better understanding of the civil war because of it. why the refusal to acknowledge truth? if you're only looking for the pretty parts of history then your textbooks are going to be pretty slim.