We don't anoint celebrities as a society based on their brainpower. They are famous because of way they look, sing, act, throw baseballs, or whatever esoteric and impractical skill they happen to have.
This is why it tends to hurt so much to listen to them talk. Whether we're listening to Chuck Norris' brilliant musings on the nature of democracy, Charlie Sheen's incisive viewpoint on the demolition of the World Trade Center, Tom Cruise's copiously researched ideas about antidepressants, or Jenny McCarthy's groundbreaking work on vaccines that cause autism, there is a good reason that most of the public wants to punch them in the face when they break the fourth wall and enlighten us with their deepest thoughts. We may willingly shell out big bucks for tickets to their shows and movies, but we'd pay even more to avoid having to listen to them talk out of character.
So, yeah. The "Free Roman Polanski" petition.
I have nothing to add to this on the most basic level. To reiterate, this guy plied a 13 year old girl with prescription drugs and whiskey, fucked her, stopped to ask if she was on the pill (at 13), and then put it in her ass. Just so we're all clear on that.
We all have heard him say the following after admitting that he knew she was 13:
If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls.
Stay classy, Roman.
I have absolutely no use for cultural guardians – the kind who put warning stickers on CDs, rail endlessly about movie violence, and blame mass shootings on Marilyn Manson – and the tired right wing tactic of campaigning in the sticks by condemning Hollywood as the epicenter of our societal collapse is pure rube-baiting. It takes an awful lot to make me sympathetic to any such arguments. But for the individuals who decided that it would be a good idea to sign a petition to "free Polanski" – free him, like he's Nelson Mandela or some prisoner of conscience – could not possibly be more out of touch with whatever passes for the average American these days. I want to punch myself just for using the phrase "out of touch with…the average American" but I can't think of a more accurate way to state the sentiment. We lack experiential evidence that celebrities live on another planet (unless you happen to be a celebrity, of course.
Are you? Don't famous people have more important people to read than me?) but this fiasco provides the next best thing in circumstantial evidence. These people really don't see anything, well, disgusting about publicly supporting a guy who was just arrested for banging a kid. Note that we're not talking about a private phone call to support their old friend Roman; no, they're speaking out publicly against this heinous miscarriage of justice.
I honestly can't figure out which is stronger evidence of their lack of judgment: that they personally support a child rapist or that they thought it would be a good idea to go on camera and talk about it. There's regular stupid, which we assume all celebrities to be, and there's ridiculous, cartoonish over-the-top obliviousness to the world around them. Doesn't their money buy them agents, publicists, lawyers, and other self-interested parties who are compensated well to stand guard between those two points?
daphne says:
Myself, I'm still waiting for Laura Ingraham to tell Chuck Norris to "shut up and act." What, he doesn't act anymore? then just "shut up." And now comes irrefutable proof that [some] celebrities on the left are just as stupid as Norris. There goes my whole world view.
Drew says:
"blame mass shootings on Marilyn Manson" reminds me of Ballad of the Kingsmen by Todd Snider… if you've never heard it, go here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YafsqE3UMEM and listen… good song.
And yeah, fuck Polanski (although I find it hilarious that the people on the right act so righteous, as if their peers haven't twiddled any kids)
Drew
Patti says:
To me, this hinges on the fact that he PLEAD GUILTY to the whole thing. He admitted, yes, I had sex with a 13-year-old, and, yes, I am fully aware that it is against the law.
Then, ran away to Europe, also knowing that after you plead guilty to something, you usually go to jail.
He may be a brilliant artist, but he's still a criminal and a fugitive. It does not have to be one or the other. If he really was the victim of a "miscarriage of justice", then why did he plead guilty?
Heqit says:
It wasn't even that he "had sex" with a 13-year-old girl: he flat out raped her, in much more than the statutory sense. She said no, she cried, she begged to be able to go home, and he didn't care, didn't listen, did it anyway. And then he pled guilty, justified himself as quoted above, and fled the country. Free him? Are you fucking kidding me?
So, yeah. The fact that other celebrities are supporting him is both disgusting and incomprehensible — unless, as Ed says, they really do live on a different fucking planet.
MarilynJean says:
What killed me was Whoopi Goldberg's rape apology. "Rape-rape"? Apparently there's a difference in her mind. So since he didn't rape-rape her, then what's the big deal? I almost threw up in my mouth when I read about her remarks on the topic.
Parrotlover77 says:
Yea, I don't get this one. I guess I could sort of understand (but entirely disagree with) the "it's been so long" argument, but even then, that's pretty shakey. Things like murder and child raping have long or no statute of limitations for a reason. But the moving of the goal posts (rape-rape analogy etc) is doing nothing but setting back feminism on the subject of rape, especially when it comes from prominent women.
It's not even like he's really getting a massive (or appropriate) pubishment. What was he facing? A year?
I mean come on, people. I don't expect incredible intelligence from the collective hollywood, but this is ridiculous.
Desargues says:
They are famous because of way they look, sing, act, throw baseballs… Aren't these rather quaint criteria? I thought what you need these days are things like, buttock implants; hysteric lack of self-awareness; a vapid look and dead eyes; a sex tape; an over-sized camel toe; uncontrollable spending habits; toxic narcissism, and the like.
We may willingly shell out big bucks for tickets to their shows and movies… Speak for yourself, my man. I only go to see a movie in theaters about three times a year. Twenty bucks for me and the missus, plus another ten at the "concession" stand — whom do they make a concession to, anyway? Certainly not us — quickly adds up. Those damn movies better be good to deserve that much money from us. So far, they've mostly failed. The shitheads to make these things better remember that there's Netflix nowadays. (In all honesty, some movie stars deserve serious compensation at least for the fact that they have to smile and make nice to vile scum like Billy Bush and his pernicious ilk.)
Doesn’t their money buy them agents, publicists, lawyers, and other self-interested parties who are compensated well to stand guard between those two points? That's exactly what I asked myself when the Michael Vick and Plaxico (seriously? Plaxico?) Burress scandals broke out.
J. Dryden says:
As the son of an ethical lawyer and thus as someone who was raised to believe in the justice system as a flawed but fundamentally good means of overseeing disputes and administering justice, I immediately leapt to Polanski's defense whenever the issue was broached:
"He was represented by council, so was the state, both sides reached an agreement, with the understanding that the matter would be resolved to the satsifaction of all parties, at which point a reckless judge usurped the process, causing Polanski to flee what he saw as a personal vendetta by a public servant, and denying the victim the closure of seeing the man who raped her public admit his crime and, more importantly, publicly concede her total innocence. At which point, she should have sued the life our of him in civil court–the only place where an individual can get *personal* redress from the justice system–and where his admission would have guaranteed her success. That didn't happen because of morons of every stripe. This was a disaster on all sides, nowhere more so than in the people who were supposed to administer justice."
Such was my diatribe, until someone responded: "Yes, but he *drugged* and *raped* a girl who was little more than a *child.* There's no debate on this–he *did* it."
Me: "Well…yes, but…OK, see, the larger picture of adjudication requires…plus, Holocaust survivor…and the Sharon Tate thing…he…I…culpability of the mother…see, you have to…oh god-DAMMIT."
I lose, in short. There's no defense, no 'amelioration.' And there's no good end to any of this, obviously. The victim had her chance at seeing him pay, but the time when that would have been healthy is over. The morons in the prosecutor's office are in no position to pay for their blunderings. The judge is dead. But Polanski drugged and raped a young girl. Some crimes must not be passed over by the passage of time. I just would like to see some of the other people who put this girl through a second nightmare pay, as well.
Johnnyboy says:
"Everyone wants to fuck young girls."
Uh, no. I don't think so.
Grumpygradstudent says:
I don't like child rapers. I don't like our criminal justice system. I have no sympathy for Polanski, but I think this situation does point out how wildly retarded it is that the best thing we can come up for dealing with anti-social behavior is to put someone in a box for some period of time. How the fuck does society benefit from doing that?
Think of the hundreds of ways that society could address this wrongdoing in a more rational and productive manner. He could be forced to teach film at an inner city community college. He could be required to pay large sums of money to organizations that battle the exploitation of children. He could be made to break rocks. Etc. etc etc etc.
But no…the best we can come up with is to put people in a box with other really fucked up people, so that they come out even more destitute, hopeless, and unemployable than when they entered (obviously diverging from the Polanski example here). There are many less than ideal aspects of the American system, but none is more abjectly retarded than the prison system.
Mrs. Chili says:
Ed, this has nothing to do with this blog post. I wish to ask for your input and ideas on something. To do that, I need your email address. Would you send me a note at mrschili@comcast.net and let me know how I might reach you? Thanks!
Desargues says:
Everyone wants to fuck young girls. In his mind, it was all about the age. That a woman may say 'no' is immaterial to Polanski, it appears.
So how many women have come to this asswipe's defense?
Sarah says:
Desargues, believe it or not a lot of women have. A list of petition signers which seems to be current about to about three days ago is here:
http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/39618660.html?thread=5993454180#t5993454180
If it makes anyone feel better, someone is compiling a list of celebrities and other notables who have come out against Polanski here:
http://chrismm.dreamwidth.org/577422.html
Sarah
Andrew says:
Everyone who wants to fuck girls wants to fuck young girls, for some value of young, but only a sicko would _actually_ fuck a 13-year-old girl, and in fact it would be pretty distasteful to really want to, more than a little bit for a passing moment because no one's perfect. My wife and I have friends who have a 13-year-old daughter, and while she's undoubtedly woman-shaped, she's a little kid. I prefer to have sex with adults. To me, 25 is a young girl.
Only Polanski and the victim know with certainty what he did, as pleading guilty is not the same as being guilty. If the facts as alleged are true, what troubles me is that he raped someone, not that the victim was 13. Rape is rape.
And yes, he should pay for it, even now, but I often wonder why the Swiss picked _now_ to extradite him when they could have done so decades ago. Justice delayed = justice denied.
Jeff says:
To Grumpygradstudent:
A counter argument that someone made to me was that if you create a system where prisoners perform a public service as their punishment, you create a system where society has a greater incentive to sentence people just to get the work done, regardless of guilt.
In effect, the system HAS to be burdensome so that, in theory, the only people sent away are people who actually did something and have to be kept away from society. That is unless you're an elected official who wants to look tough on crime.
Nan says:
I'm not surprised so many celebs claim Polanski shouldn't be extradited — the man has had over 30 years and a ton of money to work the spin machine to turn himself into a victim.
Whoopi, however. . . just what level of stupid does it take for someone to declare that forcible sodomy of a drugged 13-year-old isn't really rape?
dk says:
What J.Dryden said. An inept, vindictive, attention-seeking judge screwed this up from the start, and I think people on both sides of this argument are wary of even pointing that out. But…yeah, he pled guilty to drugging and raping a 13 year old, so…I guess there's no point acknowledging that the case is more complicated than that.
julia says:
I suspect that a lot of these people are confusing this with the Should you judge an artist's work by his/her personal life? discussion, or maybe I just think that because of the prominence of Martin "big Kazan supporter" Scorcese and Woody "big Woody Allen supporter" Allen in all this.
That said, this is not that argument. This is the should an artist be allowed to commit/supported in committing serious crimes because they're just so fucking talented argument.
I suspect many rapists had seriously damaging lives. At the risk of special pleading, I really don't want my own thirteen year old living in a world where she's asked to accept that any damage that's done to her has to be weighed against the emotional traumas and artistic value of the person who chose to damage her.
Because no matter how you dress it up, I don't think worth as a human being should be something the cool kids get to vote on, either way.
Chris Sweet says:
The real question of the moment is Dan Riehl a Child Predator?
Mike says:
couldn't agree more except your analogy that celebrities are "retards." People with special needs deserve better than to be linked to celebrities. People with special needs are also human beings who totally get when you are mocking them. The last time I checked people with mental retardation were slow, they're weren't stupid. There is a difference you know, unfortunately you usually have to be a parent of a special needs kid to understand what I'm saying.
Brandon says:
To dk, who wants us to acknowledge that the case is "complicated." I don't know much about the Polanski case and the actions of the judge in question. My understanding is that the judge reneged on the plea agreement b/w the prosecutor and defense attorney. In our legal system, judges are never bound by such agreements. It might be true that the judge's actions were improper, but the fact remains that if Polanski had faced up to his crimes 30 years ago, he wouldn't be in his present predicament.
Brandon says:
The NYT had an interesting article yesterday about French celebrity culture:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/weekinreview/04kimmelman.html?ref=weekinreview
It brought up the case of Bertrand Cantat, a French musician who beat his girlfriend to death in 2003. He basically argued that the death was unintentional and got off with an 8-year sentence. He's now a free man, having got parole in 2007. But during his trial, many French celebrities came to his defense, pointing out what a socially conscious, bonafide leftist and anti-globalist he was, as if that was somehow remotely relevant to what his punishment should be.
Aslan Maskhadov says:
Let's face it- celebrities get judged by a different standard, Polanski is far from the first example of this. Remember how the press treated Michael Jackson after his death?
It reminds me of a story from Phoenix many years ago. ASU had a rising star, Jake Plummer. One day there was a scandal when he was caught goosing women in a night club. When confronted by one of the women outside the club, he kicked her. Was he arrested? Was he given a sex offender jacket? Nope- he's really good with a football, so he ended up getting an NFL contract.