Well, here it is – the new POLIWOOD on a subject that seems to have transfixed all of us – HOLLYWOOD’S LAME DEFENSE OF POLANSKI. Lionel and I will return to the issue in the weeks to come as events develop. The detective writer in me is wondering about the old days. Who got Roman Polanski out of the country in 1977 and how was he/she/they able to do it? Will we find out now? I’m skeptical, but it would be interesting, wouldn’t it? I have my own personal suspicions, which I won’t reveal because I have not proof. (HINT: It’s not David Letterman.)
Polanski Edition of Poliwood here. And, if you haven’t had enough of Lionel and me, other Poliwoods here.
Strangely this whole Roman Polanski episode is calling to mind a classic scene from Fritz Lang’s “M” where Peter Lorre, as child rapist/killer, is placed on show trial by a gathering of other criminals in the Berlin underground whose livelihood and “reputations” are being affected by mounting public fear and increased police scrutiny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g-sfrQnwwg&feature=related
Early in the scene Lorre’s pleadings begin to catch a sympathetic foothold with his fellow criminals (more than adequately portrayed in our present day by Hollywood actors and directors) who seem to relate all too well to his personal demons. Eventually the mob opts for personal protection and self-interest over sympathy and the rule of law and decide to mete out “justice” at their own hands. The police step in at the last moment and, rather providentially, spare the rapist/killer his coming punishment.
I suspect it will play out similarly in the case of Roman Polanski. In the early stages, some have circled the wagons seeing any assault on one of their own as an attack against free expression for all. As fellow denizens of a dark world whose exploits constantly blur all lines of moral distinction, they feel his pain as a tortured artist who shares common weaknesses and proclivities. But I suspect the tide will eventually turn. Not because these Hollywood cretins will “see the light” as it were in terms of Polanski’s horrendous guilt. But as they begin to realize how negatively their solidarity with a child rapist is met by an astonished public, most will back down from their original stance. Some in the form of “gee, I didn’t realize how bad this actually was, I thought it was simply a case of statutory rape.” Others with the “yeah, what he did was wrong but I read that he was already punished” Eventually the self-interest of the extremely self-absorbed will outweigh the need to stand in lock step singing the praises of an expendable director. It’s only a matter of time. Unlike the blood thirsty mob in “M”, there will be no passionate indignation underlying a call for mob justice. No fire. No ice. Just the whimper of once luminous people quietly slipping back to their homes in the Hollywood hills.
We live in sad times when the lowly criminal underworld of 1930′s Germany can claim the high ground over today’s overpaid, overindulgent, morally bankrupt celebrities.
Interesting program. I think you’re right, this could be a ‘mistake.’ It might turn off their audience. Hollywood used to be practical.
I am sure the majority of people working in Hollywood do not share the opinion of the elite.
I guess Polanski must be on the proper side of the global warming debate or something.
The beginning of David Thomson’s entry on Roman Polanski in The New Biographical Dictionary of Film (2004).
Can you count–or explain–the errors from a man who knows as much about movies as anyone?
“Who would have thought in 1978 when Polanski jumped bail, left America, and fled from the charge of having seduced a fourteen-year-old girl, that the subsequent exile would become his way of life?”
Innocent errors or spin?
This appears to be more about the difference between moral absolutes and moral relativism.
For a moral absolutist, it is always wrong to rape a 13 year old. It is also always wrong to flee the country after you’ve pleaded guilty. There are no excuses. There are no exculpating circumstances. There are no mitigating factors. It was wrong, is wrong and always will be wrong no matter the circumstances, culture or society.
For a moral relativist, everything gets considered. It is relevant that Polanski is an artist who has made some movies. It is relevant that he lived for 32 years without pressures and then gets arrested in Switzerland (and that would be an issue if he had not already pleaded guilty). It is relevant that the victim objects to be putting back into a media induced circus.
(But, while she was the victim, the crime was also committed against the people of the state of California – it was a crime against a civilized society or, if you will, a crime against humanity.)
I do not see Hollywood that’s defending Polanski as a bunch of privileged elitists who feel celebrity status trumps morality. They have no moral absolutes to trump. Every case is a case of first impression and all factors are relevant. And if a relativist does not like the result, it is obvious that other considerations are not being given the appropriate weight. Is that not how you end up with the “it wasn’t rape-rape” defense? Isn’t that how you generate sympathy for a convicted murderer who wrote a children book?
The most curious comment posted was Roger’s original post saying that this would not be good for Jews. To a moral absolutist, the sentiment is nonsense. Polanski being a Jew or Holocaust survivor is absolutely irrelevant. However, to a moral relativist, yes, it could be a factor, one way or the other. Being a moral absolutist, I don’t see it one way or the other, but it could.
Does this also shed some light on what is coming out of Hollywood as product or art? A moral relativist can rationalize anything, even the drek that finds its way to screens. It’s particularly easy, one would think, when you’re surrounded by other moral relativists.
Excellent video.
BTW, to commenter #6, I saw the video on YouTube where the comments are already filled with anti-Semitic attacks against Polanski, Weinstein, etc.
So maybe Simon’s original post wasn’t so “curious.” I thought it was obvious, if anything.
Also, your dichotomy between moral relativists and moral absolutists misses something yet more obvious – the rule of law. That is what this is all about to me.
As usual I was unable to see much of PJTV as it kept freezing.
Forget Polanski being Jewish. If the Daily Telegraph is to be believed so is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revealed to have Jewish past
I thought all that ‘self-hating Jew’ stuff was exaggerated. I may have to rethink that.
Coisty, if you would provide pjtv with your real email, we would be glad to help you with your freezing problems. We are usually able to fix.
Roger,
OK. Thanks.
I am waiting to hear public statements issuing soon from the few Hollywood figures I am now most disappointed in, most prominently, Martin Scorsese and David Lynch. I think they owe their soon-to-be-former fans an explanation of exactly what they were thinking when they signed the petition to free Polanski.
Maybe they based their stance on having only seen the biased documentary of the case. Maybe they haven’t ever read the court testimony. I still can’t believe they think the girl somehow deserved to be raped, that Polanski deserved the right to rape her, or that a fugitive from justice gets to outrun the law if he’s a Hollywood name.
Or maybe all these signatories really are “moral illiterates.”
No statement from these fearless artists–no more admiration (or dollars) from me and others who share my outrage.
As more and more blogs of late turn to youtube or video I am dismayed at one thing; the lack of captioning for the hearing impaired. I am deaf and one of your regulars.
It seems more and more sites are starting to go video. Noooo!
Gee, did David Letterman sign the petition? Maybe he can interview Polanski while he’s awaiting trial and free on bail (except there is a small case to be made that he’s a flight risk).