Wonder Why Middle America Doesn't Trust Hollywood Liberals? Three Words: Weinstein and Polanski
I used to think that when conservatives denounced the so-called "Hollywood liberal elite" as being essentially amoral and out of touch with real Americans, they were being a bit harsh. And when Sarah Palin implied that middle America was somehow more sensibly American than those of us sin-lovin'-anti-religion-anti-America-fancypants-big city folk -- I genuinely wondered what gave her (and some of my extended family in Middle America who appear to agree with her) such an idea.
Thanks to Harvey Weinstein and Co., now I know.
While our country is engulfed in two wars, struggling to climb back after falling off of an economic cliff last year and trying to find a way to provide health care for nearly fifty million uninsured Americans, I am glad to see that some of Hollywood's elite, (including Mr. Weinstein and Woody Allen, among others) have found a truly important cause worth fighting for: defending a pedophile.
My first thoughts upon learning that Mr. Weinstein was circulating a petition on behalf of Mr. Polanski were:
1) Finally! Hollywood finds a cause the average American can get behind.
2) Shouldn't Mr. Weinstein be more focused on saving his troubled studio than saving an aging fugitive?
3) When Woody Allen is coming to your defense in a case involving sex with a teenager...well, that's a punchline that writes itself.
I have been beyond baffled at the bizarre rationale (or lack thereof) used to defend this movement to save Roman Polanski -- including on this very site.
His defenders seem to alternate between three primary lines of defense:
1) "He may have done it but it was a really long time ago."
I'd never really looked at crime that way but Mr. Weinstein and his buddies may be on to something. With that in mind maybe we should stop pestering all those Nazi war criminals we have insisted on harassing for the last half century. I mean, after all, it was a really long time ago.
2) "He is really, really talented."
Also a good point. Maybe it would be easier if we just created a set of penalties specifically for "really talented" people so we can avoid this kind of confusion in the future. I know some amazing pantomimes and jugglers. Should we give them free rein to sexually assault adults? I'm assuming you actually have to win an Academy Award to be given a free pass on children. It's just too bad we already executed serial killer Ted Bundy because according to the judge who sentenced him to death, he was a talented attorney.
3) "The victim is ready to move on."
Having to endure the pain of revisiting an assault of any kind, particularly in a public forum, is something I would not wish on my own worst enemy. I can understand a victim's desire for privacy and closure, but thankfully in this country that does not trump the public's right to justice -- and protection from potential re-offenders. It is worth noting that a number of states have laws in place that give district attorneys the power to prosecute batterers even when victims of domestic violence refuse to testify, for this very reason. They may have a variety of reasons why they would rather "move on" than face their assailant in court (or perhaps more terrifying, chance facing him outside of court). But thankfully for the greater good and safety of society, it's not always up to them.
Hollywood hypocrisy is one thing when it takes the form of a celebrity touting their environmental consciousness while globetrotting in a fuel-guzzling private jet (ahem, Madonna.) But when people like Mr. Weinstein, who supports a plethora of liberal candidates, and was the producing arm behind Michael Moore's iconic, cinematic Bush takedown "Fahrenheit 9/11," seem content to paint the former president as harmful to Americans but Roman Polanski as merely misunderstood, they are proving Sarah Palin and every other anti-Hollywood conservative's point for them.
It is not for me to say that Mr. Weinstein and his cohorts have no moral compass but I will venture to say that they are certainly out of touch and maybe out of their minds. Because in the parts of America that so many of us in big cities think of dismissively as "flyover country," they may not know that Le Cirque is a restaurant, but they do know that pedophiles are a bad thing -- regardless of how rich, talented or influential they may be.
Writer, director and Polanski acquaintance Luc Besson provided a welcome measure of clarity on this whole mess in a recent radio interview when he said, "This is a man who I love a lot and know a little bit... Our daughters are good friends. But there is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone. I will let justice happen...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."
Even if the violator in question is really, really talented.
Follow Keli Goff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/keligoff
Jamie Lee Curtis: Crimes and Misdemeanors
David Letterman makes this revelation about his personal life because he was being extorted. I understand he was staying ahead of the wave, and I commend him for it, but really, is this any of our business?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
After reading a group of the posts above, I think we might have a couple of issues twisted up with one another? There's a difference between the criteria required to convict Roman Polanski, and those required to bring him to trial. If we say we wish to live under the Rule of Law, then there is no question but that Roman Polanski belongs in court to answer to the charges being leveled against him. That's different than saying that he automatically deserves to be convicted. And also different than saying that a conviction automatically requires that he be incarcerated - forever - as some have advocated.
The criminal justice system in this country allows for the opportunity that a jury will find "mitigating" circumstances that will affect both its willingness to convict, and its decision on the appropriate punishment for guilt. Let's let the court system do its thing. And, for the record, I'm pretty liberal in my views of what's acceptible sexual behavior - as long as it occurs between consenting adults. I agree with those who find drugging and raping a 13 year old girl to be abhorrent behavior that's worthy of punishment, and I also agree with those who believe her mother should join Roman in the dock.
For me, the largest problem with the Polanski case is that the State of California failed to pursue charges against the young woman's mother at the time they were pursuing Polanski.
While Polanski's behavior is criminal, pimping your daughter is criminal as well. What reasonable motive could a mother have for dressing her 13-year-old daughter up and driving her over to Jack Nicholson's house? For me, the passage of time and the victim's desire to move past it are reason enough to let it go. Polanski's art does not figure into it.
A settlement of only $500,000 tells me that there are circumstances that make me believe there is additional unseemliness to this story that the woman in question might not want in the news as she is trying to raise her own children.
I think it is clear that had her mother cared for her as she should have been cared for, Roman Polanski would never have had a chance to abuse her as he did. To my mind, the mom is just as culpable.
See Susanna Speier's Profile
While I agree with your point on Hollywood ---celebs such as Whoppi Goldberg, Woody Allen and Tilda Swinton are certainly not doing themselves or the entertainment industry any great service by rallying to defend an accused rapist--- I don't see how their behavior is all that different from the behavior at Staples Center a few months back. People showed up in droves to mourn the death of a pedophile, who also happened to be a talented pop singer. The Luc Besson example you cited is a great example of how an individual can responsibly acknowledge the duality in a situation like that without dismissing the individual or the legal case.
What pedophile?? I don't recall anyone who recently had a memorial at the staples center being convicted of being a pedophile. Big difference.
No difference.
Thank you.
I'm 52 years old. I'm probably not a genius and have never produced a film worth a damn. If I drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl, the law and my own moral compass say I should be in prison. The arguments for excusing Polanski's crime and subsequent flight are specious at best. How many other Auschwitz survivors are child molesters? How many other talented directors are child molesters? Priests who abused boys 30 and 40 years ago are being brought to justice. Why not Roman?
Well, I strongly disagree with Polanksi, Weinstein and Allen but here is where you put the blame on the wrong people... These guys are allowed to take up any cause that they want. What is unfair in the sphere of public discourse is for Middle Americans to generalize everybody in Hollywood as being this morally twisted.
Again, what gives you the right to say 'Middle Americans' are morally twisted? Because some of them may agree with Keli Goff, who does not even live in 'Middle American'? Is "Middle American" now a code word for 'African American'? It is true that our African American culture is a bit more church-going and socially traditional than the cultures on the West Coast, especially here in the South, but explain to me how that makes us 'morally twisted'. Your bigotry is showing.
Wow! I wasn't talking about African Americans. I was only using the term used in the article with a comment based on the premises of the article. I was calling Polanski, Weinstein and Allen "morally twisted." What I was saying about so called "Middle Americans" is that they should not judge all of Hollywood by these three men. So, where I agree with Ms. Goff's statement that these particular men are fighting a warped cause here, I do not want her to give credence to those that criticize all of Hollywood on the basis of three out-of-touch, sick, men. I was tempted to flag you for calling me a bigot without even reading my post. I will refrain though.
The truth is that Bush WAS more harmful to Americans than Roman Polanski ever dreamed of being in his wildest nightmares.
Bush's bad intentional decision: 4,000+ American deaths in an unnecessary war
Polanski's bad intentional decision: 0 deaths, 1 statutory rape
I'm not defending what Polanski did, but you really ought to drop the Bush-Polanski point altogether. The harm Polanski did is LIGHT YEARS away from the harm Bush caused. It ain't even in the same universe.
Wow, so by your scale, the 600,000+ American deaths resulting from LIncolns' intentional bad decision puts him in the inner circle of hell. Number of deaths resulting from a decision is not a measure of evil.
Lincoln's decision wasn't a bad one, as we can see from the following 150 years of general prosperity and evolving freedoms.
The funny thing with "Middle America" is that they don't want to prosecute the people who raped at Abu Ghraib or the people who tortured at Guantanamo just a few years ago, we should "move on" apparently...how does that work?
@Atcha, besides being ridiculously and slanderously false, what does your comment about "Middle America" remotely have to do with Keli Goff's point? (p.s. Atcha, how dare you tell me what I believe? You do not even know me - Bob in Middle America).
Those people in those prisons aren't real people...sheesh. I thought you knew that.
Just because those crimes have not been punished does not mean Polanski shouldn't. Those crimes in Iraq need to be punished too. Do you think we should not prosecute murders simply because the death of Iraqis has not been prosecuted.
Excellent points, all. These Hollywood hypocrites are just as out-of-touch as the corporate banking weasels who traveled in their private jets to D.C. to plead their poverty case to Congress.
But the blogger failed to mention the one rationalization that some people defending Polanski are hesitant to mention but are tacitly implying:
4) He's a Holocaust Survivor.
Everyone who knows Roman Polanski is aware that his film, "The Pianist" was based on his own personal life experiences. They know that he escaped the Kraków Ghetto in 1943, that his father survived Mauthausen-Gusen, and that his mother was killed at Auschwitz. I believe some folks would like us to consider those extremely tragic experiences along with his 30-year exile from the U.S. as "time served."
I know I'm going to catch hell for this but I believe it is the uncomfortable truth.
How can that be time served? Previous hardships can be applied retroactively to current crimes. His "exile" (he is not an American citizen, so he is not in exile) of 30 years has been living in luxury in his homes in Paris, on the French Riviera, and in his Swiss chalet. He has been making films. How on earth is this time served? Most crooks would love to serve out their time abroad in those conditions. Anyone who thinks that is living in a moral and ethical Never Never Land. Oh, and they have no sense of logic.
Do we really need to hear the "Hollywood vs. Middle America" generalizations repeated?
Yes, because this time it has relevance...
Republican talking points
Hollywood is a place not a person. Polanski should pay for his crime just like anyone else should have to. But, just because some people have come to his defense and they happen to be in the entertainment industry, doesn't mean that all entertainers are bad. There are some very good people that happen to be in the entertainment industry as well. The ones that want to defend him have a right to their own opinion, even though it is my opinion that they are wrong.
I disagree. Those that are coming to Polanski's defense should take into account that they are damaging the industry's image before they open their mouths.
Because the average American doesn't see the same shades of gray that you do - Democrat or Republican. Generalizations are easy to make when so many loud voices are heard above the rest of the crowd. Take the "teabaggers," for instance. Do you believe they deserve to be lumped in with the Republican party in general? I do. Why? Because, for the most part, the rational wing of the Republican party has been silently complicit with all the hate mongering going on. The same thing goes with Hollywood on this issue.
If Hollywood insiders don't want to be generalized as out-of-touch, then more of them should speak up and disassociate themselves with the ones that are...
Thanks for knocking some sense into the discussion.
Hardly. Hollywood has been poisoning the culture with images of violence and killing for decades and we have become a violent and murderous socoiety. Middle America has absorbed this deep into their systems and it is this more than the superior preachy amorality of a bunch of actors that disturbs them.
Well, maybe but I would like to see them complain about the things you claim they are complaining about. I have never seen it before.
Wow. I mean wow. A true, and honest article. Well written and well done. It actually picks up on something you never hear nowadays, from the right or the left - ‘all those mean, nasty things people say about us? Well heck, there might be some truth to it!’ Well done. Well done indeed. Yes, this has been about as bad of PR for Hollywood as a moral compass as one could imagine. There have been no rallies. There has been no organized revolt. There have been no calls for boycotts (yet). There has just been a growing 'ick' feeling when people suddenly hear - especially given the last ten years or so - that maybe drugging and raping a child is not that big of deal (especially if you're a hip person in Hollywood). I doubt this is when Hollywood jumps the shark. But it certainly jumped something.
No where in Ms. Goff's article did I see mentioned the fact that the victim herself does not want this re-hashed in the public theater: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/29/polanski.victim.profile/index.html ..why are Samantha Geimer's wishes being ignored, I wonder..?
obviously, you didn't read the entire article.
"3) "The victim is ready to move on."
Having to endure the pain of revisiting an assault of any kind, particularly in a public forum, is something I would not wish on my own worst enemy. I can understand a victim's desire for privacy and closure, but thankfully in this country that does not trump the public's right to justice -- and protection from potential re-offenders. It is worth noting that a number of states have laws in place that give district attorneys the power to prosecute batterers even when victims of domestic violence refuse to testify, for this very reason. They may have a variety of reasons why they would rather "move on" than face their assailant in court (or perhaps more terrifying, chance facing him outside of court). But thankfully for the greater good and safety of society, it's not always up to them."
My only question is: Why did it take so many years to actually grab the man?
some countries will not extradite if the think that the accused will not get a fair trial or believe that they will get exorbitant punishment; Mexico will not if they know that its a death penalty offense, Norway is a recent example about minimum standards of incarceration
Also, most countries do not consider sexually mature adolescents 'minors'. The USA has the highest age thresholds for all sexual and most other behaviors .. it did not used to be that way, even as recently as the 1960s marriages that included a 13 year old bride were not uncommon. The age limit rose with the extended childhoods that went along with longer expected periods of education. When High School graduation became expected by the late 1960s, so did the age of marriage. Now that everyone is expected to go to college before beginning an adult life, 20 is considered too young for marriage and drinking! 1970 was a far different time, and Roman Polanski wasn't raised in America (at least not in the Puritan northeast, which screamed along with England at Jerry Lee Lewis - who didn't understand what the fuss was all about.).
It would be corrosive to our system of justice to let people flee the country to avoid justice and reach a financial settlement with their victim so that the victim loses interest in retribution. The rich can do this, the average citizen can not. Everybody who flees justice must be pursued to answer for their crimes. I've enjoyed some Polanski movies and doubt he is currently a threat to anyone but he is a coward who raped a 13 year old and will not stand up and account for his actions.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
