“A Case Of Morals”

Law, Politics & Current Events

A little update on the parade of repulsive defenses offered in support of Roman Polanski, which I discussed yesterday.

I, for one, am slow to buy into the (typically right-wing) “Hollywood is a moral cesspool, inhabited by morons” meme. I think it’s an exaggeration, frequently employed towards ends I do not admire or support.

Hollywood is not making that stance easy for me today.

Behold, a petition in support of Polanski offered by the SACD, the Société des Auteurs et Compositeurs Dramatiques, the web site of which is currently too slammed to link directly.

Some wisdom from the SACD:

His arrest follows an American arrest warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals.

Well, yes. There are moral dimensions to drugging and raping a thirteen-year-old. But I’m pretty sure the SACD meant that as a sneer.

Filmmakers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision. It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him.

By their extraterritorial nature, film festivals the world over have always permitted works to be shown and for filmmakers to present them freely and safely, even when certain States opposed this.

Film festivals are like churches. You should get sanctuary and everything. Because these filmmakers are GREAT MEN. Do you hear me? GREAT MEN.

The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects.

I can only assume that the incoherence of this statement is a result of it being translated from the original by someone as stupid as I am. But their point seems to be that it’s unfair to arrest Polanski because he assumed — without any legal basis — that he could not be arrested. Apparently ignorance of the law is not only a defense to charges — it’s a defense to being arrested for charges.

Roman Polanski is a French citizen, a renown and international artist now facing extradition.

Liberté, égalité, filmmaker-worship!

This extradition, if it takes place, will be heavy in consequences and will take away his freedom.

That’s the point, you utter imbeciles.

Filmmakers, actors, producers and technicians — everyone involved in international filmmaking — want him to know that he has their support and friendship.

A friend is someone who, when you get arrested for raping a thirteen-year-old, has your back.

On September 16th, 2009, Mr. Charles Rivkin, the US Ambassador to France, received French artists and intellectuals at the embassy. He presented to them the new Minister Counselor for Public Affairs at the embassy, Ms Judith Baroody. In perfect French she lauded the Franco-American friendship and recommended the development of cultural relations between our two countries.

If only in the name of this friendship between our two countries, we demand the immediate release of Roman Polanski.

“In perfect French” — meaning, of course, “he respected our notions of cultural superiority.” Plus, I love “received French artists and intellectuals.” Do you have to register as an intellectual in France? Do you get a card? Has anyone ever met a self-described public intellectual who wasn’t an utter douche?

Also, I love “we demand.” What are you gonna do — make more subtitled movies?

This comes from the French, and the initial signatories are French. It would be uncouth to hold this against a morally stunted people. They can’t help it. It’s appalling, though, to see that numerous prominent Hollywood figures signing on.

Seriously, John Landis? Really, Michael Mann? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Jonathan Demme?

Last 5 posts by Ken

23 Comments

23 Comments

  1. Mike D  •  Sep 29, 2009 @3:17 pm

    I haven’t given a crap about Roman Polanski since… ok, I never gave a crap about Roman Polanski. So I’m in favor of this entire situation for giving us all an opportunity for extended outrage and indignation. You blog, I blog, we all blog for (or against) Polanski! Yay!

  2. Chris Berez  •  Sep 29, 2009 @3:45 pm

    John Landis signed on? Really.

    Aw man, that one really hurts me.

  3. Ken  •  Sep 29, 2009 @3:46 pm

    And Terry Gilliam, dammit.

  4. Linus  •  Sep 29, 2009 @3:56 pm

    Because these filmmakers are GREAT MEAN.

    Freudian slip?

    And people wonder why certain conservatives rail against “intellectuals”. Well, here you go.

  5. Old Geezer  •  Sep 29, 2009 @5:48 pm

    First O.J. Now Polanski. Is there no justice for the poor innocent celebrities? Next they’re going to jail someone like Phil Specter! What’s rapist/murderer to do?

  6. MeanDean  •  Sep 29, 2009 @6:31 pm

    What seems to be ignored is that Polanski had already been tried and convicted, and skipped the country while awaiting sentencing. This begs the question: why the hell was a convicted rapist out on bond?

    Oh yeah, he was rich and white. Silly fuckin’ me.

  7. Scott Jacobs  •  Sep 29, 2009 @7:04 pm

    “A friend is someone who, when you get arrested for raping a thirteen-year-old, has your back.”

    I understand that was a joke, but I’d like to make something clear to any of my friends…

    My friends, if you ever admit to raping a 13-year old of either or any gender, you better not ever skip town, let alone the county. If you do, I will hunt you down myself and kill you with my bear hands.

    As only a friend could do.

  8. matt  •  Sep 29, 2009 @7:17 pm

    wow Scott you have “bear” hands =p sorry i couldn’t resist

  9. Alicia  •  Sep 29, 2009 @10:44 pm

    Hm….where was Brad Pitt with his team of Inglourious Bastards when we could have used them?

  10. Scott Jacobs  •  Sep 30, 2009 @1:04 am

    Matt I’ll off just because.

    :)

  11. Jen  •  Sep 30, 2009 @6:05 am

    CNN’s Headline News this morning had a promo blurb for this story this morning. They said Polanski was convicted of “having sex with a 13 year old”. As if it was consensual and the crime was simply her being underage. No mention of rape.

    This shit is widespread and insidious. What the hell is wrong with people?

  12. strech  •  Sep 30, 2009 @6:17 am

    They said Polanski was convicted of “having sex with a 13 year old”. As if it was consensual and the crime was simply her being underage. No mention of rape.

    That was actually the charge he pled guilty to; the plea bargain where he pled guilty was for statuatory rape. Now, the sworn testimony given as part of the plea deal made it clear it wasn’t consensual, but that wasn’t what he was actually convicted for.

    I continue to be baffled by the support he’s getting, though. I mean, maybe the judge did not give a fair trial, which should be grounds for appeal, but that would still require being in the country to face the charges. And the other charges hadn’t been dropped yet and he still needs to face those. And he should still be held accountable for fleeing justice regardless.

  13. Dan  •  Sep 30, 2009 @7:59 am

    Whoopi Goldberg, always a beacon of mainstream sensibility, was reported as saying:

    “I know it wasn’t rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don’t believe it was rape-rape.”

    Here’s a snipped link: http://snurl.com/s8ic5

  14. Ken  •  Sep 30, 2009 @8:52 am

    She said rape twice.

  15. mojo  •  Sep 30, 2009 @9:07 am

    The Twits begin at Calais…

  16. Chris Berez  •  Sep 30, 2009 @9:41 am

    Sharon Tate’s sister is now claiming that Polanski will “get a raw deal” in the U.S. and won’t get a fail trial (she conveniently forgets he already had a fair trail that he skipped out on). She also says that the sex between Polanski and the child was “a consensual matter”.

    The moral bankruptcy of these people knows now bounds.

  17. Scott Jacobs  •  Sep 30, 2009 @10:18 am

    ” Ken • Sep 30, 2009 @8:52 am ”

    Technically, she said it 4 times… :)

  18. Scott Jacobs  •  Sep 30, 2009 @10:19 am

    “She also says that the sex between Polanski and the child was “a consensual matter”.”

    Much in the same way that the death of her sister was a suicide…

  19. astonied  •  Sep 30, 2009 @12:17 pm

    Consensual: Being plied with drugs and booze and begging to have anal sex with a man old enough to be your grandpa. Or perhaps another definition would be entrusting your money to investment professionals/ CEO’s who decide that since you gave it to them willingly you don’t want it back.Those have always been my definitions of consensual.

  20. Nancy  •  Sep 30, 2009 @1:36 pm

    Please remember: France is a country where the critics worshipped Jerry Lewis as a brilliant actor and director. A country that whacky is bound to think child rape is perfectly okay as long as the adult is adored by critics.

  21. Barry  •  Oct 1, 2009 @12:14 pm

    While you’re arguing about film directors being a protected species, consider this story found on Point of Law:

    http://abovethelaw.com/2009/09/disbarred_lawyer_allen_feingold.php

    Here’s a lawyer who admits at least attempting to assault a judge, yet he isn’t anywhere near being sent to jail.

  22. Butters  •  Oct 2, 2009 @8:40 pm

    Good post. I do, however, believe that Hollywood is a moral cesspool.

  23. tehag  •  Oct 4, 2009 @5:08 am

    France has a habit of this sort of thing. Check “Ira Einhorn” at wikipedia. (He’s not a child rapist, just a murder, and what a few murders among Greens.)

Leave a Reply

Allowed tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>