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.
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 White
- Hate Speech Debate on More Perfect Live - September 5th, 2017
- Popehat Goes To The Opera: Un ballo in maschera - August 19th, 2017
- Department of Justice Uses Search Warrant To Get Data On Visitors to Anti-Trump Site - August 14th, 2017
- America At The End of All Hypotheticals - August 14th, 2017
- Lawsplainer: Why John Oliver Is Anti-Diversity Now - August 11th, 2017