Re: Roman Polanski, Justice, and public consciousness.
Posted here so I don't actually comment on the BBC News site (nothing good has ever come of this)
What's behind the cut assumes some knowledge of the current Roman Polanski NEWSSTORM. So, I guess this is a good place to start: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8277886.stm
For the record: When I say "We", I am referring to the Western developed We. Because that's my frame-of-reference, and I'm not going to pretend I'm savvy to any other cultural generalisation :-P (I almost said "mainstream", but actually, I fucking well know better than to pretend it's only there.)
The most general way I can state my feeling is this: the width and breadth of dissent emerging from this coverage belies how fickle the public attitude towards justice really is.
This point is not new, this point comes up in my head every time I read comments on basically any news story. We believe very firmly in "justice", right up until the victim annoys us or maybe just looks a bit dodgy, or the perpetrator is famous, charismatic, or just generally popular. We all want to protect men, women and children from sexual assault, until those men, women and children cease to behave within the patterns of behaviour we expect from men, women, and children.
We believe that time heals all wounds, except when it doesn't, and then our desire for punishment spans decades.
We are arbitrarily selective about these things.
To put things in Hollywood-shaped perspective, Elia Kazan, a man whose career saw several Tonys, Oscars, and the co-founding of the Actors Studio, was booed by half of the audience while receiving a lifetime acheivement Oscar in 1999. The reason was for his role in essentially ratting out his peers during the McCarthy-era Red Scare. As mentioned in the linked article, his award was protested both by surviving individuals directly affected by his betrayal, and by actors of later generations. At that point he had a good decade or so on the age of Polanski's transgression, plus his snitching didn't involve any kid-rape (as far as anyone can tell).
But the victim was one person, she had no accompanying ideological battles, and worst of all, she was a nobody. And this is Hollywood. Its inner-circle protecting image obsession/gullibility is nothing to be surprised at. But what's the rationalization for the French and Polish governments? For the Washington Post? Eh?
We (The hypothetical Western we, just to be clear) tend to behave as if contributions to art and society negate certain crimes. We seem to be particularly good at this when it comes to very personal crimes, like sexual assault (which, you know, we already love to negate). We seem to be *especially* good if someone famous is involved, and it's sexual assault of someone who is not. Because already we can rationalize away *any* woman's being a victim of rape by keeping a reserve list of Things That Make Her Unrapeable (dress, profession, intoxication, isolation, daring to leave her house, etc etc etc). This is because of the continuing sexism and misogyny embedded in modern western society, yes, but in my view it's a particularly focused and intensified version of the more universal desire to remain safely within the illusion that we can control the world around us.
When bad things happen--burglary, mugging, assault--the initial response seems divided between sympathy and victim blaming:
"Well of course you're going to get burgled if you leave the window unlocked*). Silly bastard."
"Well of course you're going to get mugged going round this neighbourhood at night appearing to have anything of value on you."
"Well of course you're going to get assaulted if you say/do/look at the wrong things, at the wrong time. You should have known better"
Now it's perfectly true that, living in the world we do, there are things you can and probably should do to reduce your chances of each of the above. I'm not debating that. What I'm interested in is the sentiment that underlies a response that is essentially "you were asking for it" when someone has had their home or person violated by another person.
This attitude intrigues while bothering the ever-loving shit out of me. Two reasons:
1. It's just really unnecessary. I mean, seriously, if your reaction to something bad happening to someone else is "what did they do to deserve it?" then...well, ew.
2. It's a delusional, weak-assed defence against the real and true fact that, sometimes, bad things happen to people who do not deserve it, sometimes for no discernible reason**.
I've digressed quite a ways away from whatever the hell my point was originally, but I guess my point is this: Gee, I'd sure like if more people could be less fucked-up about things like this.
Getting back to Polanski, to hear so many rape apology tropes coming everywhere from the French and Polish governments to Hollywood, to the Washington Post is revolting, but to be expected. "She was asking for it", "it was a long time ago, he's quite old now" "he's had a hard life" "oh but he's done so many good things and he's so charming""she doesn't want to press charges".
The first one is just so fucking typical it hardly bears analysis. People assuage themselves from the guilt of a society that protects rapists by discrediting rape victims. Film at 11 (the film will be Lolita). "It was a long time ago" ties right into the whole fickle public-consciousness thing. "He's had a hard life" is just repugnant, and offensive to anyone who has had a hard life beset with tragedy and yet managed to *not* rape anyone. Just sayin'. As for the "good/artistic works buy you legal privileges" thing...that and similar arguments piss me off too much to be coherent, so someone else is gonna have to field that one.
The one that deserves the most serious reflection is the last one. The victim, now married with kids of her own, has requested that the matter be dismissed, because she doesn't want it dredged up again. Which on the one had, is fair enough. Jeff Fecke has what is probably the best response to that.
I feel less comfortable with the idea of making a victim and her family relieve a horrible experience that she has spent 30 years trying to move on from than with slapping around the "GOOD WORKS" crowd, but at the same time I believe Fecke is right in what the role of the victim determining justice should be.
Anyway, work is over. I've ranted. I've vented. If you've made it this far, what do you think?
*the particularly paranoiac British twist on this is "if you don't have 7 CCTV cameras pointed at your house".
**Please note the "no discernible reason" part of that sentence refers so-called "Act of God" type things ("rocks fall and you die"), and not interpersonal crimes like assault, burglary and rape. These things do have a cause, and that cause is the presence of an assailant/a burglar/a rapist. This is something people also seem to have difficulty accepting, especially in latter-most case, so I just want to be clear.
What's behind the cut assumes some knowledge of the current Roman Polanski NEWSSTORM. So, I guess this is a good place to start: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8277886.stm
For the record: When I say "We", I am referring to the Western developed We. Because that's my frame-of-reference, and I'm not going to pretend I'm savvy to any other cultural generalisation :-P (I almost said "mainstream", but actually, I fucking well know better than to pretend it's only there.)
The most general way I can state my feeling is this: the width and breadth of dissent emerging from this coverage belies how fickle the public attitude towards justice really is.
This point is not new, this point comes up in my head every time I read comments on basically any news story. We believe very firmly in "justice", right up until the victim annoys us or maybe just looks a bit dodgy, or the perpetrator is famous, charismatic, or just generally popular. We all want to protect men, women and children from sexual assault, until those men, women and children cease to behave within the patterns of behaviour we expect from men, women, and children.
We believe that time heals all wounds, except when it doesn't, and then our desire for punishment spans decades.
We are arbitrarily selective about these things.
To put things in Hollywood-shaped perspective, Elia Kazan, a man whose career saw several Tonys, Oscars, and the co-founding of the Actors Studio, was booed by half of the audience while receiving a lifetime acheivement Oscar in 1999. The reason was for his role in essentially ratting out his peers during the McCarthy-era Red Scare. As mentioned in the linked article, his award was protested both by surviving individuals directly affected by his betrayal, and by actors of later generations. At that point he had a good decade or so on the age of Polanski's transgression, plus his snitching didn't involve any kid-rape (as far as anyone can tell).
But the victim was one person, she had no accompanying ideological battles, and worst of all, she was a nobody. And this is Hollywood. Its inner-circle protecting image obsession/gullibility is nothing to be surprised at. But what's the rationalization for the French and Polish governments? For the Washington Post? Eh?
We (The hypothetical Western we, just to be clear) tend to behave as if contributions to art and society negate certain crimes. We seem to be particularly good at this when it comes to very personal crimes, like sexual assault (which, you know, we already love to negate). We seem to be *especially* good if someone famous is involved, and it's sexual assault of someone who is not. Because already we can rationalize away *any* woman's being a victim of rape by keeping a reserve list of Things That Make Her Unrapeable (dress, profession, intoxication, isolation, daring to leave her house, etc etc etc). This is because of the continuing sexism and misogyny embedded in modern western society, yes, but in my view it's a particularly focused and intensified version of the more universal desire to remain safely within the illusion that we can control the world around us.
When bad things happen--burglary, mugging, assault--the initial response seems divided between sympathy and victim blaming:
"Well of course you're going to get burgled if you leave the window unlocked*). Silly bastard."
"Well of course you're going to get mugged going round this neighbourhood at night appearing to have anything of value on you."
"Well of course you're going to get assaulted if you say/do/look at the wrong things, at the wrong time. You should have known better"
Now it's perfectly true that, living in the world we do, there are things you can and probably should do to reduce your chances of each of the above. I'm not debating that. What I'm interested in is the sentiment that underlies a response that is essentially "you were asking for it" when someone has had their home or person violated by another person.
This attitude intrigues while bothering the ever-loving shit out of me. Two reasons:
1. It's just really unnecessary. I mean, seriously, if your reaction to something bad happening to someone else is "what did they do to deserve it?" then...well, ew.
2. It's a delusional, weak-assed defence against the real and true fact that, sometimes, bad things happen to people who do not deserve it, sometimes for no discernible reason**.
I've digressed quite a ways away from whatever the hell my point was originally, but I guess my point is this: Gee, I'd sure like if more people could be less fucked-up about things like this.
Getting back to Polanski, to hear so many rape apology tropes coming everywhere from the French and Polish governments to Hollywood, to the Washington Post is revolting, but to be expected. "She was asking for it", "it was a long time ago, he's quite old now" "he's had a hard life" "oh but he's done so many good things and he's so charming""she doesn't want to press charges".
The first one is just so fucking typical it hardly bears analysis. People assuage themselves from the guilt of a society that protects rapists by discrediting rape victims. Film at 11 (the film will be Lolita). "It was a long time ago" ties right into the whole fickle public-consciousness thing. "He's had a hard life" is just repugnant, and offensive to anyone who has had a hard life beset with tragedy and yet managed to *not* rape anyone. Just sayin'. As for the "good/artistic works buy you legal privileges" thing...that and similar arguments piss me off too much to be coherent, so someone else is gonna have to field that one.
The one that deserves the most serious reflection is the last one. The victim, now married with kids of her own, has requested that the matter be dismissed, because she doesn't want it dredged up again. Which on the one had, is fair enough. Jeff Fecke has what is probably the best response to that.
I feel less comfortable with the idea of making a victim and her family relieve a horrible experience that she has spent 30 years trying to move on from than with slapping around the "GOOD WORKS" crowd, but at the same time I believe Fecke is right in what the role of the victim determining justice should be.
Anyway, work is over. I've ranted. I've vented. If you've made it this far, what do you think?
*the particularly paranoiac British twist on this is "if you don't have 7 CCTV cameras pointed at your house".
**Please note the "no discernible reason" part of that sentence refers so-called "Act of God" type things ("rocks fall and you die"), and not interpersonal crimes like assault, burglary and rape. These things do have a cause, and that cause is the presence of an assailant/a burglar/a rapist. This is something people also seem to have difficulty accepting, especially in latter-most case, so I just want to be clear.