![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
FORGET IT, JAKE, IT'S HOLLYWOOD.
Oct. 3rd, 2009 10:43 pmI tend to be capable of separating the art from the artist. That is to say, I may really like and appreciate a work of art (painting, book, play, musical piece, film, etc.) ... and be familiar with attitudes and/or actions on a creator's part with which I seriously disagree -- in extreme cases, which I find reprehensible or evil. The two don't necessarily affect each other: I can still appreciate the work while condemning the actions/attitudes of its creator.
Examples: I like some early Orson Scott Card (Wyrms, Treason, the Alvin Maker books before they started to seem like the same book over and over) and say so unapolegitcally, without endorsing Card's more recent politcal screeds. My many issues with Objectivism don't stop me from loving Steve Ditko's art on the original Spider-Man comics. I still like some of Tom Cruise's better work, though Cruise the person strikes me as increasingly distasteful and wacky. I love Bob Dylan's work, but it doesn't stop me from watching the Don't Look Back documentary and thinking he was needlessly a colossal jerk a good deal of the time back in the day. And there's plenty of cultural, casual anti-Semitism in many of the 19th-century (even early 20th) authors I read and enjoy, such as Dickens. There's the work, and there's the creator -- a creator's excellent work doesn not justify or negate unworthy or evil actions or attitudes on his/her part; nor do the evil actions/attitudes of the creator negate what's good about the creation.
You can probably guess where I'm going with this.
One of my eight or 10 favorite films is Chinatown, the noirish 1974 film starring Jack Nicholson in one of his signature roles, private detective Jake Gittes, whose investigation into a municipal official's apparent affair leads him into a major, vast and intricate web of municipal corruption involving murder, incest, and the water supply for the city of Los Angeles. Great performances by Nicholson, Faye Dunaway, John Huston, Diane Ladd and even those in minor roles like Burt Young (the future Paulie in the Rocky movies). And one of the greatest, most evocative and world-wearily chilling lines in filmdom: "Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown."
The film was adapted from a Robert Towne screenplay by ... director Roman Polanski. The same Roman Polanski who was recently arrested in Switzerland on a decades-old charge in connection with the rape of a 13-year-old girl in the U.S.. He had pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual encounter with a minor, but skipped the country before sentencing. Polanski's supporters and apologists claim that the now-deceased judge at the time wanted, for political and public-image reasons, to make an example of Polanski and ignore the stipulations of the plea-deal that had been reached.
That may be -- surely there are jurists overly concerned with politics and public image. But it doesn't change the fact that Polanski conceded he had sexual contact with a 13-year-old. He drugged and raped a child. And judicial-system wrinkles don't seem enough to account for the vehemence of the high-profile "Free-Polanski" apologists -- few of whom I think would be inclined to support an admitted rapist and fugitive if he had been someone who wasn't rich, famous and connected.
I tend not to attribute base motives to people's political actions, so I could possibly-conceivably-if-I-squinted have conceded that the Polanski-supporters were mainly concerned about Corruption in the Judicial System Circa 1970s. Doubtful, but I could accept the small possibility that that was the concern of people like Martin Scorsese, Ethan Coen or Natalie Portman. Until tonight when someone on Slacktivist linked to an LJ post containing the free-Polanski petition ... which minimizes the drugging and rape of a child as "a case of morals."
A case of MORALS? Rape?!? Yup, according to the petition signers, that's all it is ... not like rape is a crime or nothin', just some insignificant transgression of cultural mores or whatnot. Apparently it's just us puritanical Americans being all repressed and uptight and stuff. No big deal, right?
Unless it had been their daughter. Or sister, or niece, or friend. Or self.
(I get that the victim herself is on the free-Polanski side, but who cares? A victim or a victim's family might personally forgive a rapist, murderer, kidnapper, armed-robber, etc. ... but they don't get veto power over the criminal justice system's processing of a felony. Polanski's family was once in the victim's role themselves -- his wife Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. But even if Roman Polanski were to personally forgive and mentally absolve Charles Manson, it would make no difference judicially: Chuck remains in prison where he belongs; and I think few would disagree. This has nothing to do with forgiveness; it has everything to do with crime and punishment -- with equality before the law. With -- as battered as the phrase got during the Clinton impeachment fiasco a decade ago -- the Rule of Law.)
I separate the creator from the creation, as I said. So I'll probably still enjoy and appreciate the work, past and present, of Martin Scorsese, Harrison Ford, Natalie Portman, the Coen Brothers (I don't think Joel's on the list), Jeremy Irons -- for that matter, Woody Allen.
But as people, as human beings ... I find myself questioning, at the very least, their judgment.
Sounds & Images: Tonight's Austin City Limits. Tonight it's Dave Matthews Band. I have a colleague who could be Dave Matthews' twin if he were about 12 years older.
State O'Mind: Puzzled
Examples: I like some early Orson Scott Card (Wyrms, Treason, the Alvin Maker books before they started to seem like the same book over and over) and say so unapolegitcally, without endorsing Card's more recent politcal screeds. My many issues with Objectivism don't stop me from loving Steve Ditko's art on the original Spider-Man comics. I still like some of Tom Cruise's better work, though Cruise the person strikes me as increasingly distasteful and wacky. I love Bob Dylan's work, but it doesn't stop me from watching the Don't Look Back documentary and thinking he was needlessly a colossal jerk a good deal of the time back in the day. And there's plenty of cultural, casual anti-Semitism in many of the 19th-century (even early 20th) authors I read and enjoy, such as Dickens. There's the work, and there's the creator -- a creator's excellent work doesn not justify or negate unworthy or evil actions or attitudes on his/her part; nor do the evil actions/attitudes of the creator negate what's good about the creation.
You can probably guess where I'm going with this.
One of my eight or 10 favorite films is Chinatown, the noirish 1974 film starring Jack Nicholson in one of his signature roles, private detective Jake Gittes, whose investigation into a municipal official's apparent affair leads him into a major, vast and intricate web of municipal corruption involving murder, incest, and the water supply for the city of Los Angeles. Great performances by Nicholson, Faye Dunaway, John Huston, Diane Ladd and even those in minor roles like Burt Young (the future Paulie in the Rocky movies). And one of the greatest, most evocative and world-wearily chilling lines in filmdom: "Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown."
The film was adapted from a Robert Towne screenplay by ... director Roman Polanski. The same Roman Polanski who was recently arrested in Switzerland on a decades-old charge in connection with the rape of a 13-year-old girl in the U.S.. He had pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual encounter with a minor, but skipped the country before sentencing. Polanski's supporters and apologists claim that the now-deceased judge at the time wanted, for political and public-image reasons, to make an example of Polanski and ignore the stipulations of the plea-deal that had been reached.
That may be -- surely there are jurists overly concerned with politics and public image. But it doesn't change the fact that Polanski conceded he had sexual contact with a 13-year-old. He drugged and raped a child. And judicial-system wrinkles don't seem enough to account for the vehemence of the high-profile "Free-Polanski" apologists -- few of whom I think would be inclined to support an admitted rapist and fugitive if he had been someone who wasn't rich, famous and connected.
I tend not to attribute base motives to people's political actions, so I could possibly-conceivably-if-I-squinted have conceded that the Polanski-supporters were mainly concerned about Corruption in the Judicial System Circa 1970s. Doubtful, but I could accept the small possibility that that was the concern of people like Martin Scorsese, Ethan Coen or Natalie Portman. Until tonight when someone on Slacktivist linked to an LJ post containing the free-Polanski petition ... which minimizes the drugging and rape of a child as "a case of morals."
A case of MORALS? Rape?!? Yup, according to the petition signers, that's all it is ... not like rape is a crime or nothin', just some insignificant transgression of cultural mores or whatnot. Apparently it's just us puritanical Americans being all repressed and uptight and stuff. No big deal, right?
Unless it had been their daughter. Or sister, or niece, or friend. Or self.
(I get that the victim herself is on the free-Polanski side, but who cares? A victim or a victim's family might personally forgive a rapist, murderer, kidnapper, armed-robber, etc. ... but they don't get veto power over the criminal justice system's processing of a felony. Polanski's family was once in the victim's role themselves -- his wife Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. But even if Roman Polanski were to personally forgive and mentally absolve Charles Manson, it would make no difference judicially: Chuck remains in prison where he belongs; and I think few would disagree. This has nothing to do with forgiveness; it has everything to do with crime and punishment -- with equality before the law. With -- as battered as the phrase got during the Clinton impeachment fiasco a decade ago -- the Rule of Law.)
I separate the creator from the creation, as I said. So I'll probably still enjoy and appreciate the work, past and present, of Martin Scorsese, Harrison Ford, Natalie Portman, the Coen Brothers (I don't think Joel's on the list), Jeremy Irons -- for that matter, Woody Allen.
But as people, as human beings ... I find myself questioning, at the very least, their judgment.
Sounds & Images: Tonight's Austin City Limits. Tonight it's Dave Matthews Band. I have a colleague who could be Dave Matthews' twin if he were about 12 years older.
State O'Mind: Puzzled
