'Hollywood' Fights Back Against Haters in Roman Polanski Saga
What is "Hollywood," anyway? Is it simply a dot on a map? A town with a sign in the hills? Is it that town and all the lives, work and idiosyncrasies it comprises? Is it the idea of that town, or the idea of those lives and work? Is it an abstract institution leveraged a million ways from Sunday by politics, money, disloyalty, ambition, vice and more? Can it be all these things we've come to know, love and loathe it for, and yet still surprise us?
Oddly, if there's any long-term crisis to be resolved in the Roman Polanski Culture War, it's this one: Hollywood's identity. And once we've decided all of this, can we relate to Hollywood? Do we even want to? In an angry, defensive, and not entirely misplaced essay today at the L.A. Times, one screenwriter says yes.
Citing the overwhelming outcry against a notorious "Hollywood" petitions calling for Polanski's immediate release, Patrick Goldstein today called allegations of industry support "hogwash." The signatories were too diffuse, for starters. "There's no petition going around with the names of the real Hollywood elite -- A-list filmmakers and studio chiefs like Steven Spielberg, Alan Horn, James Cameron, Amy Pascal, Jerry Bruckheimer, Brian Grazer, Tom Rothman, J.J. Abrams, John Lasseter or Michael Bay -- because the real Hollywood elite isn't supporting Polanski," Goldstein says, hilariously covering his ass and shoving off blame to Europeans and New Yorkers who "clearly see the world in a very different light than the real Hollywood elite." (Yes, Patrick, clearly. That might actually be the light reflecting off the Oscars they keep winning, further splintering "Hollywood." But I digress.)
Goldstein then handed over his blog to Josh Olson (right), the History of Violence scribe whose previous op-ed foray, "I Will Not Read Your F*cking Script," famously parsed even smaller industry taxonomies, separating writers from hacks in convincing, indelible style. He applied a similar analysis to help break down the curious phenomenon of Polanski supporters, both defending and perhaps even defining Hollywood and its environs in the process. It's a fascinating read, emerging out of his displeasure with the LAT's reporting but finally pointing out the same insular, disengaged frame of mind in the haters that they themselves spot in Hollywood.
He accomplishes most of this by pulling those "Free Polanski" petitions to shreds -- literally:
Between the two petitions, there are approximately 650 signatures. Of those 650, I noted everyone who could conceivably be considered a member of the Hollywood community. My rule was, basically, if you've done substantive and recognizable work for a Hollywood studio in the last four decades, you get counted. I guarantee you, some of these people would not be thrilled to be labeled Hollywood players, but I'm trying to be accommodating to the opposition here.
You know what I was left with? You know how many of those 650 people I was able to fit into a box labeled Hollywood? Thirty-six names. [...]
Nonetheless, the Times describes the signers as "More than 100 industry leaders and prominent authors." This is a profoundly deceptive statement, bordering on being an outright lie. Obviously, you're meant to interpret that the industry being led is Hollywood, but at most, there are 15 names on the list that could possibly be defined as industry leaders, and that's being generous. Hell, there aren't even 100 Americans on the list. And if there's an industry leader among Patrick Braoudé, Dominique Crevecoeur, Jean-Yves Chalangeas, Didier Martiny, Petter Skavlan, Alejandra Norambuena Skira, or Zdzicho Augustyniak, then it is some other country's industry, and I'm not entirely sure that industry is film. [...]
[I]f you HAVE to try to read some sort of monolithic movement into this petition, you might want to take it up with the French, because there's hundreds of them on there. There's also a significant number of Spanish petitioners. (You might want to take into account that the age of consent in Spain is 13 before you drag out the pitchforks and torches, though.) But as far as Hollywood's concerned, we're not rallying behind anyone, and it sure would be nice if folks could find a way of discussing this issue without creating ridiculous and childish caricatures of people who have nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Now see, that makes sense. France supports its own. And while it's not really Hollywood's responsibility to justify or explain why (the New York Times can manage fine, thanks), at least one guy will point out its plain inability to justify or explain why. Not necessarily because of the moral calculus involved, but because l'affaire Polanski gets to the very central issue of Hollywood not knowing (and never having known) what it is. It's refreshing to hear someone say it so clearly, confidently, and in such a crucially important context. It'll be even better when we can get back to that knowledge without a detained, 76-year-old Oscar-winning fugitive holding it hostage. Oh, but for the good old days.
· Is Hollywood really a hotbed of support for Roman Polanski? [LAT]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
It's simple, really> Holly would if she could, but she can't so she won't.
So he's not really denying that some major Hollywood players signed it, but saying that none of the Hollywood "elite" has signed it.
The only question I have is if Martin Scorsese knows he's not a part of the Hollywood elite?
You say in Spain the age of consent is 13 but that is a LIE there is no country in the world where an adult of 40 something can legally have sex with someone not of maturity which is 18 in most countries but higher then that in others....
You are talking out of ignorance.
World courts and treaties have made sure no child can consent to sex with an adult.
Now if you take your head out of your butt you may find that the age of 13 is legal if the other party is also a minor and within a short range of years of the other party.
I am offended that anyone that has children or has friends with children or who has known a child ... not looking at TV or movies where children put on adult mentalities but actually understands children are not able to do these things with forethought.
If you can condone that then you are evil and so is Hollywood.
said it in the times, sayin' it here.
A few questions and comments for Josh Olson, should he deign to read them. cf. "I Will Not Read Your [effing] Script"
1. Why ten words of qualification for Whoopi's "comment" in paragraph two? Is it unfortunate that she said “rape-rape” rather than (“yes, as a matter of fact I did have unlawful sexual conduct with that minor”) the correct plea Polanski copped to, or that she chose to make the distinction at all?
2. Dude. "Ms. Goldberg?!" This is the LA Times, not the NY Times.
3. Last zip code I had on Whoopi was 90272. That doesn’t qualify her to speak for “the ‘sades” any more than your 90028 qualifies you to speak for “hollyweird.”
4. Anthony Quinn. Spinning in his grave. Yes, or no? (little bit of synchronicity here. Roman, Nastassja, Tess. A few years go by. Steven, Whoopi, The Color Purple. Oscars went to Roman and Whoopi) If you don't get the reference; if you didn't see the telecast; know this: Tony Quinn set a bench mark for contempt-by-presenter that, likely, will never be duplicated. So, yeah, the answer is yes. If spin he could, spin he would.
5. You claim ("something happened that doesn’t bother, interest or affect me in the least") that the breaking news of Polanski's arrest was a real yawner, from your pov. (Where's Joe Wilson when I need him?) Here's another memo you may have missed. It does affect you. In that your interests lie elsewhere, as you emphasize in your closing line: "It’d be lovely if they’d grant the same courtesy to me," well, golly. That's just swell. Thanks for sharing.
Posted by: Rich Almack | October 07, 2009 at 12:45 PM
woulda liked to get "big, fat, tub of goo" in there somewhere, vis a vis Mr. Olson. done deal.
Disgusting. The overwhelming majority of people who work in "hollywood" are hard working people just like anyone else in america. They build sets, they sew costumes, they carry booms, they wrangle monkeys, they prepare food, they are computer technicians and artists.
I have had it with this ignorant assumption that "hollywood" is made up of snooty actors and producers that magically appear in films all on their own accord. Your generalizations about the entire industry as false as they are childish.
Maybe sometime sit through the credits of a movie and try to count how many people, how many good, hard working people it takes to make a movie. Then try labeling "hollywood" as some mythical land made up of nothing but actors and producers.
I personally find the age of consent remarks to be a straw man argument. She could have been any age in the world, but she did not give CONSENT. That makes the crime not STATUTORY rape, but RAPE. She said "No" several times, according to her grand jury testimony. Why on earth is everyone so fixated on whether not he was legally able to have sex with her, when the more important point is that even if he was, she didn't want to?
And THAT is why all of the people who signed the petition, whether or not they are major Hollywood players, disgust me. Their support of Polanski degrades that girl's autonomy of her body and her right to be able to consent to sex.
Though, while I'm hear, I will say that the silence of much of Hollywood is deafening. The fact that so many have come out in his support, and so few have come out against, does speak volumes. I don't think it's because most of them do actually support Polanski; rather I suspect that many of the "good, hard working people" in Hollywood (to quote an above poster) would like to continue to be able to find jobs, and taking sides in this polarizing case may jeopardize that.
Shalom
What an interesting debate. Hollywood and the Liberal world have always practiced selective morality.Please view my video, Chaim Paddaman: If Pigs could Fly, Hollywood would be an Airport. Available on (You Tube)
Peyronnes Disease holds dire consequences for an industry where "payment in kind" is made in doodle. Horny David Letterman is in a position to validate this Big Bang Theory. The shit hits the fan. Disaster strikes on the casting couch. It is comedy of outrageous proportions. Give it a go. It is Jewish tongue in cheek humour. It is part of the Chaim Paddaman supports the Big Bang Theory on CBS.
Chaim Paddaman
The old Hollywood and liberal ploy, smear the victim to defend Polanski. It is obvious that the defenders on these threads are Hollywood flacks attempting to make us believe that the behaviour of Polanski and Sheen are with in normal social norms and values. The world is not that morally debased yet. However, with the influence of the celebrity culture on our children, and the sheer might and power of the Hollywood propoganda machine they mightstill achieve this goal.
Chaim Paddaman