Hollywood values shown in reactions
Tweet
Dan Faas
In the past week, I’ve had a strong inclination to dust off my old copy of Roman Polanski’s 1974 classic, “Chinatown.”
I’ll admit it — Polanski’s recent arrest has brought the film back to my immediate attention. But the film is still great. And the more I think about it, the more I’ve felt a recent kinship with the film’s protagonist, Detective Jake Gittes, played by Jack Nicholson.
If you haven’t seen the film, Gittes is your typical hard-boiled detective, fiercely honest with a genuine thirst for justice. Throughout the movie, he gets entangled with solving a case involving deep-seated corruption in L.A.’s Chinatown. But his optimism that justice will be served keeps him going until the very end.
So what does this have to do with anything?
Well, let’s start with the film’s director, Roman Polanski. Polanski was arrested Sept. 26 in Zurich on a U.S. arrest warrant stemming from charges that he raped a 13-year-old girl in 1977 — in Jack Nicholson’s home, no less. When the charges were brought against him 30 years ago, he pleaded guilty. However, to avoid sentencing, he fled to France, where he lived comfortably until last week.
I was surprised and, quite honestly, disgusted to see that many in Hollywood put together a petition calling for Polanski’s immediate release. Signatories include some of Hollywood’s most acclaimed directors (and some of my personal favorites): Woody Allen, Wes Anderson and Martin Scorsese, to name a few.
Now, I believe that the absurdity of this petition speaks for itself. Polanski committed a serious crime and, no matter how much time has gone by, he needs to be punished by the law. To let him off scot-free would simply set another dangerous precedent from which many in Hollywood already benefit. As Gittes says in Chinatown about another corrupt man, “He’s rich! Do you understand? He thinks he can get away with anything.”
The good news is that, by and large, the majority of Americans see right through Hollywood’s twisted morals and are demanding that Polanski be treated like any other person who breaks the law. The public still is demanding that he be punished for his actions, even if they happened 30 years ago.
This was very encouraging to me. “I suppose our society’s morals aren’t so bad,” I said to myself. Like my fictional friend Jake Gittes, I thought: “Justice shall be served!”
There I was, just cruising on my little cloud of moral optimism for a few days until late last week, when talk show host David Letterman and the American public had to bring me down again.
Last Thursday, David Letterman appeared on his “Late Show,” to explain what he called a “bizarre experience” of an extortion plot against him. He explained that he had been approached by a man who could prove Letterman had sex with several of his staff members. Letterman, in an apparent attempt to avoid further scandal, detailed the event in front a of a live studio audience, which was sprinkled with laughs and claps from the audience. The kicker came when Letterman confessed outright: “The creepy stuff was that I have had sex with women who work for me on this show,” Letterman said. “Now, my response to that is, yes, I have.”
The audience’s response? Laughter. Then applause. Sustained applause. The cheers were not unlike those of a group of frat brothers cheering on one of their own for “getting some.” I half expected the audience to invite him to do a keg stand to celebrate.
I’m sorry, but am I missing something here? The American public deplored the Hollywood petition to free Polanski, yet we’re OK with applauding marital infidelity and sexual affairs with employees? I don’t mean to equate child rape with consensual sexual affairs — the former clearly is more serious, but both are abjectly wrong, right? Right?
If Letterman had been a wealthy CEO, a politician or a pastor, he would not be getting off nearly as easily. He would not be applauded during his confession; he would be booed. A recent study has even shown that most Letterman viewers have not changed their perceptions of him despite the scandal.
Why is this? Because he makes us laugh. He, like most celebrities, entertains us. And in some rare cases, these entertainers are bestowed the coveted title of “artist” — like Polanski.
Just like the protagonist in “Chinatown,” I thought justice would be served, only to be disappointed in the end. I just can’t help feeling like Gittes when he’s told in that famous line in the final moment of the film, as he stands helpless in the face of corruption, “Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.”
“It’s Hollywood” is more like it.
Dan Faas is the State News opinion writer. Reach him at faasdani@msu.edu.
Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
Jane
(10/06/09 8:09pm)Report
You seriously don’t see the difference between consenting adults having extramartial sex versus drugging and anally raping a resisting 13 year old child?
uh...
(10/06/09 8:16pm)Report
Hey Jane, did you miss the part where he explicitly stated that he is not equating the two? He very plainly states that Polanski’s actions were much more serious.
America
(10/06/09 8:23pm)Report
David Letterman had sex with consenting female adults. Roman Polanski drugged a child and did her in the butt. Clearly, there’s a difference. While Mr. Letterman is not a moral inspiration, nothing he did was illegal. He will, at least, be sleeping on the couch for a while. At most, he’ll be giving up a large part of his fortune to a now-ex-wife because he listened to his penis. Many men are guilty of this, from famous politicians to the dude down the street who works at the screen-door factory. They’re not good people, but they aren’t criminals.
Mr. Polanski, however, broke the law WHEN HE DRUGGED A CHILD AND ANALLY RAPED HER. People get beat to death for doing that He’s lived 30 years consequence-free in France. I just hope he didn’t do that to another child in the (very long) interim.
ASDKid2
(10/06/09 9:13pm)Report
Letterman is not the CEO, but he is the Chairman of the Board of Worldwide Pants.
uh...
(10/06/09 9:19pm)Report
I’ll say it again. Did you miss the part where he explicitly stated that he is not equating the two? He very plainly states that Polanski’s actions were much more serious.
And “America,” while the all caps thing is tired and kind of silly, most people that use it do so to emphasize a point that someone seems to be missing. However, in this case all parties clearly understand what Polanski did, and the inherent seriousness implied by your use of the “caps lock” button. Perhaps you didn’t actually read the article? Who is your audience here? Are you HAVING and argument WITH an imaginary friend?
Alessandra
(10/07/09 12:31am)Report
Bring Letterman into a trial, the quicker, the better! Let’s show the world how much liberals stink, in the private and public spheres of their lives. That’s all there is to this.
If Halderman didn’t get his 2M with the “movie script,” he just might get it through a settlement, paid to avoid having the issue on trial.
A settlement would be sad, a trial is what we need here. If Letterman is such a victim, bring the trial on!
severussnape
(10/07/09 12:53am)Report
first of all, it’s quite clear that you’re not equating Polanski’s child rape to Letterman’s promiscuity. for all of those who are either too lazy to have read the whole article, or are too feebleminded: “I don’t mean to equate child rape with consensual sexual affairs — the former clearly is more serious…”
i think that you do raise a good point about the hypocrisy of hollywood (though i will say, hollywood has never been considered a beacon of moral values). a politician would have never gotten an applause for announcing his extra-marital affair. nor would he have sane individuals petitioning on his behalf, had he committed rape with a minor.
you’re right to question why any one would defend Polanski’s action on the basis of his film-making abilities. it was the same with michael jackson when he was still alive (oh.. was it too soon?) the guy is a coward and he should be put away for the rest of his life. period.
as for Letterman – what the hell are people thinking? maybe his audience was just reading the “CLAP NOW!” signboard and forgot they had a brain. or a conscience.
bob
(10/07/09 12:55am)Report
The Polanski case is old news. It should just be thrown out. What a waste of time and resources!
I am a
(10/07/09 2:23am)Report
little confused by all this “Hollywood” talk. David Letterman, much like Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese, is a New York personality. Yes Polanski lived in Hollywood for a spell. Does that really make all of this immorality a “Hollywood” issue?
OldTimer
(10/07/09 4:57am)Report
Polanski? That the guy who did “Close Encounters with the Thrid Grade?”
Zeke
(10/07/09 11:02am)Report
“The Polanski case is old news. It should just be thrown out. What a waste of time and resources!”
Yes, yes. Let’s toss out all those cold-case murders while we’re at it. And reduce the statute of limitations on sexual assault, too. Clearly Mr. Polanski has served his penance jet-setting and dining on fine French food. We should let all our our criminals chillax in France for a couple decades.
/sarcasm. This man committed a horrific crime against a little girl. He then ran like the miserable coward he is and tried to change public perception with a couple of mediocre movies. Justice must be served here.
America
(10/07/09 12:35pm)Report
I rarely use all caps on anything, but I thought his sick actions warranted it. C’mon, he drugged and anally raped a child. That’s effed up and very disgusting.
. . . but they're cool now.
(10/07/09 3:41pm)Report
The case should be thrown out because the victim in question is done with it. She got a settlement, doesn’t want to press any further charges and has stated that with every uprising of the case, she is more and more hurt by it. She wants to forget it as much as Polanski did.
He also did serve his time in prison, but the judge wanted to add on to what he had already served, so he fled the country.
Now, I’m not excusing his actions, but it’s more than a cold case, it’s a dead case.
Zeke
(10/07/09 4:37pm)Report
“The case should be thrown out because the victim in question is done with it.”
Except that dozen of psychologists have said that she’s done with it because she’s repressed the pain and doesn’t want to face him. it’s not like she’s buddy-buddy with him. And she was 13! There’s a reason for age of consent laws – most children at 13 can be swayed to believe it was their fault in the first place. That’s why we lock up child predators.
“He also did serve his time in prison, but the judge wanted to add on to what he had already served, so he fled the country.”
He served a 42-day evaluation period. After that, he was supposed to be at a sentencing hearing. Regardless of what his attorneys thought the judge would do, he was supposed to show up. And so what if the judge wanted to toss on a few years for, you know, raping a 13-year-old? If you are not a famous Hollywood director, that’s what you get for raping a kid – a few years experiencing a little sodomy of your own in San Quentin.
The guy is human garbage. Even his movies suck.
Sparty
(10/07/09 4:56pm)Report
“He also did serve his time in prison, but the judge wanted to add on to what he had already served, so he fled the country.”
42 Days. Only 42 days…
Have someone do what he did to your loved one, daughter, niece, sister etc. and see how you’d feel with a 42 day sentence.
Excellent Article Dan!
The World
(10/07/09 4:58pm)Report
In the vast majority of countries in the world people are killed for doing what he did. 42 days? Try 42 years and thats still not enough. It’s not like he did this when he was a kid making a dumb mistake, yes it was 30 years ago but that makes him in his 40s when he did this!
If he was a creepy bus driver you’d all be singing a totally different tune. Shame.
Chicago Spartan
(10/09/09 10:41am)Report
It wasn’t 42 days in a prison either. He served 42 days being evaluated in a mental health facility to judge his ability to stand trial. Much easier time than hanging with hardened criminals in prison who just love to punish sexual offenders.
You people that are defending this guy, or saying the case should be thrown out, make me want to vomit.