W.I. Thomas
Roman Polanski, director of The Ghostwriter
I know many of you assume it's because of my aversion to all things Ewan McGregor
but it's really because I don't want to participate in the normalization of rape by Hollywood.
I think it's pretty well established that Hollywood is adamantly anti-woman, but when people there (and in general of course) qualify what Polanski did as ok because
1) "it was a long time ago" and it was "a little mistake"
2) it "wasn't RAPE rape"
3) Dude, they totes had sex before and it was consensual
4) where the fuck was her mother in all this?
or any other lame-ass excuse it makes me really angry.
These are relativistic arguments that go beyond the atomization of larger socio-structural forces and into the territory where they don't even cite personal responsibility of the person who committed the act. Instead, all personal responsibility is ascribed to the CHILD or the mother as apparently men just can't help themselves from drugging and raping children so let's just alleviate them of the blame.
The fabulous writers over at Sociological Images offer their critique of the above The View clip:
Notice that part of her defense (about about 0:30) is that they’d had sex before, which seems to preclude the possibility that he could have raped her (and assumes that those previous times were consensual and that sex with a 13-year-old is okay as long as it was consensual).When we buy art from people who are known rapists do we contribute to the normalization of rape?
At about 2:05 she appears to make a sort of cultural relativist argument, saying that we’re a “different kind of society,” while in other places, including “the rest of Europe,” 13- and 14-year-olds are sexualized. That is, of course, entirely true (that girls at 13/14 have been treated as marriageable/sexual, not that this is specifically true “in the rest of Europe”), both historically and now (my great-grandma married a 22-year-old man when she’d just barely turned 15). There are a lot of interesting points there, but Goldberg doesn’t seem to be making a complex argument–she seems to be saying “in some places this would be okay, so we shouldn’t punish him.”
At 3:15 they discuss the responsibility of the mother, asking what kind of mom would let a young girl go alone with an older man. It’s a very appropriate question to ask. And my guess is: lots of parents in Hollywood, if the older man was an influential director who said he had set up a photo shoot for a major fashion magazine for your daughter. That, of course, is horrid; at the very least it’s extreme denial (“oh, he’s so nice, he just wants to help her get her big chance because he sees something special in her”), at worst it’s actively offering sexual access to your child for a chance at stardom.
I can’t see, however, that it in any way changes the situation regarding Polanski. And the use of excuses like “they’d had sex before, so it couldn’t be rape” is stunning to me.
I know this, I don't feel good doing so.
When Mike Tyson was in The Hangover I was really upset because I felt like this was giving him an avenue to wider social acceptance and thereby ignoring or dismissing the fact that he is a straight up unapologetic rapist.
We also have to remember the fact that The Hangover was heavily marketed to adolescent boys (of body and mind) and that this portrayal and subsequent embrace by Hollywood significantly reduces the (deserving and usually effective)stigma that acts as a means of social control, undoubtedly creating paths of rationalization that allow us to first celebrate convicted rapists and possibly dismiss the seriousness and damage of the act itself.
Jane Claire Bradley, writer and editor, articulates it succinctly:
To me, it seems sickeningly inappropriate that a convicted rapist should be glorified to an audience predominantly made up of adolescent boys ... I can only conclude that this casting decision was an intentionally provocative one, and that just makes it all the more offensive.Just what the fuck is "RAPE rape" anyway?
When we define rape narrowly, what we are really doing is empowering rapists.
When we define rapists as deserving of praise, we essentially negate the act of rape they commit.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that Polanski and Tyson are free to make art, but we are also free to not consume it.
I don't buy from companies I find morally compromised, why should I buy from artists that are?
I'm sure someone will take this argument and point out that it could be expanded to include people who are assholes in general but that loses sight of the fact that there are huge implications and consequences (externalities) when we normalize rape. Not so much when we don't buy art from just your average artist asshole.
What do you think?
6/11/10 update:
Natalia Antonova, occasional guest blogger at Feministe says in her blog post about
The award was presented publicly. By a dude who had previously referred to the 17-year-old girl who was beaten and sexually assaulted as a “drunk cow.” And I’m not going to use the phrase “alleged victim” here, because Trushevsky was pretty open about what happened on his Facebook & LJ. He made fun of her bruises. The media reported that he admitted what happened to the cops.
The stated point of the Moral Support Prize (I feel dumber every time I type it out, truth be told), apparently, is to show solidarity with artists who are in trouble. “REMEMBER, HE’S AN ARTIST! We should still totally hang out with him and do coke, or whatever” – that sort of thing. It always strikes me as really interesting, how someone inevitably thinks that these gestures are very important to make when aGuy Who Glues Rhinestones to TurtlesGreat Artist is involved. Please won’t somebody think of the GoddamnRhinestone-Covered TurtlesART?!
What bothers me about that – aside from priorities that are just as messed up as the “but we can’t let the parish know that there’s a predator priest in our midst, it’s bad PR, gaiz” thing – is that a particular artistic community indicts itself when it engages in such apologist hand-wringing. The art should be able to stand on its own. Always. And in many cases, it does. “Rosemary’s Baby” is still a good movie. The fact that I’m somehow “supposed” to defend Polanski because I think it’s a good movie is, on the other hand, idiotic. I’ll defend him to people who think he’s a crappy director – because he’s not. But those pesky laws that dictate that it’s illegal to rape people weren’t created as a springboard for a referendum on some Great Man’s Great Work.
Via Feminste
i agree, polanski is a child-raping mofo and should be punished and not celebrated/protected by hollywood for fucking 13-yo girls. and yes i detest that the responsibility is often times placed on the victim and the perps are let off the hook somehow. women are just as guilty, if not more so, of this when you hear of girls getting raped/molested and the mothers condemn the child rather than the man or in cultures where women are raped and are seen as used goods/outcasts by the society while the rapists go unpunished...it's a sick, sad world.
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of drawing much ire, a) I don't know if I can be friends with someone who hates Ewan and b)I think I disagree on a few principles.
ReplyDeleteWhoopi-- dear jeebus, I saw this video the day after it happened and I was so appalled with the words coming out of her mouth I thought it was a set-up for a joke.
My sensitivity brainwashing, however, elicits immediate cringes at any and all dehumanizing labels- not just "The Disabled" instead of "People with disabilities", but even in words like "rapist". Any time we reduce a person to a single aspect, or a single act, we're losing something. Do you believe in rehabilitation? Is prison for punishment, public safety, or to help people change? Not in current function, of course, but ideologically speaking. Once an act is committed, is that it? Destined to forever be thief, murderer, rapist, inside trader? Would you buy vegetables from a local farmer who had served jail time for an unknown felony?
For the record, he clearly raped the girl. I'm not defending him at all-- this is more about the implications than the case. If he had stayed for sentencing, and served that sentence, would you feel the same way? I'm just curious.
Personally, I wouldn't lose any sleep if he spent the rest of his life in jail; that the woman he raped (or, "the victim") wanted to drop the charges gives me some pause-- if she's better off just putting it behind her, I'd rather see her content than make sure he suffers. Anyway, what would make a difference to you?
Oh I just read this when I updated the post.
ReplyDeleteI understand what you are saying, but I also think that Polanski and Tyson present special cases.
People are defending Polanski and attempting to ameliorate his rape of a young girl so they can admire his work. I think, as Antonova says, that if you like his work, it should stand alone, and that just because you like his work doesn't mean that you should defend what he did. I chose not to purchase art or contribute money to known rapists who 1) avoided jail by leaving the country 2) have made a career of saying, "Come on guys, what's the big deal?" I think that when we buy art from these people we contribute to the normalization of rape by Hollywood in particular and by people in society in general.
I do believe in rehabilitation, however, rehabilitation means one must admit one has committed a crime. I suspect that if Polanski had served jail time he wouldn't have the career he has now, and that, to me, would have been a good thing. If he had served time and publicly confessed and apologized I could stomach people going to see his movies, but I can't handle the defense of what he did via relativistic and non-sensical arguments.
Tyson is making money from being Mike Tyson, that is, from being a controversial figure. He is one who did serve jail time for one incident, but has adamantly maintained that what he did was no big deal. He also has a history of physical violence against women that goes beyond this incident. He isn't making money for playing characters, he's making money for playing himself. That means, in part, he is making money because he is a convicted rapist who refuses to admit he committed a crime by raping an underage girl. That, without a doubt, means that seeing movies and watching television shows with him featured prominently as himself contributes to the normalization of rape. Once again, if he had admitted that he raped the girl and that it was a big deal, then I would feel better about his surging come back. But he didn't and the fact that he didn't contributes to the controversy that surrounds him and subsequently makes him more money. There was no rehabilitation for Mike Tyson, just time served.
I get your point about letting a person be just one thing. But, to me, when unapologetic rapists are making money and art, what we get are rape apologists and that is so fucking dangerous.
I'm not talking about Henry the bagger at your local grocery store, I'm talking about people on a larger social stage who are shaping the minds of other people.