i’m just going to go into these last two points because they are the most unsettling of your set.
though i agree that the circumstances surrounding polanski’s recent arrest were sketchy at best, i think it is best not to equate the legitimacy of those actions with the morality of polanski’s crime. ever. i was a bit blinded by my admiration for this man’s talents for a few days, but after really thinking about him as a human being who thought he could be exempt from the rule of law, i would rather have him be brought to justice than make more movies. unfortunately, he still has yet to pay the price - not only for that really heinous deed, but also for leaving when he clearly knew he would go to jail. i mean, if this was a catholic priest’s story, would you really be standing up for destroying childhoods?
i really think you should read the girl’s testimony a few more times to more fully assess what you may call “myopic” and “moral vanity” view of child abuse (especially this LA Times article) … is that behavior supposed to fly anywhere? its all cool in france? why shouldn’t there be outrage about that everywhere - believe me you, i do not count myself as a puritanical crazies, but we’re talking about children. many people get away with it, its never right (hate to think about mick jagger’s record). so also, its pretty much fine by me to make an example out of a prominent figure who abused his power, position, celebrity, humanity, WHATEVER in a really unforgiveable way, since it should be the most unspeakably vile thing any adult can do to someone that young and vulnerable.
the fact that she has forgiven him, could be an argument, except that he still actually did the deed and broke the law. also, in the end his second crime is his belief that the law then (when she CERTAINLY didn’t “forgive” him) did not apply. he fled the country and lived like a king for 30 years in paris (i mean, paris vs. la…come on, i’d live in exile anyday) and his punishment was being interviewed about it every few years…that’s a joke and should never be called punishment.
why now? because no matter what this SHOULD have caught up with him sooner or later … no matter how bungled the case, no matter how much the victim’s mother may have been fairly culpable in putting her daughter in that position, he did the deed. he admitted it. and then he guiltily fled. our system is revoltingly fucked up, but why does he get a pass in this instance? what has he done to deserve a pass?
another thing, not releasing him would be “uncivilized and arrogant” - really? which part of this is arrogance? are the accusers all so arrogant because they themselves have not touched children? i mean, i hate witch hunts, but really. the arrogance in this case comes from the hollywood community who seem to think this entire business of the law is above them. this is not a movie, these were people’s lives. really love polanski for everything he has given to the world of cinema, but to me is entirely detached as a human being. he and hollywood’s belief that he should get away with it because he is a respected director who has still had to “deal with this” his whole life or because he got arrested without expecting it on the way to a film festival…i think thats a bit more arrogant, frankly.
5. both his crime AND his recent arrest speak to the worst in human nature, and the only appropriate thing to do at this unfortunate juncture would be to release him. anything else would not only be uncivilized, but arrogant.
i’ve been more than a little appalled by the vehement outcry for blood (though i’m sure the feeling of disbelief is mutual), and i clearly and condescendingly believe that such a tact is largely symptomatic of either myopia or moral vanity.
now back to Phineas and Ferb.
