I’ve been way too nice to the folks at the Los Angeles Times lately. I mean, I joined GetReligion with complaints about how these weren’t the days of Russ Chandler, or even Bill Lobdell, who was also great. But with the recent work of news columnist Steve Lopez and new blood Robert Faturechi, I’ve had nothing but nice things to say.
So much for that.
All the Roman Polanski coverage was bound to sour me. And, actually, in this case the problem wasn’t with the story. The Times story — about how Hollywood seems to be on an island in defending Polanski against extradition to the United States for fleeing the country after pleading guilty to sex with a minor (that’s the euphemistic, legal description of what he did) — was actually pretty good.
But the headline, which popped up on my phone as I was flying up the 405 this morning, almost popped my head off my spine:
In Roman Polanski case, is it Hollywood vs. Middle America?
No, it’s not. It’s Hollywood versus most everybody else. And that’s exactly what John Horn and Tina Daunt had reported.
In letters to the editor, comments on Internet blogs and remarks on talk radio and cable news channels, the national sentiment is running overwhelmingly against Polanski — and the industry’s support of the 76-year-old “Pianist” Oscar winner.
How can Hollywood (where it’s almost impossible to find anyone publicly condemning Polanski) and almost everyone else see the same story in an opposite light? Is it proof that the movie business is amoral, or just that it believes that Polanski has suffered in his personal and professional life and paid his debt to society? Is Hollywood’s position that we’re-better-than-you elitist while the rest of the country’s is everybody-obeys-the-law populist?
“The split between what the rest of the world thinks about Polanski and what Hollywood thinks about Polanski is quite remarkable,” said film historian David Thomson. “It proves what an old-fashioned and provincial club Hollywood is. People look after their own.”
Somehow, the copydesk missed that. (I’m not even going to touch the religion ghost here; you can make your own inferences.) With how inaccurate a reflection of the Times story that headline was, I had to wonder if the headline writer had just been scanning stories at the Huffington Post — maybe this one — before turning their attention to this piece. Otherwise, what were they smoking?
PHOTO: The Hollywood sign as altered by Danny Finegood
 | Posted at 8:33 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (9) |
October 2, 2009, at 2:17 am
Here was my favorite part of the article:
There’s so much to love here. Only in certain sectors of Hollywood is the oral/vaginal/anal rape of a child a “so-called crime.” For us dolts in middle America, can you believe that’s an actual crime? Crazy.
I also like the idea that people only abhor what Polanski did in avoiding justice because they are somehow confused about the sentencing issue. I mean, you may disagree with the judge’s actions but I honestly don’t think that great exposure of them would change many people’s minds about whether Polanski should face sentencing.
And, finally, my journalistic point. It’s okay for Weinstein to believe that Hollywood has “the best” moral compass out there but it would be nice for the reporter to discuss how much money Hollywood raised vis-a-vis churches and other non-profits. Also, the Katrina and 9/11 telethons raised money not from Hollywood celebrities but average citizens, no? I mean, it’s wonderful that the celebrities came out (and if they hadn’t, I would not be able to keep making Kanye-inspired jokes about who President Bush hates), but let’s not forget where the actual money came from.
Perhaps the reporter shouldn’t just leave that Weinstein quote about Hollywood morality hanging there. A response might be in order.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 2, 2009, at 9:32 am
True, true. I do however see, Mollie, that you accept that as a resident of Washington you live in Middle America. I wonder if being living about 25 minutes south of Hollywood, I too would be considered as such.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 2, 2009, at 10:51 am
The degree of provincialism and parochialism being demonstrating now by Hollywood goes a good way toward answering the question of why Hollywood is so unable as it is these days to make films that anyone wants to see, except when those films recycle content adapted from media in other times and other places, media with a less provincial and less parochial vies of the world, and media with more sophisticated senses of morality than Hollywood has. For example, comic books.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 2, 2009, at 1:27 pm
Middle America is a state of mind, not an address:-)
Mollie, I would add just a wee bit to your post: the money is nice, of course, but I’m sure you agree that a moral compass is best demonstrated day by day not at a fund-raiser.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 2, 2009, at 1:48 pm
Polanski has lived as a free man in France. Do other Frenchmen similarly situated regard themselves as serving time?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 2, 2009, at 10:14 pm
I suspect much of this has to do with the vision that artists hold of themselves, other artists, and especially other successful artists. It is the image of the ‘artist that changes the world through art.’ His art therefore redeems his moral failings. Whatever he does in the particular is trivial compared to that which he does universally through his art. To deprive the world of art (and especially great art) is to deprive the world of its redeemer. What is rape compared to the global redemption of man?
Of course, the artist can’t say this out loud. The masses would laugh in his face. But neither can the artist deny it in the crisis. So like any good sleazy defense lawyer he obfuscates and changes the subject. But make no mistake. This division between “Hollywood and everyone else” originates in the way the artistic community views itself, and its relationship to the (alleged) progress of man.
carl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 3, 2009, at 5:32 am
Picking up #6, Carl’s suggestion. If it could be shown that such a Romantic view of art was at work, then that might even suggest that there’s a GetReligion Ghost in the Polanski story. Not with Polanski himself, but with why his supporters seem to have come from one or two certain demographics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 3, 2009, at 11:14 am
Let’s take this back to Polanski and Roman Catholics post that came up on GR here. You see a very similar dynamic in that you have an old boys’ club looking out for one of their own. This isn’t unique to any ideology or whatever, it’s just an example of groupthink, as it were, and how people can lose sight of fundamental truths (including little things like “thou shalt not rape children”).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 4, 2009, at 9:55 am
Although it can and has been used as a perjorative—ignorant, backwards, etc—it might well be that “Middle America” as used in this headline and other places may be becoming instead a metaphor for the majority—i.e., the rest of us—if not the model of rational and ethical thinking in a world gone, frankly, nuts. Here’s my favorite part from the HuffPo blog post:
It is not for me to say that Mr. Weinstein and his cohorts have no moral compass but I will venture to say that they are certainly out of touch and maybe out of their minds. Because in the parts of America that so many of us in big cities think of dismissively as “flyover country,” they may not know that Le Cirque is a restaurant, but they do know that pedophiles are a bad thing — regardless of how rich, talented or influential they may be.
What disturbs me is the idea that those defending Mr. Polanski have on their minds (souls) similar crimes (sins). Mr. Allen I recall defended his liaison with his adopted daughter by claiming she was of age to consent—as if that legalistic barrier was the ONLY issue. Out of touch? For sure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0