Yeah... alright. I get it. I like Polanski's movies too. Shit, Rosemary's Baby is still my top horror film of all time. But it doesn't mean I'm blind to what the hell is really going on. I know they keep saying the girl he raped (because yes, it IS rape) doesn't want to have anything to do with it anymore... but then what person would want old wounds re-opened? She, the REAL victim, has obviously suffered enough. But Polanski's retroactive punishment doesn't fly with me. If Polanski is now innocent of his crimes, does this mean that I can go commit a few because oh, well I was robbed and beaten and someone killed my loved one and i've suffered enough as it is? I know perhaps it's slightly cruel sounding. The Holocaust especially can be a sore spot for anyone involved. But say he wasn't on the "victim" side of that coin. Say he was an ex-Nazi camp guard. Say he never technically killed anyone but he was, well.. a Nazi camp guard (doesn't that say enough as it is?) And he never got caught until now. Would we want to prosecute him now? What if he had a really hard life before he became a guard though? His german family had lost their business, his mother commit suicide, his father beat him every day for years, his daughter was raped and murdered by some unknown. He had a rough life! What then? You know we'd still want him. I realize maybe this is an extreme case, but I'm just trying to see where the justification lies in giving Polanski a gentle spanking years ago for a heinous crime and then just letting him get away with it because, let's face it, he's famous and well liked in Hollywood.
It's absurd. It really is. I feel for his victim, who I don't blame for not wanting to have to go back to that moment in her life. Thank you, Pitts, for recognizing this absurdity in Hollywood's "justice system," since it seems they already have their hands down everyone else's pocket.
No comments:
Post a Comment