The ridiculous lengths some Polanksi supporters will go through to defend “their guy”

Posted by: ST on October 4, 2009 at 7:33 pm

Just when you thought you’d seen it all. Check out Patterico’s blog (here and here) for mountains of evidence that the associate producer of a sympathetic Polanksi “documentary” from last year has been posting anonymous comments in several threads Patterico wrote about the topic, comments she wrote in attempts at both defending Polanksi and personally attacking Patterico.

The moral of the story? If you’re going to mess with Patterico, prepare to be verbally b*tch-slapped.

Related to all this, Mark Steyn puts the final nail in the coffin of the Hollyweirdos who have defended Polanksi over the last week in response to his detention in Switzerland:

Let us stipulate that Roman Polanski has memories few of us would wish to bear. He is the only movie director to have had three generations of his immediate family murdered – his mother, by the Nazis; his wife and unborn child, by Charles Manson’s acolytes. The only reason he didn’t wind up with his parents in Auschwitz is that, when he was 8, his father cut a hole in the barbed wire of the Warsaw ghetto and pushed his son out.

In a movie, the father would either die or survive for a tearful reunion with his boy. But after the war Polanski’s dad remarried, and the new wife didn’t want young Roman around. By the age of 13, the pattern of his life was set: That hurried escape through the wire of the ghetto would be only the first of a series of hasty exits.

In Swingin’ London, he made his name with “Repulsion” (1965), in which Catherine Deneuve descends into schizophrenia and kills a man she believes has come to rape her. He hit Hollywood with “Rosemary’s Baby” (1967), in which Mia Farrow is impregnated by the Devil. You could make the case that these films reflect the psychological burdens of his childhood – if it weren’t that they’re almost freakily literal pre-echoes of the violence in his adult life. In 1969, Sharon Tate and four others were murdered at Polanski’s house by a group called “Satan’s Slaves.” “I remember,” wrote Joan Didion, “that no one was surprised.”

One sympathizes. Except that there are millions of children of the Holocaust struggling under the burdens of the past – and only one who deals with them as Roman Polanski does. Working on the film “Chinatown,” the writer Robert Towne found it hard to concentrate at the director’s pad, what with “the teenyboppers that Roman would run out and take Polaroid pictures of diving off the f***ing diving board without tops on. Which was distracting. With braces.”

Braces. Cute. Harvey Weinstein, the man behind the pro-Polanski petition, rejects the idea that Hollywood is “amoral”: “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion,” he told an interviewer.

Let us agree that Hollywood bigshots have “compassion” for people in general, for people far away in a big crowd scene on the distant horizon, for people in a we-are-the-world-we-are-the-children sense. But Hollywood bigshots treat people in particular, little people, individuals, like garbage. To Polanski, he was the world, you are the children; now take your kit off and let’s have a “photo shoot.”

Make sure to read the whole thing.

Cross-posted to Right Wing News, where I am guestblogging for John Hawkins on Sundays.

Prior/Related:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

6 Responses to “The ridiculous lengths some Polanksi supporters will go through to defend “their guy””

Comments

  1. camojack says:

    Some Hollyweirdos have hit a new low, taking Polanksi’s side. It’s sickeningx(

  2. Mr Eugenides says:

    Fully agreed. I love Polanski’s early work, but the lengths some people will go to in order to defend him are nauseating.

    Mind you, some of that early work is, in retrospect, a little unfortunate

  3. Ted says:

    “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion,” he told an interviewer.

    But apparently no compassion for 13 year old rape victims. Nothing but vile, disgusting human debris in Hollyweird.

  4. Carlos says:

    “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion,” he told an interviewer.

    Since when does “compassion” fit as a point on a moral compass?

    And since there is no fixed position in their “morality”, how can they have a compass at all?

    Ah, the sweet sounds of a whispering serpent.

  5. Zedekiah says:

    I have more compassion for all the little girls to whom Polanski did this. How many have been silenced because of his fame and power in Hollywood? How many have been scarred by men like him who do as they please because their status as an “artist” grants them the right to do as they please? It is sad when a pedophile such as Polanski is protected and herald as a great man. Where is the accountability Hollywood? Oh wait there isn’t…

  6. Severian says:

    Speaking of liberal preversions:

    Ex Judge Accused of Sexually Abusing Male Inmates

    A former judge is facing life in prison after being charged with sexually abusing male inmates in exchange for leniency.

    Respected circuit judge Herman Thomas, who was once the Democratic Party’s choice to be the first black federal judge in south Alabama, is accused of bringing inmates to his office and spanking them with a paddle.

    His trial for charges of sodomy, kidnapping, sex abuse, extortion, assault and ethics violations is set to begin today.

    The 48-year-old insists he is innocent and claims he was trying to mentor the inmates.

    Mentor or tormentor? /:)