How disturbing is it that at the Oscars a man practicing his freedom of speech was booed off the stage, while a standing ovation was given to a man who raped a thirteen year old child?
It's sad, very, very sad. And, unfortunately, it's going to get worse before it gets better.
As far as Roman Polanski -- the American Justice system is based on the concept of "How much Justice can you afford?" I read an article the other day about a Substitute Teacher that was fired and threatened with legal action for not registering himself with the state as a Sex Offender (note - not defending his actions, merely making a point.) Meanwhile, Polanski walks free. Another good example is the Catholic Church - which is in violation of about 6 different major federal laws (Racketeering, Obstructing Justice, Aiding and Abeting, Criminal Misconduct, Neglect and Abuse, etc., etc.) - but they are not held accountable. A few priests have been, but the church was never prosecuted for hiding and protecting known felons. The thread that the two have in common? - Money and political clout. Kinda interesting how that works, eh?
While it may be true that in America one often gets as much “justice” as one can buy, Polanski remains a fugitive, protected by various European states.
Yes, but such treaties have their limits. First, the crime with which he was charged must be a crime there as well. (This is distinct from the act corresponding to some different crime there.) Second, the authorities with which we have the treaty can drag their feet. Third, we must, in effect, get him convicted there.
Look at the ugly mess that the French made in the case of Ira Einhorn.
A bona fide victim was Richard Gere. Whatever one may think of his acting - and I don't happen to think much of it - many members of the academy quietly opposed his nomination because of his political views. I don't share some of those views, but Gere expresses himself with sincerity, dignity, and humanity.
Michael Moore, on the other hand, doesn't simply express his beliefs. It is perfectly acceptable to mix fact with comedic fiction; but, when this is done honestly, rhetorical cues signal which is fact and which is fiction. Moore willfully abuses those cues so that his audience believes things to be fact which are fiction. In other words, Moore dresses lies up as comedy.
I don't like Moore myself. What ever message he could have conveyed was lost with his boorish antics, and basically he was a jackass. It seemed to me that he cared more about getting into Monday's newspapers than he did about the war. Still, it was his acceptance speech (and I heard he asked his friends and family to boo him, so it would seem more controversial.)
Besides, I can't respect anyone who uses the word 'fictition.'
Polanski's award bugged me, but what really upset me was the standing ovation he got from the audience. Do all directors get standing O's? "Yay, Polanski's been vindicated! That horrible justice system, chasing him everywhere and not letting him come home!"
Gah! Fine, give him the award if you must have art triumph over person, but must you look so pleased of yourselves while doing it?
Comments 13
As far as Roman Polanski -- the American Justice system is based on the concept of "How much Justice can you afford?" I read an article the other day about a Substitute Teacher that was fired and threatened with legal action for not registering himself with the state as a Sex Offender (note - not defending his actions, merely making a point.) Meanwhile, Polanski walks free. Another good example is the Catholic Church - which is in violation of about 6 different major federal laws (Racketeering, Obstructing Justice, Aiding and Abeting, Criminal Misconduct, Neglect and Abuse, etc., etc.) - but they are not held accountable. A few priests have been, but the church was never prosecuted for hiding and protecting known felons. The thread that the two have in common? - Money and political clout. Kinda interesting how that works, eh?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Look at the ugly mess that the French made in the case of Ira Einhorn.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
And, er... what does GMTA stand for? I'm falling behind in net speak, I guess.
Reply
Michael Moore, on the other hand, doesn't simply express his beliefs. It is perfectly acceptable to mix fact with comedic fiction; but, when this is done honestly, rhetorical cues signal which is fact and which is fiction. Moore willfully abuses those cues so that his audience believes things to be fact which are fiction. In other words, Moore dresses lies up as comedy.
Reply
Besides, I can't respect anyone who uses the word
'fictition.'
Polanski's award bugged me, but what really upset me was the standing ovation he got from the audience. Do all directors get standing O's? "Yay, Polanski's been vindicated! That horrible justice system, chasing him everywhere and not letting him come home!"
Gah! Fine, give him the award if you must have art triumph over person, but must you look so pleased of yourselves while doing it?
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment