John Horn and Tina Daunt of the Los Angeles Times ask of the Polanski case, "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?"

Peg Yorkin of the Feminist Majority Foundation tells them, "My personal thoughts are let the guy go. It's bad a person was raped. But
that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his
life. It's crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could
spend its money on other things."

And Harvey Weinstein, who is circulating the pro-Polanski petition, and says that the U.S. government is "acting irresponsibly and criminally," says in an interview that he's not convinced that public opinion is running against the filmmaker.

Weinstein says, "Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion. We were the people who did the fundraising telethon
for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and
any world catastrophe."

Perhaps — but such an argument so won't win over those outraged at the petition. As Steve Lopez of the Times writes, "that has no bearing on the crime in question."

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 8