On 30 sept. 2009, at 10:29, Doug Henwood wrote:
> [Jezebel has gotten pretty mediocre since they lost Moe et al, but
> this is pretty good.]
Where is that good ?
> the only ones. And the public interest is, in fact, better served by
> punishing people who rape children and flee the country than it is
> by bowing to famous and powerful people who somehow believe that
> really good films make up for felonies
Famous and powerful people ? I hardly see any famous _and_ powerful people on the list. BHL powerful ? Woody Allen powerful ? Give me a break. They are puppet entertainers who address a defined category of consumers, like a niche. They have no power whatsoever.
> WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW: Whether or not you are going to enjoy
> Rosemary's Baby, a film made by noted rapist Roman Polanski. It
> could go either way!
>
> WHAT YOU KNOW: Roman Polanski raped someone.
>
> Now, ask yourself: is it worth contributing, in any way, to the well-
> being of a rapist? Probably not!
Like Polansky made the film on his own. Like going to see a Michael Moore movie is going to support the financial institutions that have shares in all the big companies that are necessary to make a movie in the first place (remember the discussion a few days ago ?).
This article is utterly stupid, but it's written "well" enough that it can satisfy fast readers who have time to loose repeating endlessly "Fugitive. Child. Rapist." It seems to me LBO readers deserve a little better.
And, no, I don't support Polansky. And even less now that I know BHL is all over the place trying to use that to have his name on the papers...
Jean-Christophe Helary