« Chris Rock Gets It | Main | Crack Out a Home Run, Shout a Hip-Hooray! »
The Casting Couch
By Jeff Fecke | October 3, 2009
I swear, at some point in the next few days, I will stop posting on Roman Polanski. But it shines so many interesting lights on so much of the sexism in our culture that it’s impossible to ignore it.
I’ve been musing for the past few days on just how it is that so many ostensibly liberal people can be so completely blinkered when it comes to the Polanski arrest. Outside of Anne Applebaum (who has doubled down on victim-bashing), the defenders of Polanski come from the entertainment community, specifically the film community. And those supporters are overwhelmingly liberal.
Now, “Hollywood Liberal” has gotten such overplay as to become cliché, but no doubt there’s an element of truth to it, just as there’s an element of truth to the idea that most bankers are conservative. It’s not, as some on the right believe, a case of witch hunts and blackballing. Rather, it’s that acting and the arts tend to attract people who are more inherently liberal. Hey, if you’re by nature a conservative person, you’re not going to chuck it all and move out to L.A. in the hopes you can get a gig as Corpse #2 on Law and Order: CSI, just as if you’re by nature a free spirit, you’re not going to become an accountant. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but the imbalance is an effect of people’s political leanings.
But while Hollywood is a generally liberal town, Hollywood is not a perfect liberal Utopia. As anyone who’s studied media knows, Hollywood tends to be whiter than average, prettier than average, and thinner than average by a ludicrous degree. And it tends to sneer condescendingly at those who are not.
But where Hollywood really falls short is in its treatment of women. Since its earliest days, most starlets have followed the predictable arc from sudden fame to total ruin. So rare is a female star who stays in the public eye for decades that the few who manage — Meryl Streep, Judi Dench, Susan Sarandon — are viewed as almost freakish.
True, Hollywood treats many male stars as disposable, too. But you can name dozens of actors who’ve had staying power — Matt Damon, Johnny Depp, Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, Sean Connery, Sean Penn, Jim Carrey, Will Smith, Morgan Freeman, Tim Robbins…we could name stars all day, but we won’t, because it’s pointless.
Hollywood has different rules for men and women. It treats them differently. It regards them differently. And it recruits them differently.
It’s that last one that is the reason Roman Polanski is getting such fervent defense from fellow artists. Because while Polanski’s transgression is outrageous to most decent humans, it’s really just a short distance away from the way Hollywood once expected its starlets to make their entrances — on their backs.
The Casting Couch, like Hollywood Liberalism, is the stuff of cliché. But like Hollywood Liberalism, it has an element of truth to it. Oh, no doubt the practice is being slowly squeezed out, as trifling things like anti-harassment laws. But it’s still alive and well. Megan Fox has stated that she’s been propositioned more than once while meeting with producers and directors about projects. And Michael Bay had her wash his Ferrari as part of her audition for Transformers – and filmed the whole thing, because he could.
And that’s in this decade, with years of anti-harassment litigation on the books. It was worse in the 1970s. Quite a bit worse.
Which is why Hollywood is, to a large degree, rallying around Polanski. Because his crime was of a piece with the culture of the town. It was expected that a woman (or in this case, girl) trying to break into the business would give a famous director some incentives to hire her. It was assumed that this was just a standard quid pro quo. Indeed, to this day Polanski defenders argue that his victim’s mother understood this trade-off and set her daughter up for it, as if that excuses drugging and raping a 13-year-old.1
Many — not all, but many — of Polanski’s defenders defend him because all too many of them have been on one side of the casting couch or the other. Some have asked for favors, some have given favors, some have been on both sides of the deal. And for them, that fuels their support. Because the casting couch is an integral part of rape culture, a point at which a powerful person can force a weak person into sex. To paraphrase Whoopi Goldberg, it may not be rape-rape. But it’s on the continuum.
And that fuels the impassioned defense of Polanski. Because if Polanski is a criminal for using too much force on a 13-year-old,2 what does that say about every director who’s talked a 19-year-old aspiring actress into similar acts, in the interests of her career? And what does it say about an actress who let herself be talked into it? After all, the need to deny one has been raped or assaulted is nearly as strong as the need to deny one is capable of assault.
And so Polanski’s crime is minimized, because it hits too close to home. Yes, he was guilty of excesses beyond those usually found in Hollywood, but they were differences of degree. He used force when others used coercion, he used drugs when others dangled carrots, he chose a 13-year-old as his target instead of a 20-year-old. His crime is worse. But it is of a kin with the daily transgressions that continue to drive Hollywood’s attitude toward its female actors.
Hollywood, for all its squishy liberalism, is in racial and gender politics a very conservative town. While most of America has accepted at least the basic concept that women and men are equals, that people of all races are equals, Hollywood has not even begun to wrestle with the idea. Instead, it tries to deny that it has a problem at all — and in its denial, ends up defending the indefensible.
–
1If you believe this, at best it would make the victim’s mother an accessory. However, you’d have to believe the victim’s mother intentionally pimped her daughter out for a casting couch rendezvous, then took her daughter to the police to press rape charges within a few days — which seems like more than a stretch to me. None of this, incidentally, changes the fact that Roman Polanski raped a 13-year-old; no matter how crappy a parent is, you don’t get to rape their child.
2 As Kira helpfully notes in comments, it should be obvious to anyone that “too much force” is equal to “any force.” But it should also be obvious that rape is bad, and a lot of Polanski supporters seem unable to get that, so I think I’d best footnote this.
Related posts:
- Fugitive Child Rapist Arrested in Switzerland
- Chris Rock Gets It
- Deep Thought
- You Forgot Poland!
- Bunch of Easily-led Automatons. Try Thinking for Yourselves Before you Pelt an Innocent Man with Cigarettes!
Topics: Media, Roman Polanski, Sexual Assault | 22 Comments »
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:19 am
What I’ve noticed about this whole Polanski matter is that everyone who supports the extreme sexual license lived by and dramatically portrayed by Hollywood is simultaneously shocked and revolted that such a spirit of sexual license could possibly result in rape, including child rape. We live in a sexualized society. We like to pretend that this is a sexually repressed society, but I don’t think that Hollywood is sexually repressed. We encourage everyone to shatter all limits of sexual restraint — on the pretext that we’re shattering constraint. We call it “blaming the victim” when we tell women to avoid putting themselves into sexually compromising positions that might make them more vulnerable to being raped. We tell such women to “have at it!” If it feels good, do it!
Sexual license abounds. I consider it harmless. We think that every adult has enough self control to indulge in indiscriminate sexual pleasure, intoning that such indulgence is actually healthy and natural. We condemn those who call for modesty and discretion, considering them to be repressed, judgmental, prudish, and hypocritical.
So in the midst of all this sexual license — in the midst of wealthy, libertine Hollywood — in the midst of the 1970s culture — along comes Roman Polanski living out the logical conclusion of such a libertine, sexually licentious world. He rapes a child. We are we so shocked? Wasn’t this the logical conclusion of the hyper-sexual culture that Hollywood cultivated, and that we support with our consumer choices?
There is a spirit of sexual license in this country that is absolutely NOT harmless — it is dangerous — and when it comes to Roman Polanski we’re ignoring the fact that such a spirit was at work in him when he forced himself on that 13-year-old girl.
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:22 am
Correction… In my last comment I wrote:
“Sexual license abounds. I consider it harmless.”
I meant to write:
Sexual license abounds. WE consider it harmless.
I’m posting the comment again in corrected form:
What I’ve noticed about this whole Polanski matter is that everyone who supports the extreme sexual license lived by and dramatically portrayed by Hollywood is simultaneously shocked and revolted that such a spirit of sexual license could possibly result in rape, including child rape. We live in a sexualized society. We like to pretend that this is a sexually repressed society, but I don’t think that Hollywood is sexually repressed. We encourage everyone to shatter all limits of sexual restraint — on the pretext that we’re shattering constraint. We call it “blaming the victim” when we tell women to avoid putting themselves into sexually compromising positions that might make them more vulnerable to being raped. We tell such women to “have at it!” If it feels good, do it!
Sexual license abounds. We consider it harmless. We think that every adult has enough self control to indulge in indiscriminate sexual pleasure, intoning that such indulgence is actually healthy and natural. We condemn those who call for modesty and discretion, considering them to be repressed, judgmental, prudish, and hypocritical.
So in the midst of all this sexual license — in the midst of wealthy, libertine Hollywood — in the midst of the 1970s culture — along comes Roman Polanski living out the logical conclusion of such a libertine, sexually licentious world. He rapes a child. We are we so shocked? Wasn’t this the logical conclusion of the hyper-sexual culture that Hollywood cultivated, and that we support with our consumer choices?
There is a spirit of sexual license in this country that is absolutely NOT harmless — it is dangerous — and when it comes to Roman Polanski we’re ignoring the fact that such a spirit was at work in him when he forced himself on that 13-year-old girl.
October 3rd, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Excellent article. If I may nitpick one sentence, I’m puzzled by this:
“Because if Polanski is a criminal for using too much force on a 13-year-old…”
I would normally think that any person in their right mind would understand what you mean here, but this whole terrible forgiveness in the media and Hollywood of Polanski leaves me to believe there are a lot of people who would read this and actually think you were saying, and agree with you, that some force is ok but there’s a level where it reaches “too much.”
October 4th, 2009 at 12:06 am
Kira –
I would normally think so too, but I think you’re right. I’ve added a footnote. Nice catch.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:11 am
John —
Sexual license qua sexual license is not the problem here. I’m perfectly happy if any number of consenting adults do anything with anyone anywhere. It’s the “consenting” part that’s the key, and the “adult” part.
The simple fact is that the rate of rape has fallen dramatically in concert with greater licentiousness in society. Let me be clear: I have no problem with a producer hooking up with an actor if nobody’s career is on the line. As long as the actor still gets the part whether or not sex happens, there’s nothing wrong with that. The problem with the casting couch is that where it exists, it isn’t optional.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:23 am
[...] crappy a parent is, you don’t get to rape their child. (back)As Kira helpfully notes in comments at my site, it should be obvious to anyone that “too much force” is equal to “any [...]
October 4th, 2009 at 3:02 am
Jeff Fecke wrote:
To me, that attitude of yours is naive. Look at the Duke Lacrosse case. Look at Hofstra. In both cases you have a woman voluntarily having sex with men in the most raunchy way possible. And in both cases, men who were non-rapists were falsely accused of rape. Notice a common theme emerging here? There is a correlation between false allegations of rape and wild sexual escapades. So I think that it’s out of step with reality for you to say, “rape has fallen dramatically in concert with greater licentiousness in society.” Not only does greater licentiousness produce more rape allegations, but greater licentiousness (especially combined with drugs) probably produces what rape that DOES occur!
If the “rate of rape” has been declining, it’s probably related to the fact that most rape allegations were bogus to begin with. Did you know that according to the US Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the United States, 85 percent of rape cases don’t result in a conviction? For every 1000 alleged offenders, only 150 are actually convicted of the crime of rape here in America. That’s only a 15 percent conviction rate. In the UK, the conviction rate for rape is only 6 percent; 94 percent of rape cases there go nowhere. If a jury or a prosecutor can’t see enough evidence for guilt, then THAT’S why the rate of rape has been declining.
What feminists call the “rape culture” I call the “hookup culture” or the “raunch culture.” If you want to reduce the incidence of actual rapes (and for that matter, false allegations of rape), the cure for that disease is greater sexual discretion by both sexes.
October 4th, 2009 at 7:04 am
“Did you know that according to the US Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the United States, 85 percent of rape cases don’t result in a conviction? For every 1000 alleged offenders, only 150 are actually convicted of the crime of rape here in America.”
Wouldn’t Polanski also fall into the 850 out of every 1000 alleged offenders not convicted of the crime of rape, since he was actually convicted (as so many of his supporters contend) of “unlawful sex with a minor”?
The truth is, a lot of the time cases of rape don’t make it to trial. A lot of the time, even if the act of rape has occurred, there is not enough evidence to convict. A lot of the time, the victim may not want to be put on the stand to relive the crime. A lot of the time, people don’t want to believe their peers could be guilty of something like rape. A lot of the time, the safeguards in our system (safeguards I absolutely agree with) to protect the accused, like the burden of proof being on the state and having to be found guilty without reasonable doubt make it almost impossible to get a conviction, even if the rape absolutely did occur. Because rape is one of the only crimes where the “It was consensual” defense comes into play. Which is why using conviction rates to discuss the rate at which rapes actually occur is incredibly faulty.
October 4th, 2009 at 10:58 am
John,
If you think rape is less common in a more sexually conservative place, like for instance South Carolina in 1850 or Afghanistan, you need to think again. It may happen differently. Hell, they probably call it marriage or slavery. But it’s rape.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Tom: that attitude will result in more rapes.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
So John, so if no one is convicted of a murder, does that mean no one was actually killed?
October 4th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
If a particular person is not convicted of murder by a jury, or not prosecuted for murder by a prosecutor, or not arrested for murder by police, then it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that that particular person has not committed murder.
With rape charges, a particular person is accused. Police arrest (or not), prosecutors prosecute (or not), and juries convict (or not). Each one of these “deciders” has a unique perspective relative to the rest of us, being privy to the facts of a case. They have a better idea of a particular person’s guilt than anyone else, and if they in their judgment deep a person not guilty, then the only reason to disbelieve them is what you have — an ideology that assumes that a defendant facing rape charges is guilty merely by virtue of being charged. Your ideology also assumes one other thing — a “fact” that is not always in evidence depending on the case — you assume that a crime actually occurred.
Ideology and prejudice are not the ideal ways to evaluate the extent of a problem. I’m amazed that you’re attacking my line of argument with these as your sole arsenal. I’ve pointed to objective evidence — and the decisions by those who (unlike you) were privy to the evidence — while you have merely pointed to your own sociopolitical biases.
October 4th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Correction:
I wrote “…and if they in their judgment deep a person not guilty…”
I meant to write: “…and if they in their judgment deem a person not guilty…”
October 4th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Now this is a new line of excusing Polanski’s rape from JD: “He wasn’t fully responsible, it was those darn fornicators who encouraged him! This could have been solved if only people were forced to wear chastity belts!”
His history is wrong too; the so-called “Sexual Revolution” was far from the first time that sexual morality in the US became less restrictive. Case in point: the 1920s.
October 4th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Jaxebad: If he accepted a plea bargain, than we as a society can act on the assumption that he’s guilty. If guilty of committing a crime, than he was also responsible. The only thing left to ponder about — if you care to do so (many feminists suggest that the mere act of pondering a rapist’s motives is victim-blaming) — is Polanski’s state of mind and what influenced it. You DO want to prevent future similar acts of child rape, don’t you? Surely you’re not about devolving into a sense of moral righteousness in which you don’t learn a lesson from a tragedy; that wouldn’t help anyone.
Polanski was horny, probably under the influence, and (being wealthy and famous) was probably accustomed (entitled) to getting everything that he wanted. Couple the entitlement with the inflammation with sexual passion, along with the drugs AND the opportunity — and you have a colossal error in judgment. Just like I’ve been saying — a lack of discretion is at the core of this crime.
What’s the alternative point of view? It’s to assume that Polanski was simply a ticking rape time bomb by his very biological nature, and that he was merely living out his nature, and therefore is morally not to blame because he simply had no volition or choice in the matter. Rape was his nature, and he simply needed to be avoided or confined. This is not my view. But it is the view of anyone who questions the notion that lack of discretion and judgment are irrelevant (such as you).
October 4th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Lest there be confusion, um, yes, I do what to prevent such instances from happening again. I don’t see why you think I wouldn’t.
October 4th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Jaxebad: For me to suggest that we’re too inundated with sexual messages is not a call to return to a repressive, sexually confined culture. Our country’s preoccupation with sex is entirely related to the incidence of rape.
October 6th, 2009 at 9:39 am
To say that everything consenting is OK, and everything non-consenting is wrong IS within our human choice, both individually and collectively (though collectively will require cultural revolutions for true equality and respect). We shouldn’t need to suppress consenting behavior to prevent rape anymore than we need to suppress civil liberties to prevent terror attacks.
October 6th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
[...] described the situation as showing “the liberal cultural elite at its preening, fatuous worst.” Jeff Fecke noted that Hollywood culture, particularly with the heavy use of the casting couch, is the dictionary [...]
October 6th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
For me to suggest that we’re too inundated with sexual messages is not a call to return to a repressive, sexually confined culture.
Well, what is it then, if it’s not that? As usual, your disingenuousness is up front. Talking about “licentiousness” … jeez, fella, get out of the Victorian Age. Oh, and just in case your reading comprehension is as bad as your attitude, I am not defending Polanski … although I do think the D.A.’s “after 30 years, we finally got around to arresting you because you dissed us” tack is typical of prosecutors.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:54 am
On this blog, Jeff frequently draws the connection between political rhetoric and violence (especially when the political rhetoric runs contrary to his own political views). If Rep. Michelle Bachmann, for example, is guilty of fomenting violence against census workers because of her opposition to the census, then why is it such a stretch to draw a link between excessive sexual imagery and sexual crimes?
Referring the rape, feminists love to claim that the crime is one of power, having nothing to do with psychology or sexual passion. To them, rape is a political statement — a statement of dominance and power — nothing less. It is an ideological and dogmatic position. In my opinion, too few people challenge this dogmatic assertion, because it’s obvious that the imposition of power can be at least one explanation for rape. But I strongly believe that it’s not the only one.
So keep sexing it up, people. The more sexual imagery in our culture, the better! Surely a hyper-sexual culture has “nothing” to do with rape. Surely rape has nothing to do with gang bangs, orgies, hookups, drugs, promiscuity, licentiousness, and the decline of sexual modesty. Surely we can infuse our culture with sexual messages and our children will be safe, women will be safe, and innocent men will not be falsely accused. Surely we will not be bitten by such a sexual leviathan. Sex crimes are solely about dominance and power, after all! Sexed-up culture? Move along, nothing to see here…
Are you this naive?
I’m a libertarian. I oppose reigning in our hyper-sexual culture with politically-inspired force. Force only reacts to the effects of a cause. In this case, I believe that rape and many other sex-related crimes are rooted not only in power imbalances but also in spiritual decay. Yet another adjustment to public policy will not tend to produce the change needed to combat the scourge of sex crimes that plagues our nation. To ignore the spiritual dimension of the problem is to perpetuate the problem, and yet this is what happens in a culture (like ours) that relies on political solutions for virtually every problem under the sun.
Question the sanctity of the almighty orgasm in this culture, and you’re likely to be maligned as a Victorian despot. How many victims will it take before people accept that sex crimes are not solely about power and control?
October 7th, 2009 at 10:28 am
[...] And maybe Polanski’s defenders in Hollywood reflect some failing in Hollywood sexual culture, the casting couch gone [...]