fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4053 ]

[ SECRET POST #4053 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4053 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 16 secrets from Secret Submission Post #580.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

So why did people like Streep, del Toro, Portman, etc., who otherwise seem sensitive to issues like this, sign the petition in the first place?

I expected that from people like Tarantino (who does show genuine misogyny), but not them as much, since they otherwise seemed to have better moral compasses and them defending a child rapist is jarring.

ayrt

No, sorry, I meant that's literally all the petition said about what his crime was. "His arrest follows an American arrest warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals." It seems like they were trying to represent his crime as something of a moral quandary - like some people might think of it as a crime and some wouldn't and if someone didn't know the details, only the charge of unlawful intercourse, they might have made a lot of very wrong assumptions. The petition itself was against him being arrested at a film festival in a neutral country.

The point that still confuses me is that, for example, Meryl Streep signed the petition but came out swinging against Weinstein, which appears hypocritical.

I don't know much about del Toro besides what I've seen in interviews and articles, but he genuinely seemed like a good guy with a fair understanding of social issues re: race and gender and confronting oppressive forces in society (i.e, Strickland in The Shape of Water is a violent misogynist and an unambiguous villain, and the protagonists are members of oppressed, outsider groups.).

I'm having trouble reconciling that previous knowledge with them defending a convicted child rapist.

ayrt

Well, I think some on the petition could genuinely be concerned about the precedent of his arrest in Switzerland, regardless of the crime, in that they could see that as opening the door to political dissidents and the like being arrested in international venues because of arrest warrants in other countries - like a filmmaker who protests their dictatorial government getting arrested in a neutral country because of an arrest warrant from their home country for making that protest.

But I also believe Streep has shown other support for Polanski, so I don't think that would be her only motive.

Like you said, defending a child rapist is incomprehensible and the only thing that even sort of makes sense it that they were grossly misinformed.

Streep in particular is weird, especially since (IIRC) she's been supportive of #MeToo and criticized Weinstein in particular. I don't understand why she would be harshly critical of Weinstein and supportive of Polanski, given that they're both awful and both committed rape.

Yeah, it was definitely spun as "talented filmmaker victimized by witch hunt."

But, putting your name on a petition because all of your friends are doing strikes me as a minimal-effort political action, along with shooting your mouth off about a political issue on social media. It was wrong and stupid, but everyone has at least one wrong and stupid opinion in their history. I'm not convinced that slacktivism against other people's slacktivism really does anything.

ayrt

Yes, there was spin involved.

Your definition and my definition of slacktivism are different. It's not the most high effort action, but it is action. One that I find meaningful because when you vote, your name is not supposed to be attached to that particular ballot, just that you are eligible to fill out that ballot, and when you sign a petition, you're telling people that you believe in it enough to attach your name to it. And regular petitions can gain notice for a particular subject or even get something on a ballot. But this was a very public petition, meant to get the notice of the world and authorities, it was meant to influence, and since the people signing it are known, they were sort of putting their reputations to it. Did some sign it thoughtlessly? Probably. Did some do it because others were doing it and they thought it would help their reputations? Probably. Should they have done their damn homework and looked up the actual crime? Definitely. But, like you wrote, people can easily make stupid and wrong decisions because they don't know any better. But, for me, signing a petition is activism, it's not a protest, but it's something that is meant to cause change, even if it doesn't actually cause change.

So why did Streep side with Polanski (consistently, as you've said)? She's been on the right side of other situations involving rape and harassment (i.e, Weinstein), so a particular blind spot for her here is bizarre.

ayrt

I don't know. I don't know that's been consistent. The only way to know is for someone to ask and for her to answer. So, ping reporters - she's will be interviewed, she's up for an Oscar. Start a twitter campaign to get the attention of the news media, so they'll start asking people.

Regardless, signing a petition is in the realm of "I think you're wrong" and not something that's personal blacklist worthy on its own.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #4053 ]

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP