… And the idea that a bankrupt state is wasting its time and our tax dollars prosecuting him for treating an asshole like an asshole is begging to be treated is a travesty. We can’t educate our kids, but we are spending money on trying to put Sean Penn in jail for getting pissed at a papp? Crazy shit.
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Did it physically pain you to embed a vid from TMZ?
I don’t understand why a law is not passed whereby these parasites must not come within a certain number of feet of these actors/actresses.
There needs to be a law. Lord what slime TMZ is. How horrible to wake up and have that be your occupation.
so what’s the legal difference between letting Sean Penn off the hook cause its expensive to the state and the state spending money to prosecute Polanski?
There really isn’t one, you’re just using $$$s as a justification to let Sean Penn off the hook without having to face justice.
And no, I don’t think the pedophile Polanski should also escape justice. I hope they spend whatever it takes to make sure he rots in jail the rest of his life for what that rapist did.
I am trying to understand, movielocke.
Child rape and fleeing the country to avoid sentencing VS kicking a paparazzi a couple of times and swatting his camera out of his hands.
Hmmm… what’s the legal difference?
I can only assume that this is the rhetorical question of all rhetorical questions.
As for my position, 1. I don’t know that I think Penn was 100% right, but I think this is the kind of “crime” that doesn’t demand the state’s intervention. 2. My anger at the waste is real, a reflection of how I feel in general about this as a “crime.”
Movielocke, how are you nails holding up after scraping the bottom of that barrel you’re in?
Jesus christ… does Penn’s “crime” physically revolt you like Polanski’s should? There’s your justification.
If the asshole files charges, does the state even have a choice if Penn rejected a (hypothetical) plea bargain? If the DA’s office decided not to prosecute at all, given the existing video evidence of this piddly-scale assault, then you know there would be the usual suspects up in arms about the preferencial treatment given to a HOLLYWOOD STAR, especially a LIBERAL HOLLYWOOD SOCIALIST STAR.
This is an issue of public order. Photographers should be arrested when they violate sensible laws restricting their actions. For example commercial photography of people should be banned in residential areas, from moving cars, etc. People will still do it, but the most egregious conduct will be restricted.
This other celebrity confrontation is a shining beacon of joy in the cratered wasteland that is America.
It comes down to justifying your bias to yourself.
If you don’t want person X prosecuted because it is too expensive but you do want person Y prosecuted despite expense there’s a certain level of hypocrisy involved. No, there is no equivalence between Penn’s actions and Polanski’s. But to use $$$s as a way to excuse Penn’s actions is part of a slipperly slope. Prosecuting Polanski is going to be very expensive for the state of California or the federal governement. Prosecuting Penn is going to be significantly less expensive.
If we’re going to start dismissing prosecution because its too expensive to the state, one should start with the cases most likely to be the most expensive, Polanski’s would be at the top of the list.
And additionally, not prosecuting Penn opens up a “double standard” that the right wing would howl about ad infinitum, and they’d be right to howl.
And double standards are dangerous. It was a double standard that allowed Polanski to serve a shockingly benign sentance for drugging, repeatedly raping and anally raping a thirteen year old girl. A double standard for celebrity’s and movers and shakers to not be punished as severely as ordinary folk, and another double standard that said because the thirteen year old was not a virgin to begin with that the crime was not as bad.
So there is not any equivalence between Penn and Polanski, but letting off Penn establishes a double standard and opens a slipperly slope to letting off Polanski on the same rationalization.
In other words, you agree with Penn, so your brain finds ways to rationalize that what he did was okay, you recruit evidence to support your conclusion that Penn’s actions are aokay a conclusion made based on gut reaction rather than on rule of law, precedent and evidence.
movielocke… there have to be standards applied to choices. They are made every day. To pretend otherwise is simply being in denial.
Yes. Spending money on bringing a child rapist back to Los Angeles – where his celebrity got him obscenely light sentencing in the first place – is, in my judgment, a more legitimate expenditure than prosecuting a celebrity for kicking a papp… who, by the way, has every right to go after Penn in civil court for any damages (the camera or medical) that may have been involved.
The State has a real interest in enforcing laws against child molestation. I can’t say the same about protecting anyone in a minor squabble with minor damages.
My personal perspective on which offense is more significant is, indeed, my personal perspective.
And I would be right on board with you on slippery slopes, if we were discussing, for instance, OJ Simpson, who may have seemed guilty to a large majority of people but who was not, in my view, proven guilty beyond anything close to a reasonable doubt in his criminal trial.
But getting back to the point, if Sean Penn had beaten the papp bloody, endangered his life, raped him anally, or any other serious physical violations, I would be perfectly comfortable with the state prosecuting Penn… even if the asshole papp had it coming.
And as far as Fox News screaming, if that is the basis of how the LA Prosecutor’s office chooses to enforce the law, there is no law. Who gives a flying fuck what Fox thinks about The Law. It is above chatter.
Wasn’t this all covered in an 1985 Blooms County?
Anyone who take flash photograhpy in Penn’s presence is legally exempt of claims of battery just as goodall’s chimps were. Do Papperizzi not pass down stories to each other. “This was Madonna’s husband and he broke my Clavicall.
Right on. Anyone who gets in Penn’s face with a camera after 25 years of this is a moron and deserves to get his ass kicked.
“If we’re going to start dismissing prosecution because its too expensive to the state, one should start with the cases most likely to be the most expensive, Polanski’s would be at the top of the list.”
Movielocke, seriously? This isn’t just about the dollars and cents, it’s about the greater issue of the state spending money going after a famous face for giving an intrusive papp a well-deserved kick — is this really the best use of the state’s money? It’s about how the state prioritizes the money it’s spending on prosecuting crimes. And we as citizens have a right to question those choices our prosecutors make — particularly when, as DP rightly points out, the State can barely afford to educate its kids.
In Seattle, for instance, voters passed a law several years ago making personal marijuana use one of the lowest priority crimes for law enforcement to spend time and money prosecuting. Is pot still technically illegal here? Sure, more or less. But so long as you don’t have more than an ounce on you (under the “distribution” amount), you’re not going to get busted for it here. Heck, at big fests like Bumbershoot and Hempfest, pot is smoked openly right in front of the cops and no one cares.
I’d characterize Penn’s “attack” as about morally equivalent to a Seattleite whipping out a joint at Hempfest. And comparing Penn in this situation to Polanski is a straw man argument. There’s just no comparison morally between the two.
I can totally side with Penn, as the paparrazzi seem to be the worst kind of scum. However, you live in the USA and you have courts, police and laws that are upheld. If he beat the pap, there is video evidence and the pap is bringing charges AND Penn refuses the plea, then it will go to court. There is NO other way. Now, the judge can probably throw it out of the court and charge the pap for wasting taxpayers money (or at least, he could do that up here in Canada) depending on his thinking. Or he could give Penn a slap on the wrist + put a restraining order on the pap. Or he could give Penn the max.
But your justice system can’t do nothing. That is why the USA is a decent place. If you are so up-in-arms over the waste of money, you should focus your energy on lobbying your representatives to create an anti-pap law.
Prosecuting Sean Penn for those kicks would be like saying we’re a nation of pussies. Suck it up and take it paparazzi guy, Penn hardly touched you. If he broke the camera fine, sue him for that. Otherwise if you got problem with Penn when he’s kicking at you, punch him.