If you can’t bring yourself to condemn someone who drugged and anally raped a 13 year-old girl, you are part of the problem.

Moreover, if you want to know how Hollywood feels about sex with children, you can start by watching their films.

Fox News:

If a spate of recent allegations proves true, Hollywood may have a hideous epidemic on its hands. The past two weeks have brought three separate reports of alleged child sexual abuse in the entertainment industry.

Martin Weiss, a 47-year-old Hollywood manager who represented child actors, was charged in Los Angeles on Dec. 1 with sexually abusing a former client. His accuser, who was under 12 years old during the time of the alleged abuse, reported to authorities that Weiss told him “what they were doing was common practice in the entertainment industry.” Weiss has pleaded not guilty.

On Nov. 21, Fernando Rivas, 59, an award-winning composer for “Sesame Street,” was arraigned on charges of coercing a child “to engage in sexually explicit conduct” in South Carolina. The Juilliard-trained composer was also charged with production and distribution of child pornography.

Registered sex offender Jason James Murphy, 35, worked as a casting agent in Hollywood for years before his past kidnapping and sexual abuse of a boy was revealed by the Los Angeles Times on Nov. 17. Murphy’s credits include placing young actors in kid-friendly fare like “Bad News Bears,” “The School of Rock,” “Cheaper by the Dozen 2” and the forthcoming “Three Stooges.”

Revelations of this sort come as no surprise to former child star Corey Feldman.

Feldman, 40, himself a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, unflinchingly warned of the world of pedophiles who are drawn to the entertainment industry last August. “I can tell you that the No. 1 problem in Hollywood was and is and always will be pedophilia,” Feldman told ABC’s Nightline. “That’s the biggest problem for children in this industry… It’s the big secret.”

Another child star from an earlier era agrees that Hollywood has long had a problem with pedophilia. “When I watched that interview, a whole series of names and faces from my history went zooming through my head,” Paul Peterson, 66, star of The Donna Reed Show, a sitcom popular in the 1950s and 60s, and president of A Minor Consideration, tells FOXNews.com. “Some of these people, who I know very well, are still in the game.”

“This has been going on for a very long time,” concurs former “Little House on the Prairie” star Alison Arngrim. “It was the gossip back in the ‘80s. People said, ‘Oh yeah, the Coreys, everyone’s had them.’ People talked about it like it was not a big deal.”

Arngrim, 49, was referring to Feldman and his co-star in “The Lost Boys,” Corey Haim, who died in March 2010 after years of drug abuse.

“I literally heard that they were ‘passed around,’” Arngrim said. “The word was that they were given drugs and being used for sex. It was awful – these were kids, they weren’t 18 yet. There were all sorts of stories about everyone from their, quote, ‘set guardians’ on down that these two had been sexually abused and were totally being corrupted in every possible way.”

Full story here.

—–

Darren Aronofsky’s “Black Swan” inhabits the mind of such a performer, one whose psyche has at some point suffered a crippling blow. Its heroine seeks perfection of ballet, her craft, but proves ill-suited to the character creation process. Performers have all sorts of methods and philosophies on the subject, but most seem to say that any performance is in some way grounded to the self. But what about one who has very little self to ground their performance to?

Natalie Portman stars as Nina, the aforementioned ballerina. It’s her best screen performance, one that conveys the distress of a tortured soul coupled with roiling psychological repression. That’s apart from the physicality of portraying a top-tier ballerina, for which she reportedly trained for 10 months. Those only accustomed to her popular image as either, a) the Effervescent Love Interest, or b) the Deeply Concerned Love Interest, are in for a surprise.

Nina lives with her mother (Barbara Hershey), one of those stage mothers who lives vicariously through their child’s talent under the guise of paternal love and concern. There’s a uneasiness in their rapport. Nina’s room is decorated like a child’s, she walks on eggshells, and Mom meticulously tracks her movements lest a moment of the day go unaccounted.

If Nina’s home life is ruled by her mother, work falls under the authority of Thomas (Vincent Cassel), the director of the New York ballet company.  He decides that they will “re-imagine” the great ballet “Swan Lake,” with Nina in the lead thanks to her violent rebuttal to one of his sexual advances. Thomas knows she’s perfect for the virginal, flawless White Swan, but wants to see her seductive and electrifying side as the Black Swan. Since Nina appears to have never even had a romantic or even sexual experience in her life, this presents a great challenge, one poised to shatter a psyche already teetering on the brink of madness. Lily (Mila Kunis), a dancer from San Francisco, has the provocative edge perfect for the Black Swan, making her the obvious competition, though her friendly overtures tear a hole in Nina’s fragile reality.

Aronofsky unfolds the rapid degradation of Nina’s world as a horror film, very reminiscent of Roman Polanski’s “Repulsion” and with flavors of David Lynch’s “Mulholland Drive.”  If the setting for a horror picture is one’s mind, then the menace comes from the torments of the imagination and the brutality inflicted on the body. “Black Swan” might not be the first film with moments that emphasize the excruciating physical toll professional dancing can take on the body, though I suspect it might reach the most audience members.

In a sense,“Black Swan” represents a stylistic advance from Aronofsky’s previous film, “The Wrestler,” though it also loses that picture’s heart. Portman’s character is never afforded the pathos that allowed Mickey Rourke to give such an enthralling, heartbreaking turn as another performer, a washed up pro-wrestler whose life knows no bottom. Nina’s collapse thrills but simultaneously retains a cool detachment from our sympathies, her naiveté effectively stripping away much of the humanity that allows an audience to become truly invested in a character’s fate. We don’t really know her, because there’s not much to know.

Aronofsky also directed 2000’s “Requiem for a Dream,” a film about drug addiction so hyper-actively nightmarish in tone and style that it should be screened to high school students in lieu of near worthless anti-drug lectures. With “The Wrestler,” he demonstrated a capacity for character studies. This falls somewhere between the two, impressive in its ways, though not nearly as good as either.

And this friends, is a travesty.

It’s not just a travesty because we’re going to have to wait at least three years for the next poorly conceived direct-to-video action film starring the Shotokan Karate master. It’s a travesty because of the deafening silence surrounding his trial and incarceration.

Where are the legions of race hustlers and political opportunists who can’t wait to make every issue in our society about racism and social justice?  I haven’t heard much from Reverend Al or Jesse Jackson.  And where is the outcry from Snipes’ co-stars and the usual suspects like Danny Glover and Susan Sarandon?  Both of those actors, for instance, have been quite vocal in their support of convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.  Yet, when they frog march Simon Phoenix nobody says a word.

It’s not surprising that the automatons in Tinsel Town are mum on the subject.  After all, they usually reserve their impassioned pleas and soap box orations for child rapists and wife beaters.  Wesley Snipes got into this mess not because of a shady accountant or a “rounding error.” He didn’t even use Turbo Tax.  No, Wesley Snipes is actually a tax protestor.  His legal and accounting team challenged not the amount Mr. Snipes owed, but the legitimacy of the Federal Government collecting ANY income tax.  Mr. Snipes is a card carrying member of the “taxes are illegal, and immoral” crowd.

Wesley Snipes clearly is outside the Hollywood mainstream.  Folks like Bill Maher and Aaron Sorkin are bemoaning Obama’s sellout by granting “tax cuts for the rich.”  Let’s save the whole tax cuts vs. not raising taxes distinction for another day.  Let’s just focus on the fact that nobody in Hollywood is required to hire an army of accountants and lawyers to protect them from the IRS.  Bill Maher’s taxes would be a lot different if his HBO check was made out to him personally instead of the corporation that he undoubtedly has.  There is no written law that says that you have to take deductions to which you are entitled.  On top of that, even with the exploitation of loopholes and maximizing deductions, there’s nothing that says you can’t add a couple zeros to the checks you write Uncle Sam.  Why can’t rich, Obama supporting celebrities simply put their money where their mouth is and help pay down the debt?

Paul Haggis in orange Gitmo ribbon

Perhaps the Wesley Snipes’ harsh prison sentence stems from the fact that we, as a society, treat our celebrities in the legal system tougher than we do average citizens.  You know, like the life sentences that Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, and Charlie Sheen are now serving.  Wait.  They got disproportionately light sentences for their transgressions?  Even Snoop Dogg walked on an accessory to murder charge.  And OJ had to kill people, and then commit armed robbery and kidnapping before we locked that sociopath up.

This is about the government letting you know, through a high profile target, that while they may not enforce laws regarding immigration, corporate bookkeeping, or the conduct of our elected officials, they are dead serious about this tax business.  The flunkies in Hollywood haven’t said boo because Snipes isn’t one of them.

People may object to me calling Wesley Snipes a victim.  He knowingly broke the law and must now pay the price.  Fair enough.  But in the context of our media and government, where there is a new outrageous outrage everyday and the rule of law is bent and broken by lawmakers and judges every hour, one can’t help but find a little irony in this situation.  In a world where we fret about the legal rights of men who try to blow up airplanes with explosive stocked tighty whities, isn’t it a bit ridiculous to be sending a harmless thespian to prison?  Even if he does fancy himself a modern day Henry David Thoreau, wouldn’t an expensive fine and a “censure” insure that he ends his dangerous tax avoidance crime spree?

We should save the harsh celebrity sentences for people who drug and rape thirteen year old girls.  We should lock up actors who violate State Department mandates so they can hang out with and perform for murderous despots.  We should throw the book at celebrities who act above the law and put the lives of others at risk when they hop behind the wheel of their $500,000 car jacked up on coke and vodka (and by “coke” I mean the really, really good kind.  Not the good kind that you drink).  And, there should be a special wing at Leavenworth for anybody and everybody associated with the film “Birdemic.”

But not Wesley Snipes.  He’s a talented guy who, unlike the rest of the bloviating windbags in our industry, actually puts his money and his freedom behind his political views.

So Wesley, if the prison that they sent you to is as nice as Gitmo, you should have the Internet.  I hope you read this and know that some of us out here, even people who work in the entertainment industry, think you got a raw deal.

One week ago today, on Monday, July 12 we learned that Switzerland would not extradite director Roman Polanski back to the United States to face sentencing for a crime he has already pleaded guilty to – having unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year old girl after he drugged her in 1977.

Most Americans know the story.

The Oscar winning director of “Chinatown,” “The Pianist,” and “Rosemary’s Baby,” was accused of luring the girl to Jack Nicholson’s house while the actor was out of town under the guide of having a modeling shoot with the child. Once the girl arrived, Polanski allegedly gave her champagne and part of a Quaalude, and then had sexual intercourse with her.

Some Americans have argued that the crime happened so long ago that prosecutors should simply move on.

Actress Whoopi Goldberg once insinuated what Polanski did may not fit the legal definition of rape in some countries – which actually turned out to be inaccurate.

Others have suggested that because Polanski’s mother was killed in a Nazi concentration camp and his wife Sharon Tate was murdered by Charles Manson’s cult he should be shown compassion.

All of those people are wrong though.

What Roman Polanski did was a cruel, disturbing, selfish act that tormented the life of a young girl and has haunted her throughout her womanhood.

A possible victim of Stockholm Syndrome or perhaps just emotionally exhausted, the victim herself has recently withdrawn her long standing adamant requests to see Polanski sentenced, and now says she just wants the case to go away so she can put it behind her.

Certainly, she deserves compassion and respect. But if we put this case behind us without seeing justice done then it’s only a sending a message to other sexual predators, celebrities and wealthy people who commit crimes that justice delayed is justice denied.

For decades the Swiss have helped people evade justice under the pretense they are neutral. They are not neutral.

They illegally shielded money the Nazis stole from the Jews during the Holocaust. It is widely known they help people who hide money they’ve stolen from fraudulent transactions, and in this case, they are an accessory after the fact in helping Polanski evade justice for raping a child.

Switzerland is evil.

Their policies of so-called neutrality are evil and they are cowardly. I can’t think of anything more cowardly than hiding behind the guise of neutrality when a crime has been committed against an innocent person or people. There is no gray. There is good and there is evil. It is in fact black and white.

As a former prosecutor who now selectively practices criminal defense, I often hear other criminal defense lawyers justify their actions when they represent defendants who are guilty of violent crimes – something I won’t do. They say that they do it for the system, that everyone deserves a good defense and that they’re not the ones who committed the crime.

But anyone with a moral conscience knows those are all pathetic excuses. Anytime anyone uses their own power to shield evil – or refuses to use the power they have to stop it, they are committing an act of evil themselves.

When someone makes an innocent person suffer they deserve to suffer themselves through the civil system of justice we have created. Without consequences, a message is sent to the perpetrator and other would-be perpetrators that it’s okay to hurt someone again.

Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand once wrote that, “Whenever good and evil compromise, evil always wins.” She was right. In this case, Switzerland has compromised their morality and responsibility to the global community to extradite a convicted child rapist.

Evil has won.

CNN:

Martin Scorsese has “‘demanded the immediate release’ of fellow filmmaker Roman Polanski, who was arrested in Switzerland on a U.S. arrest warrant related to a 1977 child sex charge.”

The Smoking Gun [EXPLICIT content warning]:

The teenager’s troubling [Ed. Note: she was 13] –and contemporaneous–account of her abuse at Polanski’s hands begins with her posing twice for topless photos that the director said were for French Vogue. The girl then told prosecutors how Polanski directed her to, “Take off your underwear” and enter the Jacuzzi, where he photographed her naked. Soon, the director, who was then 43, joined her in the hot tub. He also wasn’t wearing any clothes and, according to Gailey’s testimony, wrapped his hands around the child’s waist.

The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson’s home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he “keep away.” According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later “started to have intercourse with me.” At one point, according to Gailey’s testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was “on the pill,” and “When did you last have your period?” Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, “Would you want me to go in through your back?” before he “put his penis in my butt.” Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, “Because I was afraid of him.”

September 29th, 2009:

Amid all the noise, no one has yet to really mention the most unthinkable consequence overshadowing all of this: that Polanski, 76, could die in jail, either fighting his extradition in Switzerland or withering in a cell in Los Angeles. Surely that couldn’t be justice, could it? For a Holocaust survivor and Manson Family widower (whose wife and unborn son’s killer, coincidentally, died in prison last week) to perish while battling a prosecutor’s politically motivated whim, however legally sound?

VanAirsdale practices his shallow, superior snark at the left-wing film site Movieline.

Not only did Michael Douglas tell a French radio station it would be “unfair” for him to sign the latest “Free Polanski“ petition floating around Cannes for “somebody who did break the law,” he did so hours before the Charlotte Lewis story broke. 

Unlike some who are now rethinking their Polanski support in the face of these new allegations, one child rape was enough for Douglas.

Los Angeles County prosecutors have met with a British actress who claims she was sexually abused by director Roman Polanski in his Paris apartment when she was 16 — years before she appeared in one of his movies.

Charlotte Lewis, 42, said Friday that the filmmaker abused her “in the worst possible way” in the 1980s.

Lewis provided no evidence to support her claims, and her attorney, Gloria Allred, did not permit her to answer questions during a news conference in her office.

However, Allred said the woman provided evidence to a police detective and officials from the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office. She refused to provide specifics and also refused to answer questions about whether her client’s allegations involved drugs or rape.

“Our detectives did conduct the interview but the department has not begun an investigation,” said police spokesman Richard French. He did not know when the interview was conducted.

The alleged assault took place four years after Polanski had unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl in the U.S., Lewis said, which would put the alleged assault date at 1982. Lewis later had a role in Polanski’s 1986 movie, “Pirates.”

Full story is here.

In order to recover, the film industry can only play the revisionist game and try to rewrite their sordid Polanski support in the hopes that those of us who don’t think directing “Chinatown” earns you a free pass to anally rape a child will somehow forget. So, a little too late, along comes the Daily Beast’s Kim Masters who gives it the old college try with an article arguing that Polanski doesn’t really have as much Hollywood support as some of us might think.

After portraying himself as a victim in his public letter earlier this month, the fugitive director has lost support in the movie industry that once defended him.

Roman Polanski had better hope his recent statement—breaking his silence on his arrest last September and asking “to be treated fairly like anyone else”—falls on more sympathetic ears in Switzerland than in much of Hollywood. Because if industry power players were judging whether to extradite the 76-year-old director, chances are he would be on the next flight to Los Angeles.

Well that sure sounds a like a too-late moral awakening, but an awakening nonetheless. A quick perusal between the lines, however, tells the real story.

At first glance, Masters appears to have written a fairly convincing redemption story of an industry finally coming to its moral senses. The theory being that Polanski’s self-serving — “I can remain silent no longer!” — declaration earlier this month managed to wake the artistic class up to the director’s shocking lack of remorse; and that this final straw is what finally turned the tide on the same man who just seven years ago received a standing ovation after being awarded the Oscar for Best Director. 

But as with all things in the world of the water-carrying entertainment media, you have to take a closer between the water-carrying. In Masters’ attempt to tell us Hollywood might not be all that bad, take a gander at the list of brave souls who dared speak out against the fugitive director:

• A film executive
• A top studio executive
• A prominent agent
• A producer,
• A Hollywood player
• One producer

Nowhere in this article is a single executive, player or agent named. Not one.

If indeed the tide of public opinion is turning against Polanski in what Masters describes as “much of Hollywood,” there shouldn’t be a need for Deep Throating. Unless Masters has permission but still chose not to print their names for some inexplicable reason, you have to assume that a bunch of entertainment big shots are worried about having their names tied to being critical of Polanski. It’s also fair to wonder why Masters couldn’t find, or didn’t bother to name, a single Hollywoodist willing to go on the record — willing to go out on a limb to state that a fugitive child rapist should be brought to justice.

Obvious questions lead to an obvious conclusion: publicly speaking out against Polanksi is not a smart career move.

That’s the real story here. But to find it you have to be skeptical and curious and willing to read between your own lines… and want to tell it.

Masters, however, does deserve credit for including this killer quote:

Having said that, the executive adds, “I’d work with him in a heartbeat. I think he’s a great filmmaker.”

That’s the real state of Polanski’s Hollywood tide.

As always, the fact that the fawning interviewer hardly appears to blink at this comment — much less follow up on it — is just as revealing as the comment itself: [emphasis mine]

Cinematical: How did you first conceive of the story?

Joe Carnahan: [SPOILER ALERT] Tom Berenger’s character is very much a right-wing conservative white male, and that’s where it started for P.J. and I. I told my own father, who’s politically-minded in that same way, “Dad, you’re the most dangerous thing on the political landscape because you’re a sixty-year-old white conservative,” and that’s more terrifying than any jihadist. But if you took one of these guys, and you gave them the strength of their convictions to become a jihadist… that, to me, was fun. That was Smokin’ Aces territory. P.J. and I gelled behind that very quickly. [END SPOILERS]

And after that outrageous statement, what’s the follow-up question from our crack team at Cinematical?

You used to have a great blog. What happened to SmokinJoeCarnahan.com?

Well, you have to keep in mind that in Leftist Hollywood comparing 100 million or so Americans to terrorists is what-you-call a resume enhancer. (If you just say that about the Marines, it’s called “Avatar.”)

Now, had Carnahan said jihadists are more terrifying than white conservatives, the CAIR Apology Tour would be well underway.