Roman Polanski and Hollywood: Boycott Revenge

Roman Polanski’s arrest in Switzerland as US authorities seek to extradite him back to California to serve his sentence on child rape charges has outraged Hollywood. Not at the rape of a thirteen year old girl. Or justice evaded and thus denied. No, the Hollywood Luminaries are outraged that “a man of Polanski’s talent” is sitting in a jail cell. The full list, including Harrison Ford, Natalie Portman, Mike Nichols, Jeremy Irons, Neil Jordan, and others, is here. Harvey Weinstein notes that Hollywood has the best moral compass because of its compassion and fundraising efforts. As blogger Patterico (real name Patrick Frey, an LA Assistant District Attorney) notes, this claim has not gone unchallenged. This is par for the course, from polygamy friendly Big Love to excuses for Polanski’s sexual relationship with then 15-year old Natassia Kinsky, Hollywood is a different place. One alien to most Americans, who don’t think the rape and sodomy of a thirteen year old is acceptable, just because the perpetrator is “cool” and is believed talented by “important people in Hollywood.”

But the audience has a choice. A boycott. Of notable names of the signers and just as importantly, their employers. Among them, Wes Anderson, who is one of the prominent signers of the “Free Roman Polanski” petition. Writer-Director Anderson, has a children’s movie, The Fantastic Mr. Fox being released in November by Fox Animation Studios.

For those who find Hollywood’s endorsement of child rape outrageous, from Whoopi Goldberg’s “it’s not rape-rape” comment on the View to the Huffington Post advocacy for Polanski to Hollywood Elsewhere’s David Wells fawning advocacy for Polanski, there is a weapon at hand.


Specifically, a boycott of any movie, television show, or production involving the signers. Just as importantly, send a letter to the studios which financed and released the projects detailing just why you as a consumer will not patronize firms advocating or employing advocates for child rape. Studios not only need to know they won’t be getting your money, they need to know why. Which is that they endorsed (by employing Anderson and Huston) child rape.

In this spirit, I strongly advocate that those outraged by this fawning advocacy for Polanski not see “The Fantastic Mr. Fox” and write to Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp at the following address detailing (politely) why you will not be seeing their film “The Fantastic Mr. Fox” given its director (and star Anjelica Huston) signed a petition advocating the release of a convicted child rapist. Even better, would be for those outraged to add their boycott of the company’s future projects given its moral failings so outrageous that it shocks the conscience of all decent people. The full mailing address is below:

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp
Mail: P.O. Box 900,
Beverly Hills, California 90213

Phone: 310-277-2211
Fax: 310-203-1558

The primary Press Contact is:

Chris Petrikin
SVP of Corporate Communications
Phone: 310-369-4781
Fax: 310-369-8825

Money is not rolling into Hollywood coffers anymore. Studios cannot afford to alienate customers. A boycott making “The Fantastic Mr. Fox” a gigantic bomb, and Wes Anderson box office poison, would at least put the fear of the audience into Hollywood. They’ve certainly lost the fear of anything else.

A later post will detail just why Hollywood’s elite became so deranged, debauched, and debased, but at least the economic downturn gives the audience its revenge. Boycott.

About whiskeysplace

Conservative blogger focusing on culture, business, technology, and how they intersect.
This entry was posted in boycott, culture, degeneracy, hollywood, more, polanski. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Roman Polanski and Hollywood: Boycott Revenge

  1. Anonymous says:

    Damn it! Roissy's right again, Alphas can get away with anything. Women defending a pedophile to boot.I guess if Hitler was a foot taller, a bit blonder, less Jewish looking, less homosexual and was actually banging women, the world would be a different place today.

  2. ganttsquarry says:

    I agree completely with your sentiments Whiskey. However, I'm not sure the boycott route is worthwhile. When they fail, which most of them do, it only helps to embolden the target. "Surviving" a boycott strengthens not weakens.I seem to remember religious conservatives calling for a boycott of Disney several years back. That didn't go anywhere and only helped make the boycotters look impotent.This isn't to say I am for saying or doing nothing. Basically I'm for everything short of a boycott. Letters, phonecalls, public shaming, you name it.

  3. ganttsquarry says:

    Oh and I wouldn't see the movie either. A personal boycott of sorts is fine.I'm talking about an organized public boycott.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Seriously Jews will defend their own no matter how egregious the crime.I guess pedophilia with a goyim doesn't count.

  5. Anonymous says:

    How perfectly this highlights the oligarchic ambitions of America's elites.They find democracy repulsive precisely because they have a complete and utter lack of compassion and empathy, no matter how much they circlejerk about their fundraisers for kids with Lou Gehrig's disease or whatever.That is the only way they can relate to plebs, mere mortals, the lumpenproletariat. Not by acknowledging that someone with less status or money has the same rights as even the most famous and rich person on the planet, but by condescending this or that group and then ramming their own solutions down their throat (Oh we should donate money to those poor people in Africa. What's that? Former aid organization workers and African intellectuals argue that it only helps the various dictators there? Oh well they aren't Bono so what the hell do they know?)"Should we, the rich and famous not be above laws designed for mortals? Should we not be kings among men?" seem to be the questions that Hollywood stars are asking themselves. How unfortunate for them then that they are truly the most expendable of elites who command no real power and who can be, if necessary, discarded as easily as one would take off his gloves.

  6. Anonymous says:

    David Heyman, the producer and driving force behind the Harry Potter franchise, signed too. Vile.

  7. hg says:

    BTW, Jezebel also posted on celebrities who have had the balls to speak out against Polanski here The list is shortAnd relax anon, I don't think "women" are defending Polanski. Hollywood women, like their male counterparts, are – it's basically Hollywood vs. everyone else. If you look at women's sites like the one I linked to above, the comments there are united in rage against him.

  8. Jamaicafest says:

    Those who are defending Polanski are terribly misguided.

  9. Truth says:

    The way to end Hollywood is to make file-sharing legal, or, barring that, to make file-sharing impossible to prosecute.If Republicans will get off their asses about "property rights", then Hollywood could go away in five years or less.

  10. Anonymous says:

    I think that the girl's age is muddling the debate. People hear "he raped a 13 year old girl" and think, "oh, he had sex with a 13 year old girl and they're calling it rape".The age is making people think it was statutory rape when it was, in fact, "rape-rape". I don't think that his Hollywood support is due to this, but it certainly dulls the outrage of the ignorant public.

  11. The rape actually took place at the home of Jack Nicholson and Angelica Houston.

  12. TGGP says:

    I've been indiscriminately boycotting for years, but mostly because their output is of low quality.I don't think Big Love is a good example. For one thing, it's a fictional portrayal rather than an actual act. My guess is that most people in Hollywood didn't have second thoughts about the raid on the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, because such folks fit in the wrong category for acceptable deviance. In a certain sense their practice is bourgeois traditionalist rather than exciting Hollywood stuff.There is one plausible argument on Polanski's behalf: his victim apparently filed suit trying to block the case because she's forgiven him now or something. The way our current system of justice works felonies are crimes against the State (which is why there can be victimless crimes) and so she doesn't really have a say, but I think a reasonable case can be made for giving victims a veto. Years ago, all crimes were basically torts, and victims (or their family) paid for both the investigation of the crime and acted as prosecutors in courts. Kings gradually seized more areas of criminal law for themselves, added more professional bureaucrats, and eventually we got where we are today. The history and case against those kinds of changes is made in Bruce Benson's "The Enterprise of Law".

  13. Perfect case of prosecuting the person rather than the crime. As others have said, if this was some nobody or an average middle class single white dude, Americans would be out for his blood. I am really disgusted with people who are defending this guy's actions. Raping a 13 year old girl as a 30something man is inexcusable no matter who is doing it.

  14. Whiskey says:

    Polanski was I believe at the time of the rape 44 years old.

  15. The FLDS women are fugly. Nobody in Hollywood wants to think about them.

  16. Anonymous says:

    None of the evils which have befallen Polanski and which are claimed as substitutes for punishment for his rape of a child, namely his suffering in WW2 (great though it was) and his oppression by communism, occurred *after* the rape. I know of no legal or moral principle which allows criminals to serve time in advance of the crime.

  17. TGGP says:

    Anonymous October 4, did you see the movie Double Jeopardy? That depicts a woman who serves a sentence for murdering her husband. Except he isn't dead, and so she kills him after she gets out, and of course can't serve two sentences for murdering one person!

  18. kurt9 says:

    It has occurred to me that Robin Williams ought to be able to come up with a good comedy routine based on Goldberg's "its not rape-rape" comment.

  19. Cassandra Goldman says:

    I thought you might like to know that I linked you.

  20. SF says:

    "The age is making people think it was statutory rape when it was, in fact, "rape-rape"." Anonymous, this is BS. It was consensual. Imagine for a moment that the girl was of age. She consensually went to the house alone. She consensually got nude in the hot tub. She consensually drank and did drugs with him. There were no witnesses as to what happened next. Do you think any DA would bother to prosecute this case as forcible rape? The DA in this case was happy to make the deal and limit the charges to stat rape. I'm not defending Polanski. Sex with a 13 year old is a serious matter. But punish him for what he did, not for what Nancy Grace wants us to think he did.

  21. Nice blog with really a blog For free online Dating Services / Online Dating site for singles.

  22. Anonymous says:

    At the first commenter: Hitler was alpha. The reason he became so powerful was because the weaklings in charge admired him and tried to appease him. Its no different today. The same weak people run government and they are still obsessed with alphas. Hence the fascination some politicians have with Castro and other dictators. They worship power.

Comments are closed.