With the Roman Polanski case getting a thorough re-airing, some of his Hollywood defenders have latched onto the fact that the 13 year old victim's mother gave permission for her to do a photo shoot with Polanski. Seeing a once-in-a-lifetime chance for her daughter to break into showbiz via a Celebrated Director, mom said yes. This initial approval clearly meant that her subsequent drugging, rape and sodomy were also A-OK with mom, according to Polanski apologists. Motherhood FAIL, they cluck.
Well at least his victim, Samantha Geimer, didn't have Brooke Shields' mom during the golden age of Hollywood debauchery in the mid-1970's:

Cropped: It's not Child Porn-Porn...
A display due to go on show to the public at Tate Modern tomorrow has been withdrawn after a warning from Scotland Yard that the naked image of actor Brooke Shields aged 10 and heavily made up could break obscenity laws.
The work, by American artist Richard Prince and entitled "Spiritual America", was due to be part of the London gallery's new Pop Life exhibition. It has been removed from display after a visit to Tate Modern by officers from the obscene publications unit of the Metropolitan police.
...
"Spiritual America" is a photograph of a photograph. The original – authorised by Shields's mother for $450 – had been taken by a commercial photographer, Gary Gross, for the Playboy publication Sugar 'n' Spice in 1976. Shields later attempted, unsuccessfully, to suppress the picture.
The Guardian's art critic comments on the (now removed) exhibition:
If "Spiritual America" is a comment on the commodification and premature sexualisation of Brooke Shields, who was complicit in turning her into a 10-year-old sex object? Not Prince. That had happened almost a decade before he re-used the image.
There is something horrible about the photo. I feel uncomfortable.
Ummmm, no shit.
So, of course, expect the very same depraved defenders of Polanski's Art to come out swinging against this heavy-handed, benighted censorship:
As Polanski's brutal seduction of a young girl is overridden, even negated, by his supposed status as a great artist, so the provocatively sexual picture of a minor will doubtless be celebrated, even more enthusiastically now that it has been removed, on the bogus grounds that it constitutes art.
It is as though art and artists occupy a different moral sphere to the rest of us.
...
Indeed, if a paedophile were caught downloading the very same picture he would almost certainly be in serious trouble.
And with that, no link to these easily-googlable pics from here. I'll leave it to your own judgment whether your morbid curiosity outweighs the risk of a) having child porn on your computer and b) the nausea of experiencing this Grade-A Polanski Art.
Recent Comments