And please in no way should this be interpreted as a defense of the performance. Just because I'm not necessarily attributing it to racism does not mean I support it. I could never support anything so painfully unfunny.
Apologies for the typos. I'm using my phone which automatically completes some words and doesn't always get them right. Also, I accidentally upvoted myself when trying to hit reply, so please reduce my comment's perceived approval by one.
I think it might be gentle comedy all in good fun. Considering that minstrel shows, the dominate form which Americans associate with blackface, were primarily meant to ridicule black people in general and were a singularly American entertainment genre, it is natural that we are prone to interpret any use of blackface as offensive and insulting. It strikes me that in other cultures, even those as similar to ours as Australia, with it's own racial issues, the use of blackface could be seen as merely a form of costume. Especially in the context of a specific parody of a known entertainment property like the Jackson Five. Certainly a part of the parody is racial, and it is indelicate to be sure, but to a less racially sensitive audience, there is no reason to assume it is more inherently offensive than any other broad stereotype-based comedy, including those we would be less likely to be outraged by. Just thinking out loud here.
My diamond shoes fit perfectly. Really, why would even bother with diamond shoes unless I had a decent cobbler? Also, I'll bet The View and Judge Judy are really going to eat into that fellow's rat killing schedule.
I have no problem imagining that conversation happening in Lexington, KY. It really wasn't that impressive of a conversation. I don't mean to pick on you, but perhaps your experience is too limited.
You do realize that babies are just little, young versions of people. You can't anthropomorphize something that is already human. The baby-is-talking fantasy is still creepy though.
Here is the House Republican plan released in June:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/GOPHealthPlan_061709.pdf
There are other unofficial Republican and libertarian plans, like those proposed by Gingrich's organization and the Cato Institute:
http://www.healthtransformation.net/
http://healthcare.cato.org/
Just so you know, I was assigned this new number when I transferred to Information Retrieval.
Sigh... I am so disappointed in Terry Gilliam right now, I might have to abandon this username altogether.
The news outlets are using accurate terms, but, without providing context, those terms often serve to obscure the truth. The Guardian could have spared a paragraph to explain that Polanski drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl. They had plenty of room for apologetics.
Fair point. In fact, almost all of the directors listed here are not "Hollywood" types at all, and many of them aren't even American. Still, it's a disgusting display, and my joke about it doesn't really work without a catch-all term to describe the industry.
Say what you will about Brett Ratner, but he cares enough about authenticity to fly in a tree from upstate New York for the 75 pound paraplegic surrogate to hand from during sex in his most personal film. More personal than Rush Hour 2, even.
I don't know where you are getting your irrefutable information, but here is an excerpt from the Washington Post:
A 90-Day Psychiatric Study for Roman Polanski
Originally published in The Washington Post, September 20, 1977
Movie director Roman Polanski, who had pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl, yesterday was ordered imprisoned for a 90-day psychiatric study to help the judge decide his sentence.
Polanski had contracted to photograph the girl for a French fashion magazine. Prosecutors said he took her to the home of actor Jack Nicholson while Nicholson was away, fed her champagne and Quaaludes, then committed numerous sex acts with her.
The probation report indicated that she consented. The judge said it made no difference.
The technical effect of the judge's decision will be for Polanski to spend some time in prison without having the record of a prison sentence against him unless he is eventually placed behind bars under a formal sentence.
Among the problems Polanski faces is possible deportation. However, the law provides automatic deportation only for those convicted of crimes of moral turpitude who are sentenced to one year or more in prison.
Also, are you unclear on the term "evaluation"? That is not a punishment. That is a prelude. The evaluation was meant to help the judge decide his sentence. You are clearly less informed than you think you are.
I'm no stranger to unpopular opinions here, and I appreciate your willingness to put yourself out there. Still, you are now the one oversimplifying the situation. The US Justice System's mechanisms are not synonymous with justice, and, even if they were, Polanski didn't fight the system, he ran away. Anyway, Polanski's return may not result in any "justice", but it will serve some much needed justice.
Comments