I've never been a fan of real-life heroes--and there's a reason why. In the past month, sex scandals have engulfed two men whose work I've otherwise respected: James Franco and Bryan Singer.
I've always liked James Franco--despite the fact that he was once in a longtime relationship with Marla Sokoloff, whom I really liked. Apparently he never had sex with Lindsay Lohan. He never smoked weed with Seth Rogen (and smoking weed with Seth Rogen seems to be a prerequisite to being Seth Rogen's friend). He is genuinely committed to art and education, as pretentious as that might sometime seem. He doesn't broadcast his sleazy behavior, and despite the fact that he always seems to be squinting, he seems like a good guy and not a Hollywood douche. This non-doucheness has taken a hit with his attempts last night to seduce an almost 18-year-old tourist who was just excited to meet James Franco.
Since then, there has been a full-court press from him to try to make light of it--he doesn't want to seem to be running from it, and that's smart. He went on Live... and SNL to talk about it--"Aren't I wacky? Isn't the Internet wacky? I'm James Franco!" Legally, he might be in the clear, certainly. It's legal in New York state for a man in his mid-30s to have sex with a 17-year-old. (Franco was born and raised in California.) There is a long, should be more shameful history of celebrities having sex with 17-year-olds--Wilmer Valderama, Woody Allen, Jerry Seinfeld. Certainly a precedence for doing it and escaping scrutiny. Morally, however, it raises the question of how young is too young for James Franco? Where does he draw the line?
Then there's the theory that this incident was done to promote his forthcoming indie with Emma Roberts, where he plays a gym teacher who enters into an inappropriate relationship with a 14-year-old. Appearing to be a shorteyes does not seem to be a good strategy for promotion of a single film, even for a man accustomed to such erraticism in the name of art.
The most realistic explanation was that Franco tried to get with a barely legal girl, and he overestimated how enamored she was with him. She was a fan--but not so much a fan for that. (How much has this worked in the past for him? Normally The Franco gets what he wants.) This girl really just liked his work; she probably grew up watching his movies. Her parents raised her not to have hook-ups with inappropriately older guys--and it's easy to forget how much older Franco really is compared to a teenager. (There's also the issue as to what he would've done if she'd said "sure." I think we can all imagine what he would've done.)
The case against Bryan Singer is much worse--not because he's gay, but because of the sordid nature of the allegations and the allegations of actual sexual contact, not just intended contact. Still, it seems not to be a coincidence that these allegations are surfacing right before the statute of limitations would expire and in the weeks before the biggest movie of Singer's career opens and the premiere of his show Black Box. It seems that, regardless of the truth, the accuser is attempting to maximize any legal settlement. Really, if Singer had been accused of this during last year's Jack the Giant Slayer, rape would've been the second worst thing he was capable of.
Singer has taken the exact opposite tact: He is avoiding unnecessary contact with the press. As a gay man, he must be especially sensitive about allegations that he's also a pervert. The American people have come a long way in accepting homosexuality as normal since the '90s. Time will tell if more men come forward, which will be the best indication as to whether the charges of the Hollywood gay sex parties leading to rape are true. If these allegations are true, I will be reluctant to watch further Bryan Singer movies, not that I wouldn't appreciate the memories that his work has given me in the past.
No comments:
Post a Comment