How Cancel Culture Stopped Working
TW: Sexual Assault
On February 28th, France hosted its annual Cesar Awards, honoring the very best in French cinema of that year. The night of celebration ended in clashes with the police, rioting, and several walkout protests from prominent actresses. This situation was due to the award’s recognition of Roman Polanski for Best Director.
In 1977, Roman Polanski pled guilty to drugging and raping then 13-year-old Samantha Geimer. Despite being convicted of statutory rape, Polanski fled to Paris to escape extradition and remained there ever since. Polanski has continued making films, even winning an Academy Award in 2002 for The Pianist, despite being unable to attend the ceremony due to his criminal status. However, this was all before the #MeToo era and the subsequent movement of ostracizing sexual criminals from the industry. So why is it that Roman Polanski was still awarded Best Director, despite the progress of the movement?
Ever since the pinnacle of the #MeToo movement, in which members of the film industry disclosed cases of sexual harassment and assault in Hollywood, social media has refused to separate the “art from the artist,” promoting the notion of cancel culture. Cancel culture hopes to call out celebrities for actions viewed as problematic and hold them and their careers accountable. However, common perceptions of “call-out” or cancel culture have not exactly been positive. Comedians such as Dave Chappelle have viewed cancel culture as destroying what makes comedy “comedy,” blaming the internet for viewing his jokes as problematic.
Choosing to personify cancel culture as a form of attacking comedians for simply making offensive jokes is increasingly harmful to the movement as a whole. Cancel culture originated in calling out those in Hollywood who abused their power in the industry, elevating the voices of victims to come forward and detail their experiences. The case of Harvey Weinstein, a powerful film executive accused of sexual assault, was one that came out of this conception of cancel culture. Through the acknowledgment of the victim’s stories, the internet and the media were able to hold men like Weinstein accountable for their actions, creating a culture of what is acceptable behavior and what is not.
However, the notion that cancel culture is the essential factor for the careers of disgraced Hollywood men is proving to be incorrect. Despite his admission of sexually harassing women who worked for him, comedian Louis C.K. has not seemingly been affected by the current ideas of cancel culture. After performing surprise stand-up shows and receiving a standing ovation of approval for them, the comedian decided that he was going to go back on tour. Just last November, the NYTimes released an article detailing Louis C.K.'s new comedy shows, with the headline “Louis C.K., Back on Tour, Looks to Accelerate His Comeback.” Even though Louis C.K. willingly admitted that the accusations against him were true, his career was no more affected than Polanski’s was.
There is an idea surrounding cancel culture that it is a “mob-like” mentality, which leads to the destruction of careers, such as Kevin Hart’s removal as the 2019 Oscar host after past homophobic tweets of his resurfaced. While the tweets slightly damaged Hart’s career, he ultimately recovered, issuing an apology and continued to star in blockbusters. However, the situation with Hart led to a new perception of cancel culture. People began to see it as a negative thing instead of something that called the hypocrisy of Hollywood into question. The media viewed Twitter activism as agitating and provoking the ‘downfall” of the careers of long-respected artists, despite there being no evidence to support that. Common perceptions of cancel culture have removed it from its original intentions: holding figures in power accountable for their actions. Instead, it turned it into something negative to fear.
While the common media space may have accepted that cancel culture should demand repercussions, it seems as if the industry has not. Louis C.K. is still allowed to perform, with the NYTimes’ approval, and Polanski is still able to receive funding for his films as well as win accolades for them. The recent sentencing and conviction of Harvey Weinstein may have been a step in the right direction but the film industry does not seem to be ready to bring just everyone accountable. The common perception of cancel culture, especially its widespread influence on the internet, has become corrupted. In the words of Dave Chappelle, “celebrity hunting season” has created fear in the industry.
Polanski’s best director award is proof that cancel culture is not functioning correctly within our discourse. The notion of “separating the art from the artist” is one that rang strong after his award, one that he again was not there to receive. When asked about the situation at the Cesar Awards, presenter and actress Isabelle Huppert noted that “Lynching is a form of pornography.”
The media around cancel culture has turned it into a sensationalized angry mob. Through social media, the act of seeking justice can often be conflated with notions of “manhunts,” due to the instant accessibility of information. Huppert’s comments do not condemn Polanski but instead the people who wish to hold him accountable. The calls for his arrest on social media are seen as disruptive “lynching,” only benefiting those who tweet for his arrest, instead of calls to action to bring a known criminal to justice. The connotation around cancel culture has moved from something positive to something negative, putting the blame on those who participate in call-out culture instead of those who are being called out.
Despite Polanski’s admission of guilt and subsequent departure to Europe, he has still not been “canceled” by the industry. Polanski is venerated for his films despite his crimes as a person. While cancel culture motivated protestors outside the theatre and those on the internet to speak out about Polanski’s past, the Cesar Awards were unwilling to cancel him.
Cancel culture might ring fear and “hunting” in the ears of those in the film industry, but its repercussions may be as meaningful as a myth.
