... such utter scumbags capable of stooping so low as to become child molesters and other serious criminals and nasty beings, why can't they remain generally normal and good and not turn despicable given their fame and money? What is the secret and mystery (or if none, truth) behind it all, thanks.
shareI think part of it is that scumbags are everywhere, a certain percentage of the population will be nasty like that, so the fact that we find them amongst the geniuses and the wealthy is not surprising.
I also think that money and power unleash bestial attributes otherwise constrained by the Hobbse-ian nature of society. It's like booze; it'll release inhibitions. Imagine being immersed in a world where rules don't apply to you. It's easy to imagine that getting to a person's head and, once they've been in "self-land" long enough, they start to act entirely selfishly.
Then again, there are certain horrible traits that make climbing social, political, and economic strata easier. If backstabbing and pulling no punches while faking niceness nets one movie deals, well, I think it's likely that psychopaths would thrive there. Narcissism also could be a kind of strange asset in Hollywood (or Washington). Once those people are making buckets of money for other powerful people, they won't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, even if they wouldn't have put up with that bad behaviour before the fame kicked in.
Finally, I think outlying traits might group together. Not always, it's not a rule, but we see so many geniuses plagued by mental health problems that it's possible that there's a correlation between having a massive creative talent and having a warped mind.
Speaking to Polanski specifically, I think a variety of factors influence his reprehensible actions. My personal theory is that, after the murder of his wife, he sought out (subconsciously or not) "relationships" in which he had tremendous amounts of control as a way of his inner-mind soothing himself, telling himself that if he had control, then nothing bad would happen to him again. We also have to consider the zeitgeist. The time period was "free love", Hollywood was sex and "do as you please", and Roman himself was old enough to remember a time when "grown up" happened a lot sooner. And we should also think about his cultural background; Europe has different attitudes and laws here.
Does this excuse it? No. Is he vile for doing such a thing? Yes. But I don't think he's necessarily warped, just a product of a number of factors that, as an aggregate, lead him to doing something reprehensible and evil.
Cheers a lot for the reply. But if that's alright, I would also like to ask or reply to points you've made :
"I think part of it is that scumbags are everywhere, a certain percentage of the population will be nasty like that, so the fact that we find them amongst the geniuses and the wealthy is not surprising."
True, and I suppose fame, money and talent does NOT dull such traits in individuals and make them instead worry that they may lose it all were they to give into temptation of evil deeds?
"I also think that money and power unleash bestial attributes otherwise constrained by the Hobbse-ian nature of society. It's like booze; it'll release inhibitions. Imagine being immersed in a world where rules don't apply to you. It's easy to imagine that getting to a person's head and, once they've been in "self-land" long enough, they start to act entirely selfishly."
But what about plenty of rich and powerful people who DON'T do things like that, are they not hardwired to somehow do so, were they raised better etc?
" Europe has different attitudes and laws here."
You mean, different to America today? Did they also have different attitudes, and wasn't child molestation always a heinous crime?
My pleasure! I'm here for the conversation.
Yeah, I think if anything fame and money exacerbates that kind of thing. They probably start to feel invincible. A lot of them would be so surrounded by sycophants that they would lose perspective. And maybe something minor happens, like they get out of a speeding ticket because the cop loves their movies, and they start to get conditioned to getting off the hook.
Metoo was positive for that, I think, in terms of its holding people's feet to the fire and not letting them get away with misdeeds. It had negatives, too - no nuance between levels of severity of bad behaviour for example - but that was a positive.
The second question is complex. I think, basically, some people give in to that sort of thing and some don't. That's genetics, upbringing, social environment, and so forth. If the confluence of all these traits, and personal histories, and social environments comes together, we see who they really are. Money, I think amplifies these things. So, if a wonderful person with a solid support network, a real grounding in who they are, and a great moral compass gets access to money, they probably use it for charity and world travel and things. If somebody who was basically selfish, or even just who doesn't think things over too much (they're running on id, so to speak) gets money, they amplify that selfish behaviour, or nasty behaviour.
Child molestation is always considered a heinous crime, but different societies have different perspectives on "child". In 1400s Europe, people were getting married at 13-16, so that's not taboo or "gross". Because of harsher life, people were probably growing up faster, too.
I'm not sure of the individual laws of each country in Europe, plus America, especially not over the course of history. But my understanding is that European societies are more lax with sex generally, so having sex at a younger age isn't frowned upon.