I'm not defending Kate Winslet at all but sometimes I feel like she gets more approbation for working with a child rapist than Polanski does for actually being one, and I hate how male actors are practically never called out or asked about it.
This. There were a hell of a lot of people working with him. Men. Women. Fathers, brothers, uncles and cousins of oher 13 year old girls, who were happy to work with him anyway. If KW has rejected the invitation, what difference would it have made when no-one else was refusing? She would have been easily replaced with another actress.
I don't relish saying this, because I think it's poor taste to speculate about people's personal lives, but it's worth remembering that in general 1 in 4 women has been sexually assaulted. Kate Winslet didn't just step onto the international stage, ready-formed as a powerful, mature actor, ready to say yay or nay. She worked to get there from childhood through her teens and as young woman; in fact, her first TV role was at seven, according to the internet.
I wonder what proportion of women working in film and TV have been sexually assaulted, hmm? I think 1 in 4 would be a bit low, tbh. Have you ever noticed how many women only realise in their 30s/40s/50s that they were sexually assaulted years ago, and that it actually wasn't their own fault? I've seen a fair few threads on here from women rethinking their whole perspective on sexual assault they suffered and the sexual assaults that went on around them.
She should have turned RP down. But so should everybody else. They didn't. For some reason, people in the US film industry don't seem to find anal rape of a drugged 13 year old very alarming. Don't you think that speaks to the culture of what happens?
Isn't it odd how many former child-stars develop substance abuse issues in adult life?