Customer Reviews

Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This documentary by Steven Soderbergh was fascinating and I learned quite a bit about Roman Polanski that I never knew because I hadn't followed his case that closely. I didn't know he was a Holocaust survivor and had lost his parents to the camps. I did know that his wife Sharon Tate was brutally murdered by the freakish Manson clan. And I imagine that all those hideous and traumatic incidents left a terrible and indelible mark on his psyche. But does this somehow justify drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl?

The production is far too sympathetic toward Polanski. Yes, it appears he had a judge who was obsessed with celebrities and his own fame and publicity. Yes, it looks as though his sentence was unfair, but even the original proposal to incarcerate Polanski for 90 days for a diagnostic was absurd. 90 days for taking a pubescent girl and giving her Quaaludes and sodomizing her? Please? What century are we living in?

Although the girl who was molested appeared on the show and spoke as an adult, I got the distinct impression that the message was "poor Roman", not "poor 13-year-old girl." At one point her prior sexual history was even mentioned -- disgraceful -- yet she clearly said that she had said *no* to him. Even if she had said *yes* and begged him to have sex with her, at 13, she didn't have the mental or legal ability to give consent.

The whole situation is very sad. If only Polanski had served out his time properly in the US, some of this would be behind him and perhaps he could have continued to be a wonderful director. People are complicated. Just because he committed a heinous act doesn't mean that he doesn't have redeeming qualities. He is brilliant and the French realize this. But one problem I had with the documentary is that it's not either or -- it's not that he is wanted in America and desired in Europe where he has won awards, so the Americans are wrong and prudish. It's that he has complex human traits that make him phenomenal in some respects and ugly in others.

This is a crisp, well-structured documentary which brings together most of the principal facts and figures in Polanski's 1977-1978 unlawful sexual intercourse trial.

Two are missing from the scene -- Polanski himself and Judge Laurence Rittenband, who presided over the case -- and they're the most important and, among followers of the situation, the most divisive.

The filmmakers have a clear respect for Polanski the artist, but they make two points painfully clear: That, in 1977, he gave a 13-year-old girl Quaaludes and champagne before having sex with her; and that the case was poorly (in some cases illegally) handled by Rittenband, who was eventually removed from the case.

Rittenband is dead and Polanski fled to France rather than face his judge's increasingly sketchy demands but most of the principals are here, particularly defense attorney Douglas Dalton, former assistant D.A. Roger Gunson and the victim herself, Samantha Geimer, who's now in her mid-40s, a mother of three children and seems ready to put the whole matter to rest.

The account is fascinating, and artfully punctuated by scenes from Polanski's films, particularly those he appeared in including "Chinatown," "The Tenant" and "The Fat and the Lean," which was made a decade-and-a-half before the trouble but which features Polanski dancing on cue to a drum beaten by a man who, ironically, bears no small resemblance to Rittenband himself.

I never like to assume that I'm an expert on a situation simply after seeing one documentary about it, but it's a persuasive argument when a Mormon district attorney sides with a sex offender and his defense lawyer against a judge. That's pretty convincing evidence this movie is spouting something close to the truth.

Excellent documentary, well researched, giving an unbiased and full account of the Polanski case. Excellent testimony of his lawyer who plainly told him that he could not expect a fair treatment from judge Rittenband.

Asking that question above do you think the sycophantic sympathy of the documentary makers and most of the reviews on here would have given him any slack? Please they would have sharpened the knives and stood inline for days to get in a whack. The most sickening thing about this is the way statute of limitations has been used to excuse or defend Polanski by his admirers, you could use those excuses with a lot of RC Priests undeservingly if you wanted to be a first class hypocrite of the worst sort. After the revealing of log standing sexual abuse by Allison Arngrim and Corey Feldman after Corey Haim's suicide. After Martin Weiss has been charged in LA for sexual abuse, after Fernando Rivas of Sesame street was charged with sexual abuse and child pornography and finally registered sex offender Jason James Murphy worked as a casting agent for years before his past kidnapping and sexual abuse. So where is the outrage and investigation of Hollywood on the scale of the priesthood? Is there any doubt that pop cultures fans and the media are looking the other way and ignoring a scandal the way certain RC Bishops did, merely because they share the same political beliefs? It needs to be aired out because Hollywood is the most corrupt and greedy hypocrites that ever exihisted and have the gall to preach to everyone else.

There is an audio commentary by director Marina Zenovich and editor Joe Bini. She says that it took five years to get the film made: two to get financing and three to actually do it. She also talks about the challenge of merging Polanski's life and the court case. Zenovich points out that it was hard getting archival footage from the 1970s because much of it had been either taped over or lost. Bini talks a lot about the structure of the doc. - for example, where should they start the story? This quite a chatty track as Zenovich and Bini talk about how they put this film together.

Also included are five deleted scenes that feature the current L.A. District Attorney and his thoughts on Judge Rittenband. Prosecutor Roger Gunson returns to Rittenband's old courtroom. He also shares some of his memories of the case.

There are "Extra Interviews" with various attorneys talking about the case then and now, including the possibility that Polanski may come back to the U.S. They also discuss the possibility that he might be pardoned.

"Friends and Colleagues Talk about Polanski" feature several childhood friends and people who have worked with Polanski on films in the past. They talk about his rough upbringing during World War II and his time spent in film school in Poland. They take us through various periods in his life. Naturally, Mia Farrow talks about making Rosemary's Baby and speaks fondly of working with Polanski.

"Writers of Polanski" features three journalists talking about Polanski, the man and his career.

Finally, there is "Will He Ever Come Back?", a question posed to various people in the doc. Not surprisingly they almost all say no for a variety of reasons.

A documentary which reopens the controversial and complex case of director Roman Polanski's public conviction for having unlawful sex with a minor some 30 years ago. The young girl,Samantha Gernier,was 13 at the time.Polanski at the time told her mother he wanted to shoot pictures of her for a French magazine.Her mother allowed Samantha to go off with Polanski to Jack Nicholson's house in Mulholland Drive.Instead,after shooting pictures he gave her champagne and a piece of Quaalude (hypnotic) and he took advantage of her.Because of the drug he sodomised and raped her. "He wouldn't take no for an answer...it was scary and very creepy".Samantha and her mother didn't want Polanski to be sentenced.Due to the effect of publicity and the girl's desire for anonymity, charges were later reduced under a plea bargain agreement to a mere `unlawful intercourse with an underage girl'.The judge had turned the case into a circus and reneged on the deal and Polanski, fearing 50 years in jail, fled to France.He had undergone a 42 day psychiatric assessment in custody and was not thought to be a mentally disordered offender.His past experiences,the traumatic loss of his parents under the Nazis and the murder of his wife,even his brilliance as a film director, should not place him above the law,even though he's married with 2 children.Gernier is married with 3 children.

In the film there is an interesting interview over dinner with Clive James.James implies Polanski seems to like surrounding himself with young ladies.Following what has happened to him he should lie low and stay out of site. Polanski disagrees.Polanski says the girl`consented',but James says even if so she was underage.Polanski asks James, almost disappointingly,"is that all you think my life comes to...young ladies"?James suggests he may have a predilection for very young girls and he reacts with amusement: Yes I like beautiful young women,who doesn't?But we also know that the photograph taken of him in Europe with a young woman at a beerfest was used against him. There is a sense that Polanski got the American mind-set very wrong,badly judged American laws,got off too easily(flitting from country to country)and now needs to have this matter put to rest once and for all.We now know Switzerland will not extradite him.


Polanski's life was as weird and eerie as any of his films.The loss of his parents to the Nazis.The way the brilliant Rosemary's Baby seemed to prefigure a kind of bad karma that adhered to him when his young pregnant wife was murdered by Manson's crazed killers.His exploitation of a young girl who wanted to get into film acting, having unlawful sexual intercourse with her after plying her with drink and drugs.This happened after he'd made the fantastic Chinatown. The judge of the case was drawn to celebrity cases.He himself was in a relationship with a woman 30 years younger. He promised an out of court settlement, but gradually reneged on his deal, wanting to put Polanski away for a long time.The film brings out well the innuendoes that Polanski suffered on his wife's death, as if he'd personally got her murdered himself or through his life-style been partly responsible.He has a reckless streak that the press made too much of.He is probably ruthless but charming.Obviously he fled once he got wind of the Judge's manipulations.The Judge was retired from the case soon after.Polanski is probably more appreciated in Europe than in America.He has been told he can go back to America if he allows them to film the court hearing.He has refused this final request.I admire the genius of Rosemary's Baby,Chinatown and The Pianist,without admiring the man who made them.His latest film The Ghost is an ironic comment about his case,an ex PM (British),holed up in America, wanted at a war crimes tribunal in Europe.

I found the documentary interesting in that Polanski's victim also speaks regarding the 30 year old case that had Polanski fleeing from the US to escape his sentence from a judge he felt was "out to get him". Now it seems Polanski wasn't just being cowardly.

The history of Polanski's legal troubles have a lot more twists and turns than I was aware of before watching this film. As the teaser on the cover of the DVD says, "The truth couldn't fit in the headlines." But the way the filmmakers present it is really sloppy and confusing. I kept wanting to have some context for these events in Polanksi's life and career, but the film didn't present a clear chronology, especially at the beginning. And the things it left out were really mind-boggling. For example, an extended segment talks about his wife's murder: how it affected him, the press's coverage, etc. Yet it never explains that Tate was killed by the Manson family (although a brief allusion to this fact is made in passing later on in the film). Astounding. How could they leave out such a basic, elemental part of Polanski's story? It's like the filmmakers assume you already know all these things. But then why would you be watching this?

By far the most baffling, incomprehensible part of the film concerns one of the key events. After Polanski had undergone a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation, he went to Europe to begin work on a film with Dino De Laurentis. The final ruling in his case was to be delivered some weeks or months later; he was not in custody and therefore free to travel. While in Europe, he was photographed with a "girl" in a beer hall. The photo was shown to Rittenband, the judge in Polanksi's case. According to the film, Rittenband thought it was an outrage that Polanski would let himself be photographed with a "girl" in this way, as if he were flouting the court's jurisdiction over him. I use quotation marks because the "girl" in the photo appears, to me at least, to be a young woman, about 19 or 20. I don't believe that anybody would peremptorily mistake this young woman to be a minor of 16 or younger. Since she does appear to be on the young side, however, a zealous prosecutor or judge might have attempted to ascertain the woman's factual age--detective work that this film does not do--but you certainly could not conclude from this photo alone that Polanski was having sex with minors in Europe. Such a conclusion is patently irrational, but this film seems to be suggesting that's what the lawyers and judge in California were thinking. It was supposedly on the basis of this photo that the judge came down heavy on Polanski and threatened him with the maximum punishment in absentia. The whole thing doesn't make sense. Were the key players really that insane, or is the film simply doing a lousy job of telling the story in a clear way? The quotations the film uses suggest that the prosecution and judge might have actually been angered by the fact that Polanski was drinking and partying in Europe at a time when he was supposed to be contritely hard at work. That also seems to be way out of a court's jurisdiction--after all, Polanski wasn't in custody, so he should have been able to do as he pleased, as long as it was legal. My point is that, after seeing this film, it's just really hard to tell what people were actually saying and thinking.

The filmmakers' unstated agenda--to vindicate Polanski--is also evident from the things it leaves out. He has admitted in recent years, for example, that he was unfaithful to his first wife, Sharon Tate. Her violent murder serves--in this film as in many other books and films about Polanski--to turn him into a tragic figure. The film doesn't mention his infidelity to Tate, instead focusing on how "happy" they were, and how devastated he was by her death. Those things may be true, but the fact that he was unfaithful presents a more complex, ambiguous picture--one that would be worthy of a Polanski film. But not this one.

In short, I thought this film was very confusing in the places I wanted clarity--the facts--and overly simplistic in its interpretation of the facts--"Polanski is a haunted, yet gifted artist who was treated unfairly by the justice system," blah, blah.

This is a great documentary, no matter your ultimate value judgements about Roman Polanski's morality and criminality.

It covers so much, so well:

* An amazing human interest story/biopic of one of the greatest filmmakers of our time.
* A transfixing story of the American criminal justice system.
* The end of the Sixties in Los Angeles.
* The film industry and Hollywood (the Land of Cash, Flash & Trash).
* European vs. American sexual, moral and cultural differences.
* The Seventies in the Land of Cash, Flash & Trash.
* How the world works, per movers and shakers.
* The the news media, warts and all.
* The lawyer-protagonists: The good, bad and ugly.
* Incredible archival footage re all of the above.

Do not miss the DVD extras -- they peel back many layers of the onion.

Extremely well-balanced documentary. Devolves into a referendum on the central question: how do you feel about teenage prostitution? The film leaves little doubt that the "victim" (and her mother, who acted as her pimp) was a willing, and perhaps enthusiastic, participant looking for a payday. This was an experienced thirteen going on twenty-five year old female wannabe actress whose only possible surprise in the proceedings may have been Polanski's taking the booty as well. It may be, also, that Polanski failed to settle accounts promptly enough for Mom's liking. The rest is vanity, ambition, and outright corruption within the criminal justice system.

It is instructive to note that adult/teenage sexual activity was not outlawed in the U.S. until, historically speaking, very recently. New Hampshire still permits an adult to marry a thirteen year-old in certain circumstances. I would argue that chronological age and sexual maturity beyond twelve have little correlation. Anyone who believes otherwise needs to get out more.

Polanski collides with that uniquely American puritanical taboo against anal sex, here enhanced by the age of the girl. I don't doubt that there is a large contingent for whom this act alone would provide a sufficient basis for an impromptu castration.