Polanski Film Misses Big Picture
The new HBO documentary, which airs tonight, does a good job dissecting the infamous statutory rape case against the Oscar-winning director — but only skims over the cultural divide between U.S. and European cultures that Polanski's crime revealed.
Before the Trial of the Century came director Roman Polanski’s trial on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Both court cases drew massive media attention. Both involved judges who were itching for their close-ups. But while The People vs. O.J. Simpson evoked the nation’s fractured racial past, Polanski’s case revealed a chasm between U.S. and European cultures.
Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, debuting tonight at 9 p.m. on HBO, dissects the case against the Oscar-winning director of classics like Rosemary’s Baby and Chinatown.
What’s missing, or too fleetingly discussed, is the bigger picture. Sure, director Marina Zenovich brings considerable flourish to her treatment of Polanski’s trial, complete with a haunting score and footage of every major player in the battle.
But what about the cultural divide that marked the case? Zenovich only skims over the fact that many Europeans either felt what Polanski did wasn’t a major crime, or that his body of work overshadowed his misdeeds. The American public, we’re told, felt quite differently. And likely still does, especially since the director has yet to set foot on U.S. soil again to answer for his crime.
That’s fodder for a dynamic documentary. Instead, Zenovich zeroes in on the case in question. That approach should please Tru TV watchers and anyone who longs for the days of the Dancing Itos on The Tonight Show.
But all the finesse Zenovich brings to bear can’t camouflage a missed opportunity.
The film opens with an older interview snippet in which Polanski is asked about his taste for younger women. His answer hangs in the air while the film segues to the heart of the matter — his 1977 trial on charges he drugged and had sex with a 13-year-old girl.
The charges are then flashed on the screen in typewriter style while a women’s voice warbles a sing-song melody that sounds ripped from a stolen childhood. It’s a chilling and masterful setup.
The facts of the case come in early and are rarely disputed. A “he said, she said” court testimony recap, played out on the screen via more typewriter keystrokes, makes Polanski’s guilt obvious. The photographs recovered from Polanski’s camera only reinforce the prosecution’s case.
So what’s left? If our collective memories of the O.J. circus are still fresh, plenty.
The presiding judge, Laurence J. Rittenband, worked the media like Madonna out promoting a new album. His every move depended on what the nightly newscasters were reporting on the case. At one point, he went so far as to ask a court reporter how he should proceed. That reporter, one of many sources who contributes to this documentary, recalls the moment with a wry grin.
There’s a whiff of “blame the victim” here, both in the court testimony and in the interviews with Polanski’s friends and admirers. The victim, now 44, appears in the documentary to describe her emotions while the trial was going on, although these moments lack the emotional fireworks one might expect. She publicly forgave the director over a decade ago, and clearly finds little pleasure in revisiting the case.
The film taps a rich vein of film footage and photographs, from shots of the director getting quizzed by Hugh Hefner to behind-the-scenes images from Polanski’s work.
Zenovich’s film does allow for the occasional peek at Polanski’s life. We get his meteoric rise to fame, his romance and marriage to the beautiful Sharon Tate and then the horrific tragedy that took her away from him.
Her death at the hands of the Manson family may have permanently broken Polanski, who already had to deal with losing his parents as a child to the Nazi regime.A press conference held by Polanski after Tate’s murder is tough to watch. The director, devastated but calm, assures the public the callous accusations that his work somehow intersected with the crime were wrong — and enormously painful.
In Wanted and Desired, the real villain turns out to be the fame-hogging judge who presided over Polanski’s case. What’s brutally missing here is Polanski himself. It’s reasonable he’d want little to do with a project reliving this chapter of his life, but weren’t there other interviews the director could cull information from, or at least print exchanges to gauge his mindset in the years after the case?
Polanski drew a standing ovation in absentia when he won the Best Director Oscar for his 2002 film The Pianist.
Were, say, Mel Gibson to rebound professionally and stand before his peers on a future Oscar night, it’s hard to imagine a similar ovation from Hollywood’s finest. And his biggest crime is letting loose with anti-Semitic rants, a far cry from Polanski’s sin.
It’s another angle Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, doesn’t have time to pursue.
Christian Toto is a freelance writer and film critic for The Washington Times. His work has appeared in People magazine, MovieMaker Magazine, The Denver Post, The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and Scripps Howard News Service. He also contributes movie radio commentary to three stations as well as the nationally syndicated Dennis Miller Show and runs the blog What Would Toto Watch?
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
18 Comments
1. jvon:Wow, I didn’t realize he drugged her. That rape doesn’t sound all that “statutory” to me.
Jun 9, 2008 - 2:16 am 2. MikeT:I was dismissive of the severity of his offense too until I read that he drugged her. If that were not the case, then it would not be that big a deal in my opinion, as society has deemed 13 year olds (correctly) to be capable of being tried as adults when they commit violent crime which is an admission that our ancestors were right when they expected adolescents to start behaving like real adults in their accountability to society and the law.
Jun 9, 2008 - 4:09 am 3. Boca Condo King:Sorry,
Take some time to read the rape victum’s statement, (on smoking gun).
This guy ‘dated’ a 13 yo girl once, drugged her, had sex with her, had anal sex with her and did not demonstrate any remorse.
13 years old is a child period.
Had her wanted to have a relationship like Jerry Lee Louis mabey mabey this would be ok, but this was a ‘one night stand’ (or one afternoon stand) with a middle school student.
This child was not even half his age when this occured.
If Europeans think this is no big deal, they got problems….
Jun 9, 2008 - 7:26 am 4. amy:I haven’t read about this case in a long time, but if I remember correctly he gave her alcohol and qualludes. Nice guy.
Jun 9, 2008 - 8:24 am 5. valerie:THE MOTHER of the victim let him be alone with her.
She should have been charged with negligence or endangerment of a child.
Jun 9, 2008 - 10:53 am 6. Colette:It was LA in the ’70’s, Valerie. If they charged the victim’s mother, they would have had to charge half the parents in the city of Los Angeles at that time. Not saying it was right, but that’s the way it was here then.
Jun 9, 2008 - 12:29 pm 7. Larry J:13 years old is a child period.
We seem to have a disjointed and uneven definition for when childhood ends and adulthood begins. Some examples:
1. A 13 year old girl can get an abortion without her parent’s knowledge or consent.
2. Kids 13 and perhaps even younger have been tried and convicted as adults for serious crimes.
3. An 18 year old can vote, join the military, and take on a lot of adult responsibilities but can’t buy a beer.
Jun 9, 2008 - 12:43 pm 8. heather:It sounds to me like Polanski considered the girl to be a prostitute, delivered to him for his own use. Which, I guess, she was, the pimp being her mother.
Back in the 1400s, Edmund Tudor, a noble in his 50s, married and impregnated Margaret Beaufort, a 12 year old heiress. The child, born posthumously, became the first Tudor king, Henry VII. Margaret did not marry again, and given her wealth, this was unusual for the times. She spent the rest of her life in religious pursuits (probably as protection against further rape), and she is buried at Westminster Abbey.
Roman Polanski is not a nice man, and people who support his use of that girl are not nice people.
Jun 9, 2008 - 1:29 pm 9. Waller:The disgusting thing is that Hollywood HONORED this convicted pedophile just five years ago. Rationalizing it by forever making excuses for him(as well as Michael Jackson, George Michael, etc.).
I’ve heard the Hollywood media arguments that he’s had all that emotional trauna (mother killed, wife murdered). The girl has forgiven him. The girl was willing (up until the forced sodomy). Rxcuse me, but age thirteen has constituted statutory rape in every state since long before Polanski committed his crime. Hollywood will grant any excuse to not have to eat one of their own. It shows how morally bankrupt they really are.
But I’m sure that if he had been a Catholic priest, there would have been boycotts against France, constant news coverage, and celebrity pronouncements until he was extradicted back to the US to receive his sentence. Because, you know, those Hollywood types are all about our kids.
Jun 9, 2008 - 7:30 pm 10. Boca Condo King:Mom dropped off her daughter to be photographed by a well known film maker. Hopefully to become a model or film star.
Was Mom a ’stage mom’ who was looking to profit by making her daughter famous? Maybe…..
But there is still no reason for Polansky to rape this little kid. Blamming the mom sounds a lot like blamming the victum.
Had Roman just photographed her and skipped the drugs booze and two types of sex, no problem.
Keeping it ‘in your pants’ is the responsibility of the pants wearer. Roman should be returned to the US to serve his sentance.
Jun 10, 2008 - 11:55 am 11. Mohammed the Teddy-Bear:This is Hollywood:
Stand up against Communists? People sit on their hands…
Rape a 13-year old girl? People give standing ovations…
Jun 10, 2008 - 10:05 pm 12. Rubicon:I remember this incident. Back then, in our community, it was a big deal since all felt the man raped a child.
Jun 11, 2008 - 9:50 am 13. In Colorado:Since then, the victim forgave her attacker. Some contend we send a mixed message when we place a child on trial for a crime, but refuse others the right to drink alcohol.
In truth, each case is its own as each has its own characteristics & facts. Some develop earlier than others & some crimes, depending on their savagery, also rate different approaches. If America wants it another way we need a national guideline so all courts respond the same.
As for European attitudes, so what! They have always has significantly more liberal views on issues than Americans have had. That may be why Europe always seems to be in some sort of turmoil.
Once the “child” was drugged, & once the adult had any sort of sex with her, he became a criminal forcible rapist.
Hollywood will always attack any whose actions “they” find reprehensible, but make excuses for those whose actions “they’ find acceptable or no big deal.
Its a typical liberal attitude of “do as we say, not as we do!” Or more accurately, ‘WE’ can do what we want, but ‘YOU OTHERS’ must beg
‘OUR’ permission or suffer consequences ‘WE’ decide are appropriate!”
I am amazed by the convoluted logic. The comparison to a drugged 13 year old being sodomized by a much older man to references of teens being held responsible for violent felonies, to teen abortions and 18 year olds serving in the military. I fail to see the similarities or relevance. Even if the child were to be considered an adult, it is still considered rape to drug an adult and have sex without consent. We should not need the courts to tell us what is right; the courts tell us what is legal. In many cases there is little association between justice, what is right and what is legal. Thankfully in this case, the courts did make the right call. If we as a society cannot clearly see the wrong committed against this child then we might as well condone eating our young. I could care less what Europe find acceptable; I am less than impressed with the European mindset.
Jun 12, 2008 - 10:36 pm 14. schnargley:You Puritannical Americans have a little petit morte every time some celebrity’s sexual indiscretions are aired. So sex-obsessed and sexually repressed, not to speak of culturally deprived! What transpired between him and the young lady is between them and none of your business. Why do you obsess over such frivolty when you have such a great artist to appreciate? Where is your cultural appreciation you Philistines!
Jun 13, 2008 - 12:49 am 15. Darwin Akbar:I am the father of a 13-year old girl, and my daughter and her friends are CHILDREN. The law protects children from those that would take advantage of them. That the victim in this case forgave the criminal is immaterial to the point – he gave alcohol and quaaludes to a child and raped her, and refused to accept responsibilty or punishment for his crime. The jails here are full of those who did not have the resources to flee to Europe and be feted as a great artiste.
Jun 13, 2008 - 7:44 am 16. Helena:Moreover, it’s gutless for the film-maker to make the judge out to be the bad guy, since he is dead and unable to defend himself or sue for libel. The fact remains – and let me say it one more time – that the defendant drugged and anally raped a child.
As for the moral bankruptcy of those in Hollywood that would give Polanski a standing ovation,it speaks ill of them that they are apparently willing to fogive any sin except fighting Communism or voting Republican.
You Puritannical Americans have a little petit morte every time some celebrity’s sexual indiscretions are aired. So sex-obsessed and sexually repressed, not to speak of culturally deprived! What transpired between him and the young lady is between them and none of your business. Why do you obsess over such frivolty when you have such a great artist to appreciate? Where is your cultural appreciation you Philistines!”
IMBECILE. SHE WAS DRUGGED AND SAID “NO”. Double, triple, criminal-minded imbecile. (Or pervert). What are you–a troll?
God–I suppose it’s foolish to ask (even if you ARE a troll on this site riling people up) whether or not there are more of you.
And for the record, those of you associating this with being “liberal” are almost as bad, and at least as foolish. I guess all the womens’ votes for Democrats is just nonsensical and has nothing to do with the fact that that Democrats and “liberals” are typically crusading for in women’s rights against violence (including the funding and legal protection of women and children)…and among their many foes are “traditionalists,” conservatives, and the type of people who think a woman “asks for it” if she is drunk or scantily clad.
Be it Republicans comparing birth control (not abortion…IUDS, the Pill, BIRTH CONTROL) to murder to moral relativists who are repugnant enough to call what happened between Geimer and Polasnki “sex” (NOT SEX…RAPE)….you’re BOTH a problem.
And how ironic that the same men of “family values” in Washington are such potent hypocrites in their personal lives…
This is not about being “liberal” or Democrat (how dare you people). Those who rationalize what Polanski did are IDIOTS you either haven’t bothered to learn the details of the case, or can’t be bothered with the definition of “consent.”
A woman can be falling down drunk and naked on a bed–if a man rapes her, it is HIS fault, HIS decision.
The U.S. can be puritanical, but this is not one of those instances
Jun 19, 2008 - 6:04 pm 17. ‘Wanted and Desired’ - more context « WHAT WOULD TOTO WATCH?:[...] and convinced him to flee the U.S. rather than face any potential prosecution. My Pajamas Media review applauds the technical wizardry behind the documentary, but it still feels like a missed [...]
Jul 3, 2008 - 7:33 am 18. What Would Toto Watch? » ‘Wanted and Desired’ - more context:[...] and convinced him to flee the U.S. rather than face any potential prosecution. My Pajamas Media review applauds the technical wizardry behind the documentary, but it still feels like a missed [...]
Jul 7, 2008 - 7:36 am