Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired

Ultimately, Roman Polanski--whose work I've enjoyed--drugged a 13 year old girl, raped her anally, and got away with it without punishment. The media frenzy is irrelevant. The eccentric judge is irrelevant. The only pertinent piece of data is that He got away with it. Scott free. If it wasn't so cynical, Polanski's gall in seeking to clear his reputation would be comical. Mr.Polanski should thank his luck that he avoided incarceration; his apologists should be ashamed of themselves.

That said, Ms. Zenovich is a talented filmmaker. Her execution is steady and workmanlike. However, she clearly has an agenda. This isn't a bad movie, but it's a disingenuous one. Don't take my word for it, but if you watch it try to look objectively at how the two sides of this case are presented, how the victim is trivialized and how her advocates are villainized, and make your own determination.

Roman Polanski's life reads like a work of fiction. Tolstoi, Nabokov, Pasternak even Stephen King and Jackie Collins. The fact that it's not fiction but fact makes it overwhelming. He came from a world in which evil had taken away his parents in which he found his mission without any of the things that, most of us, would take for granted. That in itself is kind of admirable almost miraculous. This remarkable documentary puts things in perspective and it achieves that without rhetoric. How easy for a world consumed by gossip an innuendo to transform the man into a monster. I felt for Polanski, I could actually put myself in his shoes and weep. There is an element of innocence in his behavior that it's impossible to ignore. Hopefully, this film, will help justice to be done, real justice and real justice involves forgiveness and compassion.

Roman Polanski's name, while illustrious, is clouded by both tragedy and scandal. Tragedy because his parents died in the Holocaust and his wife Sharon Tate, when eight months pregnant, was horribly murdered in the Manson Family massacre, scandal because of a notorious case of sex with a minor that led to his flight from the United States, where he is still "wanted." In France he is "desired," and then some. A lifelong French citizen and a member of the Académie des Beaux Arts, he is part of the cultural establishment there, and he has received frequent European awards. The Polanski of 'Knife in the Water', 'Repulsion,' 'The Tenant,' 'Rosemary's Baby,' 'Chinatown' and 'The Pianist' is a great director, but a flawed man. He never denied that he liked young girls. "I think most men do," he says in this film. Partying and women were essential to his life, and also partly how he coped with a singularly heavy past. This documentary shown on HBO and in a handful of theaters focuses on the 1977 case when Polanski was 43 and eventually pleaded guilty in a media-blitzed Santa Monica trial to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, 13-year-old Samantha Geimer, whom he plied with champagne and Quaaludes during a photo shoot for Vogue at which no one else was present. The film explains what happened and why Polansi left this country before the trial was quite over and has never returned since.

Mainly this is a story of media frenzy and a corrupt, foolish judge, Laurence J. Rittenband. In determining the case, it emerges, Rittenband was so frivolous and uncertain that he sought and followed advice from a cub reporter, his two girlfriends, and his bailiff. The course this celebrity-mad magistrate ultimately followed was illegal. The upright defense lawyer, Samantha Geimer's lawyer, the lawyer for the prosecution and Geimer herself, all of whom contribute to the documentary, have nothing positive to say about Rittenband. His conduct of the case is shown to have been contradictory, erratic, and profoundly injudicious. Polanski, it emerges, did not flee "justice" under the California DA's office, to which he had willingly submitted, but the unpredictability of Judge Rittenband.

Director Zenovich seeks to show that some media-mad American judges (Rittenband is clearly not the only one) cannot be relied upon for justice or even sane behavior when celebrities are on trial. You have to watch the movie to get the intricate, far-fetched details of Rittenband's oscillating procedures, which wind up with him hoping to get the lawyers' complicity in his pretending to give a more severe sentence--to give the media what he thought it craved--than was justified by the case or he wanted to give. Note: unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor was the only charge that held, not rape or anything else, and the decision from various sides was that Polanski should be given probation. In an earlier compromise Rittenband had already confined him to the California State Prison at Chico for 43 days of "observation" in that dangerous environment, misusing this procedure as a sentence. After the judge's erratic behavior, neither defense nor prosecution lawyers had any confidence that he would hand down a logical or appropriate sentence if Polanski submitted again. The film conveys a sense that the director had endured enough.

Though the film doesn't say so, it seems important to note that Polanski was never a resident of the US but only here on visits to make a few films and a longtime resident of England. Hence his 30-year absence from the US to avoid legal hassles is "exile" from a country he never intended to make his permanent home. He was offered the option to return to complete the trial with the same lawyers and a new judge and the promise of no sentence ten years ago, but ironically that judge insisted the proceedings be televised, so Polanski refused. Many Americans, conditioned by the media hysteria of those years, continue to see the diminutive Polanski, a horror movie director in his mid-career, as a monster "dwarf" of dark intent.

The film also presents much information about Polanski's life, with glowing descriptions by friends and associates of his talent, his technical rigor, and his joie de vivre. To the film's credit, it speaks in favor of Polanski (even his victim has forgiven him) without in any way seeking to gloss over any of his misconduct. In interview excerpts from various times he never tries to excuse himself either--even at the height of the scandal, which came on top of the Sharon Tate murder and his depiction at that time as somehow to blame for what was in fact a great personal tragedy for him.

'Wanted and Desired' may surprise and shock in its careful rehabilitation of the director's personal reputation for American viewers. The whole case, through the cooperation of the principals, is outlined with admirable thoroughness. Alas, there is not as much as there could have been about the larger themes of sex crime and the corrupting effects of media overexposure and celebrity worship on the American legal system. Zenovich has wielded her magnifying glass with skill, but if she'd stepped back for a longer look her film could have taken on more significance.

Seen at the Roxie Film Center, San Francisco. The film's music director Joe Rudge was on hand for a Q&A after the screening.

Roman Polanski is what I would consider a genius filmmaker. He is the consummate "filmmaker's director", and has made many excellent films--some of the most important films ever created-- for over 40 years.I think he is a highly engaging, intelligent and gifted human being. And I would treasure the opportunity to sit with him over a glass of wine and hear ,what I'm sure would be an amazing, riveting life story.

Having said that,the recent motions to dismiss his guilt regarding the 1977 child-rape case HE PLEAD GUILTY TO to me are belittling of our criminal justice system.

It boils down to his GUILT, not wheather or not the judge is an a**hole--right? Haven't many convicted members of the MANSON family ,guilty of slaughtering his pregnant wife and unborn son, attempted similar motions, pleas and tactics to reduce or overthrow THEIR sentences. Do THEY also deserve to "walk" just because it's "been a long time and things change"?

This is a compelling film and very, very absorbing and it is recommended viewing,regardless of your personal opinion regarding Polanski's guilt--but to what end? I do not agree with it's perspective,purpose and viewpoint so in that sense, it is an inherently flawed project.

We wish you could return to the USA, Mr.Polanski--But you have done something that you must pay for, just as Tex Watson and Susan Atkins have to pay for the crimes they inflicted in your rented home on Cielo Drive on that tragic summer evening in 1969.

The title of the show means: while he's currently "wanted" in America (for arrest) and he's also "desired" (revered) in France, where he lives. That's quite a disparity.

If you aren't familiar with the sex scandal involving (then) 44 year old Polanski and a 13 year old Los Angeles girl, this documentary tells the story. The film catches up with the attorneys and associated individuals to tell the story. Because there is so much archival footage and current commentary by principals involved, including the girl, this film is probably the best source of information for the event.

Missing, of course, is current-day commentary of Polanski. However, there is a fair bit of archival footage presented in which he discusses the event.

I didn't know much about Polanski, but was intrigued to learn about his background. Apparently he and his parents were sent to a concentration camp where his mother died. During his rise to fame, he married Sharon Tate, who was tortured and murdered by the Manson family (she was pregnant with his son at the time). And there is more - including some details of the event and the strange judge involved.

One gripe about the show is the use of small text: if you're watching it on a small TV, you'll have to squint to try and read some of the text presented throughout the program. It is quite irritating.

However, all in all, the show was pretty fascinating. It's kind of reminiscent of the OJ Simpson event in some says. In this case though, Polanski seems to have been able to carry on with his career.