FREE Concerts
Sherman Oaks, CA 91043
Along its winding road tocrucifying the American judiciary, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired — which aired to mostly warm reviews on HBO a few weeks ago and begins a theatrical release from THINKFilm this Friday — grinds some very blunt axes, makes some dizzying leaps to judgment and does a lot of silly editing with movie clips. Focusing on the Chinatown director’s 1977 Santa Monica rape trial and his unscheduled bolt to Europe before sentencing, Marina Zenovich’s lively, exasperating documentary is loaded to the gills with testimony from cops, lawyers and lots of Polanski pals, and bookended by sawn-off clips from an interview the director submitted to with the British writer and TV talk-show pundit Clive James. I say “submitted to” because Polanski has made no secret of his hatred for the media on both sides of the Atlantic, which, as he sees it, have pilloried him for his freewheeling sex life, beginning with the 1969 murder of his wife, Sharon Tate, and continuing long after his trial for drugging and sodomizing a 13-year-old Samantha Gailey. I’ve no doubt that James, a public intellectual and film buff not known for tabloid prurience, asked Polanski all kinds of smart questions about his Holocaust childhood and the impact of his exile from Hollywood on his career. But the one that opens the movie is, “Do you like little girls?” Without skipping a beat, Polanski replies, “I like young women [my emphasis]. I think most men do.”
(Click to enlarge)
Polanski meets the press.
I’ll get back to this neat little revision of James’ question, but by the look of it, the interview was conducted sometime in the 1980s, either in Paris, where Polanski has lived for the past 30 years, or somewhere in Europe that doesn’t have an extradition agreement with the United States. Zenovich expresses a properly ambivalent sympathy for Polanski in exile, and she isn’t shy about drawing unfavorable comparisons between American sexual prissiness and Europe’s broader mind. Nor does she waste much energy trying to draw connections between Polanski’s life and work, unless you count a few awkwardly inserted clips from Chinatown, Repulsion and Knife in the Water, which could have been chosen by the Mormon prosecutor who, having boned up for the trial by catching a Polanski retrospective at the Nuart, brightly summarizes the director’s oeuvre for Zenovich as “corruption meeting innocence, over water.” Which might be funny, had Zenovich not obligingly cut from this hermeneutic tour de force to Polanski’s photos, allegedly taken for Men’s Vogue, of a pneumatic Gailey splashing around in Jack Nicholson’s Jacuzzi on that very bad day. At least they got the water right.
Zenovich uses the trial and its aftermath to deliver a sucker punch to the U.S. justice system, which, she implies, screwed over Polanski with more far-reaching consequences than his screwing of Gailey, now a wholesome-looking mother of three, who appears on camera to forgive her aggressor and fret over having had her panties cut in half for evidence. And it’s here that Zenovich’s zeal exceeds her grasp with a blow-by-blow demolition of presiding Judge Laurence J. Rittenband, which includes blistering testimony from the lawyers for the defense and the prosecution, who banded together in a successful petition to have him removed from the case when he tried to commit Polanski to prison for a second round of psychiatric evaluation after he’d been cleared in the first. Fair enough. Rittenband was known as a celebrity whore who was far too cozy with the media. He was also a party animal who dated much younger women — which is to say, 20-year-old women well over the age of consent.
Like Polanski, Zenovich cruises blithely over that distinction, to insinuate that the judge was at best a hypocrite, at worst not competent to preside over the trial. She wheels in a close British friend of Polanski to testify that Polanski is “incapable of rape,” and some older women friends who wonder why Gailey’s mother brought her to meet him in the first place. All of which is beside the point that it is legally indefensible and morally outrageous to take a 13-year-old girl — whether she’s a nun or a nymphomaniac with a mother intent on laying down a behavioral blueprint for Dina Lohan — to a strange house on the pretext of a photo shoot, feed her Quaaludes and sodomize her. That, and not prudery or a predatory press, is why Polanski is “wanted” in America, and would be in Europe if the crime had occurred there. Never mind that Zenovich recently had to revise the film’s ending to effectively retract her earlier claim that, in 1998, another judge had guaranteed Polanski immunity from jail upon his return to the U.S., provided he agree to his court proceedings being televised. In the end, Polanski was primarily done in by his own rotten judgment and his complete lack of remorse.
He drugged and anally raped a 13 year old. So yea, he was and is a pedophile. I don't believe in a god, but justice would be served by his sharing a place in hell with Manson. They will make a lovely couple. I would argue he is more evil than Manson though.
The Swiss Officials and spokesperson should study the concept, Dont assume, otherwise youll make an ass out of you and me. If Swiss Officials are going to be fair, and NOT ARBITRARY in Roman Polanski’s extradition process then Swiss Justice would have to study whether the current Los Angeles Prosecutors statements regarding what Polanski’s sentence was back in 1977 - is true or not, and not assume that what the Los Angeles prosecutors are saying is true. If the sentence was originally less than 6 months then Roman Polanski cannot be extradited by Switzerland according to their treaty with U.S.A. Currently it sounds as if Swiss Officials want to discount the original Los Angeles Prosecutor in Polanski’s case, Roger Gunson’s testimony regarding what the original sentence was, without even considering Gunson’s sealed testimony. If Swiss Justice wants to assume that current Los Angeles Prosecutors would be honest enough to make a true statement as to the length of Polanski’s sentence back in 1977, when they requested extradition of Roman Polanski after 32 years in 2009, that assumption will make an ass out of them, you and me. Polanski’s lawyers have asked the Los Angeles Court on April 29th 2010,for access to the sealed transcript of testimony by Los Angeles prosecutor, Roger Gunson, concerning the original Judge’s sentencing plan for Roman Polanski in 1977. Polanski’s California lawyers assert that LA prosecutor Roger Gunson’s testimony proves that an extradition request by the current Los Angeles Prosecutors filed with Switzerland last year INCLUDED A FALSE DEPICTION OF THE SENTENCING PLAN made by the original Judge 33 years ago. The Los Angeles Prosecutors request to Switzerland in 2009, on the topic of sentencing, said that Judge Rittenband sent Polanski to prison in 1977 for a psychiatric study so he would “be in a better position to reach a fair and just decision” before sentencing, But what the Los Angeles prosecutors are saying is not true, since there was an immediate psychiatric study of Polanski when he was first arrested in 1977. This first study which was positive for Polanski, occurred before the Judge allowed Roman Polanski to leave the country to make a movie, and before Polanski returned to US and underwent the second pyschiatric study at Chino prison. And even if the original Santa Monica Judge Rittenband did make a statement to the press on 20th Sept 1977 see, http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JNURAAAAIBAJ&sjid=He4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6879,1950498&hl=en What he said in the staged hearing for the press, is entirely different to what he told the Los Angeles Prosecutor Gunson and the other lawyers involved in his chambers, in regards to the sentencing plan. For more information on the Santa Monica Judge’s Judicial corruption, and evidence from lawyers that there was in fact a staged hearing, and that the 90 days at Chino was to be the entire sentence originally, see the documentary movie Polanski: Wanted and Desired. The Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson in Roman Polanski’s 1977 case, has testified that Roman Polanski’s prison stay at Chino was to constitute his entire sentence, and lawyers Douglas Dalton for Polanski, and Laurence Silver for Samantha Geimer concur. Also it is documented in the Los Angeles times in Feb 1978 that the original Santa Monica Judge Laurence J. Rittenband would have sentenced Polanski in absentia so why could that not happen now? Isnt all this torment just to add more clout to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s lust for power, so he can become the next Attorney General, at the expense of another famous person Roman Polanski, who in addition to serving his time at Chino, is proven to be harmless However Polanski may not be harmless in that he is a master of depicting corruption, and the danger of hidden and ruthless power. But this was not the crime for which Polanski was formally charged in Los Angeles. Let us also remember the vicious circle. Polanski’s arrest and pending extradition deflects attention away from the Santa Monica Judicial & Prosecutorial corruption against him in 1977, which caused his Catch-22 situation in 1978, & which in turn caused him to flee. See also http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/apr2010/pola-a24.shtml
Judicial Corruption meets innocence over water The Judge corrupted the plea bargain agreement in the Roman Polanski case by breaking it. The non breaching & thus innocent and injured party to the plea bargain agreement was Roman Polanski, who had already been sentenced to a non-appealable jail sentence at Chino by the Santa Monica Judge Rittenband which Polanski had already served & performed as part of the plea bargain agreement. in 1977 Bottom Line: Judicial Corruption meets innocence over Santa Monica water Heal the Bay
Law is law. This pervert must go to jail!
I've been researching this 4 one of the producers of the BIOpic which just recently finally got a hollywood limited release. KUDOS 4 my guilty pleasure LAweekly, a liberal LA soapBOX. young WOMEN what a joke , LITTLE girls (13 yrs OLD), world famous serial pedifile RAPEIST celebrity. Dare we forget Natasha Kinski , actress @15, served up by her DAD. Polanski has gotten away w/ this , now he wants to blame the judge was unFAIR, What's UNfair is the little girl now a full grown MOM wants the niteMARE 2 END. romanPOLANSKItheMOVIE.com has some of my discoveries ONLINE but not much in the media AND/or search motors. U have to dig 2 get past the spin CONgrats 2 U folks, Great article
It may be true that the times changed on Polanski, in terms of public mores. But then, there were still plenty of people in 1960s America who weren't drugging young frightened girls and quietly ass-raping them. Individuals with true moral fiber (i.e. those who show kindness and respect towards other human beings, rather than using them as convenient objects) do not succumb to the "permissiveness" of an era. Nero's Rome became pretty perverted, but not everyone entered into the rottenness. Obviously some people in the pre-Civil War South didn't think it was morally acceptable to beat Black slaves. So if Western culture is gradually beginning to properly protect the boundaries of vulnerable young girls, at least legally, surely that should be classified as progress�and expose the likes of Polanski as rotten participants in an unjust social system. Of course he wouldn't have been that way if he weren't suffering himself�but until he recognizes the harm he did to others (i.e. expresses remorse), he can never heal the harm in himself.
(ahem) "...apologia *for* Polanski..."
Jerry Lee Lewis's marriage at 23 to his 13-year-old second or third cousin may have been "perfectly legal" IN SOME STATES, but it was not "perfectly fine" with the public at the time. The scandal when his wife Myra's true age was learned ruined not only a scheduled tour of England, but got him blacklisted on U.S. radio and dropped from scheduled television appearances. The outrage of the American (and British) public essentially derailed his career, and was something from which that career never fully recovered. People thought it was creepy enough when Elvis Presley waited for his bride Priscilla to turn 16 before he "dated" her, and 22 before they married. I think Dan Zee is also forgetting or is perhaps unaware that Brooke Shields' careers in movies and photographic modelling drew considerable controversy at the time. As a woman slightly younger than both Shields and Jodie Foster, who also played a 12-year-old prostitute in the '70s, I can clearly remember the media kerfuffle these films raised. The Polanski documentary discussed above does raise some serious and valid points about the judicial mishandling of the Polanski case. I do not think it is necessary to provide an apologia to Polanski to acknowledge that.
I think Polanski got a bad rap because if the "rape" had happened a year before nothing would have happened to him. His 1977 trial signaled a turning point between the "peace, love and understanding" period of the 1960s and 1970s to the more conservative period of the 1980s and continuing today in terms of interpreting sex laws. The film even admits that no one in that jurisdiction had served any jail time up until then in a similar situation if they pled guilty. Polanski changed his plea to guilty, but then it was pretty clear the publicity-seeking judge was going to throw the book at him. Today, Polanski is a pedophile, but back then, mothers were throwing their teenage daughters to directors and producers in the hopes of using the casting couch to enter the film industry. And then they could blackmail their way into a role by revealing that the girl was underaged. It was also hinted at that the girl had had sex with an older man and had taken drugs before. I believe the mother even dropped her off at Jack Nicholson's house for the supposed photo shoot hoping something would happen. Also, the few times pictures of the girl surfaced, it was obvious no one would have thought she was 13. Maybe slightly under 18, but definitely not 13. For people who were born in the 1980s onward, I think it's impossible for them to be able to put Polanski in context with the 1970s. But look at some past examples. "Pretty Baby" (1978) starring Brooke Shields as a 12-year-old hooker would be considered kiddie porn today. In 1958, Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year-old cousin, which was perfectly legal back then. What happened was the times changed on Polanski. One day, he's a Austin Powers-type of swinging Hollywood director (yeah, baby!), the next day he's a pedophile. He didn't change, the times changed.
The sick fuck. A 13 yr old?! I don't know if this makes him as bad as Woody Allen or worse. (The primary difference, of course, that Woody Allen's movie is always the same and always really lame...) F'ing degenerate.
As a fan of more than just Chinatown, Repulsion and Knife in the Water (The Tenant, Rosemary's Baby, Bitter Moon are great; Frantic and The Ninth Gate are strangely horrible; Cul-de-Sac and Tess have their moments) and far from a Polanski apologist (I think he's guilty, and I think he knows it), I feel Miss Taylor has gone a bit overboard in her disdain for this documentary. While certainly it isn't the final word on the subject, and can clearly be seen to have a bias, I found it thought-provoking and worth watching. I wish I could see other comments before I submit this one.
Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...
Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...
More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience
Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info
Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips
Log in or Sign up
Social Connect:Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.
Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:
Sign Up or Log in
Social Connect:Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.
Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:
