Written at the time of the film's release...(although I've gone in and updated a couple of sections as will be apparent from the asterisks.
Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (Marina Zenovich, 2008) A few weeks ago, a friend professed a love for the film Powder, and I told him, "You and I should talk." He's a big believer in holding folks accountable for their actions and not seeking out the work of those he finds abhorrent. So, I told him about Powder's director (working for Disney!) being convicted of child molestation, and that Powder was something of a personal apologia for the director being "different" (in the same way that On the Waterfront was Elia Kazan's counter-argument to his testimony before HUAC). This creeped my friend out and I felt bad, and I tempered my argument by saying that "I like a lot of Roman Polanski's films and he's a child rapist."
Not..."technically" (he said, cringing)—that is, legally on the record—true. Polanski was convicted in 1978 of liquoring up and having sex with a 13 year old girl that he was purportedly photographing for some European magazine. He was merely convicted of "unlawful intercourse." Before then, he had had an affair with 15 year old Nastassja Kinski (who subsequently starred in his film Tess)—the only difference being that he had carried on that affair in Europe rather than the United States. Whatever one thinks of the dubious lengths some folks will go to in order to achieve some fame, Polanski was a predator who took advantage of that need in order to get his jollies with kids. Power corrupts and it happens everywhere, whether it's the casting couch, the boardroom, or the sacristy. The #Metoo movement only pointed out the pervasiveness of power corruption. It even happens in the legal profession and the court system that judges and punishes such behavior.
Now, along comes this film that prods into Polanski's private life—his parents died in concentration camps, his dark sensibilities (which he claims developed from seeing Disney's Snow White, which I can believe), his doomed marriage to Sharon Tate and her subsequent murder by the Manson Family and the lurid fascination and idle (and unsubstantiated) speculation of the Press (not just the Hollywood Press) of Polanski's supposed complicity in what was a series of random murders* (The Fifth Estate loves a good conspiracy theory—on the West Coast, but, sadly, not so much on the East).**
Polanski's subsequent arrest and trial on the sex charge was another chance for the Press to whack at scabbed-over wounds, and right out of the gate, they descended like locusts.
Both the prosecutor of the case and Polanski's defense attorney have argued that the director was railroaded by a publicity-seeking judge (who, also had an eye toward the young ladies), and the victim successfully sued Polanski in civil court and subsequently has come out publicly (and in this documentary) saying that it was a chance she took for publicity and an acting career in the twisted morass of Hollywood. She has publicly forgiven Polanski. She's grown up and one gets the sense from her world-weary tone that she wishes the rest of the World would, too. One senses that she'd just as soon wish the whole thing would go away so that she could live her life without fear that it would all be dredged up again.
So, Polanski can come back at any time but isn't going to (the only thorn in the proceedings is that the judge who is now handling the case wants it televised, which is a deal-breaker for the director). Given the evidence of the paparazzi feeding frenzy that constantly dominates the documentary, one sees why (that, and I'm sure Polanski wants to be able to direct that last act). The documentary makes no bones about Polanski's actions, it doesn't argue with the evidence that Polanski did it, nor does it condemn him for it. It's agenda is to examine whether, given the evidential footage of the media circus that the proceedings became, and the interviews of court officials and the obvious culpability of a compromised judge who enjoyed the limelight, Polanski's sentencing phase would have been fair and impartial, as Polanski's doubts about it led to his fleeing the country. It would be nice if the judge being accused were alive to defend himself in the documentary, but he died in 1994.
For all the questions that the film brings up, the one that is never asked actually reveals the filmmaker's bias towards Hollywood's (as well as America's) unquestioning feeling of superiority—and that question isn't why doesn't he come back.
The question is why would he ever want to.
Not..."technically" (he said, cringing)—that is, legally on the record—true. Polanski was convicted in 1978 of liquoring up and having sex with a 13 year old girl that he was purportedly photographing for some European magazine. He was merely convicted of "unlawful intercourse." Before then, he had had an affair with 15 year old Nastassja Kinski (who subsequently starred in his film Tess)—the only difference being that he had carried on that affair in Europe rather than the United States. Whatever one thinks of the dubious lengths some folks will go to in order to achieve some fame, Polanski was a predator who took advantage of that need in order to get his jollies with kids. Power corrupts and it happens everywhere, whether it's the casting couch, the boardroom, or the sacristy. The #Metoo movement only pointed out the pervasiveness of power corruption. It even happens in the legal profession and the court system that judges and punishes such behavior.
Now, along comes this film that prods into Polanski's private life—his parents died in concentration camps, his dark sensibilities (which he claims developed from seeing Disney's Snow White, which I can believe), his doomed marriage to Sharon Tate and her subsequent murder by the Manson Family and the lurid fascination and idle (and unsubstantiated) speculation of the Press (not just the Hollywood Press) of Polanski's supposed complicity in what was a series of random murders* (The Fifth Estate loves a good conspiracy theory—on the West Coast, but, sadly, not so much on the East).**
Polanski's subsequent arrest and trial on the sex charge was another chance for the Press to whack at scabbed-over wounds, and right out of the gate, they descended like locusts.
Both the prosecutor of the case and Polanski's defense attorney have argued that the director was railroaded by a publicity-seeking judge (who, also had an eye toward the young ladies), and the victim successfully sued Polanski in civil court and subsequently has come out publicly (and in this documentary) saying that it was a chance she took for publicity and an acting career in the twisted morass of Hollywood. She has publicly forgiven Polanski. She's grown up and one gets the sense from her world-weary tone that she wishes the rest of the World would, too. One senses that she'd just as soon wish the whole thing would go away so that she could live her life without fear that it would all be dredged up again.
So, Polanski can come back at any time but isn't going to (the only thorn in the proceedings is that the judge who is now handling the case wants it televised, which is a deal-breaker for the director). Given the evidence of the paparazzi feeding frenzy that constantly dominates the documentary, one sees why (that, and I'm sure Polanski wants to be able to direct that last act). The documentary makes no bones about Polanski's actions, it doesn't argue with the evidence that Polanski did it, nor does it condemn him for it. It's agenda is to examine whether, given the evidential footage of the media circus that the proceedings became, and the interviews of court officials and the obvious culpability of a compromised judge who enjoyed the limelight, Polanski's sentencing phase would have been fair and impartial, as Polanski's doubts about it led to his fleeing the country. It would be nice if the judge being accused were alive to defend himself in the documentary, but he died in 1994.
For all the questions that the film brings up, the one that is never asked actually reveals the filmmaker's bias towards Hollywood's (as well as America's) unquestioning feeling of superiority—and that question isn't why doesn't he come back.
The question is why would he ever want to.
* Far from it, in fact. I read a book on the making of Chinatown that did major biographical sections on Robert Evans, Robert Towne, Jack Nicholson, and Polanski. One of the more haunting tid-bits is that, after the murders, Polanski carried around a blood-sampling kit (at the behest of the L.A. police) that he would use to check for evidence on the premises of friends and acquaintances in the area...at every opportunity. As opposed to, say, O.J. Simpson, he really WAS trying to find his wife's murderer.
* This was written in 2008. This statement is laughably incorrect now. "The East" (hubbed in D.C.) loves its conspiracy theories, too. Especially when it involves someone not of their tribe. And the Internet has no compass...and in all the ways one could "take" that phrase.
No comments:
Post a Comment