“People have a right to their own opinions about what happened, but they don’t have a right to their own facts.”
This is something Roman Polanski’s lawyer, Douglas Dalton, says
early in the documentary Roman Polanski:
Wanted and Desired. It’s a perfectly stated quote about how people tend to
forget that opinions and facts are indeed separate things. The fact is, only
two people really know what happened on the afternoon of March 11, 1977 in Jack
Nicholson’s Beverly Hills home. It was in that home, on that day, that famed
director Roman Polanski was photographing 13-year-old Samantha Geimer for
French Vogue magazine (Nicholson was out of town). From there, a shared fact
ceases to exist. Polanski says the two eventually drank champagne, took a Quaalude
and had consensual sex. But, according to Geimer, the drugs and sex were both
forced on her.
 |
| Samantha Geimer |
Wanted and Desired
presents facts and many opinions from
every angle of the case. Polanski doesn’t participate in the film, so his
side of the story is told via archive press conferences as well as present day
interviews with his friends, collaborators and lawyers. Geimer is present for
filming (with her lawyer by her side) and her interviews are honest, impassive
and direct. You get the sense very early on that she wants all of this to be
behind her. She has publicly forgiven Polanski and has said, multiple times,
that the charges against him should be dropped.
Most of the interviews play out as a complicated game of He
Said-She Said. Rarely do Polanski’s lawyer, Geimer’s lawyer, and the Los
Angeles District Attorney, Roger Gunson, fully agree on any one point. But what they do concur on is how badly and illegally Judge Laurence
J. Rittenband handled the case.
Judge Rittenband, who died in 1993, is presented as a maniacal
blowhard; a star fucker who actively fought to preside over celebrity cases, including ones involving Cary Grant, Elvis
Presley, and Marlon Brando. Unlike most judges, Rittenband loved publicity,
and gave frequent media interviews. Hell, he even kept a detailed
scrapbook of all his appearances in the press, which he would regularly flaunt
to his staff.
 |
| Judge Rittenband giving a press conference |
The proceedings of the Polanski case are long, complicated
and, frankly, best discovered in Zenovich’s film. A Cliff’s Notes version is
that Polanski agreed to admit guilt to one of the six charges against him, unlawful
sexual intercourse with a minor. He then underwent a probation report, which ultimately
recommended that Polanski be sentenced to probation. Rittenband saw things differently.
After taking advice from the media (yes,
really) on what to do with the case, Rittenband sentenced Polanski to a 90 day
study in Chino State Prison. But, in private, he told Polanski’s lawyer that
the director could avoid, or “stay,” the study in three month intervals, until
Polanski finished his most recent film. During one of these stays, Rittenband
changed his mind and ordered Polanski to Chino immediately. Polanski served 42
days and was legally cut loose. Rittenband thought 42 days was too light a
sought to sentence Polanski for additional time. Exhausted with the judge’s unpredictable
behavior, Polanski fled to Europe, and hasn’t been back to the United States since.
Soon after Polanski’s departure, Rittenband held a press
conference to discuss the pending case, something Dalton says was “totally
unheard of.” Even District Attorney Gunson tells Zenovich that, under those circumstances,
he’s not surprised that Polanski left.
 |
| Polanski during the trial |
Wanted and Desired is a great example of
a topic outweighing the film. When I’ve talked about this movie with friends, the
pacing or look of the film has never been brought up. And, as far as
documentaries go, this is a very good thing. The movie blends into the case so
seamlessly, that we forget we’re watching a movie.
One that took literal years to research, film interviews for, and edit. And as a documentary, the film is close to perfect. But
whether or not you appreciate Wanted and
Desired will be based largely on your personal thoughts regarding the case.
I think this case is fascinating, but I’ve seen plenty of poorly constructed documentaries
about subjects I’m intrigued by. Which is a great way to bring up Odd Man Out, Zenovich’s 2012 follow-up to
Wanted and Desired.
Odd Man Out fails in every way Wanted and Desired succeeds. Whether or not you agree with Zenovich’s
stance on Polanski’s case (she’s clearly Team Polanski, even though she does
her damndest to mask it), there’s no denying that Wanted and Desired is a meticulously well researched film; compelling
for every one of its 99 minutes. Odd Man
Out is the exact opposite. It’s literally as if Zenovich got her camera,
flew to the Zurich Film Festival in Switzerland (Polanski was arrested at the Zurich
Airport in 2009, en route to the festival) and decided to start filming
everything, in hopes of getting a film out of it. The result is a rushed and
unstructured documentary, desperate to fill its 88 minutes.
Odd Man Out is
essentially about the effect Wanted and Desired
had on the Polanski case. About how the film riled up the Los
Angeles District Attorney’s office, and forced their hand into having Polanski
detained in Switzerland, despite the fact that he has frequented the country
several times since fleeing the United States. He even owns property there,
which is where he is eventually ordered to stay under house arrest.
 |
| Polanski in his Swiss home |
Unlike Wanted and
Desired, Odd Man Out is narrated
by Zenovich herself, whose melodramatic cadence and self-congratulatory word
choice are immediately off-putting. She constantly remarks about the impact and
importance of Wanted and Desired,
while cutting between countless exterior shots of Polanski’s Swiss home and interviews
with (mostly) inconsequential people who weren’t even involved in the case.
(Sorry, but I don’t give two shits what a biased writer from TheWrap
thinks about a case that began when he was a child.)
Every person interviewed for Wanted and Desired offers valuable and exclusive insight into the
case. Most of the interviews in Odd Man
Out act as filler so the movie can reach a feature length running time. The
one saving grace of Odd Man Out is
that it spends a significant amount of time with the Geimer family in Hawaii.
There’s a touching scene with Samantha’s husband, David, who tears up while
watching a news report of Polanski’s recent arrest. “It’s not about us, it’s about him,” David says. “We don’t have any feelings about what he’s
doing. We’re bumming that he’s sitting in jail. He’s in old man – this is 30
years plus. This shit’s gotta come to an end.”
But even those family interviews dry up after a while. Samantha,
while still remaining kind and congenial, has
nothing to add to what she said in Wanted
and Desired, and Samantha’s mother, Susan, does herself slightly more harm
than good, coming off as wide-eyed and oddly jovial, as if she’s a little too excited to be in front of the
camera.
 |
| A young man with big opinions in Odd Man Out |
In short, Odd Man Out
is a wildly unnecessary film, one that could have been worthy had Zenovich
invested as much thought and consideration into the project as she did with Wanted and Desired. For example, early
in Odd Man Out, as Zenovich captures
footage of the Zurich Film Festival, she conducts a brief yet startling interview
with a young man sitting in an outdoor restaurant.
“He’s a child molester,” the man says of Polanski. “So, put
him to jail, maybe he’ll find his old buddy Charles Manson again.” It’s the
film’s most honest and haunting moment. Here’s a guy wishing that Polanski meet the man who organized the brutal murder
of Polanski’s wife, Sharon Tate, in 1969. Some of you may find this man’s
comments insignificant, or, perhaps, appropriate. I disagree. Tate was eight
and a half months pregnant when she was stabbed 16 times by four members of the
Manson Family. If Werner Herzog made Odd Man Out, he would’ve kept the camera
rolling on this guy, minutes after he made this remark. The lens would’ve stood
its ground, and we would’ve been privy to further examination of one young
man’s controversial opinion of Polanski. Instead, Zenovich cuts away from the guy the instant he finishes his sentence. It’s a missed opportunity among many in Odd Man Out. An opinion, however insignificant, that I would
actually love to hear more of.
Wanted and Desired: A-
Odd Man Out: D+
Wanted and Desire was amazing as I did enjoy Odd Man Out only for the fact that Geimer got to tell her side of the story and such as well as her desire for the case to be dropped. The pain that Polanski's family was going through was also touching as I felt they were suffering as well all because of a stupid thing he did. I would've punched that asshole for saying that thing about Polanski staying in a cell with Charles Manson.
ReplyDeleteYet, I think I want to take a shot at Justin Bieber just to do something right for humanity.
Ha, yes, indeed, a tough call: the asshole from Odd Man Out, or Justin Bieber. But really, thanks for sharing your thoughts on both films. I did enjoy that moment in Odd Man Out when Emmanuelle Seigner bum-rushed that photographer. There’s just something about Seigner… she’s definitely not someone I’d want to fuck with.
DeleteI never saw the movie because after countless hours of hearing about this case in law school (Polanski is a big deal in my country) I'm just sick of it. Biased judge or not, a grown man sleeping with a child is a crime and he should have been in jail. Once the proceedings start her forgiveness really doesn't matter when it comes to society and especially in cases like this, it's not something that the state should just leave alone because those things need to be prevented and Polanski, in the face of the law, still didn't get punished. Same with the statue of limitations, some crimes are just too horrid - especially if that was rape - for things like that to have any weight when it comes to the criminal's responsibility.
ReplyDeleteBut even if that was consensual - it was just wrong and he should have been jailed. I find all those petitions 'oh, he is a great artist he shouldn't be jailed' to be quite horrific. One has nothing to the with the other and people excusing thing like this because someone made great films...well, for shame. On the other hand I find those 'he did this, I'm not watching his films anymore' claims melodramatic. Someone's skills as director and what kind of person they are should be viewed separately.
As for this guy's comment...well that went too far. Sharon Tate's killing remains one of the most shocking things in Hollywood history. Though I don't think it had any impact on what Polanski did with this girl as I heard stated many times before. If a grown guy wants to do that with 13-teen year old it's not something that just happens because of the trauma.
Really this whole thing is disgusting especially because of all those things the actors and directors are saying. 'Oh, Sharon Tate killing, who cares if he raped someone'. 'Oh, but...Holocaust! who cares if he raped someone'.
In Woody Allen's case I find there is just some hearsay and the unfortunate taste Allen has in women, much younger women. Add to that Mia Farrow's temper....but here Polanski just reeks of guilt.
Thanks so much for this comment. I was honestly very curious to hear your thoughts on these films and/or the case itself. I imagine, as a law student, that you hear about this case a lot, and I really appreciate your perspective and insight into it.
DeleteThe matter of judging the art vs. the artist a very interesting argument. In terms of film and movies, I fully agree with what you said. I suppose, as lame as this may sound, I have such a respect for well-made films, that I’m able to separate the final product, from whatever previous misdeeds the people who created that product have committed in their lives. A few years ago, it was discovered that Klaus Kinski routinely molested his own daughter, which is a horrid and disgusting thing. But does that mean I’m never going to watch Aguirre, the Wrath of God, Fitzcarraldo or Woyzeck again...?
And the Woody Allen thing… yeah, I don’t even go near that one. There’s no doubt that the act did indeed take place with the Polanski case, but none of us will ever really know what happened between Woody Allen and that girl.
Oh, and one final thought from me, I also fully agree with you that no matter what a person has been through in his or her life (like living through the Holocaust or enduring your wife’s murder), nothing justifies future crimes they may commit.
I'm a lawyer now, well, a slave in courthouse really, so thankfully the silly years of law school and Polanski being the subject of the lectures whenever something new is revealed are behind me. But really, the amount of people excusing him because of his past is horrifying.
DeleteI think directing is a skill - a tremendous skill if done right and even people who are terrible posses that gift. Understanding how to make a film has nothing to do with one's demons. Writing, maybe, but Polanski's film never really came close to the subject of his crimes. He is a good director, but the person he is shouldn't be in link to it. One can of course feel distasteful about the director's actions watching it but when it comes to film, it seems to me it's a separate thing.
I despise Von Trier but I still appreciated Melancholia. I think Polanski should be jailed but Repulsion is still in my all time top 30. People have issues but art goes beyond that, it's its own entity, separate from one person involved in making it.
Very well said. I couldn't agree more, truly. I love your von Trier rants, by the way. That man is on a whole different level of crazy.
DeleteI basically agree with what Sati said -- I find the whole "He can't be jailed! He is a great artist!" appalling. I was disappointed that so many Hollywood actors and filmmakers signed the petition. There is no such thing as "consensual" sex with a 13 y/o child -- that is ridiculous. He should have been incarcerated.
ReplyDeleteThat said, your post raises several interesting points, including the whole problem of "trial by media." The notion of a judge accepting legal advice from the media is insane.
Also, Sati wrote: "Someone's skills as director and what kind of person they are should be viewed separately." I am not sure how I feel about that -- I go back and forth.
Regarding the art vs. artist argument, I do have a question for you. If an artist has done something that disgusts you (specifically if it is one singular act, like the Polanski case), then it is okay to appreciate all of the art he made before he committed the crime? Polanski’s crime happened in 1977, so it is all right to appreciate Repulsion (‘65), Rosemary’s Baby (‘68), Chinatown (‘74), and so on? Or is it cut and dry, hate everything he ever made, not matter when he made it? It might seem like an odd question, but it’s something I think about.
DeletePersonally, I used to dig Chris Brown’s music. But since he beat up Rihanna, I find all of his work disgusting, even the songs he made before he committed the crime. Funny how that works.
That is a very interesting question and one I've never asked myself. You've given me food for thought. :-)
DeleteI participated in a class discussion about this art vs. artist question in a philosophy course at UNC. The only specific example I remember discussing was Ezra Pound, who was a gifted poet and a fascist. It's difficult to simultaneously admire the beauty and wisdom in his poetry and be aware of his political convictions. And I've always admired the work of impressionist painter Paul Gaugin, who is believed to have knowingly infected women and girls with syphilis (some as young as 13). :-( Granted it didn't affect his ability to paint, but ...
Anyway, in this philosophy discussion, many of us went back and forth on whether a work of art should stand on its own merits or whether it's inseparable from the morality of its creator -- we had trouble settling on a firm position. Even now, 25 years later, I haven't quite made up my mind. :-)
That's a fascinating discussion, and, yes, one that presumably has no firm resolution. I suppose it's a case-by-case basis, you know? You could go on for hours examining the crimes of different artists and asking yourself, "Is this one okay to forgive?"
DeleteAlso, I almost went to UNC. Loved that school!
I am not going to say a lot about this case as I haven't seen either of these docs, but I will try to find them soon, and also because I do not know much about this case, though I will now try to find more information. Wanted and Desired sounds like a much better and more interesting film, so I think I'll start with that, but it is nice that Geimer was able to tell her side of the story. I will say, the guy's comment was definitely unnecessary, and he went way too far, though I love what you said about Herzog and what he would do with the young man's opinion.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Sati's claims above, that no matter if the judge was biased, or if it was consensual, an adult sleeping with a child is wrong. I also agree with her statement that one should separate the character of a person and the skills of the person.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on both films, if you can track them down. Very complex stuff all around. Thanks so much for stopping by and commenting, I know this isn't necessarily an easy topic to talk about.
DeleteYou are definitely right, it is a very difficult and obviously controversial subject to talk about. I don't even want to go near the Woody Allen case, since no one actually knows what happened...
DeleteYeah, that's the way I feel about that case as well.
Delete"...is presented as a maniacal blowhard; a star fucker who actively fought to preside over celebrity cases..."
ReplyDeleteThat's the best sentence I'm going to read all month. I'm still laughing.
Ha, thanks man. Truth, though. Definitely how the films portrays him.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt’s a very risky topic to discuss, so I wasn’t expecting a big reader turnout, which is perfectly understandable. Your opinion on the crime is interesting, one that, in my experience in discussing this case with people, is a stance that many men take. Does time (or time served) allow us to forgive certain crimes? If, say, Polanski had been sentenced to 10 years in prison, and served every day of those 10 years, would he be forgiven by all? I suppose we’ll never know.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIf I may, what he has done cannot go unpunished. Rape is such a horrid crime that regardless of victim's wishes now or the age of the criminal it shouldn't go unpunished. Once the victim wishes the crime to be persecuted the things are set in motion and they should end in justice being served, but unfortunately here it wasn't.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI've been thinking about this article for a couple of days now and I'm still not sure whether or not I have anything to really add to the discussion that you have proposed and that people like Sati thevoid99, Irene, and Tapia haven't already brought up. Frankly, I dig quite a few of Polanski's films and like Woody Allen and Lars von Trier, I am able to separate their work from their personal lives.
ReplyDeleteI don't know any of these people, Woody Allen might like really young girls but then again that's something that's been used in films before him and after him and there's plenty of people who are far more sick than him. I'm not trying to justify his actions, but to me simply saying he prefers younger women isn't reason enough to take against him. I don't condone any sort of rape or sex with minors in any way (though let's not fool ourselves into thinking that some kids around that age aren't already having sex), but like everyone else has said, they are the only ones who know what happened. Same thing with Polanski (except he has been proved guilty). I love some of his movies for sure, but as a person I once again can't comment. I don't know the guy - he might be the nicest guy alive but now that he has a stigma on him he is forever branded. I don't think that what he's done is reason enough to kick him out of directing or anything - no matter what a person has done, I do believe that every person deserves a second chance and a chance at happiness (as long as it isn't at the expense of another person/people). We all make mistakes and I truly do believe that everyone does stupid shit (granted this is a very extreme reduction of his crime) throughout their entire lives and are entitled to be given a chance to redeem themselves for it. It's not some from any religious point of view from which I speak (in fact several religious organizations would probably disagree with me on this - as I'm sure many other non-affiliated people would as well) but from one where I do believe in human decency and that everyone is entitled to make up for their mistakes if they truly mean to. Perhaps a bit childish but everyone is worthy of a second chance. In the case of von Trier, for all I know he may be a misogynist but I feel that he is one of the few directors out there who is at least willing to tell stories from the perspective of a woman that are dark, gritty, cruel, among other things. He doesn't shy away from sexuality or the brutality that exist in the world and like Bergman (though certainly not to the same heights as Bergman), he gives the world of cinema some of it's most unique and interesting takes of woman and is one of the filmmakers I respect most today - but that's just me.
I'm sure this will probably just come off as a jumbled assembly of thoughts that aren't wholly coherent and don't have anything to add to the discussion here that hasn't already been said. I'm not even sure if I'd be able to formulate my thoughts/opinions into something more understandable in person. This is just one of those topics that kind of erks people, and for good reason, it's uncomfortable but definitely worthy of discussion. So good on you sir for bringing it up. I will have to track down these docs!
Thanks man, I appreciate you reading. You didn't come off as jumbled at all, I completely get what you're saying. And I agree with you in full. I'll be curious to hear what you think of the films when/if you check them out. They're very enlightening, and rather terrifying.
DeletePolanski. I had a feeling this issue would come up on this blog eventually. Me, personally, I think he should have done more time than he did. And concerning the whole "don't convict him because he's a great artist" mentality, he already made his best work by that time anyway, so it's not like we'd have missed out on anything major (well, except The Pianist). But what makes me sad about this case is that if this one thing hadn't happened, he could've been viewed as being a tragic figure, what with him having survived the Holocaust and his pregnant wife being murdered, but since he committed this act he'll forever be remembered as a pervert. It's almost as if some sort of cosmic deity was punishing him before the fact (I'm not saying that it lets him off the hook, I don't even believe in cosmic deities, it's just an observation).
ReplyDeleteLooking through these comments, I've noticed Woody Allen's name brought up a few times, but I don't think he deserves such a bad reputation. I mean, we may never know what happened with Dylan Farrow, but before that came up, people were boycotting his films because of his relationship with Soon-Yi Previn, which I myself don't think is that bad. Unorthodox, yes, but they're not blood related and she was over 18 when they started dating. I can see why it would be controversial, but I can't see why so many people think of it as some sort of grand cardinal sin.
I also want to bring up another serious issue that no one else has really mentioned that I think is still applicable is the issue of narcotics. Polanski claims to have taken a quaalude when he committed the crime. This is exactly why we need to strengthen our fight against narcotics, because this is what it leads to. Most crimes that are committed in the world: thievery, rape, murder, prostitution, etc. can be traced back to narcotics usage. I know we're working on that, but we need to do more. We need to make drugs uncool. I how they became "cool" to use, but we need to reverse that ASAP. If you know anyone who's done drugs, even if they were "just experimenting", especially if they were "just experimenting", shun them. Make them pariahs. Because the message isn't getting across as well as it needs to be. It doesn't matter if it's "just one joint in college", if someone consumes drugs, they're doing serious damage. Even if they don't hurt anyone directly, they're putting money into the hands of people who do. I know some of this sounds harsh, but I feel it needs to be done.
It doesn't work that way. Adult people should be able to try what they want and be expected not to act like animals afterwards, it's their responsibly. Under law if you take drugs you are responsible as if you were completely lucid because when taking drugs you should have realized you may act in certain way and take precaution against it. What you are suggesting is basically just a step away from prohibition. By all means let's shun people who use their freedom to consume and never hurt anyone. If someone rapes a child, it's not because they took a Quaalude it's because they wanted to do it, deep down.
DeleteAs for Allen being brought up they are both directors accused of similar crimes, except with Polanski he was proven guilty and Allen innocent, but in sheep mentality it doesn't mean much, given how just few weeks back people wanted to kill him based on just one letter that showed up online.
I see what both of you are saying here, but I do agree more to Sati's point. Just because someone takes or drinks something, that doesn't mean that substance automatically makes them engage in criminal behavior. The drug war is a whole new topic that we could all endlessly debate about. But, as Sati said, if someone does something, drunk or sober, it's because they had a compulsion to do it already.
DeleteLooking back at what I said, I feel I probably went a little too far with the whole "pariah" thing, but I do still think something should be done. And as for the "people do things because they had a compulsion to do it," of course they do. Everybody has some impulse to do bad things at some point in their life. But they know not to. Narcotics, however, obscure this judgement. But, there are some who do drink responsibly, so I suppose there are people who light up a joint responsibly or shoot up responsibly. So perhaps not a full-fledged ban, but I think a strong regulation wouldn't be uncalled for. Like gun control, but with drugs.
DeleteYou stop (or seriously hinder) this country's love of guns and dependency for drugs, and you'll be elected President. I'm not being flip - genuinely, those are two issues I'm not sure will be amended in our lifetime.
DeleteI hadn't heard of Odd Man Out, but I do want to see Wanted and Desired, especially given the gap between your grades.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't seen Odd Man Out either before researching this post. The difference is really night and day. They don't even feel like they're made by the same person.
Delete