The film industry’s eternal creepy relic of a time when intercourse with pre-pubescent teens in a movie stars home was considered a sign of sexual freedom rather than a highly disgusting and illegal act has sparked controversy once again with the release of Marina Zenoovich’s HBO documentary “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired.”
The new drama?
When the documentary originally aired at Sundance and Cannes (and aired on Monday on HBO), it concluded with a statement that an agreement had been reached that would have allowed the director to return to the United States with no further jail time, but here’s the rub – only if the filmmaker agreed to allow his unlawful intercourse with a minor hearing to be televised.
Yeah, more media circus for Polanski? Probably not at the top of his list of things to do that year. But this all stands to figure, the controversial judge in this original case Laurence Ritteband had long been labelled a publicity hound in this case and was accused of always seeking celebrity cases back in his day (this GQ piece is a good overview on this crackpot). He apparently had it in for Polanski too, so seeking public and televised humiliation pretty much keeps with his m.o. The judge even vowed to stay on the bench until Polanski was tried in the U.S., but he eventually stepped down and said, “I can’t wait that long. I’ll quote a Gilbert and Sullivan opera: ‘I’ve got him on my list.’ ” (which is pretty much akin to Principal Vernon telling Bender that he’s going to be on him like white on rice).
[To be fair the judge that apparently wanted this thing televised, was identified as someone else: Larry Paul Fidler, but the point of bias and maltreatment still stands, his heinous crimes aside]
Los Angeles court officials insisted that HBO change the final wording due to the fact that according to them the offered was never made, and the version that aired on Monday ended by informing the viewers that the court requested the hearing be held in open court, not on television (Slate said HBO changed the doc on their own volition; we’re regretting getting into this quagmire now…)
Hold the phone, Polanski’s lawyer, Douglas Dalton, issued a statement contradicting the courts versions and corroborating that indeed the Los Angeles Superior Court did make the extremely strange request to have Polanski’s hearing shown on television, continuing their tradition of inappropriate management of high profile cases.
France must agree with Polanski, who since moving abroad hasn’t been able to recapture the brilliance of “Chinatown” (maybe with the exception of “The Pianist”*), or maybe he has just forgotten the wonders that America has to offer because who wouldn’t want to sit through a highly televised/embarrassing statutory rape case to receive entry into a country that is no longer gives a rat’s ass about your work.
Will HBO change the doc back? Does the Playlist regret getting in over their head? Hey, even Slate calls this story “confusing,” and hell, they’re edumacted and what not.
I’m a Roman Polanski apologist. Somehow, his contributions to cinema compel me to unwisely dismiss his drugging and rape of a 13-year-old girl as the laddish indiscretions of an unscrupulous rascal.
Oh, Norman Mailer…stabbing your wife; you incorrigible scamp!
And you forgot “Death and the Maiden” (1994). A fucking masterpiece.
I like “Death And The Maiden,” a lot, but masterpiece? I would only reserve that word for “Rosemary’s Baby” or “The Tenant” (which i looooooooooooooooooooooooooove). This post is of such quality that you should be contributing and not just entertaining me in the comments section no one gives a rat’s ass about. holla.