User reviews

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.

Poland has produced great filmmakers such as Andrzej Wajda (Ashes and Diamonds, 1958; Man of Marble, 1977) and Krzysztof Kieslowski (A Short Film About Love, 1988; Three Colors: Red, 1994) whose works address directly issues of war, politics, economic turmoil, and moral unrest that have affected their country since WWII. Their films take a serious, hard-nosed slant, and are mostly well-known only in film scholarship and festival circuits.

The other great Polish film director is Roman Polanski, who completes what I dubbed as the "holy trinity of Polish cinema". He is known as the Polish Hitchcock, with films from his early career dwelling in the genre of horror, thriller, and mystery. He further established himself in America with unforgettable films such as Rosemary's Baby (1968) and Chinatown (1974). He also became the first Polish filmmaker to win the Oscar for Best Director for The Pianist (2002).

The most controversial filmmaker to emerge from Eastern Europe of the last fifty years, not for his films (though some are) but for his widely-documented life story, Polanski is able to divide public opinion of him with just the mere mention of his name. This becomes the pursued theme of Marina Zenovich's documentary feature Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, an above average film that is more informative than entertaining.

I will summarize his life story in one paragraph: A young Polanski escaped the horrors of WWII but the Nazis executed his parents during their brutal reign. He grew up to enjoy fine life, womanizing, and film-making. He was at the height of his career when his pregnant wife was murdered. His life crumbled even further when he was accused of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (who much later publicly forgave him). He pleaded guilty but the trial was not ethically handled by Judge Rittenband. Polanski then fled the US and never came back.

Through my observation, Polanski is not really made the subject of Wanted and Desired. Rather, it is the handling of the trial that seems to be Zenovich's primary focus. In the film, Polanski takes on the character that we are pressured to empathize with. Zenovich portrays him as a tortured person under too much media glare at that time, and his "escape" to France as a fugitive is seen as a liberating one.

Zenovich uses archival footage, and weaves them with interviews with key persons involved in the trial. Much of her film reveals the flawed, publicity-loving personality of Judge Rittenband, the unfair treatment of Polanski by the press, and the circumstances involving Polanski's alleged sexual assault. In an unbalanced way, Wanted and Desired plays too much on the "Wanted" card, whereas the "Desired" part only comes out as such in the final fifteen minutes of the film.

My stand on the Polanski sexual scandal is that no matter the reputation of the accused, he or she should be sentenced accordingly. However, the suspect handling of the trial has raised concerns over the quality and ethicality of the US judiciary system. Polanski was right to flee the US under the circumstances. Now that he is arrested again in Switzerland for that case that goes back to more than three decades, the question to ask is: Is it really still worth pursuing? SCORE: 6.5/10 (www.filmnomenon.blogspot.com) All rights reserved!

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.

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.

There is no doubt that America lost one of its greatest directors when Roman Polanski fled to France after pleading guilty to having sex with a minor. He already had Oscar nominations for Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown, which won him a Golden Globe. He has gone on to win a shelf full of awards, including an Oscar for The Pianist.

There is also no doubt that Polanski was guilty of much more serious crimes against a 13-year-old girl, and this documentary shows the glaring difference that justice in America has for the rich and connected. He could return today and serve 48 days and all would be forgiven. How sad is that? The one question that the film does not answer is why the girl's mother was not arrested and charged for child neglect. It was obvious that she knew the danger she was placing her daughter in.

We do not forgive sex crimes because they happen in Hollywood, or do we? Polanski is one of the greatest directors in the world, and, as a movie lover, I applaud his talent. But, he still committed a heinous crime and should suffer the consequences. Exile to France may seem punishment to the extreme right wing in this country, but we know different.

Marina Zenovich did an outstanding job with this film and should at least receive an Oscar nomination.

When most people think of Roman Polanski, they immediately remember his legal troubles over a sexual encounter with a 13-year-old girl in 1977, when he was 44. To counterbalance this common instant reaction, Marina Zenovich's new HBO documentary, ROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED AND DESIRED, does as much as it can to remind you about the other great hardships of Polanski's life. There have been plenty, that's for sure. He lost his mother and father during the Second World War, his mother losing her life in Auschwitz. He survived somehow and eventually made his way to London, where he pursued a career in film-making, something he always knew he wanted to do. It was there that he met his future wife, actress, Sharon Tate. They made a life for themselves in Los Angeles and for a while, they were happy. Then Tate, eight months pregnant at the time with Polanski's child, was murdered in her home along with four others in a horrific fashion at the hands of Charles Manson and his "family". Still Polanski soldiered on and he did so by producing some of Hollywood's greatest classics, like ROSEMARY'S BABY and CHINATOWN. Polanski has had incredible highs and horrendous lows and while he should be both commended and consoled, he still slept with a minor and that can't be forgotten.

With so many dramatic experiences to choose from, it isn't difficult for Zenovich to string her piece together. Despite its straightforward approach, it is never quite clear where she stands on Polanski's behaviour. She does focus her documentary to show how no matter how many other things have happened in Polanski's life that this one particular mistake is the event that defines it all. However, she never questions his judgment and leaves the opinion forming to her audience. This would ordinarily be a respectable decision but Zenovich's intentions may not be as noble as they appear. She presents us with a very well balanced argument regarding whether Polanski received a fair trial or not. Lead legal counsel for both the defense and the prosecution are interviewed and, lending volumes of weight to the film, they both present relatively similar accounts of the trial and what went on behind the scenes. It is the behind the scenes material that puts the issue of fairness into question. The proceedings were overseen by Judge Lawrence Rittenband, a judge notorious for his attraction toward celebrity and the idea of being one himself. Rittenband essentially orchestrated the proceedings of his court as though he were directing a film and the intended audience was the press. Zenovich has shown us the charade and while this is all horribly unjust, it still does not negate what Polanski did.

The next question is whether what Polanski did thirty years ago even matters now. Samantha Geimer, the plaintiff in the case, who also appears in the film, has forgiven Polanski publicly. The judge now responsible for the case has stated for the record that Polanski would not serve any jail time if he were to reenter the United States. The man even won an Oscar for directing THE PIANIST in 2002. Clearly the world has moved on but Zenovich has brought us back. Her approach is well-rounded; her style is formulaic but solid. The only thing missing is a genuine satisfaction that her efforts have been fully realized. ROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED AND DESIRED alludes to Polanski being wanted in one country and desired in others but does nothing to suggest what the wants and desires mean about those feeling them. So all we're truly left with is another reminder of what he did.

A brilliant work! I cannot say it otherwise. The fact that even Polanski himself likes this film tells the whole story (as confirmed by his longtime friend and collaborator Andrew Braunsberg, who was present at the screening in Vienna today). It is just the type of documentary you'd like to see: well researched, unbiased and including a good number of interviews; even though there is no new material of Polanski (due to his reluctance towards the press). That, however, doesn't make the film less gripping and indeed enlightening! It tells a lot about what happened in court, behind closed curtains. It is at times tragic (naturally, given his biography), and then again funny... the audience today had to laugh at several occasions! The music that is used comes solely from Polanski's movies, i.e. great scores (one only thinks of the theme of "Rosemary's Baby"!). Enough said, this is just well done, 4 years of production that paid themselves off! Go see it if you are a fan of his films, or else, if you're interested in one of the most controversial cases of recent juridical history!

I was able to catch a screening of this film, and to my amazement my outlook on Polanski has changed. I read the review posted above and I drew the same conclusions as he/she did.

Polanski is one of our film history's greatest artists. Chinatown was one of the greatest films to ever grace the silver screen. The Pianist was such a powerful film that I actually cried when viewing it. To those who know me, I hardly cry at the movies.

I was 30 years old when his wife (Sharon Tate) and child (she was pregnant) was tragically murdered by Manson's cult. It was a terrible event, and I will never forget Polanski's public television address. He was devastated at the loss of his wife and unborn child.

Now the 70's were a turbulent and changing time. We had Vietnam drawing to a close, The Son of Sam and New York's violence, and people were just upset at the general status of the world. America was really trying to redeem itself.

I do remember the sexual revolutions occurring as well in the 1970s. The above post that mentions the ADA decision is correct, and in fact to this day many believe it was an unscientific pressured move to remove gays from the list. Also, NAMBLA was gaining momentum with their "Sexual Freedom for all" motto, and emerged from the (GAA) Gay Activist Alliance with acceptance. That is until the Stonewall Riots. I remember these events because I was living in Toronto at the time. Since then, the Gay Liberation Front ostracized NAMBLA and removed them from their festivities ever since. Though not all gay members believed NAMBLA was wrong. Harry Hay, the leading Gay Rights figure, wore a sign accepting NAMBLA in 1986's Gay Parade in Los Angeles.

Pedophiles are human beings, and though I agree with Nurture in the Nurture versus Nature schema, I can not label pedophiles as monsters. Many pedophiles are struggling with their sexual preference, just like many gays who've struggled for their acceptance. Polanksi is a normal male, with a sexual desire to be with young girls. Does he use force to have sex with young girls? No.

I have always seen Polanski as a coward. A monster who fled from punishment. This documentary gives us another side of the story. Polanski was targeted, and the sign of the times with gays and NAMBLA asking for rights was a wake up call to politicians and judges to make an example out of Polanski. They branded him evil and disgusting.

Say what you will, I'm sure many people will draw on their own ideas and use their own bias to draw their own conclusions on Polanksi. As a person who has lived through the 70s and went into this film believing that Polanski was a monster, I can walk away now forming the whole story with Mr. Polanksi. My outlook on him has changed, he is not a monster! As far as gay people and pedophiles go, there seems to be a lot of history linking these two groups together. The truth is out there, if people are open minded enough they will care to understand.

I give this film 3/10 just because I think the film is very well done... but as a documentary the film lacks impartiality.

It is impossible not to feel some sort sympathy for a man like Polanski, who has such a tragic past and even so he has been able to succeed in a world in which succeeding is not easy at all. But for most people I know, including myself, this sympathy is brutally shaken when one knows about the horrible crime which he committed.

I know that no one is an angel and we all have done some wrong things, but after reading the little girl's testimony (which is available in internet) it is really shocking to hear that such fascinating person as Polanski could have done something so vile, so disgusting and so perverse.

This film shows Polanski's side which we all like, but it fails to show his darker side. It chooses parts of the facts, and it ignores others which are also important. The films shows Polanski as a victim of a corrupted judicial system, but it fails to show the corrupted side of Polanski.

It is true; he may be remarkable man in many aspects, he is doubtlessly a great film director, and probably he has many other good qualities. But is that enough to put him above the laws, specially above such laws which protect the most fragile in our society? If Polanski was not famous and rich, if he was just a "simple mortal" just like most of us, then he would have probably stayed in jail for many, many years. But he is rich and famous, and then he can hire flashy lawyers, and he can make deals and buy justice. But the truth is that he sexually abused of girl who was just too young, and there is a higher justice which does not accept "plea bargains". I think Mr. Polanski, if he has not paid his debt already, he will not be able to escape the consequences of his crime.

I think this film does well showing the corruption in the legal system, and also showing the sympathetic side of Mr. Polanski. But I also think this film attempts to hide the fact that he has done something terrible, something so destructive and repugnant: he raped a 13 year old girl. If I was the father of that little girl, I would find it very difficult in my heart to forgive him.

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.

In 1977, Roman Polanski was arrested after having sex with and providing drugs to a 13 year old Samantha Geimer in Los Angeles. She had gone with her mother to do a photo shoot with the famed director for a magazine. The mother leaves Samantha alone with Polanski and they have sex. The lawyers come to a plea without jail time. Judge Rittenband using questionable methods orders a 90 days psychiatric evaluation in prison. After serving 42 days, he is released. With favorable reports, he expected probation but the judge is under pressure to impose a heavier sentence. In 1978, he left for Europe and has not yet returned to America.

The overriding question for me is, "Did he have sex with a 13 year old girl?". At the end of the day, he did the crime and he spent 42 days in protected custody. It's not the biggest injustice ever. In fact, I don't see it as that harsh. The most revealing element is the incompetent judge. He is worst than judge Ito but I doubt he's the worst. The movie dives into Polanski's troubled life but it doesn't have him explaining himself. He is an enigma in this movie.

There's no point arguing about this blight on the life of Roman Polanski. People's opinions are strong on both sides. He is a controversial figure and that will never change.

"Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" takes a biased look at the child molester case against the director. The interesting part is what went on behind the scenes with Judge Rittenband, the Judge ultimately removed from the case.

Frankly, if all of that is true, which I guess it is since the Judge was removed, I can't blame Roman Polanski for running. Even the District Attorney assigned to the case said the same thing.

The documentary points up the difference between the European and American cultures, and a psychiatrist who examined Polanski speaks of what may have caused his interest in young girls. I'm not sure if he still has such interests, but he has been married now for 24 years to actress Emmanuelle Seigner, and they have two children.

The victim was a very pretty young girl with show business ambitions. She developed into a lovely woman and went on to marry and have a family. She was interviewed and it was pretty obvious in this documentary that she's sick of the whole thing and people's opinions about it. She feels her mother was unjustly criticized for allowing her to spend time with Polanski.

I haven't walked in her shoes, which must have been pretty uncomfortable, so I am in no position to judge. I thankfully was never in her situation as a teenager, never went through schoolmates knowing what happened, never went through the European press publishing my name and having reporters looking for me. The fact that she went on to build a gratifying life is a remarkable achievement.

And I haven't walked in Polanski's shoes, also I'm sure very uncomfortable. I can't pretend to judge a man who lost his parents in a concentration camp and his wife and baby in a brutal, sadistic murder. I didn't have to put up with horrendous things being written about me and his wife in the press after the murders. That he has been able to make any contribution at all to his art form is remarkable.

So I don't come down on either side. As far as the documentary, I found what the attorneys had to say fascinating. If you have any interest in the law, you will find it interesting.

When the name Roman Polanski comes up, most people in this country only think of one thing: PEDOPHILE,or PERVERT. This documentary manages to crack open the case of just why Roman Polanski,who at the time was a respected director who had come over from Poland to make films in England, was discovered here in the U.S. via his hit 1968 film, 'Rosemary's Baby'. After losing his wife,Sharon Tate to murder most foul at the bidding of Charles Manson, he eventually returned to doing what he did best, making movies. After directing some of his greatest work (Chinatown),he took to photographing young girls for various publications. When he (Polanski)plied one young 13 year old girl with drugs & alcohol for the intention of sex,his life was once again turned upside down. What results is the main focus of this fairly well produced documentary. We get to see clips from several of his films, as well as commentary from those who were connected with his case of rape. Flawed, but still worth checking out.

For better or worse, this film humanises Roman Polanski, though I feel it does so without condoning his actions.

I can understand some people watching it (especially nowadays) and absolutely hating that the film gives him any kind of sympathy. For the most part, I thought it was balanced enough. It sheds light on things I didn't know, and presents a compelling argument for why he has remained a fugitive. I still think the crime he did was awful, and worth more than his sentence, and the few days he ended up serving before fleeing, but that's just an opinion.

Court cases are complicated; it's not up to me, or any of us really, no matter how strong our opinions may be. It's up to a judge sometimes, and as this film shows, judges can even be a little dodgy.

It's challenging for that reason, because it does present a view of Polanski I'm not used to seeing in a post #Metoo world.

And while I would have liked to have had a bit more of his post-fleeing America life covered, it is a well-made, well-edited, engaging documentary... but definitely not one I can guarantee everyone will like.

The title "Wanted and Desired" indicates empathy toward Polanski: He's the naughty fugitive, despicable yet playfully, passionately attractive. Perhaps that was the original aim of director Zenovich - to provide a celluloid defense of the long-exiled director, an apologia and plea of forgiveness for what Hollywood "heavyweight" Harvey Weinstein calls the "so-called crime". But the documentary ends up quite ambiguous, indicating perhaps, that review of the case against Polanski forced Zenovich to change her mind.

And I think that shift was triggered when Zenovich encountered Polanski's victim... the woman now and especially the frightened 13-year-old she was three decades ago.

The film covers, extensively, her grand jury testimony, in which she testifies she resisted his advances and asked him to call her mother before he drugged, raped and sodomized her. In 1978, L.A. prosecutors allowed him to plead to lesser charges to spare her what likely would be a torturous cross-examination. Did you know that? His crime against a child should be the only issue here; she's the one who was penalized, severely, for the crimes of being young, fresh and physically beautiful.

In a Tatler interview, Polanski said, "If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!" As the "Wanted and Desired" title suggests, there is an assumption of envy toward the director. From his defenders and from his own words, there is current among them belief that his outraged accusers - all of us common folk - are jealous of his ability to seduce innocence, and have his way. Perhaps Polanski's victim was, as the European press pictured her in 1978, a young Lolita as enamored with him as he was of her body. Perhaps what's actually corrupt and hypocritical here is our own bourgeois morality, our belief that a middle-aged man raping an adolescent is... criminal, if not evil.

Today, there is concerted effort to downplay his crime, to rehabilitate a man who is unarguably a great director. Even his victim has pleaded his case, asking the courts, as he does, for time served as penalty. But what about other victims of future predators, perhaps encouraged that they can evade punishment by vacating the country a few decades?

Polanski's gifts for projecting his angels and demons onto humanity at large perhaps feed his artistry, but not every man is a pedophile predator pouncing 13-year-olds, or even wants to be. And perhaps there are a few judges and juries who don't want to f--- children. Remember, in 1978, he was a famous rich man in his 40s, she was a scared middle-school student barely in her teens. And this is crucial: She resisted his advances before he drugged, raped and sodomized her. If being appalled and repulsed proves I'm a provincial bumpkin, I am very, very much a provincial bumpkin.

A good portion of the film concerns what has become Polanski's major point of defense: That the court reneged on a deal to free him with about seven weeks behind bars, a term he'd already served. And it's true: A fame-struck L.A. judge did betray this negotiation. So... was Polanski treated unfairly by the L.A. Superior Court? Yes. Was his crime heinous and should he be punished for it? Yes. Polanski is a cinematic genius and disgusting child rapist - truly, a renaissance man.

So speaks Roman Polanski in an interview given in 1969.

In 1979, a year after he was on the run after being convicted of drugging and raping a child, he gave this far more graphic interview to novelist Martin Amis:

"If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!"

This interview, nor his penchant for "young girls", makes it into this extremely biased "documentary". Even the title is dishonest "Polanski: Wanted and Desired". By who? It almost seems to imply that his victim actually "wanted him". I watched this, actually believing I was going to watch a documentary. Instead, I watched an hour and a half PR campaign about what a brilliant filmmaker Polanski is, along with long clips of his work (which has nothing to do with his case) and other people gushing over him. A long section of it is devoted to his tragic childhood and life. Finally, we reach the point where he is charged with drugging and raping a 13 year-old girl. The 13 year-old victim, and what he did to her (which I can't print here on IMDb), is diminished and devalued as much as possible. The filmmaker goes into great length about possible misconduct on the part of the prosecution and the judge (strangely, she doesn't talk about the nature of the sleazy plea bargain offered to the victim's family, or the fact that the child only agreed to it because she didn't want to be humiliated by talking about it in court. She also didn't want the stigma of being identified as a victim of rape.)

This film comes across as a disturbed fan-pic made by a devotee of Polanski, who has total empathy for the victimizer she adores, and no empathy for the victim she disregards.

I give this film one star, because it lies about what it is; it is not a documentary (which is supposed to report facts and be neutral) in any sense of the word. Instead, it comes across as a distorted valentine by a disturbed fan, justifying the actions of a disturbed individual. Its overall effect when you step back and look at it is frankly creepy.

It uses film to deconstruct and puzzle about an essential nature of film: that it comes from filmmakers. We find it difficult to separate the being of the art from the artist.

So what do we do when the art is sublime and the artist a lunkhead? What about when the artist is screwed up, but screwed up in a way that we presume aids the creation of great art — things we ascribe to passion and edge, gathering and barely controlled expression. We forgive; we even celebrate.

Chaplin was a sex addict? Why of course. Brando and Welles gluttons? Well, sure, they drink life for us. Lack of moral sense? We need them to have that, we suppose.

The seductive element of this film is that uses the medium, pretending to reason, to show that the medium is not connected much to reason. It just doesn't matter whether this fantastic filmmaker is a fantastic guy. I do like the way he loves his actresses cinematically.

All else is for lawyers on another planet. We hear about their own weaknesses here as well.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.