With the possible exception of the O.J. Simpson trial, it would be hard to think of a tabloid-ready celebrity scandal from the past 30 years that provokes a more purely, intensely, overheatedly emotional response than the Roman Polanski rape case of 1977. (He fled the country early in 1978.) It’s a safe bet that a lot of people, upon reading the headline that Polanski had been arrested in Zurich, with the possibility of extradition to the U.S. to stand trial on that charge, greeted the news with more or less the following sentiment: “Good! It’s about time that the authorities caught up with him. He can’t dodge the consequences of his crime forever. In a just world, there is no statute of limitations on what Roman Polanski did.”
About two years ago, I would have felt more or less the same way. But then, early in 2008, I saw the revelatory documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, which takes on the full and fascinatingly complex legal and moral drama of the case. Not just the emotions, but the facts. Not just the issue of whether Polanski committed an unspeakable crime (something that the film never disputes), but how it all played out, within the U.S. legal system, at the time.
Here’s what I wrote about the film when it first played at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival:
“We all think we know what happened when the celebrated and infamous demon-imp film director took a one-way ticket out of Los Angeles, skipping the country early in 1978 just as he was about to face sentencing for the crime of ‘unlawful sexual intercourse’ with a 13-year-old girl. But Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, Marina Zenovich’s startling and grippingly told anatomization of the case, will make you realize that you barely know the half of it. At first, I feared that the movie was going to tiptoe around the issue of Polanski’s guilt. But no, it never denies that he committed a heinous crime. Yet by showing how a media feeding frenzy shaped the story, oozing like slime into the wheels of justice, and by going deep behind the closed doors of the hearings and negotiations (presided over by a judge on such a star trip he made Lance Ito look like Solomon), the movie creates an indictment of a legal system that was corrupted and warped by the celebrity culture — that is, by the very entitlement it was trying so hard to rein in. Polanski, that troubled and charming creep-genius, emerges, if you can believe it, as both guilty as sin and a victim. It’s that ambivalence that makes Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired a documentary of rare fascination and power.”
If you’re interested in this case — interested, that is, in what really happened — then by all means seek out of a copy of Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. You’ll be glad you did as this story now plays out with a voyeuristic and slightly queasy déjà vu.
Comments (1-15) of 369 Add your comment
Polanski should have faced up to this a long time ago. Fleeing the country was no solution and it is difficult to have sympathy for him regardless of the media circus.
He was fleeing being railroaded by a corrupt judge who was out for blood and limelight. I don’t think he felt he had much of a choice
Sorry, artistic talent doesn’t give you immunity from the laws everyone else has to follow. Polanski was not entitled to flee. He had the same right to appeal and review by a higher court as anyone else. Plenty of excessive sentences have been reduced, and if the judge was as loopy as depicted, that’s most likely what would have happened.
It’s that same “limelight” that made his sentence (for raping a CHILD) so much lighter than the sentence of anyone else in that situation.
Regardless of what the judge did, he sodomized a CHILD. That’s the most cruel, disgusting crime there is.
People on here who defend him make me sick, and make me fear for the future of society.
I thought the most cruel, disgusting crime was killing a child?
Totally agree!!!!!
So, as long as a Pedophile is famous or smart it is ok for him to skip out on punishment, regardless of the circumstances of the case, for a crime he committed. I have never disliked the French however their staunch support for a rapist makes me realize just why the rest of the world looks down their nose at those frog eating clowns
One paragraph tells it all:
Roman Polanski got a 13 year old drunk, gave her sedatives and proceed to sodomize her against her protests. He pleaded guilty, didnt like the prospects of his sentence and skipped out instead of facing the music. Besides his supposed “remorse” he again had a relationship with a 15 year old. Later, his victim sued Polanski and got untold millions in exchange for her advocating his case be dismissed. In short, he did it, ran away from punishment and wants to avoid justice.
I don’t believe for one minute she protested. By her own admission she was no stranger to having sex with older men and no stranger to using recreational drugs. The world is not made up of devils and angels. It is made up of human beings wearing many shades of grey.
Who cares what you believe. It’s right there in her grand jury transcripts that were released in 2003. He plead GUILTY – he should face the consequences. Why are we so quick to blame the vicitm when a celebrity is the predator?
Do you not see where the power lay in this situation?? Can there ever be justification for drugging a person (let alone a child) and raping: vaginally, orally and anally? Try to imagine any young person you know… your own child, a niece… a friend’s child… yourself!… Is the message to society that this is ok?
Sorry Evelyn, a 13 year old CANNOT consent to a sexual relationship…What planet are you from? This guy is a pedophile, plain and simple.
It’s not so “plain and simple”… Watch the doc…
Maybe the sentencing wasn’t plain and simple, but the *crime* is “plain and simple.” Roman Polanski pleaded *guilty* to drugging and raping a child.
evelyn, you don’t have to be a virgin to be raped. You need to read the court transcripts. Go to the smoking gun.
The fact that Polanski drugged her and raped her is not disputed. He admitted guilt.
Lala, I saw the film on HBO, and it didn’t make me have sympathy for Polanski as far as this case goes.
It doesn’t matter that the film portrays the judge in a bad light, and it does. The judge had every legal right to override the plea bargain if he thought the sentence the DA recommended wasn’t enough. If Polanski wasn’t famous he never would have gotten such a light sentence recommendation to begin with. No matter what allegations the film made about the judge, it didn’t deny the fact that Polanski raped a child and skipped out before sentencing It’s hard to have any sympathy for someone who would admittedly do that, no matter what the legal circus is around the criminal case.
Why are you defending a child rapist, regardless of the circumstance. You must not have a daughter of your own, because you would be outraged. What has happened to our country that people actually try to justify the actions of a child rapist. Just sick.
How ’bout this Old Standby: “She said ‘no’ but I know she really meant ‘yes’…”
Or this gem: “It’s not rape because she’s a whore anyway.”
And now Evelyn’s New Spin on the Old Standards: “…she was no stranger to having sex with older men…”
Good on you, Evelyn, good on you. Setting back the case of Rape Victim’s Rights 40 or 50 years.
Evelyn,
Please do not reproduce.
love,
The World
What a horrible thing to say. Read the court transcripts. He pled guilty to a lesser charge in a plea agreement so he didn’t have to face a harsher sentence that he could very well have been found guilty of by a jury but we’ll never know. He is a coward and needs to face the music no matter how long it has been. Living 30 years in sanctuary and luxury in France while hiding from the law is inexcusable. Switzerland did the right thing by turning him over as his crime is against their laws too, as it should be all over the world.
For an accurate summary of the criminal case, read the court document at the AP website:
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/0106polanski_motion.pdf
Shame on you.
There IS NO EXCUSE for what he did.
WTF??? are you nuts? She was a 13yo CHILD he was a 43yo PEDIPHILE!!!!! Never in the history of mankind will there ever be any justification or excuse for what he did. He knew exactly what he was going to do when he picked her up that day. There should be no plea bargain. Mr. Short Eyes should get the full sentence for his crime!!!
And to this, I have to respond with: http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2009/02/19/roman_polanski_documentary/index.html
Thanks for the link, Tara. Great article. I’d like to see Owen comment on it.
Great article. Thanks.
Great article. I’m recommend it for those of you commenting without knowing the facts.
That was a nice read, and it brings the case in a really objective light.
Although I don’t think Owen’s point of view is necessarily IMMORAL (unlike the commentors who want OG’s head on a platter), or 100% WRONG, since I agree that the media circus mutated this case into its own kind of chaos, the fact remains that Polanski raped a teen, and he should be sentenced for his actions. There are many innocent people who get victimized by the flawed justice system everyday, and I’m sure they didn’t do something appalling like what Polanski did.
Oh, and the reason I think Owen’s view isn’t completely immoral is because nowhere does he say that he supports Polanski’s crime. He may have stated he’s a victim of the justice system (which I disagree with), but not one when it comes to his horrific act.
Tara, thanks for the link. It puts what I thought of the documentary in words. OWEN, please read that salon article
How old was Woody Allen’s daughter when he started in on her?
It was not his daughter – it was his long term partner (not wife’s) adopted daughter, who she adopted before Allen came along. No, I’m not justifying his cheating, but it isn’t AS creepy as people make it sound.
It is absolutely as creepy as it sounds! The lack of matrimony does not negate his role as defacto parent. And of course Allen and Sun Yi say she was “beyond 18″. He didn’t want Polanski’s problems.
Both Woody Allen and Sun Yi say that she was beyond 18 when their affair began–still creepy, but legal.
I saw that movie too. Sounds like Roman is innocent.
There are no words for one so simple.
He pled guilty. All of the evidence they found at the house, like the camera with film he took, supported her story of being drugged and raped. Polanski admitted giving her drugs and having sex with her. She was a neighbor, and he knew how old she was. He admitted everything, but just didn’t think he should be punished for it. No matter what the media circus was, it doesn’t change the fact of his guilt.
On the other hand, the film rips apart the judge because he dated 2 women at the same time, and kept a celebrity scrap book. Somehow the film argues that this makes the judge a moron, who mishandled the case. Let’s see, a guy keeps a scrapbook, so he’s a villian, and the guy who drugged and raped a child is the victim. The movie was crap.
How one movie explains it all? You going to make a mix tape too to explain your feelings?
Not exactly germaine to Mr. Polanski, but why do we have so many ages of adulthood? If you commit a crime against a “child” it’s one age, yet if the “child” commits a crime it may be another age. You have to be 16 to drive, 21 to drink and vote, but sex with anyone under 18 is illegal. C’mon, let’s pick one age and stick to it. If a child is mature enough at 14 to understand and be charged with murder, then they should be able to decide whether to have sex or not.
@Pete, read it, http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia1.html
People really need to stop focusing on the “Statutory” part — and that includes the press. You read “statutory rape”, and you think “well, that’s only rape in a legal sense” and the whole issue of age of consent laws and the maturity of the girl and yadda yadda come into play and it’s a hot-button issue that different people feel differently on.
Read the transcript. This was rape, “statutory” is completely ancillary. If the girl had been 18, or 29, this would have been rape just the same. She was drunk, high, and afraid of him. The fact that she was 13 just makes it a more heinous crime, but is not why it is a crime in the first place.
So the whole “statutory” thing just leads discussion off on a red herring. Call it what it was — rape, regardless of age of the victim — and then mention the victim’s age as an additional piece of information.
It’s not a question whether or not a 13-year old can make the decision to have sex. The issue at hand is an adult choosing to have sex with a minor. Don’t confuse the issue Pete. Unless you are a teenager, this distinction (not opinion) should be pretty clear to you.
And she didn’t consent, so it isn’t really “statutory”. He drugged her and raped her. If she had been 23 instead of 13, it still would have been an illegal act.
Pete, I’m in complete agreement with you.
Legal age needs to be the same for all situations.
Very good point Pete. Old enough to be guilty of a crime but not old enough to make a decision for yourself. ABSOLUTELY ABSURD.
Hypothecticals, out-of-context arguments, opinions, dismissal facts and evidence also ‘absurd’ Polanski broke the law, plead guilty and did not want to face the consequences, then broke it again by fleeing the country. Your dismissal of these facts changes nothing.
driving at 16 is a privilege as is being able to drink at 21. Voting is a right.
Pete, to compare laws governing a privilege/right and something that is illegal is a point less argument.
Its like comparing apples (rights) and decayed fruit (illegal act); pardon the grossly exaggerated comparison but it is required in this instance.
At best I would say your incapacity to understand such an issue is mind boggling.
Laws governing previleges and rights determine if something is illegal — so yes, that is a pointless argument, but that is not the one Pete is making.
I totally agree with Pete that the arbitrariness in how the law determines who is a “child” is puzzling.
Who commits the crime or murder – matters as their is a different levels of transgression. Children for the most part are incapable of understanding the possible repercussions of their actions. Which is why a crime committed by a child is treated as a special instance – the rarity of the occurrences justifies the age difference.
To add to that taking someone’s life or violating someone at different ages (hence the terms child and adult) are very different things.
Laws are created to prevent transgressions from being committed. Choosing one age so its easy for you to remember … HA!
Roman Polanski is a sarmy indivudal. He commited the crime now it is about that he do the time. I mean thirty years? I dont think that he is getting off easy at all. The girl that he abused has had no justice for thirty years, dont you think its about time that she gets to see roman behind bars. hes had all this time to play.. GAME OVER
Good point Pete. I was 12 my first time and with someone twice my age. I knew what I was doing, wanted to do it and the “adult” resisted as long as possible. They could have been arrested, but should they have been? NO! I started it; not them.
It does not matter if you consented, the law states that a 12 year old cannot give consent, therefore the 24 year old ADULT could and should have been prosecuted. Of course, I highly doubt this happened anywhere but in your dreams.
And exactly why and how are these different ages decided upon? If they’re not arbitrary then where is the data that supports the reasons a person is unable to make a judgment about there sexual conduct until 18 but able to wield a ton of steel on wheels at 16? Totally ludicrous.
@ Nina: You know that he did “face up” to it, right? You know that he did go to jail for the crime per an agreement with the court, right? And that the judge then voided that plea deal (the same deal the judge signed off on) and was planning to RE-sentence him…you know that right? Roman Polanski is guilty. Make no mistake. But he didn’t flee his crime, he fled a judge that was ridding roughshod over the judicial system. Something both the defense and prosecuting attornies are on-record and in agreement of.
A plea agreement is not a sentence and they are revoked all the time.
For you pinheads who defend Polanski I ask you to do two things. Go to a local middle school and take a look at what a 13 year old girl actually looks like. Not a 25 year old actress playing a 13 year old – an honest to goodness 13 year old.
Then read the trial transcripts that have been released. The transcripts no one disputes. If you are not repulsed and disgusted by what he did than there is something wrong with you.
He needs to go to jail, ASAP.
The judge did not re-sentence him, as Polanski was never sentenced to begin with before he fled. He didn’t really do jail time, he went to a psychiatric ward for evaluation before sentencing. Plea agreements between the District Attorney and a defendant are an agreement to plead guilty in exchange for the DA to recommend a sentence to the judge. But judges are the ones to choose the sentence and can reject the recommendation by the DA.
I was unsure what to think until I saw Polanski being interviewed and heard him say “Why should I be in trouble? I didn’t hurt anyone? All I did was act out of my desire for a young girl” Clearly he has no idea that he has committed a crime – heinous or otherwise – and thinks he was justified in raping a 13 year old. If he was anyone else he’d have been jailed straight away and would now be having trouble with neighbours wherever he moved to. I don’t care what happened to him after he raped a kid – if he still thinks what he did was “an act of love” and “no-one got hurt” he deserves everything he gets.
the girl has moved on w/ her life and could care less about the whole thing. lets do the same!
exactly.
right after he’s tried for giving drugs to a minor, forced rape, and statutory rape.
She has said in interviews that she wants it to go away because she hasn’t been able to get closure. She has said the media has been hounding her for years, and it has made her life miserable. She just wants to put it behind her, which is not the same as saying she couldn’t care less.
Be it Roman Polanski, Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, or Richard Nixon, there is a legal system of blind justice that works fairly well.
It works well for people with $$$$$.
I also saw the movie. It was laden with deference for an “artist”; a theme much played by other “artists” . . . the one that says they answer to a different legal and ethical standand; the one that says they are above the law. Nice for Roman to have those particular values when considering the statutory rape of a 13 year old back when he was in his thirties. I am not sympathetic to a two-tier legal system; one for us normal folk and another for the artists and otherwise priveleged. I think such undermines the social contract we all have with one-another. I don’t rape your daughter and you don’t rape mine. Sounds easy when you put it that way, doesn’t it.
You are so right. The French Culture Minister has gotten involved in the case. He wouldn’t deign to defend an ordinary child rapist, only one of Polanski’s artistic caliber.
“(Polanski was) thrown to the lions,” said French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand. “In the same way that there is a generous America that we like, there is also a scary America that has just shown its face.” And all this time I thought it was rapists who are scary.
Scary France is the one that tries to protect a rapist because he is an “artist”
Now that French Culture Minister has gotten into trouble himself for writing that he liked to go to Thailand and pay boys for sex.
Would this liberal puke say the same thing regarding a Catholic priest accused, and who pled guilty to, rape of a thirteen year old alter boy? I think not. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.
“liberal puke” – nice of you to elevate the conversation, you moron.
Yes “liberal puke” moron.
I bet you thousands of Catholic priests have gotten away with the same crime and have been sheltered by the Catholic church from prosecution.
Yes, and that’s wrong. However, it has no bearing on the fact that Polanski pled guilty to drugging and raping a child.
@Mike
At least, the Catholic Church admitted the cover-up was evil, turned the child rapist priests over to authorities, and offered well-deserved compensation to the victims.
Polanski’s Hollywood defenders haven’t done half as much for his victim. Hence, Hollywood can’t be self-righteous on this one.
So two wrongs make a right?
Feh. You got suckered by the movie.
Read this for a more open-eyed take on the film.
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2009/02/19/roman_polanski_documentary/index.html
Thanks for the link. The article is a thoughtful analysis of the case and the film.
Polanski gave up his right to challenge the sentence and court’s actions by fleeing the jurisdiction after entering his guilty plea. In Missouri, we call it the “escape rule” and had this happened here, the original sentence would have been executed (without any of the special treatment, i.e. early release or probation)–plus he would probably be facing an additional charge for fleeing.
Had he appeared for sentencing and had the judge actually reneged on the previously accepted plea deal, Polanski could have withdrawn his guilty plea and proceeded to trial, or worked out a new plea agreement before a different judge. This is how our legal system accomodates defendants whose judges have gone wonky.
Polanski deserves everything he gets and more. I can’t believe it’s taken this long for him to be taken into custody. It’s not like we didn’t know where he was.
USA could have let the artist receive his award and arrested the man later-after 30 years, what’s a couple more hours- especially since the ‘victum’ is supporting him and won’t press charges. Whatever !
I call it poetic justice! A pervert like him should be forced to face the music at such a moment of glory.
supporting him? ehh. not so much. just doesn’t want to be bothered with all of this again.
and gee, i wonder if the fact that he paid her off in a civil agreement has anything to do with the fact that she’s fine with it now. of course she doesn’t want to relive the past and make her family go through all of it (and that’s the huge part), but it’s not believable to think that the money she received doesn’t help her put it all to rest.
more importantly, what the guy did was disgusting and sickening. in my moral mind, he deserves to be locked up for years regardless of the fairness of the trial. but you have to consider the legality of it all. and even when looking at that, you can’t flee. he fled. he deserves to be punished as any criminal that would flee the country.
and to those that say he would’ve been forgotten had he not been a celebrity…nope. he wouldn’t have been protected and he would’ve been turned over long ago.
still. if they give him over, the authorities have to handle it right. hopefully he will serve for this crimes.
also, i don’t understand how watching the film should change your thinking from “Good! It’s about time that the authorities caught up with him. He can’t dodge the consequences of his crime forever. In a just world, there is no statute of limitations on what Roman Polanski did”
jsut because there were complications during the trial doesn’t forgive what we all know to be true. he did drug and rape the girl.
Why should he get any special treatment because he is an “artist”?