Roman Polanski -- Two Documentaries -- Review

Roman Polanski:  A Film Memoir

                                                      Directed by Laurent Bouzereau

Roman Polanski:  Wanted and Desired

                                                      Directed by Marina Zenovich

Roman Polanski: A Film Memoir is Roman Polanski in his own words, from his own point of view.  The film is done as an interview of Polanski with his long time friend, Andrew Braunsberg, supported by still photos, documentary footage, and clips from Polanski's many films.  It is beautifully shot with immaculate lighting in congenial, informal circumstances.  It is riveting.  Polanski's life has as much, if not more, drama, intrigue, tragedy, and triumph as any of his films.  He was born in Paris in 1933 to Polish parents.  His parents made a fateful decision to return to Poland just a few years before the Nazi invasion.  The ramifications of this event shaped his life.  His mother died in Auschwitz.  His father survived, but his remarriage soon after the war upset Roman and his relationship with his father was poor ever after.  He spent his childhood hiding from the Nazis.  This film spends most of its time and effort, especially at the outset, on the turmoil of his early life and his development as a filmmaker.  But from the very beginning it acknowledges his problems with the sex charge in the United States from 1977, which eventually led to his leaving the country for France, where he has remained ever since.  However, this film is not exclusively concerned with this single episode in his life, and it is not allowed to predominate -- which, I think, is commendable.  Rather, this film is a more complete and balanced portrait of Roman Polanski as a person.  It is a sympathetic presentation, obviously, coming straight from him in the presence of his close, long time friend.  This has a very important effect, although I'm not sure if it was a conscious intent of the filmmaker, but this film goes a long way toward dispelling the myth of Roman Polanski, the demon sex offender, the child rapist, the coward who will not take responsibility for his own actions.  This is important because the myth of the "Child Molester" has become a focal point for much of the frustration, disappointment, venom, and viciousness that is widespread in American society.  A "Child Molester" is someone you can hate without restraint and with a sense of absolute righteousness.  No punishment is too cruel or severe for such people.  You can pour out all the savagery in your embittered heart on these hapless wretches and feel good about it.  Except it is all a delusion.  Child molesters are your friends, your family, your neighbors, your priest, schoolteachers, counselors, coaches.  They are everywhere.  They are all around you.  They are not demons.  They are not monsters.  And the activities and relationships for which they are so mercilessly persecuted are, in most cases, not abusive or harmful in any way.  The real harm comes from the public exposure of the sexual relationship and the involvement of law enforcement and the courts.  The case of Roman Polanski makes this absolutely plain.  Cases of strangers abducting children they do not know and abusing them or killing them are rarities, yet they garner much publicity and public outrage.  Self-serving politicians then exploit such cases by proposing irresponsible legislation that makes any sexual encounter between an adult and a child the equivalent of the most heinous outrage.  But Roman Polanski is not Phillip Garrido or Richard Allen Davis.  Nor are the vast majority of sex offenders with respect to under age companions.  Anyone who spends much time with children can experience erotic feeling for some of them.  It is extremely commonplace and not at all an exotic rarity.  It is important to introduce this conceptual separation into the public imagination and this film does it very well by presenting Roman Polanski as a complete human being who came from severe circumstances, suffered numerous setbacks and personal catastrophes.  His second wife, Sharon Tate was brutally murdered by the Manson cult.  This was a severe blow which deeply affected him.  It was also sensationalized and fictionalized in the press for the entertainment of millions and the garnering of profits for the publishers.  Yet Polanski remains congenial, personable, thoughtful, optimistic, and very successful both in his professional and personal life.  He has a toughness and a resilience in him that enables him to rebound after the most severe disasters. 

However, Bouzereau's film does leave many questions about Polanski's trial and his fleeing the United States unanswered.  For that one must turn to Marina Zenovich's film Roman Polanski:  Wanted and Desired.   Zenovich's film came out in 2008 and is available on DVD.  I checked it out of the San Francisco Public Library.  It is an excellent presentation of the 1977 sex case against Polanski, the trial, and its aftermath.  Zenovich's film is not as well done in terms of its technical competence as Bouzereau's film.  The lighting and cinematography for the interviews was not as good, and throughout the film one has to contend with an extremely annoying musical soundtrack that is so intrusive and distracting it often interferes with comprehending the content of the film.  The music is not even appropriate to the content.  I wondered if Zenovich was responsible for that soundtrack being there?  I rather doubt it.  It is so tasteless and insensitive, it is as if someone with no consideration for the film's viewers added the soundtrack after the film was finished.  One feels that perhaps the producers didn't have enough faith in the content they were presenting so they felt they had to slather it with loud, ugly music or you might not get it.  The musical soundtrack is a serious blemish on this film, but I urge you to try your best to ignore it and focus on the content, because the content of the film is important and worth the extra effort.  This film lays bare the details of the legal process and the conduct of Polanski's case in the court and in the press.  It is quite comprehensive and detailed and I was satisfied that it answered all of my questions about the case, and by the time it was finished I felt I had a clear understanding of what happened and why Polanski behaved as he did.  The court, the press, and the particularly the judge, Laurence Rittenband, do not come off well. 

Neither of these films challenge the laws themselves that prohibit sex with minors,   but they do challenge some of the mythology that supports these laws.  The earlier film of Zenovich challenges the myth that these laws are about protecting children.  Samantha Geimer (Polanski's thirteen year old partner in the case) said in the film (at age 33) that the media and the courts caused her far more harm that Roman Polanski ever did.  Children do not need to be protected from sex.  Children are naturally curious about sex and respond quite readily to it.  The atmosphere of fear, intimidation, exploitation, and violation has to be imposed upon them.  It does not occur naturally.  The idea that sex harms children is a great myth that is widespread in American society and Zenovich's film offers one salient counterexample to it.  Both films, and especially, A Film Memoir, dispel the myth of the "child molester," the demonization of adult men who have sex with young people.  Roman Polanski is not a demon.  He is not a monster.  He's had two successful marriages.  He has raised children and has a stable family.  He is a successful film director at the top of his profession.  He has many friends who will publicly vouch for his character.  And yet he straightforwardly admits that he had consensual sex with a thirteen year old girl.  He photographed her nude.  So what about it?  There are many others whose lives are destroyed for similar so-called "crimes,"  who are no more criminal than Polanski is. 

The so-called "news" media's interest in this case was not one of reporting news, that is informing the public about a matter of pertinent interest, but rather of providing entertainment and making a profit.  Anyone concerned about exploitation should look carefully at these ruthless exploiters who fabricated lies and distortions and sensationalized every aspect of the case in order to make money.  This was an intimate, personal relationship that was callously trampled and used it in every way available to make as much money as possible.  An entire industry has grown up around the exploitation of these so-called "age of consent" laws.  Huge financial incentives are being created to entice people to come forward with relationships  that have gone on quietly, sometimes for years, that are then used to extract millions of dollars from institutions and individuals.  There is big money in sex persecution. 

Polanski is accustomed to being persecuted by the government for nothing other than being who he is.  He grew under the Nazis in Poland, who wanted to kill him and his family simply because they were Jews.  He managed to hide from them and escape.  Later he found himself persecuted by the American government for his private, sexual behavior.  These things go to the heart of one's personhood.  One's crime becomes simply the nature of one's being as a person.  One's very existence becomes a violation of the natural order.  Yet Polanski has not become embittered or vengeful.  He is not beaten down and defeated.  He pressed ahead with a successful film career and a 23 year marriage with two children in spite of it all.  He didn't allow himself to be destroyed despite being pursued by vicious, relentless people.  He comes across as affable, low key, and self assured. He is quite an impressive person.  I share his partiality for young women and recognize him as a kindred spirit.  He would rather be known for his films rather than for his private life -- a sentiment I can fully understand -- but ironically, his private life may end up having the greatest impact upon society, and the greatest benefit.  Polanski's case and these two documentary films could serve as a crystallization point for a meaningful challenge to these irrational sex laws that are wreaking so much havoc in cities and towns all across the United States. 

This is the statute that Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to: "unlawful sexual intercourse."  

California Penal Code Section 261.5.

                           (a) Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual
                           intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the
                           perpetrator, if the person is a minor. For the purposes of this
                           section, a "minor" is a person under the age of 18 years and an
                          "adult" is a person who is at least 18 years of age.

                         (b) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual
                         intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years older or
                         three years younger than the perpetrator, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
  
                         (c) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual
                         intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than
                         the perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and
                         shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one
                         year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.

                        (d) Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of
                        unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age
                        is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished
                        by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by
                        imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two,
                        three, or four years.

                       (e) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an
                       adult who engages in an act of sexual intercourse with a minor in
                       violation of this section may be liable for civil penalties in the
                       following amounts:

                       (A) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse
                       with a minor less than two years younger than the adult is liable for
                       a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000).

                       (B) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse
                       with a minor at least two years younger than the adult is liable for
                       a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).

                       (C) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse
                       with a minor at least three years younger than the adult is liable
                      for a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

                      (D) An adult over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of
                      unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 years of age is
                      liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).

There have long been laws against rape, assault, kidnapping, imprisonment, and all the many forms of violence, coercion, and cruelty that people inflict on one another.  What has happened in recent years is that sex itself has become equated with "abuse" in legal terminology.  Roman Polanski refused to plead guilty to anything construed as "rape," "assault," or "abuse." 

These are the sections of the California Penal Code that define "child sexual abuse."  

11165.  As used in this article "child" means a person under the                                                                                                                              age

age of 18 years.

11165.1.  As used in this article, "sexual abuse" means sexual

assault or sexual exploitation as defined by the following:

   (a) "Sexual assault" means conduct in violation of one or more 

of the following sections: Section 261 (rape), subdivision (d) of

Section 261.5 (statutory rape), 264.1 (rape in concert), 285

(incest), 286 (sodomy), subdivision (a) or (b), or paragraph(1)of

subdivision (c) of Section 288 (lewd or lascivious acts upon a

child), 288a (oral copulation), 289 (sexual penetration),or 647.6

(child molestation).

   (b) Conduct described as "sexual assault" includes, but is not

limited to, all of the following:

   (1) Any penetration, however slight, of the vagina or anal opening 

of one person by the penis of another person, whether or not there is the emission of semen.

   (2) Any sexual contact between the genitals or anal opening of one person 

and the mouth or tongue of another person.

   (3) Any intrusion by one person into the genitals or anal opening of another person,

including the use of any object for this purpose, except that, it does not include acts performed for a valid medical purpose.

   (4) The intentional touching of the genitals or intimate parts

(including the breasts, genital area, groin, inner thighs, and

buttocks) or the clothing covering them, of a child, or of the

perpetrator by a child, for purposes of sexual arousal or

gratification, except that, it does not include acts which may

reasonably be construed to be normal caretaker responsibilities;

interactions with, or demonstrations of affection for the child;

or acts performed for a valid medical purpose.

   (5) The intentional masturbation of the perpetrator's genitals

in the presence of a child.

   (c) "Sexual exploitation" refers to any of the following:

   (1) Conduct involving matter depicting a minor engaged in obscene acts

in violation of Section 311.2 (preparing, selling, or distributing obscene matter) or subdivision (a) of Section 311.4 (employment of minor to perform obscene acts).

   (2) Any person who knowingly promotes, aids, or assists, employs, uses, persuades,

induces, or coerces a child, or any person responsible for a child's welfare, who knowingly permits or encourages a child to engage in, or assist others to engage in, prostitution or a live performance involving obscene sexual conduct, or to either pose or model alone or with others for purposes of preparing a film, photograph, negative, slide, drawing, painting, or other pictorial depiction, involving obscene sexual conduct. For the purpose of this section, "person responsible for a child's welfare" means a parent, guardian, foster parent, or a licensed administrator or employee of a public or private residential home, residential school, or other residential institution.

   (3) Any person who depicts a child in,

or who knowingly develops, duplicates, prints, or exchanges, any film, photograph, video tape, negative, or slide in which a child is engaged in an act of obscene sexual conduct, except for those activities by law enforcement and prosecution agencies and other persons described in subdivisions c)and(e)of Section 311.3.

Section 288

(a)Any person who willfully and lewdly commits any lewd or lascivious act, 

                       including any of the acts constituting other crimes provided for in Part 1, upon or
                       with the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child who is under the age of 14
                       years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or
                       sexual desires of that person or the child, is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by
                       imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.

Section 288a

(a)Oral copulation is the act of copulating the mouth of one person with the sexual organ or anus of another person.


(b)(1)Except as provided in Section 288, any person who participates in an act of oral copulation with another person who is under 18 years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail for a period of not more than one year.

(2)Except as provided in Section 288, any person over the age of 21 years who participates in an act of oral copulation with another person who is under 16 years of age is guilty of a felony. 

(c)(1)Any person who participates in an act of oral copulation with another person who is under 14 years of age and more than 10 years younger than he or she shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.

 You can readily see how ridiculously overreaching these statutes are: 
Any penetration, however slight, Any sexual contact, Any intentional touching ... for the purpose of sexual arousal.  No consideration is made for the quality of the personal relationship, the circumstances under which it occurs, the personalities of the parties, or their willingness to participate in the sexual activity.  Any sexual encounter of any kind with a child is equated with assault and exploitation, and punished as if it were done with coercive violence.  But nothing that the statute defines as assault is assaultive, and nothing that it defines as exploitative is exploitative.  Where is the assault?  Where is the exploitation?  This statue simply reflects a negative bias against erotic feeling and behavior.  It is not about "protecting" children as it purports to, because children do not need to be protected from these sentiments.  It cannot be demonstrated that any intrinsic harm comes from them.  The State of California also presumes to know what personal relationships are appropriate according to the ages of the participants, and seeks to regulate and draw boundaries between people and their feelings as if the government has authoritative knowledge of what is best for its citizens in their private, personal lives, and who they should and should not get involved with.  The arrogance of these statutes is staggering and I find it astonishing that people allow themselves to be ruled by them.  They clearly violate the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and to free speech. These statutes have no rational basis and are founded on religious based superstitions and bias against erotic feeling.  But this is a country where the government is not supposed to be establishing a religion.  Why do we permit it to establish a personal morality based on the most conservative, irrational religious prejudices?  Why is there no push to have these laws repealed?  In fact, they are widely violated on a daily basis and we see the mounting carnage as the government intensifies its efforts to enforce them with an increasingly heavy hand.  

The cases you read about in the news media are only the tip of a very large iceberg. 

Most sexual relationships between children and adults remain private, often continuing quietly for years.  The vast majority of sexual encounters between children and adults are not abusive and do not take place in the context of cruel or exploitative relationships.  The law incorporates a lie and thus institutionalizes a distortion whose result is that many thousands of people are being prosecuted and criminalized for actions and relationships that cause no harm whatsoever and may even be beneficial to the parties involved.  The importance of these two films about Roman Polanski's case is that they expose this lie and present it to the public in a way that is clear and convincing and enables the viewer to see that the real abusers in most of these cases are the law enforcement apparatus, the news media, and the courts.  These films change who the villains are.  Not everyone has the resources and wherewithal of Roman Polanski to make such an exposition, but his case is atypical only in his public prominence, not in his behavior or the character of his persecution.  The same exposure could be made in thousands of similar cases all across the United States on an almost daily basis.  We are laying waste to many thousands of people needlessly and wantonly in a fever of delusional hatred.  These two films could mark the beginning of a rollback of this pervasive nonsense surrounding children and sex in the United States, and if that happens it would be a good thing for American society, and Roman Polanski's greatest achievement. 

Roman Polanski: A Film Memoir, seen at the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, Cinearts Theater at Palo Alto Square, Palo Alto, CA, a most sumptuous venue, July 30, 2012.