Over the last couple of weeks I've been reading "Roman Polanski" (Taschen), an eye-filling and genuinely inspiring review of one of the greatest living filmmakers of our time. It runs 192 pages, and I wouldn't have minded an extra 100 pages or so. I have no problem with calling it the most insightful, alluring and fetchingly phrased book about Polanski ever.
The photos, selected by editor Paul Duncan, are exceptional but F.X. Feeney's smoothly written 30,000-word essay is the soul of it. The book is a peach and a picnic for lovers of "Repulsion", "Knife in the Water", "Rosemary's Baby", "China- town", "The Pianist", "Macbeth". It even made me want to return to "Frantic", which I bought into because I found it impossible to believe that Harrison Ford would marry Betty Buckley.

One look at "Repulsion", which I first saw in my early 20s, and it was clear Polanski knew how to sock it to you but good. That rotting rabbit on the plate, the bleeding cuticle of that old woman in the beauty salon, the man briefly reflected in the closet-door mirror, that loudly ticking clock, the cracking walls -- Polanski was a guy who knew from nightmares and had a knack for conveying creepiness and perversity in a way that anyone could feel.
The idea you always get from any Polanksi film is that life is not to be trusted, unsafe...teeming with predators. Feeney's copy notes that "the ghostly truth [behind his films] is that Polanski was orphaned by the Nazis and wandered Poland alone from ages 9 to 13. In each of his films, the omniscient viewpoint feels 'childlike' in the least innocent sense: we listen and watch...wary of what's been hidden or is being planned in secret,...one's survival (even within the playful confines of a fantasy) depends on not missing so much as one detail."
I've been talking to F.X. about doing an interview about the Polanski book since mid June. Last week I hit upon the idea of simply writing out a few e-mailed questions and having F.X. write back. His replies came in yesterday and here they are:
HE: How long did it take you to research, write, and then re-write everything? How many words? When did you do the work?
Feeney: I worked from October 2003, to early May 2004. Mind you, I had been researching it since the late `60s and early `70s, when I was in my late teens. Polanski was a very early hero of mine. I have always felt at home in his films. There was never any need to 'interpret' his movies, as with other greats.

"The only way I could make sense of 2001: A Space Odyssey when I first saw it was to try and understand the 'meaning' of the monolith. Polanski was immediately involving, by contrast. If you've ever felt scared while you're alone in a house, Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby make instant sense. Any kid, any grownup, can watch and be perversely tickled by firsthand knowledge of what those poor heroines are feeling.
"My hands-on research began as I tramped around Poland in late November and early December of 2003. I visited the house where Polanski lived in Krakow, prior to the Nazi invasion. A local guide -- a wonderful character who calls himself 'Bob of Bobtours dot com' -- drove me to Wysoka, in the Tatras mountains south of Krakow, where Polanski hid out after escaping the ghetto at age 9.
"A 90 year-old camp survivor living up in those hills remembered the family Polanski boarded with, and directed us precisely to the spot where their hut once stood. ('Three bus stops past the church, to where a long road curves up to the right.') A photo I took of that place is in the book -- along with another I took of the 'half lion, half dragon' Polanski remembers over the door to the house where he spent his few happy times as a kid.
"The following week I went to CAMERIMAGE, a magnificent, intimate, world-class film festival devoted to honoring cinematographers, and held each year in Lodz, Poland. Polanski attended the film school at Lodz -- pronounced 'Woodge,' and fondly nicknamed "Hollywoodge" by partisans of the festival.

"There, in addition to hobnobbing with David Lynch, Peter Weir, James Ivory, Christopher Doyle and an army of great cameramen and young filmmakers, I ran into a wealth of Polanski's old schoolmates, and was even given a tour of the film school, which is still thriving. "Polanski always sat there, on the seventh step," the rector told me as we climbed the wide staircase to the screening room, where the students used to hang out and socialize by the hour.
HE: How did you speak with Polanski? (Over the phone, I presume.) How many conversations? How long did the interview process take?
Feeney: "There were no conversations with Polanski. When I first reached out to him, through a mutual friend -- film director Hubert Cornfield, now deceased -- Polanski's response was courteous but absolute: 'I hope never to be interviewed, ever again.'
"Truth is, Polanski has dealt with everything in print over the past 40 years, be it the Nazis' murder of his mother, the Manson gang's massacre of Sharon Tate and his unborn son, even the incident of 'unlawful sex with a minor' (which is the actual wording of the crime for which he pled guilty -- not statutory rape), and the question of whether or not he's coming back to America -- he's dealt with all of it, exhaustively, in print and on TV, again and again.
"A fellow Polanski scholar, Paul Cronin -- editor of 'Roman Polanski: Interviews' -- shared an indispensible bulk from his archive. But above all there is Polanski's own 1984 autobiography, which is blisteringly honest. I decided to fuse these countless fragments into a coherent mosaic while focusing primarily on the films.

"Polanski did cooperate very generously in terms of providing access to the rare graphic images at his office that my editor Paul Duncan gathered for his superb layouts. Polanski never intervened, though he did review the text for factual inaccuracies. In my original draft I had written that Wysoka is 35 kilometers south of Krakow -- he changed that to 40. He adjusted one or two other things of that nature. Otherwise, his stance was a respectful 'no comment,' good or bad."
HE: What film is he proudest of at this stage? My guess is The Pianist, but maybe it's Knife in the Water or Cul de Sac.
Feeney: "Cul de Sac is his favorite, of record -- everything that is most pure and original in himself is in that film, although it was hell to make. (Uncooperative weather, bedbugs at night, moody actors.) His two favorite working experiences were Chinatown and The Pianist -- in each case, he enjoyed the unwavering support of his backers, cast and crew."
HE: What is your favorite Polanski film personally? Which of his films do you think is the greatest? And why?
Feeney: "This is like asking me my favorite Beatles song. (Actually, that would be 'You've Got to Hide Your Love Away' -- but do we have to sacrifice all the rest?)

HE: Will Polanski ever return to this country?
Feeney: "The great misconception I try to correct in the book is the question of why he's in exile. Several times, lately, in a number of venues, I've come across erroneous newspaper accounts which say 'Polanski fled the US to escape arrest.' No -- he pleaded guilty, took full responsibility, even did prison time and stood ready to pay a hefty fine. Unfortunately Judge Laurence J. Rittenband reacted badly to the overheated media coverage. The day after Polanski was released from Chino [state prison], Rittenband reneged on the careful deal worked out with the prosecutors and arbitrarily threatened Polanski with further and unlimited jail-time. The judge's freakout became contageous and Polanski boarded the next jet out of Dodge. (See pages 109 and 111 of my book.)
"As for his present exile, and his chances of returning: Remember The Exterminating Angel, the Bunuel classic in which dozens of wealthy people are trapped at a party for 40 days and 40 nights (eventually resorting to cannibalism), all because nobody wants to be thought rude by being the first to leave? That's Polanski's position. He pleaded guilty, he did time, he made amends -- through civil courts, he settled with the young woman in the late 1980s / early 1990s. The way is technically clear to an amnesty, but nobody in power wants to be the first one to let him off the hook.
HE: My favorite Polanski scenes are in Repulsion. The loud ticking clock as Catherine Deneueve lies in bed, terrified that an intruder will come into her bedroom, etc. And the arms and hands shooting out from the walls and grabbing her. What are your favorites?
Feeney: "I'm with you in loving Repulsion, through and through. As for Cul de Sac, I would call your attention to a few things -- particularly the long magical interlude on the beach at daybreak, all done in one breathtakingly sustained complex master shot. There, Donald Pleasance, Lionel Stander and Francois Dorleac -- Catherine Deneueve's elder sister, dead in a car crash later in 1966 -- get along peaceably for a change. It's subtle, but the rest of the movie's emotional power is energized by this little truce.

"In Chinatown, pick any scene. My favorites tend to involve John Huston -- but as Robert Towne points out, check out and savor any scene in where the characters (and ourselves) are obliged to wait. Take the moment when Jake is rudely forced to wait all day in a Water & Power honcho's outer office. He persists in waiting -- to the great irritation of the secretary. The same goes, more famously, for the little showdown through gritted teeth with the clerk at the hall of records. Who among contemporary directors would have the bold audience sense to try such scenes, much less pull them off? Paul Thomas Anderson comes to mind, but otherwise? Almost no one.
"Polanski's last five films are all great, in my opinion. Bitter Moon (1992) is a sexy wonder, Death and the Maiden (1995) a magnificent thematic follow-up to Chinatown particularly as articulated by Noah Cross (Huston) to Jake Gittes, when he says: "Most people never have to face the fact that, under the right circumstances, they're capable of anything." Ben Kingsley, Sigourney Weaver and Stuart Wilson give three exceptional performances that demonstrate precisely that horrible truth. The Ninth Gate (1999) is a hoot.
"The Pianist (2002) and Oliver Twist (2005) constitute twin valedictories -- the former recreates the historic reality of Polanski's childhood with a vital fidelity, and the latter catches the inner reality of his childhood -- at large in a hostile universe, but protected by an indestructible optimism."
Wells addendum: I have one beef with the book, which is the cover photo -- a shot of a tearful, devastated Adrien Brody in The Pianist walking down a littered street. This is not Polanski to me -- a man full of grief and pain. Polanski, to me, is the crafty jackal, the brilliant manipulator, the pervy purveyor of the sinister. Polanski is not about boo-hoo but heh-heh. He's the scared little boy who probably once said to himself, "I'll escape the clutches of those Nazi bastards, and then I'll come back when I'm older and make brilliant films and scare the shit out of their sons and daughters and then make them feel ashamed of their parents...hah!"

** Feeney is also the author of Taschen's forthcoming Michael Mann book, due on 9.5.06.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on July 29, 2006 at 2:02 PM
comment #1
Scott says ...
Jeff, did you ask Feeney about his Michael Mann book? I bet he's adding stuff in about the reactions to Vice.
Posted by Scott at July 29, 2006 3:02 PM
comment #2
Thung says ...
Woah, cool, great Q&A -- my fav was: Will Polanski ever return to this country? below the John Huston/Jack Nicholson photo.
Posted by Thung at July 29, 2006 7:15 PM
comment #3
Shawn says ...
The guy can make all the lovely movies he wants. He should still be shot in his little dwarf head for being a child molester. He's a damn coward and I have no idea why movie buffs continue to idolize this perverted pixie.
Posted by Shawn at July 29, 2006 7:27 PM
comment #4
Thung says ...
Jeff, you attract the creepiest people. Maybe that's just humor from Shawn -- a little polishing and it could be a movie pitch.
Posted by Thung at July 29, 2006 7:42 PM
comment #5
Zachary says ...
"I have no idea why movie buffs continue to idolize this perverted pixie."
That's because we can seperate the professional from the personal.
I personally think it's a travesty that he is still under threat of arrest if he comes back into this country.
He did time, had a deal worked out, but it was the cowardly judge who messed it all up. The girl that he had sex with even came out before the 2003 Oscar ceremony and said that she forgives him for what he did.
By the way, Jeff, is the misspelling of contagious yours or Mr. Feeney's? :)
Posted by Zachary at July 29, 2006 9:05 PM
comment #6
Daniel Zelter says ...
Zach: "He did time"
No, he didn't. He fled like O.J.
"had a deal worked out, but it was the cowardly judge who messed it all up."
You mean the judge was wrong for asking that the rule of law actually be applied to someone, regardless of their celebrity status? For shame!
"The girl that he had sex with"
He didn't just have sex with her. He drugged and raped her. Read her own testimony at The Smoking Gun.
" The girl that he had sex with even came out before the 2003 Oscar ceremony and said that she forgives him for what he did."
And that makes it ok?
Posted by Daniel Zelter at July 29, 2006 10:06 PM
comment #7
Anonymous says ...
I love the process; the writer's life: "I visited the house where Polanski lived in Krakow, prior to the Nazi invasion.... The following week I went to CAMERIMAGE, a magnificent, intimate, world-class film festival devoted to honoring cinematographers..."
Posted by Anonymous at July 29, 2006 10:23 PM
comment #8
Daniel Zelter says ...
Zach: Also, that's a cop-out asking that we separate his personal life from his professional life, when it's pretty obvious that Polanski can't even do that.
Posted by Daniel Zelter at July 30, 2006 2:02 AM
comment #9
Chris says ...
It's hard to get past the pedophilia and rave about what a great filmmaker he is. It's fascinating the large numbers of moral cowards who manage to do just that.
Posted by Chris at July 30, 2006 7:16 AM
comment #10
PaulJBis says ...
Reading this thread, the phrase "smug political comissars" comes to mind. Or "puritanical lynch mob". Take your pick.
Posted by PaulJBis at July 30, 2006 9:05 AM
comment #11
Thompson says ...
Wagner was an anti-semite. That makes him a dick, but doesnt make his music any worse. Polanski's movies, similarly, are unaffected. Art throughout history is made by people who lead less than angelic lives, and it is only our own loss if we judge the art by the creator.
Posted by Thompson at July 30, 2006 12:09 PM
comment #12
Daniel Zelter says ...
Thompson: "Wagner was an anti-semite. That makes him a dick, but doesnt make his music any worse."
Considering the Nazis loved him, sure it does. He helped push the type of nationalism which allowed for the Holocaust to happen in the first place. In retrospect, you can view his work as propaganda much in the same vein as Triumph of the Will.
Posted by Daniel Zelter at July 30, 2006 12:53 PM
comment #13
Thompson says ...
Incorrect. First of all, Triumph of the Will was actually created by nazis for nazis. Wagner was writing his huge operas before Hitler was ever born. While Wagner was very much a nationalist (as was Dvorak, as was Smetana, as was Liszt, etc etc etc) he did not write nazi operas. His greatest achievement, the Ring Cycle (19 hours of opera), was basically Lord of the Rings with Sopranos. The point remains that there is nothing inherent in his art that expouses his hateful views, regardless of what others have done with it.
In regards to somehow giving Wagner some of the blame for the Holocaust... he died in 1883. Its a stretch to say the least.
Posted by Thompson at July 30, 2006 3:39 PM
comment #14
Neeb says ...
DVD Check:
Are Cul-de-Sac and Repulsion available in Region 1 on DVDs that are worth getting?
Thanks.
Posted by Neeb at July 30, 2006 8:11 PM
comment #15
Daniel Zelter says ...
Thompson: "First of all, Triumph of the Will was actually created by nazis for nazis. Wagner was writing his huge operas before Hitler was ever born.While Wagner was very much a nationalist (as was Dvorak, as was Smetana, as was Liszt, etc etc etc) he did not write nazi operas."
But he shared many of the same nationalist views as the nazis.
"The point remains that there is nothing inherent in his art that expouses his hateful views, regardless of what others have done with it."
He was promoting the superiority of the German race long before Hitler.
"In regards to somehow giving Wagner some of the blame for the Holocaust... he died in 1883. Its a stretch to say the least."
Though I'm sure if he was alive when it happened, he wouldn't have been against it.
Posted by Daniel Zelter at July 30, 2006 8:21 PM
comment #16
Thompson says ...
He would have been against it. He had several jewish friends, one of whom was his pallbearer. What Wagner found so repulsive was Jewish culture, and was in favor of assimilation, not erradication. He was also an ardent pacifist, something that certainly doesnt fit with the National Socialism ideal.
Wagner was also very much a romantic and an idealist. It wasnt until after his death that various other people, including his psycho wife (Liszt's daughter) used his work to symbolize the far right, something that Wagner, a revolutionary from 1848, would not have approved of. Really, the only reason that Wagner is associated with the Third Reich is because Hitler liked his music. Goebbels even went so far as to ban some of Wagner's work from performance for having ideals contrary to the government (namely, pacifism).
Wagner wrote extensively about his own work, analyzing every facet of it. Never once did he write about any anti-semitism in his own music, and few music scholars believe it exists.
So, judging just Wagner's work, we're left with some stories about how great germans are with no anti-semetic influences. If you want to say that Wagner's music should be ignored because of nationalism, then you also have to ignore the music of many many other great composers, as mentioned previously.
Posted by Thompson at July 30, 2006 9:42 PM
comment #17
Daniel Zelter says ...
Thompson: "He would have been against it. He had several jewish friends, one of whom was his pallbearer.What Wagner found so repulsive was Jewish culture, and was in favor of assimilation, not erradication."
Isn't that the same apologist argument made by hate groups like The Minute Men? That they don't really have a problem with illegals, as long as they "learn the language"?
" He was also an ardent pacifist, something that certainly doesnt fit with the National Socialism ideal."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner :
Widespread discontent against the Saxon government came to a boil in April 1849, when King Frederick Augustus II of Saxony dissolved Parliament and rejected a new constitution pressed upon him by the people. The May Uprising broke out, in which Wagner played a minor supporting role. The incipient revolution was quickly crushed by an allied force of Saxon and Prussian troops, and warrants were issued for the arrest of the revolutionaries.
"Wagner was also very much a romantic and an idealist. It wasnt until after his death that various other people, including his psycho wife (Liszt's daughter) used his work to symbolize the far right, something that Wagner, a revolutionary from 1848, would not have approved of."
I don't think he cared which side of the fence he was on when it came to nationalism.
"Really, the only reason that Wagner is associated with the Third Reich is because Hitler liked his music."
Well that, and the music being played at concentration camps...
" If you want to say that Wagner's music should be ignored because of nationalism, then you also have to ignore the music of many many other great composers, as mentioned previously."
I don't think his music should be ignored, but it definitely should be labelled as propaganda.
Posted by Daniel Zelter at July 31, 2006 12:57 AM
comment #18
Thompson says ...
>Isn't that the same apologist argument made by hate groups
>like The Minute Men? That they don't really have a problem
>with illegals, as long as they "learn the language"?
Again, Wagner was an ass. The point I was trying to make is that though he was an ass, he was not a nazi. I'm not trying to excuse him.
In your middle two points there, you contradicted yourself. You link to an article about Wagner rebelling against the dissolution of the parliament against the King, yet then you say Wagner didnt care about right or left. Obviously he very much did care, and he wrote extensively on it. And also, Wagner quite obviously had absolutely nothing to do with his music being played at concentration camps. Hitler did, which was my point.
As far as Wagner's music being propaganda... thats just ludicrous. Listen to it. Seriously, listen to his music. How the hell is Tristan und Isolde propaganda? Or Siegfried Idyll? Or the Ring Cycle?
Posted by Thompson at July 31, 2006 3:15 PM
comment #19
Rich E says ...
Nobody is a moral coward for admitting that Polanski is a great filmmaker. The films speak for themselves. I don't agree with what he did but I love many of his movies.
I don't like that Woody Allen is married to his step-daughter but it sure doesn't make Annie Hall less of a great experience.
Mel Gibson might be an anti-semite but I still like Braveheart.
The moral cowards are those who can't admit great art can come from imperfect artists.
I'm sure if we were to dig deep enough into the psyche of everyone posting or reading here we would find something to judge.
Posted by Rich E at July 31, 2006 10:38 PM