comment #1

Movie fan09 says ...

I saw her on Shootout, and she seemed to be more interested in being in awe of his work, than actually seeing him for what he was/is.

comment #2

lipranzer says ...

The film doesn't stand in awe of Polanski, nor does it sugarcoat his actions. It does point out how disgracefully the judge acted.

However, my respect for Zenovich has dimmed somewhat in finding out this ending, which I considered one of the high points of the movie, wasn't true.

comment #3

Movie fan09 says ...

However, my respect for Zenovich has dimmed somewhat in finding out this ending, which I considered one of the high points of the movie, wasn't true.

my point exactly.

comment #4

D.Z. says ...

lipranzer: "It does point out how disgracefully the judge acted."

Yes, making a rapist do time is wrong.

comment #5

jjgittes says ...

"making a rapist do time is wrong"

Not a rapist, the rape charge was dropped. The charge was dropped in his plea bargain and the charge was unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

The right words matter in cases like this, even if you're just going for a sarcastic comic zinger.........which, you really shouldn't be going for anyway.

It is perfectly reasonable to think the judge acted disgracefully whether you feel the terms of the plea bargain let him off easy or not.

comment #6

LFF says ...

The HBO ending clarifies the language, but essentially makes the same point.

comment #7

Colin says ...

We should be careful in how we characterize Judge Rittenband's behavior. Was he guilty of fanning the media's flames. Almost certainly. Was he more concerned with looking tough than rendering justice? Likely.

But whenever I read about the Polanski case, a typical refrain is that Judge Rittenband was a jerk simply because he rejected a plea deal which both sides supported. From a strictly legal perspective, judges have great latitude in deciding whether to accept or reject plea bargains, and they frequently reject them.

In other words, there were specific reasons to find Judge Rittenband's behavior questionable, but his simple act of rejecting the proposed plea bargain was nothing out of the ordinary. And this comes from someone who thinks that defendants should be more protected in the plea bargaining process than basically any court in the country:

http://www.nesl.edu/journal/vol32/2/MillerMACRO2.pdf

comment #8

Slappy9001 says ...

Plus, didn't Polanski spend something like 40 days in jail while he was being evaluated as part of the plea deal? It was only after Polanski was let out early by the jail that the judge started to publicly say that maybe he needed to be tougher.

comment #9

Richardson says ...

The thing the movie said, which I had never heard before, was that the Judge wanted the psych evaluators to name him a mentally defective sex criminal, and when the initial 90 day period expired, and the psychiatrists didn't agree that he was a mentally defective sex criminal, the judge said that he wanted Polanski to be evaluated for a full year, in 90 day increments because it would look better to the press.

Now, I don't know whether that's true, but it's certainly deplorable behavior and seems like a misuse of judicial power to me. And I don't think much of Polanski.

comment #10

D.Z. says ...

jj: "Not a rapist, the rape charge was dropped."

It's still technically rape.

"The charge was dropped in his plea bargain and the charge was unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor."

That's generally what is referred to as statutory rape.

"It is perfectly reasonable to think the judge acted disgracefully"

Only if you think that celebrities should get a free ride for things like this.

Colin: "We should be careful in how we characterize Judge Rittenband's behavior. Was he guilty of fanning the media's flames. Almost certainly."

Yes, it's his fault that a well-known director couldn't keep it in his pants.

"Was he more concerned with looking tough than rendering justice? Likely."

I didn't know that rendering justice means allowing a child molester to go free, just because they're famous.

"But whenever I read about the Polanski case, a typical refrain is that Judge Rittenband was a jerk simply because he rejected a plea deal which both sides supported. From a strictly legal perspective, judges have great latitude in deciding whether to accept or reject plea bargains, and they frequently reject them."

So if judges do that all the time, why is he a jerk?

"In other words, there were specific reasons to find Judge Rittenband's behavior questionable,"

I find anyone who criticizes a judge for doing his or her job more questionable.

Slappy: "Plus, didn't Polanski spend something like 40 days in jail while he was being evaluated as part of the plea deal? It was only after Polanski was let out early by the jail that the judge started to publicly say that maybe he needed to be tougher."

Pro-tip: Most adults who do assault underage children(and even adults) against their will generally get more than just 40 days. (See Scott Peterson.)

Richardson: "The thing the movie said, which I had never heard before, was that the Judge wanted the psych evaluators to name him a mentally defective sex criminal, and when the initial 90 day period expired, and the psychiatrists didn't agree that he was a mentally defective sex criminal, the judge said that he wanted Polanski to be evaluated for a full year, in 90 day increments because it would look better to the press.
Now, I don't know whether that's true, but it's certainly deplorable behavior."

I'm not sure how it's deplorable that a judge would want to set an example to other would-be offenders.

comment #11

MickTravis says ...

Richardson, you're confusing the 90-day evaluation period with the 90-day increments w/which the judge extended Polanski's stay of sentencing to allow him to finish "The Hurricane."

Which is kind of understandable. It is confusing. The judge specifically picked 90-day increments, I think, to confuse the public.

Good documentary. Nice to see Reel Geezer Lorenzo pop up!

Does anybody know the name of the movie excerpted in the documentary that involved Polanski dancing while an old man banged on a drum?

comment #12

Richardson says ...

"Richardson, you're confusing the 90-day evaluation period with the 90-day increments w/which the judge extended Polanski's stay of sentencing to allow him to finish "The Hurricane.""

Fair enough; I wasn't drawn into the doc, so I was distracted in the last 20 minutes, and obviously made some connection that wasn't there.

But they did make a case for the Judge *strongly* pushing for him to be found as a mentally defective sex criminal, rather than accepting the psychiatrist's decision, because it would allow for a stronger sentence.

"The judge specifically picked 90-day increments, I think, to confuse the public."

It said something like "90 day increments will sound better to the newspapers, rather than announcing it would be a full year."

comment #13

Richardson says ...

"I'm not sure how it's deplorable that a judge would want to set an example to other would-be offenders."

You're an idiot, DZ, as per usual.

To repeat, I find it deplorable for a judge to put pressure on psychiatrists to name a man "mentally defective" in order to be able to give him a stronger sentence, which is something the doc accuses the judge of doing. That has nothing to do with setting an example, and is well outside the standard legal behavior for a judge.

comment #14

CinemaPhreek says ...

I only caught the tail end of the doc last night, so I am curious if the director goes into how the case became far more symbolic than about the actual crime. For years, it was shorthand from right wing pundits to condemn "lefty, commie, Satan-worshiping" Hollywood.

In fact, I can remember reading and having conversations during both times the Academy wanted to give the moral/artistic coward Kazan an honorary Oscar and you have someone pull a Rush L. move by throwing Polanski's name in your face.

Not to mention how (straight) men who have been to an industry party or two find themselves hemming and hawing about it - there but for the grace of god go I.

I did notice that she only had one interview with a Frenchman who was connected to the Académie des Beaux-Arts. I would be curious to hear what a more average Parisian has to say about Polanski being there. Mistresses are one thing, but one imagines that even the French have qualms about statutory rape.

comment #15

Richardson says ...

"so I am curious if the director goes into how the case became far more symbolic than about the actual crime. For years, it was shorthand from right wing pundits to condemn "lefty, commie, Satan-worshiping" Hollywood."

Not particularly. They showed a lot of newspapers that were saying that Polanski's obvious Satan-worshipping (because of "Rosemary's Baby") was connected to the murders of Sharon Tate, but those were all prior to the arrest of the Mansons.

There's a lot about the difference between the American press coverage and the foreign press coverage, but neither one comes off very well. The foreign press went out of their way to track her down and expose her, which created the *extremely* cringe-inducing moment where the French guy says, "We tracked her down, we found her school ID, and her teachers, and..." and they cut to a shot of her ID which prominently says "Junior High School".

That moment really hammered her age home.

comment #16

Josh says ...

The guy raped and molested a 13 yr old girl.

He should do jail time. Except he ran away like a wuss.

comment #17

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: "To repeat, I find it deplorable for a judge to put pressure on psychiatrists to name a man "mentally defective" in order to be able to give him a stronger sentence, which is something the doc accuses the judge of doing. "

I like how you find it deplorable, even though you haven't heard the judge's side of the story. But assuming that's true, shouldn't you take into account the possibility that someone smart enough to get close to someone else, in order to rape their daughter, is probably smart enough to fool a shrink into declaring him "sane"?

"That has nothing to do with setting an example, and is well outside the standard legal behavior for a judge."

Why does Polanski's mental status carry more legal weight than the victim's own emotional trauma? If I were a father whose kid was raped, I'd damn well want that perp to get a long time behind bars, and/or to get a thorough clean bill of health before I allowed them back on the streets. A forty day evaluation is not going to cut it, when there are people with lesser problems who take as long as four years to get back on their feet.

comment #18

D.Z. says ...

I wanted to add that I'd definitely trust the judge more than the quack in that situation, and demand that the latter person have their license revoked. [Not to mention that I'd suspect money going under the table-or some other favor-which lead to that passing assessment of Polanski....]

comment #19

Richardson says ...

"even though you haven't heard the judge's side of the story"

Which is why I said, "I don't know if it's true". You should try reading -- oh, sorry, for a second I forgot who I was responding to. I know you have trouble with the way that words form sentences which, together, are statements and, when the statements are connected to other people's statements, they become a conversation.

"shouldn't you take into account the possibility that someone smart enough to get close to someone else, in order to rape their daughter, is probably smart enough to fool a shrink into declaring him "sane"?"

That's immaterial. If you want the law to be different, change the law, don't ignore it.

Beyond which, you show an incredible lack of knowledge regarding psychiatry; a good psychiatrist can say, "Yes, this person is charming, but they are mentally ill." They don't let themselves get charmed.

"Why does Polanski's mental status carry more legal weight than the victim's own emotional trauma?"

You're a fucking idiot, DZ, if you can infer that from what I said.

"and/or to get a thorough clean bill of health before I allowed them back on the streets"

Just to be clear, since you have shown (as per usual) that you have no idea what you're talking about, the point of a mental evaluation is not, "Well, either you'll get dismissed completely or you're go to a mental hospital." The point is, under the law, you get one sentence, in prison, if you are mentally competent, but can get a much more open-ended sentence, potentially in an asylym, if you are found mentally incapable.

"A forty day evaluation is not going to cut it"

A *ninety* day evaluation is (or was) the law. Do you always think judges should be allowed to ignore the law, or is it just that you think this guy had good intentions which mean it's okay that he was choosing to ignore the law? Just curious.

"I'd definitely trust the judge more than the quack in that situation"

The "quack" was appointed by the judge. Now who do you trust?

"and demand that the latter person have their license revoked"

Can you explain, in as much detail as you need, your medical qualifications and how much time you spent evaluating Polanski's mental state at the time? I'd like to be able to compare your conclusion to the medical doctor's.

"Not to mention that I'd suspect money going under the table-or some other favor"

So he's easily charmed, he's a quack, and he got bribed? Well, certainly, as soon as you can prove even one of those accusations, I'll join your campaign to get his license suspended.

comment #20

Richardson says ...

"He should do jail time."

I completely agree with you, if this wasn't already clear from my earlier statements. He should get more jail time than he already served.

"The guy raped and molested a 13 yr old girl."

One thing I give the movie credit for, even though they fawn over how Polanski is a great cinematic genius, and they pile as much criticism of the judge in as they can fit, it didn't shy away from this. Polanski even says, on camera, that he knew she was 13 before she arrived at the house.

"Except he ran away like a wuss."

Personally speaking, I can't say I blame him for running. If I were looking at a prison sentence, and potentially a thirty year one, and still had my passport and money and citizenship in a country which wouldn't send me back, I wouldn't go to prison either. I wouldn't have raped the girl, but I can understand not staying around to go to prison. Why did he still have his passport?

comment #21

alan says ...

"Pro-tip: Most adults who do assault underage children(and even adults) against their will generally get more than just 40 days. (See Scott Peterson.)"

Did I just read that correctly? Someone please tell me I didn't. I'm sorry, but Polanski's crime is not comparable to someone murdering his pregnant wife, sawing her head off, and then dumping the corpses of his wife and unborn child into a body of water to rot.

comment #22

alan says ...

I might add that it's an especially horrendous comparison given the tragic events of Polanski's life.

comment #23

Richardson says ...

alan - you might as well expect a reasonable conversation from a monkey as expect logic from any given talking point from DZ, or consistency between the talking points. The only think you can bank on is that, if you get him talking long enough, sooner or later he'll tie it in to his hatred of Quentin Tarantino, and his steadfast belief that "Indiana Jones" and "transformers" both failed at the box office.

comment #24

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: "Which is why I said, "I don't know if it's true". You should try reading -- "

I like how you're telling me I should try reading, even though you've already blamed the judge for Polanski's crime.

"That's immaterial. If you want the law to be different, change the law, don't ignore it."

That's immaterial?! That's only the basis of the effing case! And it seems like it's you who wants to change the law, and let sex offenders run around, as long as they're celebrities.

"Beyond which, you show an incredible lack of knowledge regarding psychiatry; a good psychiatrist can say, "Yes, this person is charming, but they are mentally ill." They don't let themselves get charmed."

I think that says more about your lack of understanding of the profession, actually. Shrinks interpret information, based on the feedback and information they're given, not based on body language. The latter form of analysis tends to be as reliable as a truth detector.

"Just to be clear, since you have shown (as per usual) that you have no idea what you're talking about, the point of a mental evaluation is not, "Well, either you'll get dismissed completely or you're go to a mental hospital." The point is, under the law, you get one sentence, in prison, if you are mentally competent, but can get a much more open-ended sentence, potentially in an asylym, if you are found mentally incapable."

Yes, and you have a better chance of escaping the prior sentence than you do the latter sentence.

"A *ninety* day evaluation is (or was) the law. Do you always think judges should be allowed to ignore the law, or is it just that you think this guy had good intentions which mean it's okay that he was choosing to ignore the law?"

If the circumstances are unique, I think a judge should have the jurisdiction to bend the rules. And I imagine that that's part of the law, too.

"The "quack" was appointed by the judge. Now who do you trust?"

The quack was appointed based on his history and/or availability, not based on the judge's favorable view of him.

"Can you explain, in as much detail as you need, your medical qualifications and how much time you spent evaluating Polanski's mental state at the time? I'd like to be able to compare your conclusion to the medical doctor's."

No, I can't explain, but, given his history, it doesn't take a Ph.D. to realize he's unhinged.

"Well, certainly, as soon as you can prove even one of those accusations, I'll join your campaign to get his license suspended."

It's not hard to prove, when you got a perp who flees the country.

"If I were looking at a prison sentence, and potentially a thirty year one, and still had my passport and money and citizenship in a country which wouldn't send me back, I wouldn't go to prison either."

If you don't like prison, don't commit crime.

alan: "I'm sorry, but Polanski's crime is not comparable to someone murdering his pregnant wife, sawing her head off, and then dumping the corpses of his wife and unborn child into a body of water to rot."

Yes, raping little girls is fine and dandy, next to murdering people. (sarcasm)

comment #25

TerryKeefe says ...

It always amazes me that so many are willing to defend Polanski this many years down the line.

He had sex with a 13-year old girl. Possibly by anal rape. And gave her drugs.

And he was also getting railroaded by a starstruck judge.

The system of justice is what really failed here. That doesn't make Polanski any type of hero.

Was Polanski justifed in fleeing? I guess, but the circumstances which led to that flight are completely indefensible, to say the least.

comment #26

Zimmergirl says ...

The film doesn't excuse what Polanski did but it does put it into context. We are not perfect, we human beings, and until you lived through being abandoned in Poland after your parents were murdered in the Holocaust and then, inexplicably, having your pregnant wife stabbed in the stomach and murdered by the Manson family and then had the press not only blame you but drag your wife's name through the mud - until you've lived through that you can't know what kind of craziness was in his head. It doesn't excuse it, no. But it's context, something this film provided. As to the Kim Masters story it's totally pointless and smoke where there's no fire. It reveals nothing important or new. The point was made, Polanski was too jittery to go through that again.

comment #27

jany says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability disaster recovery