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.
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.