Commenting on a documentary about a rape case makes it simply impossible to write the usual review whether the result is entertaining or an artistic success. The main question should be if it is true to the facts.
Given the emotional discussions around this case I believe it is better to make clear where I stand first. Yes, I am biased because I am a woman and I cannot see rape or abuse as a minor offense. Even worse when it happens to someone who is underage.
On the other hand I want to point out that I am not biased in a negative way towards Roman Polanski. I have tremendous respect for the work of Polanski. Of course, I am glad he had the opportunity to make his films, which have their place in cinematic history. I am aware of his background and biography and certainly take them into account when judging his behaviour. Still, I cannot find an excuse for his offense. A person can be an offender and a victim at the same time without any contradiction.
The first clue is in the title: Director and writer Marina Zenovich decided that the film is about the famous man and not about his victim. I find it not only disappointing but even disturbing that this documentary seems to deal with almost anything other than the actual crime and misses the point of view of the victim. What could justify how unbalanced the portrayal is? There are immense details of the trial, about the judge and how much-liked Polanski is by his friends, etc. In addition, the style of this documentary does not really help to concentrate on the facts: Zenovich's way of editing Polanski's own film work between archive material and interviews looks weirdly suggestive. Where are the important details of the accusation in all this?
The year is 1977 and there is a 13-year-old girl named Samantha Geimer and a successful man who is 30 years older than her. We do not get to know a lot about how exactly they both come together for a photo shoot which would have been interesting to get the whole picture. Was (or is) this a common thing in Hollywood? Possibly. Was her mother - also a model - being careless, naive, too ambitious? Hard to say, but certainly it is questionable to leave a young inexperienced teenager without a chaperone to pose for nude pictures. Geimer's mother may not been aware they were intended to be nude pictures but it seems it was not ruled out, either. Does this suggest there was no contract and no talk of the conditions? If the same were to happen today with your daughter you would worry about it, would you not? Even more when you have to suspect that there may be drugs involved.
It troubles me that there is such an emphasis on the question how sexually experienced Geimer was. What differences does it make? Yes, it is possible that she had sex with her boyfriend beforehand but why would that fact change this situation? Can that really change the judgement of Polanski's behaviour? Does it make him less responsible? At the age of 13 you are much closer to childhood than to adulthood and therefore you cannot be treated as an adult. Regardless of what this girl already knew about sex, she could not compete with the knowledge of someone 30 years senior. She had no chance at all to be in control of that situation. A detailed description of the accusation would be important to put everything into context but the documentary holds this information back. The details are certainly drastic but necessary, I quote the testimony here: Geimer stated: " ... that Polanski provided champagne that they shared as well as part of a quaalude, and despite her protests, he performed oral, vaginal, and anal sex acts upon her, each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop. " This statement is not part of the documentary. Why is it not included? I can only come to the conclusion that the documentary is not intended to be neutral. It does make a difference for the viewer to know he did abuse her more than once and after he asked her if she took the pill and when she had last had her period decided he would be on the safer side to have anal sex with her. Did Polanski even contradict every part of events?
To leave all that out does not shed a good light on the documentary. Everything else in the film looks like it might be well-documented. I have no reason to doubt anything. It is not new that Polanski was in danger of not getting a fair trail. But that is only one part of the story, these are only the events after his offense. Any attempt to downplay of what happened is not helping to find the truth. It it sad how it turned out for both of them because it became a never-ending story and both the offender and the victim have never been able to close that chapter in their lives.
The first clue is in the title: Director and writer Marina Zenovich decided that the film is about the famous man and not about his victim. I find it not only disappointing but even disturbing that this documentary seems to deal with almost anything other than the actual crime and misses the point of view of the victim. What could justify how unbalanced the portrayal is? There are immense details of the trial, about the judge and how much-liked Polanski is by his friends, etc. In addition, the style of this documentary does not really help to concentrate on the facts: Zenovich's way of editing Polanski's own film work between archive material and interviews looks weirdly suggestive. Where are the important details of the accusation in all this?
The year is 1977 and there is a 13-year-old girl named Samantha Geimer and a successful man who is 30 years older than her. We do not get to know a lot about how exactly they both come together for a photo shoot which would have been interesting to get the whole picture. Was (or is) this a common thing in Hollywood? Possibly. Was her mother - also a model - being careless, naive, too ambitious? Hard to say, but certainly it is questionable to leave a young inexperienced teenager without a chaperone to pose for nude pictures. Geimer's mother may not been aware they were intended to be nude pictures but it seems it was not ruled out, either. Does this suggest there was no contract and no talk of the conditions? If the same were to happen today with your daughter you would worry about it, would you not? Even more when you have to suspect that there may be drugs involved.
It troubles me that there is such an emphasis on the question how sexually experienced Geimer was. What differences does it make? Yes, it is possible that she had sex with her boyfriend beforehand but why would that fact change this situation? Can that really change the judgement of Polanski's behaviour? Does it make him less responsible? At the age of 13 you are much closer to childhood than to adulthood and therefore you cannot be treated as an adult. Regardless of what this girl already knew about sex, she could not compete with the knowledge of someone 30 years senior. She had no chance at all to be in control of that situation. A detailed description of the accusation would be important to put everything into context but the documentary holds this information back. The details are certainly drastic but necessary, I quote the testimony here: Geimer stated: " ... that Polanski provided champagne that they shared as well as part of a quaalude, and despite her protests, he performed oral, vaginal, and anal sex acts upon her, each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop. " This statement is not part of the documentary. Why is it not included? I can only come to the conclusion that the documentary is not intended to be neutral. It does make a difference for the viewer to know he did abuse her more than once and after he asked her if she took the pill and when she had last had her period decided he would be on the safer side to have anal sex with her. Did Polanski even contradict every part of events?
To leave all that out does not shed a good light on the documentary. Everything else in the film looks like it might be well-documented. I have no reason to doubt anything. It is not new that Polanski was in danger of not getting a fair trail. But that is only one part of the story, these are only the events after his offense. Any attempt to downplay of what happened is not helping to find the truth. It it sad how it turned out for both of them because it became a never-ending story and both the offender and the victim have never been able to close that chapter in their lives.