Roman Polanski Doc Filmmaker 'Perplexed,' 'Astonished' Over Lying Source
It came as more than a little bit of a surprise Wednesday when a critical source in the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired said he'd fabricated his story about judicial misconduct in Roman Polanksi's rape case. Polanski supporters swung back as predicted, speculating about the strange timing of David Wells's announcement and theorizing about what (or who) turned him over while Polanski battles extradition in Switzerland. Wanted and Desired filmmaker Marina Zenovich was especially curious, and she put her thoughts about the matter in writing today. Her statement follows the jump.
I am perplexed by the timing of David Wells' statement to the press that he lied in his interview with me for the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. Since June of 2008, the film has been quite visible on U.S. television via HBO, in theaters and on DVD, so it is odd that David Wells has not brought this issue to my attention before.
For the record, on the day I filmed Mr. Wells at the Malibu Courthouse, February 11, 2005, he gave me a one-hour interview. He signed a release like all my other interviewees, giving me permission to use his interview in the documentary worldwide. At no time did I tell him that the film would not air in the United States.
Mr. Wells was always friendly and open with me. At no point in the four years since our interview has he ever raised any issues about its content. In fact, in a July 2008 story in The New York Times, Mr. Wells corroborated the account of events that he gave in my film.
I am astonished that he has now changed his story. It is a sad day for documentary filmmakers when something like this happens.
Can't argue with that. But look on the bright side, Marina: Your fiction breakthrough is fantastic.
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
And, none of it matters one bit.
Roman admitted that he drugged and raped a 13 yr old girl.
This tyoe of prosecutorial absurdity happens every day in the US.
Why doesn't Little miss Zenovich do a documentary about actually innocent people who have been shafted by crooked prosecutors?????????
Oh I forgot, none of them are rich, from making over-rated movies.
Disgusting Americans.
She must feel like she's been drugged and raped.
It's truly amazing how the Internet, which was developed primarily to be an information superhighway, has evolved into a virtual world where any person can type what he/she wishes and express opinions, regardless of whether the individual has comprehensive knowledge of a particular topic.
Based upon the lack of knowledge, compassion, and maturity that is evinced in comments like this, I think there have to be a large number of young people teenagers or younger) who post. No doubt there are many adults who are idiots also, and find the Internet a place where they can exhibit their lack of knowledge, as well as vent their frustrations.
The case against Roman Polanski is not, and was never cut and dry.
First, there is nothing noted here that definitively states that there was actual misconduct on the part of any prosecutor. Even if one of the sources lied, judicial misconduct does not necessarily involve a prosecutor. For example, news reports have stated that Polanski received a plea bargain where all but one of the counts against him were dropped. Supposedly, Polanski received a sentence of 42 days, but was advised by one or more people that somehow the judge was going to tack on significantly more jail time. Supposedly, that is the reason he fled -- SEVERAL DECADES AGO.
Second, it should be noted that the girl Polanski had sexual relations is now an adult, and has publicly stated that the incident with Polanski had no (or virtually no) negative impact on her life, and that she does not feel Polanski should be imprisoned.
Third, the charge of rape is essentially on a statutory (per se) basis. That is, that the "victim" (who contends that she really wasn't a victim, as noted above, and according to reports at the time looked considerably older than her actual age) was under the legal age of consent in the state where the incident occurred. Over the past couple of decades, age of consent laws have been raised in a large number of states. Today, prosecutors (at least, the progressive ones) tend to focus more on the maturity of person--whether, almost regardless of age, the person had the mental capacity to understand, and whether the sex was consensual.
Taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding the case that I am aware of, including the fact that the "victim" has spoken out in Polanski's favor, I consider any further attempts to detain and/or extradite to be inane. Any such attempts cost money, and are thus wasteful on the part of all countries involved. In my opinion, particularly given the economic conditions in the United States, it is unfortunate that ANY should be expended on extradition, or continuation of this case.
Finally, Polanski was never accused of having sex with an underage girl at any time over the decades that this incident supposedly occurred. In my opinion, Polanski has already served any sentence that might have been appropriate in the eyes of some many times over.
Now she can be known as a female Martin Bashir.
"No doubt there are many adults who are idiots also, and find the Internet a place where they can exhibit their lack of knowledge, as well as vent their frustrations."
You do realize you are talking about yourself, as evidence from your own post.
Simon, would a simple "fuck you" suffice for putting "victim" in quotes? I mean, I guess you have a point, if she looked older than 13, in the eyes of the law it couldn't possibly be illegal to drug her and rape her, right?
This was my favorite part:
"Today, prosecutors (at least, the progressive ones) tend to focus more on the maturity of person--whether, almost regardless of age, the person had the mental capacity to understand, and whether the sex was consensual."
What fucking state do you live in? He was 44, and she was 13. Not even the "progressive" prosecutors let you get away with that these days, Simon. Ugh, you are an idiot (per se). Try out facts sometime, they're heaps of fun.
"Third, the charge of rape is essentially on a statutory (per se) basis. That is, that the "victim" (who contends that she really wasn't a victim, as noted above, and according to reports at the time looked considerably older than her actual age) was under the legal age of consent in the state where the incident occurred."
WTF?
Read the grand jury transcripts. It was non-consensual sex involving drugs with a 13-year-old girl, i.e. rape, not "statutory", but rape. She never once said she wasn't a victim.
Nice trolling.
Though Movieline has stayed on the fence, the item the other day saying "how can it be justice?" if a 76-year-old rapist goes to jail was pretty disgusting.
Everyone else sees that this is Hollywood cronyism at its worst.
Though Movieline has stayed on the fence, the item the other day saying "how can it be justice?" if a 76-year-old rapist goes to jail was pretty disgusting.
That is absolutely not what I wrote. I posed a hypothetical scenario from his defenders' point of view: That a 76-year-old Holocaust victim and Manson-famliy widower might die in jail battling a politically motivated prosecutor for months, even years. Is that justice? I'm actually asking. It's not rhetorical.
And yes, I know he drugged and raped a 13-year-old. That doesn't change the legal shitshow that will ensue if this scenario plays out. Whether you want it to or not, right or wrong, it will rain lawsuits on the County of Los Angeles -- which can barely afford Operation Roman as it is. That's just a fact; like the illegality of an admitted statutory rapist's flight prior to sentencing, it's simply not up for moral debate. The debate should stem from the question: Is it worth it?
Yes it is rhetorical, because you seem to have already your mind made up on how the events should play out. You are trying to persuade us with your opinion not elicit information from us.
I in fact don't know if California can afford to prosecute Polanski right now. But my question is if we can hold him in Switzerland until they can afford it?
And he is not a statutory rapist. Statutory rape implies uninformed consent i.e. the victim was willing but the age difference may have been able to produce manipulation. This girl said NO and he said yes, which as Whoppi Goldberg would say is "rape-rape".
No, I'm just not telling you what you want to hear. Stating the facts is not the same as excusing or justifying behavior.
He pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, which remains the official status of his case. Of course he drugged and raped her non-consensually, but again, whether we like it or not, that's not the crime he currently faces sentencing for. If he returns, and the prosecutors throw the deal out, then the rape/alcohol/drug/sodomy charges re-enter the legal picture.
I'm as revolted by his crimes and want to see justice served/case closed as much as anyone. But that doesn't give me (or anyone) the right to misapprehend the big picture.