The documentary, firstly, offers an insight into the life and personality of Polanski, so very much marked by tragedy since his childhood and an insight into his creative genius, with which we all agree. Many of his famous friends offer give a glimpse of his charm and attractive personality, and of his personal highs and lows before and during his marriage to Sharon Tate, after her murder, and when the rape case burst out. We also see the way the American media has been treating Polanski since the death of Tate. Most of his friends, being so, always believed in Polanski's innocence. Love is always blind, and never an objective proof of anything, so their opinions are going to be subjective, and do not add anything to the question if he did in fact rape the girl or not. Talent does not make you a better or worse person, just talented.
The documentary, secondly, offers an insightful review of Polanski's trial in the USA, and of the many irregularities committed by judge Laurence J. Rittenband, who was more thrilled to become famous and punish Polanski a priory than to do Justice. The long interviews with the two lawyers, defendant and prosecutor, and the victim, Samantha, really help the viewer to understand that Polanski was legally mistreated, and that Rittenband abused his power and proceeded in improper unacceptable legal ways. We understand why Polanski flew the USA, and why he is right at mistrusting the American Press and judicial system. We also understand how silly and outrageous the latest detention of Polanski was.
Said this, the documentary somewhat forgets Samantha and does not try to provide enough information about what really happened that night. Did Polanski rape her? Was Samantha lying? Was Samantha used by her mother? The documentary seems to blame her mother for letting her go alone with womaniser Polanski; however, no mother wants her child abused or raped. The interventions of Samantha on camera are very limited and controlled by the director, and mostly serve to support that Polanski, an herself were used by the judge, and that the trial harmed them both. However, why does the director forget or avoid asking Samantha the main questions, directly, and letting the viewer hear what she has to say? After all, a rapist is never excused no matter how talented he is, even less if he is taking advantage of a teen, even if that girl has had sexual intercourse before. The transcript of the proceedings of the case, with the witnesses testimonials, is available online at This Place.
In fact, this transcript briefly appears in the documentary, just highlighting the questions made to Samantha, without displaying Samantha's replies in full. By reading Samantha's testimonial one immediately believes her. However, the testimonial of the doctor who examined her that night puts a big question mark onto Samantha's testimonial, as he denies she was forced or that sex took place. At the same time Polanski's semen was found in Samantha's panties. On the other hand, if I or my daughter were raped, I would like the rapist jailed, so he can't do the same to other girls. However, Samantha's family and herself publicly forgave Polanski long ago. If the sex was consensual, and Samantha was not a virgin, why the attorney's office did not charge the other offenders? Where is Polanski's narration of the events of the night? All of these elements are relevant to the case, and should have been directly explored in the documentary. If you want to present an objective documentary about Polanski's case, you have to be objective in the first place, and go all the way.
After watching the documentary and reading the transcripts of the trial, the case is still as mysterious as before regarding the main question. The documentary is sometimes a panegyric, and does not help to erase the black shadow pending on Polanski's head. However, the documentary does a great job a showcasing the irregularities of Polanski's trial, and making your head spin with questions.
