I think it is hard to go back and look at the events around the Polanski rape case objectively, obviously that didn't happen during the trial nor since then.
I have to say that I didn't know much about Polanski besides watching a few of his films. I didn't know anything about his past, nothing about his childhood during WWII, the death of his wife, the sexual fiasco he had with a 13 year old, nor the subsequent sham of the trial he had to go through. With that said I think the guy is a fantastic director and has a tremendous ability to tell stories. However, this film set out to explain what happened during the trial of Polanski for "sex with a minor"... and succeeded to tell one of the most manipulative stories I have ever heard/seen. Let me explain:
Before the film really gets into the trial the moviemaker of this documentary decides to show the audience Polanski's background--the most unfortunate parts of it. We learn that Roman survives the holocaust however his parents do not, we learn of how much he loved his wife Sharon and then how she was brutally murdered by the Manson family. We also learn that Polanski was vulnerable and, I believe someone in the film used the word, "not-stable" to describe Polanski in relationships before he met his wife or after her death. These are very tragic events and circumstances... but what do they have to do with the trial? What purpose does this information serve especially when you frame the film with these circumstances? You are supposed to feel horrible for Polanski; the filmmaker forces the audience to empathize with this man before the trial is even presented.
Once you are buttered up the trial begins. And yes, beyond a shadow of a doubt Polanski was not treated fairly in court. The judge was the bad guy- certainly lacking integrity and clearly pursuing his own purposes and not justice. This merely reinforces the view of Polanski in the audience's mind, a deserving and talented man unjustly treated by the media and the judicial system and life in general. I felt like jumping out of my seat and writing my congressman for judicial reform and while he was at it give Polanski the honorary keys to L.A.
But hold on a second. Polanski had sex with a 13 year old girl after he drugged her and gave her alcohol... and they were quibbling over if Polanski should spend 90 days in a prison mental hospital! How many years would I get in prison if I had done this? I would be locked away for a long long time.
I was talking to some friends about how "cooperative" Polanski was throughout the whole process and how impressive and honest that was... well yeah! I would have been honest too if I had done that and I knew that the worst I could get was probation or 90 days in a mental ward.
The film concludes with Polanski flying to France never to return, when he hears that the psycho fame crazed judge wanted to deport him only after Polanski finished out the duration of his 90 day sentence in the mental institution. Once in France he is hailed as a hero and is given honorary memberships to some fancy French institution. Filmmaker’s conclusion: Polanski went through hell and came out a hero but is unjustly wanted in the U.S.
This film ignores the crime that the brilliant director committed. Frames the story around how tragic his life has been up until this point and how resilient he has been, never mind that he brought the trial on himself- but we are made to feel as though he didn't deserve it. I do concede that the judge botched the trial and was quite horrible… but that only excuses so much.
There's a bunch more in this film that could be addressed like the media, America's obsession/condition with celebrity, our judicial system... I would love to see someone else's opinion on these issues in the film.