Laurent Bouzereau isn't exactly well known for hard hitting questions in his documentaries, but this one takes the cake.
Roman Polanski's friend (that alone should set the alarm bells off) Andrew Braunsberg is the one asking the questions, and it becomes painfully clear why they have a personal friend of Polanski interview him: So he can be asked lowball questions allowing Polanski to rant freely about the supposedly unfair shake he got from the legal system. Not only does the interviewer fail to deliver any follow up questions - he actually aggressively supports Polanski.
Here's what happened: Polanski gave drugs to an underage girl whom he proceeded to rape. Whether she consented or not, as some Polanski defenders claim, is inconsequential as a minor can not consent to sex, thus rape.
How does the interviewer - that is, Polanski's friend - approach this issue? The verbatim quotes are: "... and suddenly you had this experience with Samantha" "... 33 years since the case with Samantha occurred" Not once are the actual details of the case presented. Not once are drugs mentioned. Not once is rape mentioned. It's transformed into an abstract "experience" or "case" that "occurred" with a presumably helpless and passive Polanski as the true victim.
But you can rest assured that Polanski is given plenty of time to lament over how unfairly the justice system treated him, how scary jail was, and how he was forced to leave the country. Poor Roman living in luxury in Europe for the rest of his life! By now the interviewer's lower lip is trembling with sadness, and he several times feels compelled to point out how he so admires Roman for having overcome so much adversity in his life. I was fully expecting this documentary to turn into Brokeback Mountain.
Roman Polanski's friend (that alone should set the alarm bells off) Andrew Braunsberg is the one asking the questions, and it becomes painfully clear why they have a personal friend of Polanski interview him: So he can be asked lowball questions allowing Polanski to rant freely about the supposedly unfair shake he got from the legal system. Not only does the interviewer fail to deliver any follow up questions - he actually aggressively supports Polanski.
Here's what happened: Polanski gave drugs to an underage girl whom he proceeded to rape. Whether she consented or not, as some Polanski defenders claim, is inconsequential as a minor can not consent to sex, thus rape.
How does the interviewer - that is, Polanski's friend - approach this issue? The verbatim quotes are: "... and suddenly you had this experience with Samantha" "... 33 years since the case with Samantha occurred" Not once are the actual details of the case presented. Not once are drugs mentioned. Not once is rape mentioned. It's transformed into an abstract "experience" or "case" that "occurred" with a presumably helpless and passive Polanski as the true victim.
But you can rest assured that Polanski is given plenty of time to lament over how unfairly the justice system treated him, how scary jail was, and how he was forced to leave the country. Poor Roman living in luxury in Europe for the rest of his life! By now the interviewer's lower lip is trembling with sadness, and he several times feels compelled to point out how he so admires Roman for having overcome so much adversity in his life. I was fully expecting this documentary to turn into Brokeback Mountain.