Talk:Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired

this article needs a synopsis or summary

The article starts out citing the awards that the film got, then goes on to quote from the reviews and then discusses the recent controversy, but you never get a good idea what the film is about. Well, it's obviously about RP and his criminal charges, but you don't get a sense of what the filmmaker is trying to say, whether the film is pro-RP or anti-RP, and except for the retraction by Wells, you have no idea what the film is saying. --rogerd (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. Feel free to add one. WP:BOLD It needs a number of sections that are usually found in film articles.Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film. I know, I know, the content should be from reliable sources, not personal observation, but I think the article would be better served by an editor who has seen it who adds content from reliable third party sources. --rogerd (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This entry in Wikipedia is not proper

This entry should be about the film, what the film is asserting, and reviews of the film. Most of entries are now of a legal political football game surrounding only one of the interviews and aspects of the film. Yes it may be appropriate to show what Wells said in the film, and later retracted. (though I could arguing against both, and focus simply on the film) But the current ongoing discussion of that is not appropriate here.

Showing how off track this entry is see the current last line of it. "“Even if Dave Wells were to be lying” in the original film, she said, “we still have a judge who was instructing the prosecutor and defense lawyer on how to behave, and doing it based on how he would look in the media,” she added, referring to other allegations in the documentary"

What other allegations in the documentary are being referred to???

I would be in favor of listing those allegations detailed in the documentary. A summery of them would be great, and appropriate here. But to simply refer to them, and being a second hand reference of facts, gives weight to them, without know what they are is just wrong. Also a judge telling the lawyers in his case how to behave is not noteworthy, its a judges job to control his courtroom, and media gag orders are common place.

We could go to any person remotely connected and get more quotes, but that is the problem, this should not be a tit for tat political football match. I would argue this entry should only be about what is in the film as a documentary, a synopsis of the documentaries assertions. Reviews of the movie could provide that synopsis. The reviews can simply be referenced as links. It should be noted that many of the published reviews contain the reviewers strong opinons on how Polanski should be treated. Any synopsis here, should be simply what is contained in the film

At most it may be said here that the film later became the impetus of Polanski's lawyers filing papers with the court seeking the original cases dismissal. Which there are plenty of sources to include --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this film

Having just watched this film, I figured I'd mention a few highlights that we could discuss and see what should be incorporate into the article.

• A lot of the film focused on unrelated nonsense. Showing how great a director he was, how much he loved his wife, showing touching scenes of them together, and how much her murder had affected him. Roman Polanski is shown saying.. "react different ways to grief", "visiting whore houses". They say he ran around having sex constantly because of grief over his wife's tragic murder. They show how tragic his childhood was, and other unrelated things.

• As for the victim, it says at school, people were talking about her case, no one believed her, some even brought cameras to school. The foreign media published the rape victim name, as well as pictures of her, they "hunting her". If it went to trial this would only get worse. So the plea bargain was offered.

• The film states they arrested him when he was leaving the hotel with friends. But the police report says they arrested him disposing of the sedative allegedly used in the crime. I believe it was in his room when they arrested him, but I'm not sure. Have to reread it.

• "I understood she was 13", Roman said under oath, in his plea. He also admitted to giving her champagne.

• The judge was told apparently that any jail time given to Polanski, would result in an immediate appeal, and he had the money to take it to the state supreme court and the supreme court of the country if he had too. The 90 day psychological test at Chino was suggested as punishment he couldn't appeal, and the judge said that would be enough.

• That was punishment enough the judge said, "I don't want to send Mr Polanski to county.. I don't want to be responsible if he was injured or killed."

• The crime he plea bargained down to, could result in any amount of jail time, decades even. They said that also in the film.

• The judge acted improperly in many instances. He bargained with them, in an illegal meeting, agreeing to give him the 90 days, and that would be it, that enough jail time. He isn't legally allowed to do that. A different judge, might've ended up with a much longer sentence for the man.

Dream Focus 11:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment (to 3rd parties): The selection of items above is rhetorical selection (and decontextualization) of facts and implications ... to make a (misleading) case. Watch the documentary yourself, and see if the above is what you glean from it.

For example, Polanski's in-court responses to questions was part of the "deal" the judge made in chambers... i.e., the fruit of gross judicial malfeasance (since the judge kept breaking his word).

NOTE: The documentary makes clear (1) the plea agreement was initiated by Samantha's attorney. (2) Neither prosecutor nor defense attorney were interested in the plea bargain at first. They both came around to acceptance. (3) The judge promised to go along IF some things were done (to allow him to save face). (4) The things were done (including everyone saying what the judge wanted them to say in court). (5) The judge did not keep his word. (Another judge could not step in and make use of the fruits of judicial malfeasance to sentence Polanski—and note that the prosecutor was in complete agreement regarding the judges outrageous behavior, promised to testify in conjunction with the defense attorney, and has later so testified.)

I.E., COMPLEX LEGAL MESS

BOTTOM LINE See the documentary yourself ... (then ... see: "NOW")

Forum-y META COMMENT/HUMOR re contention to come within Wikipedia process

META COMMENT (HUMOR ENHANCED) (Much discussion in various forums to ensue, no doubt—with misleading rhetoric challenged and perpetrators of such revealed standing in the light of the lampposts of the great pillars of Wikipedia with their buckets of confusing mud in hand, and evidence smeared on there rhetorically sweet (naive) faces from wiping their rhetorical noses with their rhetorical hands rather than their rhetorical upper-armed sleeves ... because they have rhetorically swinish mis-characterization rhetorical flu LOL) [Cough. Cough.] Must go wash my hands. :)

NOW: Seek secondary source analysis for article. (Forum-ing of personal opinion—discouraged.) Taking own advice... Off to seek sources ... with clean hands :) Proofreader77 (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

They didn't want the plea bargain at first, his lawyers not concerned, then the testing on the panties was done, they having proof sexual contact did occur, and all of a sudden, they wanted to make a deal. You forgot that bit of information, along with why her lawyer wanted to make a deal, there just too much media harassment and whatnot already, and a trial to make it even worse. These things were mentioned clearly in the documentary in question. And as I said, the judge acted improperly. Not just in trying to get Polanski after promising just the 90 day thing, but also in making that sort of deal to begin with, that illegal. And I was certainly not trying to mislead people, just list facts. You previously argued that the rape victim looked older than she was, so I mentioned the quote of Polanski saying he understood she was only 13 at the time. That is something to add to the article I believe, since it'll end all the arguments by the Polanski fanboys out there who keep making that claim about how old she looked. He clearly knew she was 13. I'm trying to get the truth out, and I believe I have done a fair and honest job of that. Dream Focus 19:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the judge made any promises to anyone. Look at the court records. Every lawyer knows its the court records that count. If its not done inside the court, its not of any matter. When the judge considered the probation report, he judged it to insufficient, and in court he ordered Polanski to a 90 day evaluation, before he would sentence him. Two days after he left that evaluation, he fled the country.

Again there were no deals made on sentencing. NONE. The defense wanted to listen to the Judge in Chambers and say " HEY THATS OUR DEAL" but it was never offered or promised. Look at the court records, there was never a deal. The sentencing for that matter never happened, but it was always in the Judges hands, he never subcontracted out the roll of judge to the probation officer, or the evaluators at Chino. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77:

1.What is the misleading case you think Dream Focus is making? Though I disagree with some of her summary, I don't see what you claim her advocacy is or may be.

2.There is nothing presented in the film or said anywhere, that Polanski was presured into any plea because of the Judge. Its just false. Can you concede you have this wrong?

3.The Judge can in Chamber make requests of attorneys to do things, they can give indications of how they would treat types of arugments presented to them. The court promised nothing to Polanski, and in fact Polanski testified to this. Polanski testified that he understood that the Judge was the person to make the decision, not a probation report or any other recommendations from outside. The judge said he would consider them, but that he was the final JUDGE.

4.What the judge may have indicated to the prosecution and defense that he may do, is not a legal promise, its not bankable. The only thing of consequence is what the Judge does in his court, his chambers are just that, his chambers.

5. Polanski was not promised anything in his plea deal. The Judge sent him under 1203.03 for a 90 day evaluation. The judge had that right. That evaluation was not his sentence. The judge never sentenced. No promises were broken.

Proofreader you are taking the Documentary, which was made in conjunction with Polanski's attorneys, as gospel. You can do that, but the entire film is a production by Polanski's attorneys, which they later use in their own pleadings. Quite novel but no less would be expected to be used with the resources of Hollywood behind Polanski. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of phrase "his subsequent exoneration in the court system" and concerns about lede

I removed this phrase because it seems not to be NPOV and inaccurate without some explanation of what it's referring to. In its present context, it also sounds like it's referring to the Geimer case, and there is no evidence he was exonerated in the court system for that. I also can't say, not having seen the film, if it refers to the libel case he brought, but if so it seems it should be rewritten to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalm84 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It also seems like more needs to be specifically said in the phrase about his adopted country. That also seems vague, especially since it isn't explained in the article, and it also doesn't name the country. Psalm84 (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it even an article???

It looks like a bunch of reviews.User:JCHeverly 23:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120217075405/http://filmsdistribution.com:80/fd_film.php?id_film=409 to http://www.filmsdistribution.com/fd_film.php?id_film=409
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120516165456/http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/past.cfm?year=2008 to http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/past.cfm?year=2008

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)