RSS Feeds
Outlandish Oscar Rules Force Film Arguing For Polanski's Exoneration To Wait for Cable TV
Posted by Defamer Hollywood at 5:05 AM on March 29, 2008
We'll call this Confounding Oscar Reality #259: A tipster tells us today that the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, which painstakingly makes the case that Polanski's conviction for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor was a travesty, has opened theatrically after leaving Sundance in January with a $1 million dollar deal and loads of acclaim. But wait — why are we hearing this from a tipster? Where is the marketing? Where are the reviews? Where is the heated discussion about the Polanski case? Thanks to Academy Award rules and a fickle distributor, that might have to wait. Follow the jump to find out why.
HBO Documentary Films purchased Wanted and Desired for $1 million out of Sundance, planning a cable premiere and a DVD release — but no theatrical run. Except that to qualify for an Oscar, you have to screen "for a minimum of seven days in both Los Angeles County and the Borough of Manhattan." We don't know what to tell you about Los Angeles, but we know now — thanks to an eagle-eye who pointed out the microscopic newspaper ad above — that HBO is protecting its audience for the June 9 cable premiere and keeping its Oscar hopes alive by dumping it in the farthest reaches of Upper Manhattan for the bare minimum two afternoon screenings per day.
An HBO rep contacted by Defamer had no word on Los Angeles screening location or dates, so we're not sure if you've missed it already or not. Check your local listings, we suppose. In any case, we know docs are a tough sell these days, but either way: This isn't exactly the kind of treatment supposedly Oscar-worthy films deserve, is it?
UPDATE: A resourceful tipster sends word that Wanted and Desired is in fact currently screening in Pasadena at the Laemmle One Colorado through April 3 at the convenient hours of 1 p.m. and 3 p.m.
Comments (AU Comments · US Comments)
There are currently no AU comments for this post.
Cacafuego
Posted 6:14 AM 29/3/08
I wonder if they bother interviewing the girl he raped?
Probably not.
Cacafuego
LBJeffries
Posted 6:58 AM 29/3/08
I love the 6-star rating for 'Godard's most movieish movie!"
LBJeffries
misskarina
Posted 8:25 AM 29/3/08
@Cacafeugo: Actually, the girl--she's now 40ish--gets a lot of screen time. She basically apologizes for bringing charges. The tone of the film is very much, "So he fucked a teenager. It was the 70s! And he SURVIVED THE HOLOCAUST!!!"
misskarina
OldTowneTavern
Posted 9:52 AM 29/3/08
I'm sure most women would be sorry they ever brought charges against a man who can drug, rape and sodomize a thirteen year old and then run off to Paris with all the sympathy.
OldTowneTavern
Cacafuego
Posted 10:22 AM 29/3/08
@misskarina:
It's really sad when you see obvious victims of child sexual abuse take the blame for what was done to them. That girl (now woman) is the equivalent of the poor cancer-kid Jacko kid-diddled. Just because your parents pimp ya out to a pedo doesn't mean it wasn't rape.
Cacafuego
tlryan68
Posted 10:19 AM 29/3/08
It's amazing how many typos you make when you type pissed off, damn!!
tlryan68
tlryan68
Posted 10:18 AM 29/3/08
Sick UP, sick OF, is there really a difference?? :)
tlryan68
tlryan68
Posted 10:18 AM 29/3/08
The last Polanski film I ever saw was Rosemary's Baby and that's the last one I'll ever see, because I'm not going to line the pockets of a sick, cowardly, fuck. I think this country has a misconception of what happened. He drugged a child with qualudes and stuck his dick up her ass. It wasn't a "tryst", it was rape and it makes me wonder who else he did it to. I'm sick up bullshit excuses from Sharon Tate's murder to the Holocuast. I cannot believe anyone would pay to see this movie. I could even forgive the crime, if he'd had the balls not to run. If it was a kangaroo court, he most assuredly would've won on appeal. I hate that little bastard.
tlryan68
jessedir
Posted 3:55 AM 1/4/08
Wow. For LA, @tlryan68 and @Cacafuego sure seem close-minded. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the case first?
The question here isn't whether what he did was right or wrong/illegal (It's certainly the latter), but in the disproportionate witch hunt Polanski suffered in comparison to other people involved in similar crimes. Equal punishment for equal crimes. Isn't that what this country is supposed to be based on?
jessedir
Girodaux
Posted 8:12 AM 2/4/08
The creative genius does not rape, he takes liberties. His crimes can never be equal to those who dwell in world-historical obscurity. Wagner was a philandering exploiter and racist bigot--but he created musical equivalents of Shakespeare. His gifts to human culture cancel his debts. By having Polanski's boner stuck up her ass (if that is in fact what went down) victim was raised out of obscurity.
If male sexual aggression weren't such a taboo in American culture, and victims by the very fact of their injury immediately imbued with sanctity, would there have been a story? Does the story exist in absence of our vicarious sodomization by the guardian/father? If the victim forgives offender (as happened in this case), what keeps the story alive if not our puritanical (and prurient) fascination with exceptional cultural figures' excesses? Why is male sexual predation met with such hysteria? As if it were the ultimate evil and not a by-product of our primate natures. As long as there is lust there will be opportunism and sneaky back-door break-ins.
What if victim had been male? It would have been a simple betrayal of trust. Media wouldn't have gone near it.
A certain amount of social deviance is to be expected from artist-geniuses. This is the man who gave us Chinatown, after all.
Girodaux