In case you're wondering what Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired director Marina Zenovich thinks about David Wells' recent revelation that he'd lied during his on camera interview regarding the Polanski case, here's the filmmaker's statement:
"I am perplexed by the timing of David Wells' statement to the press that he lied in his interview with me for the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. Since June of 2008, the film has been quite visible on U.S. television via HBO, in theaters and on DVD, so it is odd that David Wells has not brought this issue to my attention before.
"For the record, on the day I filmed Mr. Wells at the Malibu Courthouse, February 11, 2005, he gave me a one-hour interview. He signed a release like all my other interviewees, giving me permission to use his interview in the documentary worldwide. At no time did I tell him that the film would not air in the United States.
"Mr. Wells was always friendly and open with me. At no point in the four years since our interview has he ever raised any issues about its content. In fact, in a July 2008 story in The New York Times, Mr. Wells corroborated the account of events that he gave in my film.
"I am astonished that he has now changed his story. It is a sad day for documentary filmmakers when something like this happens."
Sad, indeed. Whether you think Polanski is guilty of child molestation and should be jailed or not, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired is a serious, balanced and well-researched film, one that Zenovich, a credible and accomplished filmmaker, considered and worked on for years. IF Wells lied to Zenovich. it's a reflection of his lack of integrity -- not hers. Let's not blame the messenger -- in this or other legitimate documentaries.
What do you think of this situation? Please comment here or join the forum discussion, Should Roman Polanski Be Extradited?
Comments
This documentary should be required viewing for the astonishing great number of people who belive the LA’s revival of its prosection efforts is a thumbs up for law enforcement. Well’s retraction is indeed puzzling and smacks of the same self-serving motivation that rippled throughout the original handling of this case. Watch the documentary: it is sickening to see the parties involved, including the girl’s mother and the judge, feeding off Mr. Polanski’s fame and reveling in the media attention. Mr. Polanski walked the tightrope of justice for his actions, agreeing to an evaluation (from which he was released early and pronounced sane) and eventually a carefully worked out, fully stipulated plea agreement. Then the judge, because of media attention, drastically altered the terms of the agreement. That is not justice, at least not in our system. It was a bad case and continues to be a bad case, with all the parties drawn to the kleig light of Mr. Polanski’s fame. Prosecutorial discretion is a concept developed overtime so that our legal system does not become overburdened with cases that may have a basis in fact but which reek in all other aspects, which this did. It is a sad commentary when everyone wants to be a rock star or become one by bringing one down.
I just saw this extraordinary documentary last night, absolutely wonderful. I took off my morality hat long ago, and even if I hadn’t, it wouldn’t matter, it’s the portrayal and integration of the victim and the piece at large that make this a must see…bailey