Polanski

Polanski Unauthorized
$24.98
An epic, surreal portrait of one of Hollywood s most controversial figures that plays like a surreal dream without any chronological order of events. The first and only biopic about the life of Roman Polanski. Spanning four decades, the film covers everything from Roman Polanski s turbulent childhood in war torn Poland, the murder of his wife Sharon Tate and the infamous rape case that lead to Polanski avoiding jail by escaping to Europe. The film takes an in-depth look at Polanski s past and leaves no stone unturned. The characters and events that have shaped Roman s world are right there on the screen unapologetically and packed with emotion and honesty. Jumping from decade to decade the film is a puzzle that the audience will have to put together to make sense of. The result will no doubt be a catalyst to many a conversation about a man with a life as enigmatic and tragic as they come.

Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired
$27.98
The way this documentary is put together is at times sloppy, at other times plodding, and sometimes it includes footage which is not needed at all, like the absurdist bit with Polanski moving like a puppet outdoors while a man pounds on a drum. Also, much of the music is irritating and distracting.

That said, it does contain a great deal of info about a case which I knew very little about until Polanski made the recent headlines. I don't sympathize with him. He may be a fine director, but we are talking about a preteen girl her, and the use of alcohol and drugs to ply her while she was alone with him. It's about time he faced up to what he did, no matter how long ago it was, no matter that she forgave him 12 years ago.

Macbeth
$19.94
The most commendable aspect of this adaptation is the filming. It should be seen for the opening act alone. The witches' spell on the shore, Macbeth's castle on the hill, the bleak shots of the landscape - all truly remarkable!!

The acting is another story. Its not bad - but its not particularly effective either. The actors do not attempt to engage their audience. In fact, they ignore their audience altogether.

All of Macbeth's solo speaking parts are portrayed as thoughts. Therefore, Finch doesn't have to actually act (or even memorize) much of his role. He simply has to "look" thoughtful while a prerecorded track narrates the lines for him. Not only does this approach come across as cheap, but it also removes that vital bridge that needs to be built between the hero and his audience! These are times where the character is, more or less, speaking to the audience, to draw them in. That bond never happens here. I don't believe Polanski really grasps how Shakespeare is supposed to work.

Otherwise, the costuming is fine - most of it is 14th to 15th century period, rather than 11th, but Shakespeare, himself, was as guilty with anachronisms.

Polanski: A Biography
$20.00
I'm not familiar with Mr. Sandford's other books so I have nothing to compare this volume with. From what I've seen here, though, I won't be rushing to the nearest bookstore to grab anything else he's written for fear it's as biased as this was.

As yet another admirer of Roman's, I have long ago learned to be extremely wary of anything anyone writes about him because it turns out to be incredibly biased and judgmental - especially the American and British brands, who really have it out for him.

Mr. Sandford's contribution to Roman's press file took an unexpected, unpleasant twist for me: He actually questions whether or not events happened in Roman's life and/or whether they happened the way Roman described them (which Mr. Sandford lifted from Roman's 1984 autobiography), and then, unbelievably, turns around and all but calls Roman a liar and offers I guess what could be termed the correct version of an event.

I caught myself aghast many times at these corrections and I found myself almost yelling at the book, "How would you know whether that happened or not, buddy, were you there?" (Judging from the author's picture on the back inside cover of the dust jacket, I doubt very much he was even a thought in the 1930's and 1940's.)

For the record: Roman's judgment at the time he wrote his autobiography in the early-1980's may have been a little off (as it would be for anyone attempting to clearly recall events from nearly 40 years earlier), but where does anyone (especially those who weren't even around) get off actually questioning whether these things happened or not?

Why is no other director subjected to the harassment and the stinging criticism Roman is constantly subjected to (and, I would surmise, really doesn't give a rat's a** about)?

There were just so many things wrong with this over hyped biography: Mr. Sandford went into detailed biographies of just about everyone associated with Roman (fillers?), he included detailed plot summaries of all of Roman's movies (completely unnecessary), and he included general pictures in the obligatory photo section near the middle of the book (stock photos of Jews heading towards the designated ghetto in Warsaw in 1940, better pictures of which can be seen on the DVD version of "The Pianist").

Speaking of pictures, was there a point in including the images of that goofball Manson and company? Why, why, why can't people write something about Roman (or even Sharon Tate) and *not* include images of certain freaks of nature? There is no other point to this other than creating further sensationalism to move a few more books. Bottom line: Hasn't the public been subjected enough to them over the years? Note to publishers worldwide: Include pictures of celebrities that haven't enjoyed a long and wide circulation.

Another thing I found extremely disturbing was Mr. Sandford's disparaging the victims of that horrible atrocity of 1969. No, none of the victims (and I loathe using that term to describe those people) were innocent, but it's so nice to see that, almost 40 years later, they continue to be disparaged in print - this time, by people who didn't even know them (and, for the record, neither did I, as I wasn't a thought in 1969, but I tend to favor accounts of people who had actual relationships with any of the "victims").

I mean what other murder victims would have things written about them so many years after their death that states that they had a "working knowledge" of a foreign language (Sharon was fluent in Italian, fluency and working knowledge of a language being very different things), or whose shady family past (Voytek Frykowski's) was so generously written about as well as his drug use and that of Jay Sebring's (along with Jay's alleged kinky sex life). Can the public see the same treatment with latter murder victims - or is everyone else sacrosanct? Perhaps I took that part of the book the wrong way, but I just felt as if the victims of those horrible nights of bloodshed in 1969 continue to see little to no respect.

And then the author just couldn't resist getting into the nitty gritty about the unfortunate 1977 rape incident. Between Roman's mother being gassed to the murder of his wife to the statutory rape incident, is it any wonder Roman declined to cooperate with the author? All anyone wants to write about Roman is the aforementioned three incidents in his life. Yes, while they have had a most profound effect on Roman and probably partially defined who he is today (and I'm only assuming), they're not the only things to have ever happened in his life.

Roman Polanski has led quite a life - he's traveled the world, met some of the most intelligent, gorgeous women in it (and married three of them), is cultured and yet isn't self-important, he's fluent in about 4 or 5 languages and is one of the most influential directors in the history of cinema (clich���, but true). This man possesses unmatched talent and his films are some of the most unique and so not Hollywood and, yet, appeal to the masses. He has always given conformity the one finger salute and yet he's constantly picked on for being unconventional because he'd rather not be a boring, predictable celebrity director.

All I ever wanted was to read a balanced account of his life and all I constantly see is people slamming him any and every chance they get - and all because he's not Hollywood enough. It's hopeless, but the beauty of it all is, Roman continues to do what he does best and proves, time and again, he's way ahead of the times ("Pirates," anyone?).

The only good things I can say about this book is that I agree that "The Pianist" is his masterpiece ("Chinatown" is okay, but too Hollywood for me) and I like the book's cover as it is one of my favorite photos of Sharon and Roman. Other than that, I think a two star rating is too generous for this volume.

Do yourself the favor and pass this one up because you're not missing anything. - Donna Di Giacomo