i have studiously avoided hbo's "documentary" about roman polanski's plight.

as i understand from the print media, roman polanski was accused of - and fled the country to avoid prosecution for - drugging and sodomizing a young teen girl who was an aspiring model.

presumably mr polanski was driven to this depraved act by the fact that charle's manson's drug cult had brutally murdered his wife sharon tate?

in any case, i'm not sure why hbo thinks any of this is of legitimate interest to the average viewer.

it strikes me the same as the "documentary" on linda lovelace, which was rushed into production just days after her death (when she could no longer sue for exploitation), and which recapped her "deep throat" exploits, which she alleged were coerced and thus rape.

what exactly is the "artistic" or historical intent of such films? they look to me like the sensationalize the suffering of the victims involved, for entertainment value.

shame on hbo for producing/exhibting, and shame on slate for pretending this is somehow legitimate entertainment.

It wasn't just an accusation. He pleaded guilty. Reading between the lines, he fled because while his lawyers had told him he'd do no jail time, it became clear that the court wasn't going to agree to that. The rest of the movie is a blame-the-media swirl.