In France, says one of the talking heads in Marina Zenovich's new documentary, Roman Polanski is desired as an artist of enormous and extraordinary talent. In the US, he argues, Polanski is wanted as a fugitive on the run from a rape charge involving a 13 year-old girl twenty years ago.

What's less than clear, though, is whether Zenovich 'wants' or 'desires' her subject herself. She remains as hands-off as possible as she presents the facts of the case, clearly preferring that the audience will make up their own minds on the basis of the testimony within from district attorneys, defence lawyers, police officers and even the victim herself as to whether Polanski was given a fair trial by the presiding judge.

But her conclusion seems to be that the story can only be told by the judge and Polanski himself, and neither is interviewed, the former having died in 1993. There is no question as to Polanski's guilt - he testified at the time he was aware of the girl's age and that he did have sex with her. But with a publicity-hungry judge presiding, those arguing Polanski's case, and even some of the trial's neutral parties conclude that an overzealous attempt to draw the press unfairly prejudiced the outcome.



His friends make a case for Polanski as a lover of life whose happiness has been shaken by moments of extreme tragedy. It's well known that the director survived the holocaust and later suffered the murder of his wife at the hands of Charles Manson's family, but the film is most engaging when sharing an insight into Polanski himself, rather than laying out the details of the case.

His victim publically forgave Polanski ten years ago, but of course he'd still be instantly arrested if he stepped foot on US soil. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the case, the film exposes true injustice in the media coverage of it. Is it possible to be innocent until proven guilty if the papers have already made up their minds?