Polanski Returning? That’s Turning Heads in Hollywood

Roman Polanski.

The name is steeped in Hollywood lore, from the director’s critically acclaimed films “Chinatown” and “Rosemary’s Baby” to the stark details of his personal life: the murder of his wife, Sharon Tate, by followers of Charles Manson, and Polanski’s flight from America in 1978 to avoid sentencing for having unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl.

No wonder, then, that Hollywood is buzzing over the news that the director might be negotiating with prosecutors and the courts to surrender and return to Los Angeles.

Does the director still retain the clout he had before he fled, or has the industry changed too dramatically in the intervening years to accommodate a man with his proven vision? And, perhaps more important, do any of today’s brash young studio executives--who were toddlers when “Rosemary’s Baby” debuted in 1968--even know who he is?

The studios’ old guard would probably welcome the 63-year-old director back with open arms, but the younger crowd--no matter how much they say they loved “Chinatown”--would probably rather work with a hot new director like Paul Thomas Anderson, who just made “Boogie Nights.”

Interviews with various people throughout the film industry make one thing clear: In 1997, Polanski may not rank with directors like Steven Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis or even Stanley Kubrick, men who can make any movie they want, but he remains a widely respecteddirector who can still attract A-list talent.

“There’s certainly going to be those actors that are more adventurous in their choices [who would want to work with Polanski],” said a top talent agent. “Brad Pitt is [one]. Harrison Ford is another. I think Roman is a legend. He’s the kind of director that actors will take notice of and be interested in.”

Only last year, John Travolta traveled to France to work with Polanski on “The Double.” While their planned collaboration dissolved into litigation (eventually settled), Polanski had shown he could still attract box-office superstars.

“Every agent in town would love to represent him,” said entertainment attorney Eric Weissmann. “He’s got pizazz. . . . I think directors who have scored great hits and are believed to have unusual talents . . . the town always seems to think they can hit the home run.”

“Great name, great films, great scandal--it’s got it all,” said another entertainment lawyer.

If his legal problems are resolved, producers say, Polanski would have little difficulty finding studio work despite a checkered past.

“I think he’s a guy they would go with,” said producer Marvin Worth. “He’s considered a good director and had a good track record.”

Mike Medavoy, a former head of TriStar Pictures who now runs his own production company, said the industry would still seek out Polanski because he’s talented. “I don’t think you ever lose that,” Medavoy said.

Virginia Campbell, executive editor of Movieline magazine, said that given the sorry state of directing these days, anyone with “Chinatown” on their resume would be a “refreshing thought” to direct again.

“ ‘Chinatown’ was almost 25 years ago and nothing Polanski has done since he left this country would encourage people to take a risk on him,” Campbell conceded. “But as far as I’m concerned, you’re taking a risk when you hire Francis Coppola.”

One studio executive, who asked not to be identified, said Polanski would still have to prove himself at the box office, “and the first picture [he made after his return] would be the ticket.”

While Polanski has worked sporadically for major Hollywood studios during his two decades abroad, he has not realized the success of his heyday in the late 1960s and 1970s, when “Rosemary’s Baby” grossed $30 million and “Chinatown” $25 million for Paramount Pictures.

Indeed, his films while a fugitive have seen rather lackluster results. Despite Harrison Ford’s star power, Polanski’s 1988 film “Frantic” grossed only $17.5 million domestically for Warner Bros. “Tess,” which he directed for Columbia Pictures in 1980, took in $17 million. From there, the returns become truly bleak: “Death and the Maiden” (1994), $3.1 million; “Bitter Moon” (1992), $1.8 million; “Pirates” (1986), $1.6 million, according to the box-office tracking firm Exhibitor Relations.

Producer Frank Price, who once headed Columbia Pictures, said the fact that Polanski has made his films outside the U.S. could have hindered the kinds of projects he undertook.

“That cuts off a lot of potential projects,” Price said. “It’s not that there aren’t a number of pictures shot overseas, but you’re limited in your creative tastes to something that has to be done there. There are limits on the choice of scripts [and] limits on the choice of actors.”

Should he ever return to America, Polanski probably wouldn’t be the one to direct a $100-million computer-enhanced blockbuster like “Starship Troopers” or “Twister,” but some believe the studios would eagerly try to entice him to make genre films.

“I can’t imagine Roman Polanski wouldn’t be offered any major horror-occult movie,” said producer David Kirkpatrick, who once headed production at Paramount. “I think if there were any scripts out there and the studios wanted to make them, he would certainly be high on the list of offerings.”

But producer Sean Daniel said any director, even one as gifted and famous as Polanski, would have to deal with the economic realities of a Hollywood that didn’t exist when Polanski was on top of the world.

“Part of what’s changed is that today everybody in this business is, in some way, enmeshed in the current financing and budget problems and marketplace issues of the movie business. No one can expect to be above it. So, whoever you are, you have to negotiate these shoals . . . ,” Daniel said. “He would find a very different planet.”