#367 Rosemary’s Baby

Watched: October 6 2025

Director: Roman Polanski

Starring: Mia Farrow, John Cassavetes, Ruth Gordon, Sidney Blackmer, Maurice Evans, Ralph Bellamy, Patsy Kelly, Emmaline Henry

Year: 1968

Runtime: 2h 17min

Rosemary Woodhouse (Farrow) and Guy (Cassavetes), her aspiring actor-husband, move into a beautiful apartment in an old, infamous apartment building, “The Bramford.” They then proceed to completely ruin the vibe by painting everything white.

Crime in progress. Viewer discretion is advised.

From the start, the omens are ominous. There are cryptic writings left by the previous tenant (an old lady who died, though not on the premises), closets blocked by furniture, the brutal death (suicide..?) of another tenant, and chanting coming through from the neighbours’ place. Add to that the Bramford’s reputation for witchcraft, baby-eating, creepy sisters and scary men, and we can sort of understand why Rosemary decided to brighten the place up. But we can never forgive.

“I’m not saying all I’m about to subject you to is punishment for destroying this amazing place (albeit with my apparent blessing), but I’m also not saying it isn’t…”

Not long after moving in, Rosemary is invaded by dreams or visions of nuns in her sleep, and by nosy neighbour Minnie Castevet (Gordon) in her waking hours, both equally distressing. Being a polite young woman, she accepts Minnie’s first invitation to dinner, and to all of their surprise, Guy takes a fancy to Roman Castevet (Blackmer). Soon, the neighbours are entangled in their lives, and Rosemary has lost any sense of peace, quiet and privacy she may have otherwise enjoyed in her huge apartment.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that nosy neighbours must be in league with the devil

On paper, the Woodhouses are on an upward spiral – Guy’s luck as an actor takes an unexpected turn as a rival suddenly goes blind which gives him a leading role in a play, and Rosemary becomes pregnant after a creepy night of coersion, marital rape and even more disturbing visions than the other disturbing visions she’s been having since moving in. What’s the problem? They wanted a child, right?

“I didn’t want to miss baby night. A couple of nails were ragged.” “You? While I was out?” “And it was kinda fun – in a necrophile sort of way.” – Actual quote from the movie… Guy has bigger problems than his deal with the devil.

The claustrophobic atmosphere keeps building throughout the pregnancy. Guy and his new besties, the Castevets and their weird friends, control what she eats, which doctor she sees, where she goes and pretty much everything in Rosemary’s life. In addition, Guy gaslights, guilts and manipulates his wife to comply with pretty much everything they put her through. She does push back though, and occasionally succeeds. A vindicating scene is her party for her old friends, including her supportive girl squad who puts Guy in his place for an evening, but her victories are small and short-lived. She is also way too trusting of her husband and shares all her fears and suspicions about the neighbours with him. As if it isn’t perfectly clear that he is in league with them!

You should have pulled that knife out the second he insulted your haircut

Rosemary’s Baby is one of those movies that we have seen several times, and it just gets more sinister and frustrating every time. Rosemary is a precariously balanced character who is potentially hard to like, but Farrow makes her very charming and likable, and manage to balance her out: had she been more assertive, she might have gotten away from the situation. However, had she been less assertive, we would have lost some sympathy for her. She has some defiance in her – she tries several times to rescue herself, she just never takes it far enough. In her defence, we guess it takes a while to get used to the idea that your husband is in league with evil baby-killing witches and that everyone around you is part of a conspiracy to steal your child.

It’s never a good idea to befriend your neighbours. We avoid ours like the plague, and have yet to be impregnanted by a single demon!

It’s a great movie with so many amazing details that we can’t possibly list them all. The fashion, the slow escalation, Mrs Castevet’s table manners, the use of scrabble pieces, and Rosemary’s gradual evolution from child to adult woman are all great. Turns out the men in this (with the notable exception of our man Hutch) are even worse than we remembered from previous viewings – especially Guy and the two doctors. Take out the entire antichrist subplot, and we’d still have an infuriating movie about the lack of female autonomy, as well as domestic abuse being perpetuated by male professionals who refuse to take women seriously. The literal devil is more of an afterthought to this very real threat. (Not that the devil isn’t a real threat… Please don’t come for us, Satan! We assure you we have a healthy fear and respect for you and your minions.)

Sidenote: do we think Aunt Glady in Weapons (2025) was inspired by this gal..?

What we learned: Never be a Catholic, no matter how lapsed. It’s always the Catholics who are possessed or tricked into giving birth to devils. Also, when in trouble, call the girl squad! And don’t trust your ambitious husband who thought it was perfectly acceptable to rape you (or, as it turns out, have you raped) in order to further his career. And who also thinks going through a hard pregnancy and then giving birth at home only to be told the baby died is the same as “no one gets hurt.” Damn, there are a lot of lessons to be learned from this movie.

MVP: Girl Squad! Or, they could have been, had she contacted them earlier… Hutch, then. RIP.

Next time: Spirits of the Dead (1968)

#271 Cul-De-Sac

Watched: June 29 2020

Director: Roman Polanski

Starring: Donald Pleasence, Françoise Dorléac, Lionel Stander, Jack MacGowran

Year: 1966

Runtime: 1h 52min

For our thoughts on Polanski in general, read this.

cul

Source

Two injured gangsters, Dickie (Stander) and Albie (MacGowran), come upon a castle on a tidal island where they are stranded due to the tide. The castle’s inhabitants, George (Pleasence) and Teresa (Dorléac) are taken hostage and pulled into a powerplay with Dickie.

cul4
“We may be in a hostage situation, but it’s important to make time for bathing and bonding in between the threats of violence.”

Source

We were very excited about the concept of this, and it was definitely beautifully shot. We loved parts of it and other parts were a bit meh. For instance, we loved the opening credits, George’s bad paintings (they were supposed to be bad, right..?), the horrible Horace who came to visit, that one clearly fake seagull, Donald Pleasence, and the setting.

cul3
“I sure hope no hardened criminals decide to invade us while we’re playing dress up. Like my wife, they will never take me seriously as a man.”

Source

However, we didn’t quite get the humour in this comedy… Which probably says more about us than the film itself, but there it is. The dinner party and the grave digging were fun scenes, and Pleasence was a joy to watch, but otherwise we weren’t that into it.

cul2
Alas, poor Albie. We didn’t know him well.

Source

We also found Teresa a bit confusing as a character. First off, what woman who’s a victim of a home invasion will proceed to sleep naked when the (male) invaders are still in the house? In addition, we’re very much over women in movies/books/etc. who cry rape the minute a prank or seduction goes wrong. Considering the director as well, it left a bad taste.

cul5
Pictured: perfectly normal behaviour for a woman captured in a bad marriage and an ACTUAL HOSTAGE SITUATION! Not gratuitous at all.

Source

It’s a great concept and beautifully shot in black and white. There are also good performances by all the principal players. But we don’t think this one will stay with us the way many other movies have done. To us, it became a bit forgettable. Perhaps we’re just too biased against Polanski to really enjoy his work..?

cul6
It’s pretty to look at though. So we guess that’s something.

Source

What we learned: Dames! Also, if you want to come visit, have the courtesy to telephone in advance. Especially if you’re bringing your brat…

Next time: Daisies (1966)

#254 Repulsion

Watched: February 9 2020

Director: Roman Polanski

Starring: Catherine Deneuve, Ian Hendry, John Fraser, Yvonne Furneaux, Patrick Wymark

Year: 1965

Runtime: 1h 45min

repulsion

Source

So, here’s the thing. We enjoyed the movie. We loved Catherine Deneuve. The story is intriguing, and the men are sleazy and disgusting. However, watching Polanski-movies is difficult in light of, well, him… (And yes, we know this might seem a bit hypocritical seeing as we actually did review Knife in the Water. We have just given it a bit more thought since then. And sure, there are probably lots of other problematic directors as well, but in this case there is so little doubt and it is so well publicized that it cannot be ignored.)

repulsion3
Also, he’s clearly just ripping off Beauty and the Beast

Source

It’s the continuous debate of whether one can truly separate the artist from the art. Considering that he still goes free and is even rewarded (and awarded) despite being a rapist piece of shit, viewing and reviewing his movies is conflicting. Especially when they involve sleazy men trying to take advantage of mentally ill women. But, like, sexy mentally ill women. So that makes it ok, apparently…

repulsion2
Cause as we all know, nothing is sexier than a spiralling woman. She probably just needs a penis to set her straight.

Source

We’re not going to tell you whether to watch this or not. It’s entirely up to you. The film itself is intriguing and beautifully shot, but it is also problematic in oh so many ways.

What we learned: Watching (old) Polanski movies is difficult…

Next time: Simon of the Desert (1965)

#214 Knife in the Water

Watched: January 05 2019

Director: Roman Polanski

Starring: Leon Niemczyk, Jolanta Umecka, Zygmunt Malanowicz

Year: 1962

Runtime: 1h 34min

knife

Source

After almost hitting a young man with their car, a couple angrily invite him to hitch a ride with them. They drive down to a lake, and the hitchhiker (Malanowicz) is invited to go sailing with the couple, Andrzej (Niemczyk) and Krystyna (Umecka), an offer he accepts for some reason.

knife2
Clearly, none of these people had ever heard of a serial killer.

Source

Once out on the water, both men take turns being suddenly angry and/or insulted and aggressive towards each other while Krystyna lounges about, makes food and does a great job hiding anything which could be deemed a personality.

knife3
There is really no trace of personality there until she gets wet… Which might be somewhat symbolic.

Source

Tension builds as the trio are exposed to harsh weather and alpha male competitions, and it culminates with the loss of the young man’s pocket knife in the water and his subsequent presumed drowning.

knife4
“I just love a good game of hide and seek!”

Source

Now, the Norwegian translator for the DVD we watched apparently decided only half the lines were worth subtitling, so we may have missed a few things. Like major plot points. But the tension between the characters was clear even if the reason was not always so.

knife5
We’re going to go out on a limb and assume that some of that tension might be because of the half naked woman whose attention the two men vie for.

Source

The entire movie is set in just two locations (albeit moving ones), a car and a boat, which we really enjoyed. We loved the crocodile, the tense start and the ambiguous ending. We also found the couple strangely adorable when they were in the water, despite their chilly relationship in the rest of the film.

knife6
See? They look like a perfectly harmonious couple once they’ve been out swimming.

Source

Roman Polanski’s debut feature film is beautifully and interestingly shot, and the filming plays a huge part in building the tension. Especially for those of us who do not speak Polish and who are at the mercy of a translator who’s a really slow typist and who doesn’t have time to go back and fill in the blanks… We’re pretty sure we understood about two thirds of the dialogue though, so we’ll call that a win.

knife7
No fun caption here. Just wanted to show you this cool shot.

Source

What we learned: It is a bit weird to invite a random hitchhiker to go sailing, right..? Also, don’t introduce a knife in the first act unless you’re going to use it by the third. And don’t introduce a woman in the first act unless you’re going to give her a personality by the third.

Next time: The Exterminating Angel (1962)