Roman Polanski

[Jean]

Melike http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_wub.gif asked me to post my interpretation of The Tenant, and after I wrote what was on my mind I realized that it was way too long for 2010 Movie List, so I posted it in General Movie Discussion, and on yet third thought asked feverish to make this thread. I'll start with The Tenant, then, and later will try to develop some more thoughts that inevitably come to mind when you consider the work of a genius.


The Tenant

Thank you Melike, it was a good pretext for watching The Tenant again… for which time? I lost count…

Well, there are some quite sensible reviews at Rotten Tomatoes (the tomatometer shows 90% for The Tenant, which makes me very very happy… of course it shows 100% for Chinatown, but while Chinatown is much easier to swallow, I personally love The Tenant a lot more), and they speak a lot about alienation, loss of identity, urban paranoia and mental disintegration; all of this is correct, so I will dwell only on one important aspect, consisting however of three parts.

The easiest discernible thing is that the movie is about the impossibility for an individual to win against a group – and from this point of view The Tenant is quintessential for all Polanski’s oeuvre, where this motif is clearly one of the most important. This is, basically, what Rosemary’s Baby is about – if a group wants you or your baby, they will have you or your baby, because they are together and you are alone. It doesn’t really matter whether they are Satanists, politicians (The Ghost Writer), business (Chinatown), crooks (Oliver Twist) or the residents of a tenement, - they might as well be a macramé lovers club, anyway they are a collective entity, thus invincible, and represent the total invincibility, invulnerability of the intrinsically inimical universe. Any group of people are, in fact, emissaries of that basic hostility of the world towards individuals; if you ever lived under a Communist regime, your perception of the fact is keener, but the same is true for all societies.

Whatever the tenant might do to preserve his sanity won’t work. He is trying to play by their rules, which is impossible by definition, – “they” are out to get him for no other reason than because they can (that’s the most important point and I’ll get back to it later). These attempts are wonderfully graphic, when he mimics the turning of the key to help the concierge, startles and glances at his watch when the bereaved lover grieves too loudly, etc, etc, or in that staircase scene, where he is holding these bags full of garbage, dropping stuff, - and trying his best to favorably impress the landlord who is standing there, lecturing him on these very rules that are beyond complying, because they are fully known only to those who make them: see, later an activist will come to petition against the unspeakable Madame Gaderian who “does her washing up in the middle of the night and whistles at the same time”. Ok, we’ll agree that “a civilised person” doesn’t do that. Ok, they say, “the former tenant always wore slippers after ten o'clock, it was much more comfortable for her… and for the neighbours,” – and the tenant will too walk about in slippers, but you know, it didn’t save the “former tenant” from flinging herself out of the window. It won’t save the present tenant, either.

To guess the rules is impossible, to comply to them unconceivable. (“Tomorrow's Sunday. It's reasonable to have company on a Saturday evening.” – “No, monsieur. It's not reasonable to make such a racket, even on a Saturday evening!”) To rebel is disastrous. Epitaph by the Concierge: “And we just finished repairing the roof!” RIP.

The only possible solution could be to flee – like Szpilman the Pianist did – but the nazi were not after Szpilman alone, they were after millions of people, so the odds were that they could lose one, some time. When the group is after you alone, you have no hope, and the tenant, a miserable creature, knows it beforehand – unlike Rosemary who at least tried... and failed. Forget it, Jake, it’s Chinatown – in a lot more senses than the political one.

I have just mentioned The Pianist, and here we’re coming to the essence. Polanski says, I quote:

“One question is always asked whenever the "Final Solution" comes up: Why did the Jews allow themselves to be slaughtered during World War II? Why weren't they aware, from the outset, of what was in store for them; why didn't they grasp the truth earlier and rise en masse against their oppressors?
The main reason why their apprehensions were only gradualy and belatedly aroused was that the Holocaust had yet to come. It was outside any known frame of references. Pressures built up slowly and did not at first seem more than mildly threatening. The Germans' method was to lull people into passivity, to foster a sense of hope, to persuade the Jews that things couldn't possibly be that bad.
My own feeling was that if only one could explain to them that we had done nothing wrong, the Germans would realize that it all was a gigantic misunderstanding.”

The last sentence offers the key to all his creation as I see it.

Like all other Jews there, and many other people elsewhere, he learned all too soon that nothing could be explained “to them”, and that no explanation mattered anything.

Like anyone else, I read me some psychology… It looks like if someone had to suffer really big-time for a really long time as a child, - especially with nobody to complain to - it might lead to a specific pathology, namely, that the person in question gets this belief, deeply ingrained in his – whatever you call it – subconscious – I’d prefer to call it soul, - that anything can be done to him. Anything. Because “they” can, and thus “they” have the right. I forget now what “syndrome” it is called, but it is clearly the case.

The main Polanski theme is the relationship between the victim and the torturer(s), where he invariably and strongly identifies himself with the victim. He explores the limits – how far can both sides go? Both, that’s the point – apparently, the victim should do something? What is the irresistible attraction of victimhood, and why would people let themselves be tortured by other people?

You may have noticed that in a Polanski movie nothing ever comes as a surprize. Whatever emotions the protagonist – or the audience – may experience (horror, shock, repulsion, despair), it is never surprise. There’s nothing to be surprised at, everything, anything is in the order of things, that’s how the world works. The world can turn this ugly, surreal, sadistic side against you at any moment, just because it can, and there’s no room for surprise, because the victim knows “they” are entitled to do to him as they please.

It takes its roots from the rational insanity of the Krakow ghetto, with its slow, gradual descent into hell – and from other experiences better left untold. “If only one could explain to them that we had done nothing wrong” – if only we do as we’re told – if only we do not aggravate them – if only we behave the way they want us to… remember that woman in The Pianist who asked, “Where will we be taken?” – she did her best to make her question sound as innocent, as unobtrusive as possible, she was smiling that miserable, fawning, willing-to-please smile, and was shot on the spot, just because. Because the officer could. There’s no way to please, no way to placate, no way to make the world less cruel toward you, they torture – you suffer, and this is the aspect of human existence Polanski has been exploring for fifty years by now, by means of tragedy, comedy, macabric grotesque, drama, horror, costume romance, any means accessible.

The theme was declared full-scale since the very start, even before Knife in the Water, where it is of course developed. I strongly recommend that you watch his 1961 court-metrage called Le Gros et le Maigre (The Fat and the Lean; can be found on YouTube, in two parts), which may be considered an epigraph to everything that came later. Throughout the story the victim (played by Polanski himself, just like in The Tenant, - typical) is only too happy with anything he has to endure, falling on his knees and kissing the oppressor’s hands at the slightest pretext. Watch it, really, it is perfectly made, funny, surreal, with both visual and musical solutions absolutely marvelous; in a word, fascinating … well, dangerously so. Its abysmally dark ending provides such insight into the depths of human soul – the victim’s soul, mind you, not the torturer’s (who generally is of lesser interest) – that the whole grotesque comedy makes me shudder. It is really, truly… er, upsetting. Disturbing. (These are, I noticed, the two words most often used when people talk about Polanski movies.)

That’s the most important message of The Tenant –the world doesn’t look like that because the tenant is paranoid, no, the man is driven crazy because the world is like that, even if it might look different than it does to other people as the tenant descends down the steps of his insanity. Sanity or insanity of the viewer only changes the appearance, not the substance. They could drive him insane, so they did it. And he lets them, that’s the thing, his last Gauloises-versus-Marlboro rebellion but a token gesture of a despaired man trying to keep the pathetic scraps of his dignity. He lets them, because they have the right to subject him to anything they like, and there will never be the “right” way to behave. Only escape is [sometimes] possible, but the tenant is far too fascinated with his own victimhood to undertake any decisive steps (except a brief visit to Stella, only to learn that things are the same everywhere), much like his female counterpart in Repulsion was much too fascinated with what the fabric of existence was doing to her. [grrr, I was going to speculate on the significance of escape, and various degrees of its impossibility, like in Oliver Twist, Cul-de-Sac or Death and the Maiden, but this is getting way too long; I hope to come back to that later]

The last constituent of the same theme is, of course, the observers.

You’ll never be allowed to die off quietly, no, you’ll be dragged outside and put in the pillory for everybody’s entertainment.

In the darkest, morbidest visionary scene, the girl shouts, “It’s him!” and points.

In the hospital room, when Simone Choule starts screaming, there’s a party at the next bed, the visitors and the visited eating, pouring wine, - and they all stare, it’s a beautiful shot, like a family picture (and the tenant momentarily tries to placate them with a miserable everything-s-all-right crooked smile). A man in the cinema sourly, intently watches the tenant and Stella making out. The Concierge is ubiquitous. The final vision of them all standing in the windows, sitting on the roof having a picnic, all applauding is, of course, a hallucination of a sick mind, but when they really come out of their houses, looking – well, normal – they are really no different from what we just saw. The same eagerness to see as much of the victim’s blood, misery and disgrace as possible attracts the neighbors in Repulsion (besides the last scene where they all crowd there, please pay attention to the neighbor who looks through the open door when her young man came to see her)… remember the Japanese taking pictures in Rosemary’s Baby? In The Pianist, a Polish neighbor – what’s that to her? – will shout, “It’s a Jew!!!”.

There’s no way out. They will stare, they will do to you as they please, and there’s no way to placate them, ever, amen. As the Concierge says, “You only have yourself to blame.” (and later, when the tenant is brought there after the car accident, her enthusiastic reaction is, “What did he do now?!” and then, to Monsieur Zy, “See? It’s him again!”; also look at the opening scenes, how everything he says to the Concierge or Monsieur Zy is wrong.) You certainly are to blame, because the world, for its irrational reasons, singled you out as a culprit. As the victim. Lump it. Or like it.

(Now that I reread what I wrote, I think I’ll use parts of it for my big essay on Polanski I am currently writing inspite of the weather – talk about obsession - and hope to post on August 18 )

[Brice]

Jean, I dare say you managed to sum up what all Polanski movies are about to some extent.

All is true...except that no group even can stand against ME. If they do they lose. :lol:

[turtlex]

Wow, Jean, that is awesome!

[Melike]

Jean I am speechless. Thank you so much for such great comments. It is very busy here now, I will be back later to re-read it and talk about this amazing movie.

[Melike]

Jean, I just read your amazing post again. Actualy I can't say I have seen as much Polanski movies as you. But I can see your point when I think about Rosemary's Baby(these two have much things in common), The Tenant and The Pianist. It is miserable for me I couldn't find The Fearless Vampire Killers.

I agree about the mystery of victimhood and how it is a basical feeling under the surface. I think tenant helped them to do what they wanted to do just beacuse they could. It is the difference between this and Rosemay's baby I think.

Actually I can't find anything to add to your excellent review.


Melike, how did you like The Tenant?
My take was that upon hearing about the incident that happened in the apartment he immediately started to become fascinated by it. He goes to visit her in the hospital and befriends one of her good friends. And the more time he spends in the apartment itself he begins to become her in a sense. The ending, I just take that to mean that he has fully turned himself into her. I don't think that was him at the beginning at all. I think it was in fact the real Simone. But he is now "her" in his mind so his actions imitated hers, and he pictures himself standing beside his own hospital bed.

Heather, I thought the same about the ending. But also, I can't get what Stella has said out of my mind: ''Perhaps she was trying to say
something when she screamed. Anyway, that's the impression
I get when I think back on it. She was looking at you
when she let out that cry.''
I don't know, it is confusing. Maybe it can be explained with this:

...He lets them, because they have the right to subject him to anything they like, and there will never be the “right” way to behave. Only escape is [sometimes] possible, but the tenant is far too fascinated with his own victimhood to undertake any decisive steps (except a brief visit to Stella, only to learn that things are the same everywhere), much like his female counterpart in Repulsion was much too fascinated with what the fabric of existence was doing to her...

[Jean]

feverish - before we go on - since we already have a Hitchcock thread, do you think we can also have a Polanski thread? I mean, if I or anybody starts it, can you move there the relevant posts starting with #3790?

(I mean, since we have an obsessed bear here, we'd rather localize his obsession than let the bear spread all over the site)

[Brice]

I know you weren't asking me, but my opinion is yes.

Melikey: I'm not sure I can do it before then, but I was sending Melikey mail sometime before the end of the year. If you don't have a copy by then I could probably mail a copy. It may be that it hasn't been released there. If so I could copy our copy for you. :rose:

[fernandito]

Here you go , Jean.

[Jean]

thank you feverish!!! http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif

[fernandito]

No problem sir :cool:

[Melike]

I know you weren't asking me, but my opinion is yes.

Melikey: I'm not sure I can do it before then, but I was sending Melikey mail sometime before the end of the year. If you don't have a copy by then I could probably mail a copy. It may be that it hasn't been released there. If so I could copy our copy for you. :rose:

You'd make me the happiest person Bricey. *Well, you do it many times. :wub:*
I can't find it anywhere.
The funny thing is I didn't have an idea it was a Polanski movie when it first grabbed my attention with its vampire subject and this cover:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iGVPerTj0aU/SVjkj1b5sII/AAAAAAAABoI/EHO7ikQP0p4/s400/The_Fearless_Vampire_Killers_R2-%5Bcdcovers_cc%5D-front.jpg

[Jean]

the problem is, if you have the American version, it differs a lot from the original (starting with the title, which actually is, pure and simple, "Dance of the Vampires"). Polanski even asked to remove his name from the credits after he saw how the movie got re-edited and abridged, especially the Castle part. The village part, as far as I know, remained intact, and it really is fantastic; the owner of the inn is not called Chagall for nothing.

Melike, if you can, find the following:

Le Gros et le Maigre (1961; short, mute)
Knife in the Water (1962)
Repulsion (1965)
Cul-de-Sac (1966)
The Tragedy of Macbeth (1971)
Chinatown (1974)
Death and the Maiden (1994)
The Ghost Writer (2010)

the others are nothing to sneer at, either, - I personally adore Frantic and Oliver Twist, - but those on the list are an absolute must (along with The Tenant, Rosemary's Baby and The Pianist, which you, luckily, have seen)

[alinda]

:dance:Hello all, I only wish I had a few minutes to read all this, i have got to go to work.
I hope to come back soon, read and maybe add something here. Polanski :rose: Jean:couple: All of you, Melike, Brice, Feverish Heather, Pam :grouphug:

[Melike]

Except Le Gros et le Maigre, Knife in the Water, Cul-de-Sac, I believe I can find these. Thank you. Recommendations mean so much. :huglove:

[Brice]

I know you weren't asking me, but my opinion is yes.

Melikey: I'm not sure I can do it before then, but I was sending Melikey mail sometime before the end of the year. If you don't have a copy by then I could probably mail a copy. It may be that it hasn't been released there. If so I could copy our copy for you. :rose:

You'd make me the happiest person Bricey. *Well, you do it many times. :wub:*
I can't find it anywhere.
The funny thing is I didn't have an idea it was a Polanski movie when it first grabbed my attention with its vampire subject and this cover:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iGVPerTj0aU/SVjkj1b5sII/AAAAAAAABoI/EHO7ikQP0p4/s400/The_Fearless_Vampire_Killers_R2-%5Bcdcovers_cc%5D-front.jpg


I adore that cover. It is MUCH better than ours. :D

I love making Melikeys happy. :wub:

the problem is, if you have the American version, it differs a lot from the original (starting with the title, which actually is, pure and simple, "Dance of the Vampires"). Polanski even asked to remove his name from the credits after he saw how the movie got re-edited and abridged, especially the Castle part. The village part, as far as I know, remained intact, and it really is fantastic; the owner of the inn is not called Chagall for nothing.

Melike, if you can, find the following:

Le Gros et le Maigre (1961; short, mute)
Knife in the Water (1962)
Repulsion (1965)
Cul-de-Sac (1966)
The Tragedy of Macbeth (1971)
Chinatown (1974)
Death and the Maiden (1994)
The Ghost Writer (2010)

the others are nothing to sneer at, either, - I personally adore Frantic and Oliver Twist, - but those on the list are an absolute must (along with The Tenant, Rosemary's Baby and The Pianist, which you, luckily, have seen)


Jean, I believe we have a more recent remastered version which is the original cut in addition to the earlier American version which I believe you're referring to. I'll have to double check to be sure though.

[Jean]

Except Le Gros et le Maigre, Knife in the Water, Cul-de-Sac, I believe I can find these. Thank you. Recommendations mean so much. :huglove:

oh grrr, these three are essential... I'll see what I can do

[Heather19]

Jean, I finally got the chance to read through your review. That was wonderfully put :huglove: I can't wait to read the essay you're working on.

I was going to get The Fearless Vampire Killers from netflix, but now you have me worried it might not be the original one. They only have one listed with a runtime of 107 min. Is this the edited one?

[frik]

My DVD has a running time of 107 minutes as well. I'm pretty sure it's the complete version.

sk

[Jean]

good, because I lost my both files in the recent computer crash, and it will take me some time to get them back again

[Jean]

Heather, Melike, Brice, and everyone who might be interested:

I got an .avi file of Cul-de-Sac, it is about 1.5 gyg, so I split it into two. I think I could try emailing the parts if you PM me your email addresses; you will have to join the files then; I'll give you the link to download the same program with which the file was split.

It sounds more complicated than it is, and then, it's entirely worth it.

[Brice]

Thank you! :) I will have to clear some space on my hard drive first.

My email is bbeede2@gmail.com though.

[Jean]

tell me when you have cleared the space... although, knowing you, it might take years...

Anyyone who is going to watch Cul-de-Sac, - watch Repulsion first (if you haven't yet), I think it's important. http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif

[Heather19]

Thanks, I'll bump that one to the top of my list :)

[Jean]

Right.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif

[Brice]

tell me when you have cleared the space... although, knowing you, it might take years...

Anyyone who is going to watch Cul-de-Sac, - watch Repulsion first (if you haven't yet), I think it's important. http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif

:lol: Yeah, I've been needing to clear space for awhile. I finally got an external drive and began clearing space, but I've got quite a bit to do still. I'll let you know.

I also still need the story Button Button by Matheson if you can find it...if you don't mind.

[frik]

I just received Polanski's Macbeth in the mail. I do believe I watched it, decades ago, but I'm not sure. At least now it's part of my DVD collection.

sk

[Jean]

I love The Tragedy of Macbeth. The critics are sometimes harsh on it, because they think the poetry is lost in all the gore and dark passion; also because the actors just speak Shakespeare's lines as they would in every-day life, not as if they were reciting poetry. I personally find it a big advantage. Also love it how young both Macbeth and his lady are, it kinda explains things in a more sinister way than the usual way they are pictured; also love all the visual additions that put things in the play in entirely different light without changing a single word. (bears have more to say on the subject, and eventually will)

[Jean]

I so wish I didn’t have to write this.

“The 60's abruptly ended on August 9, 1969, the date of the murders on Cielo Drive.” (Joan Didion, The White Album, a collection of essays on life in the 60s).

Headlines of the period: “Ritual Murder”. “Film Star Dies in Ritual Massacre”. Why, of course, isn’t it clear, and so irresistibly exciting – husband makes a satanist movie, and wife dies in a satanist murder. The only problem is that neither was satanist.

I already said, in the first post of this thread, what, to my mind, Rosemary’s Baby is first and foremost about. In a sense, it really is prophetic, like any Polanski movie – this time it is about what an organized group can do to someone they single out as their target, - and the media behaved exactly the way “all them witches” would. The second aspect is that, if anything, it is anti-satanist, with the witches being what they are: nosy neighbors, solicitous uncles and aunties, they are indeed horrible, but not the romantic, fascinating, demonic “horrible” that could be expected of worshippers of some great Evil, but the disgusting, repulsive, petty, shitty “horrible” of a rotten swamp you hardly notice until you put your foot on the surface, and then it slowly consumes you and there’s no way out. The third point is that we never know if there is a devil. It might all as well be either Rosemary’s personal delusion or, more likely, the group delusion of that collective entity – highly contageous, highly dangerous (something an escapee of Communism understood better, I’m afraid, than his Western audience – another topic to be developed later), entrapping Rosemary in their own insanity.

“Well, - I wanted the film to be ambiguous, particularly the ending.” (Rosemary’s Baby Retrospective Interviews). Well, - there are times when subtlety is welcome, and there are when it is not. All Polanski movies are like that, by the way – they beat you over the head with an axe, at the same time demanding that you be subtle in perception; that’s why they should be watched more than once, or else you lose too much while busy picking your brains from the floor.

Sharon

“Certainly it was a happy time. For all of us. Roman was happy, he was with beautiful Sharon. Everyone loved her. He loved her, I loved her, we all loved her” (Mia Farrow). It seems true, about “everyone”. She is said to be sweet, intelligent, talented; above all, kind. "In the six years that I knew her, she never said an unkind word about anyone" (Sheila Wells, a friend).

I will not dwell on Dance of the Vampires today because it’s heartbreaking, the sponge, the snowman and all. There’s footage of the filmmaking, part of which inevitably appears in all documentals addressing Polanski-Tate love story: he says to her, “Look at him, not at me, ok?” - and although it is obviously usual instructions given by the director to an actress, there seems to be something augural about it, with all that snow in their hair and the whole scenery so fairy-taleish.

Watching whatever was filmed about their family life is even worse, because it shows such a model couple that one could die of envy, until one remembered how it all ended. I suspect they were a model couple of the sixties, with some ideas on freedom which now may seem unacceptable, but really, honi soit qui mal y pense. Everyone is entitled to their own understanding of love, as Nikolett pointed out to me on multiple occasions, and love is what permeates all their family-life footage I’ve seen.

“I was thinking, I am happy now, I really am happy and I don’t want anything else.” (Polanski in Mike Wallace interview, 1978)
"They were the Douglas Fairbanks/Mary Pickford of our time... Cool, nomadic, talented and nicely shocking." (Peter Evans)
"Marriage vows mean nothing to him but few men have adored a woman as much as he adored Sharon." (Laurence Harvey)
“One hoped for Roman, you know, that this brand-new life with a woman who loved him and who seemed so right for him, with the baby – that there would be this security that he hadn’t had in his life. And in a new homeland. I mean, the future was his. We thought. Then everything just collapsed.” (Mia Farrow)

The Tragedy and the Aftermath

I would no more analyze the motifs and psychology of Charles Manson than I would that of a cockroach. I had to read something – much more than he deserves or I wanted – and listen to his interviews, just to be able to form my own opinion; this feeling of having touched a cockroach still lingers. He wasn’t, of course, a Satanist, just like he wasn’t Jesus Christ or nazi (although on some occasions he sported a swastika on his forehead – that’s a nice finishing touch for our story) or anything at all, actually, except a born leader of a totalitarian sect revolving around the cult of his own personality, with a typical 60s mess in his head. The mess, however incoherent, was strongly cemented by his own insane charisma, thus made irresistible for the ones lost in the seemingly endless choice of ideas that the 60s offered and incapable of existing by themselves: ready cannon meat for a messiah-centered group; the slogan “no sense makes sense” was bound to be widely appealing.

Why his gang did what they did is not a secret, either (and for all the leftist “Helter Skelter” rhetorics, the correct answer is “just because”). For some especially deep-minded thinkers, he will always be the epitome of, er, free rebellious spirit. Jerry Rubin wrote, “His words and courage inspired us” (We Are Everywhere). As you wish; or, as a Russian saying goes, stick the banner up your ass and march.

Anyway, they killed her, and other people with her (and, later, other people elsewhere), and there was that phone call to London, and Andrew Braunsberg, producer who had come to discuss with Polanski a new movie that would never be made (other than with Mike Nichols as the director, in 1971), would say many years later, “I have never seen anything like it, you know, I saw somebody just disintegrate in front of my eyes.”

And then the real witches’ sabbath started, in the media. The initial of-course-he-killed-her-who-else and of-course-it-was-all-drug-dealing-what-else nonsense soon (well, what is soon? How does it feel, reading that you killed your wife and baby?) more or less died out, unfed; but something else remained, like, forever; at that time it was immortalized in headlines like “Those Sharon Tate Orgies”. The murdered people were blamed for their own death. Headline: "Live Freaky, Die Freaky".

Andrew Braunsberg says that Polanski “was devastated to a point I have never seen any other human being in that kind of condition”; but on August 19 he mistakenly decided he was strong enough to face the media and try to protect his wife’s good name. It was a pathetic attempt. Only recently first after God on the set of Rosemary’s Baby, now it was a scared miserable kid, like his mother has just been taken to Auschwitz, all over again, and ka is a fucking wheel, amen.

“You are suddenly curious about my relationship with Sharon within last few months. I can tell you that last few months as much as last few years I spent with her were [the] only time of true happiness in my life.” Words stick in the throat, he spits them out one by one, eyes blind with tears, accent heavier than ever before. “All of you know how beautiful she was. […]Very often I’ve read and heard statement that she was one of most beautiful if not the most beautiful woman of the world. But only few of you know how good she was.”

This word “good” almost made me cry for its incongruity, impropriety in the face of all those jackals, flashes and cameras and all, but the worst is yet to come: “And facts which will be coming out, day after day, will make ashame[d] a lot of newsmen, who for a selfish reason write unbearable for me, horrible things about my wife.”

“Ashamed”. Oh good Lord. I would say it was by that speech that he perpetuated the image of himself as a perfect target. It’s, like, impossible not to throw a knife at someone who paints a bull’s eye on his chest. But I already developed the subject in The Tenant post.

Which reminds me… there’s that scene when the tenant drinks with that poor chap who loved Simone and has just learned about her death; a group of robust men enter the bar and their leader yells: “Drinks for everyone!.. Everyone except him!” – and points at the chap. That’s how the world chooses its prey, unmistakably.

The “selfish reason” isn’t only lucrative: it must be enjoyable to write something that will be enjoyable for a reader to read; but more important, sensationalism is akin to any other branch of sadism: it can’t be sated; and a wonderful, savory news of five bloody murders can’t taper off to something as bland and boring as compassion, either for the dead or for the living.

November 19 (shit, 19 again), 1978, Mike Wallace (60 minutes) interviews Polanski in France.
“When the whole tragedy happened, I was running and trying to help the police, doing all kinds of things to find those culprits, there was this irrational anger, if I could have them, I would kill them. But when they were found, I just felt no… er… belligerence towards them. I just felt nothing. I just – don’t want to have anything to do with them. I don’t care what happens to them. That’s not going to change anything. She’s gone -”
Of course, this was exactly the right moment for the journalist to strike:
“There were so many stories about kinky sex, and about drug taking, and about self-indulgence and about [shakes head and makes an all-encompassing gesture that may singify anything. – Jean]… What kind of a life did you people live, was it – “
“But look, Mike, - I am not criticizing you for it, you try to make – to put your questions the way the audience will for a moment stop eating and start listening to you, and what will remain in their mind it’s this headline <…> that I have read many many times, and not what I am going to answer to you, - because if I tell you that we lived quietly, that we had quiet evenings and listened to the music and that Sharon was a lovely cook, it will all seem like alibying, and will serve no purpose.” Precisely.

I especially like – besides the accusations of Satanism that really take the cake – the constant harping on drug theme. “Sharon not only didn’t use drugs, she didn’t touch alcohol, she didn’t smoke cigarettes.” (August 19, 1969 statement) – which sounds perfectly true to me since she was an actress who took good care of her looks, and later, pregnant and crazy about the fact, - "as if she had invented having babies" someone said. Polanski himself smoked grass, like everybody else, but for God’s sake, does anyone ever stop to imagine what a movie director’s job involves? It takes brains, you know, in such quality and condition as I’m afraid no other job I can think of, and frying them with the constant use of heavy drugs he is occasionally accused of when all other grounds for accusation grow old on the public would seem hardly probable.

“In my house were parties where people did smoke pot. And I must tell you furthermore that I was not at a Hollywood party where somebody didn’t smoke pot.” (August 19, 1969 statement). Right, everybody did at that time, but nobody’s pregnant wives were murdered; the logic behind those reasonings is faultless. The case brought to life many more fascinating examples of people’s brainlessness, like after December 8, 1980: see? Dakota – Lennon - Helter Skelter – Manson – Sharon Tate – Polanski – Rosemary’s Baby – Dakota. And Polanski, the lifelong agnostic, skeptic and scoffer, who never gave a shit for anything “supernatural” and openly stated it in both conversation and movies, will be, in the minds of those who have brains of lightweight design and, sadly, constitute the majority, forever coupled with “something” satanic, “something” demonic– even The Ninth Gate, of all things, will be dragged in as an additional proof.

Time to Say I’m Sorry

When I was young – I think it must have been 1979, the tenth anniversary of the tragedy? It would mean I was 15, quite the age to know better – I read a story about the murders in one of our newspapers, the only one, in fact, that I used to read, because the others were pure propaganda or unreadable reports from fields and factories, while that one was dedicated half to literature, half to the “problems” of society and was considered extremely liberal, you know, kinda bold, audacious, that shit. I don’t understand it now. I was old enough not to be deceived by our Soviet media; then again, in our family it was not considered [I]comme il faut to believe any Soviet newspaper. I don’t know what happened to me at that time.

Anyway, they were writing about the murders, and it went, like: the wife of a notorious so-called “director”… who, after defecting the People’s Republic of Poland, hasn’t been able to make anything worth mentioning… is widely known for Satanism… black mass… during a wild orgy… drugs and group sex nonstop…

I swear it wasn’t that I believed. I rather didn’t care either way, it was the first time in my life that I heard those names (as you can guess, his movies were never shown in the Soviet Union), and, God forgive me, it was an interesting read that no report from a factory could match. I understand now that our propaganda worked, in fact, very well, - on subliminal level – even though that was the only time I succumbed to it, the example shows how it worked. I am very reluctant to mention it, but I need to explain myself this only time, I feel like I owe it to the dead. Well, the authors of the article said that there was a kitchen fork in her stomach. This image haunted me after that - a pregnant belly pierced by a fork – it was nauseating, and worked directly on my intestines, not brains. Since then I’ve always avoided – like plague – anything Tate/Polanski; no, no, no, I don’t want to have to do anything with those satanists, - black masses, forks and all.

What worked on the gut level was un-worked on the same level, but this time with some soul involved. It took me about 3 minutes of The Tenant (some time last March) to suddenly know it had all been lies; and then I started to watch movies and learn things. But how bad it was – that I, who’s always taken such a pride in never taking anything for granted, had swallowed it whole and let some important part of my soul stay empty or dead for all those years. Well, now this part is restored, and maybe now it was just the right time… but I’ll never forgive the Soviets anyway.

Well, I said that. Forgive me, Sharon, forgive the stupid bear, pray for us where you are.

[Brice]

happier times :)

[pathoftheturtle]

...our propaganda worked, in fact, very well, - on subliminal level – even though that was the only time I succumbed to it, the example shows how it worked. ...I’ll never forgive the Soviets...Oh, this world... Tragedy on tragedy.


...The murdered people were blamed for their own death. ...http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s12/POTT2007/smileys/disgust-1.gif

[Jean]

path, I am sorry for some awkward wording - it's the heat and the smoke, and the head isn't really in the best condition; I promise to do better next time http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif

thank you Brice! http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif

[pathoftheturtle]

Not at all. I understood you. I'm just sickened by society.

[Brice]

And actually Jean I'm not sure it had anything to do with Russian propaganda specifically. I think it's really just the beast that the media is. It was initially represented in the same ways in LOTS of places Soviet or otherwise. I suspect Soviet propaganda and American propaganda are the same monster essentially. People have a sickness in their hearts. Anything beautiful or true must be destroyed. :(

I found your post not awkward at all, but eloquent.

[pathoftheturtle]

Indeed.

Nitpicking is part of my nature, and I have made a habit on this site, not fully consciously, in making fun of people's typos, grammatical foilbles, and other minor mistakes. Harmlessly, I think... in good humor, I hope... but now I wonder if you've come to expect perfectionism from me even where it's inappropriate. I could tell that you took this seriously, Jean; your account is really touching, and I was trying to say that I understand your feelings. The Manson family was a bit before my time, but I've been very familiar with the details for quite some time now. Also, I'm definitely a fan of Polanski's films. And furthermore, I know a little about the former Soviet Union, and quite a lot about media hype. Believe it or not, we studied Pravda where I went to school -- Brice, I think that your summation is about half true and half false. Certainly, we all face barriers to clarity, but I still think that in this case particularly, Jean, you're entitled to a pass, and salute for your progress.

[Jean]

And actually Jean I'm not sure it had anything to do with Russian propaganda specifically. I think it's really just the beast that the media is. It was initially represented in the same ways in LOTS of places Soviet or otherwise. I suspect Soviet propaganda and American propaganda are the same monster essentially. People have a sickness in their hearts. Anything beautiful or true must be destroyed. :(

The problem is, that our propaganda was ideological, so it had some perverted meaning and worked on premises that can at least be analyzed and stand to reason - to some cruel, inhuman, marxist-leninist reason, but still (and thus, can be fought, doubted, and eventually overcome); while yours just seems to work on the principle of consolidating society against individuals; like the activist in The Tenant said, "It's simply a question of solidarity." - It kinda scares me because this way any idea can be popularized and made to grow deep roots in minds.


I found your post not awkward at all, but eloquent.
Thank you Brice! I know it was over-sentimental, but bears are over-sentimental... http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif


Indeed.

Nitpicking is part of my nature, and I have made a habit on this site, not fully consciously, in making fun of people's typos, grammatical foilbles, and other minor mistakes. Harmlessly, I think... in good humor, I hope... but now I wonder if you've come to expect perfectionism from me even where it's inappropriate. I could tell that you took this seriously, Jean; your account is really touching, and I was trying to say that I understand your feelings.
Mike, there are few things in the world that bears love more than your nitpicking. http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif

Back to the subject:

What bothers me, among other things, is people’s utter stupidity; I can’t help thinking that it’s stupidity that makes one heartless. Like, the death of a young pregnant woman isn’t a satisfactory tragedy; it becomes subject to wildest speculations, as if to make it more interesting; and then, the tradition of chewing on Rosemary’s Baby – Satanism – the murders is perpetuated and becomes a consecrated tradition even though, for fuck’s sake, there was no Satanism involved at any stage, as I tried to show in that long post and as anyone who keeps at least some vestiges of common sense could see for himself (people, sadly, have un-learned even how to watch movies, which I’ll try to show later on the example of The Pianist et al.). Ill-logic, fantasies and all kind of farfetchedness, anything goes, - and any kind of tone is allowed, because it’s not the dead (and living) we’re talking about now, but some cultural artefacts anyone can play around with to their heart’s content.

That chain of links from Dakota back to Dakota that I already quoted is, for example, preceded with a following comment: “The rumors and trivia associated with Rosemarys Baby are almost as much fun as the movie itself. My favorite is the “seven degrees of separation” connection.” (Review by The Horror Czar, Don Sumner 2006) I am all for a little fun, and it’s not because it is macabre that I object to that piece, but because it is mindless.

“Serious” researchers, however, don’t do any better; reading it is even rewarding, to an extent, inasmuch as it is a graphic study of how far idiocy can go if someone really perseveres.

“Many of the actors who played the witches were either Jewish or exhibited stereotypes commonly associated with the Jewish culture. For example, there’s an old stereotype that Jews have poor table manners. <…> Rosemary's Baby made overt references to blood libel, the sacrifice of Gentile babies by Jews.” [no comments from me]

“Several parallels exist between Rosemary's Baby, and the life and death of John Lennon, and the Tate-LaBianca-Hinman murders. Perhaps these parallels are merely coincidental, but a close analysis of the movie and of Lennon’s life reveals that dark forces—trusted people within Lennon’s inner circle—may have been at play, manipulating events in John and Yoko’s lives as part of a satanic ritual that ultimately ended with John’s slaying on December 8, 1980.” [the “several parallels” are, of course, pathetic – like Lennon being acquainted with Mia Farrow’s sister. The fourth “parallel” is that Sharon, too, was murdered. This is not funny any longer.]

“The brutal murder of Polanski’s wife, Sharon Tate, was not unlike the satanic worship portrayed a year earlier in Rosemary’s Baby.” [no, not unlike: both involved a pregnant woman, you motherfucker]

“Roman Polanski may have been inspired to make Rosemary’s Baby by Leary and Koesler. It is uncertain if Polanski and Koesler knew one another per se, but they were both friends with Leary. Like Polanski, Koestler was a Jew who seemed interested in exposing the darker side of his heritage.” disassociated[/B] from nation; I hope to treat the subject later.]

“Leary, Koestler, Lennon, and Polanski were apparently working together under Leary’s leadership; a force to be reckoned with. All four men were eventually destroyed or driven out of the country.” [I tried, for some time, practice imagining Polanski working under [I]anyone’s leadership, and gave the exercise up as overstraining.]

Sorry, I forgot about a piece of proof the authors give, it’s Manchester, England from Hair.

Claude Hooper Bukowski
Finds that it's groovy
To hide in a movie
Pretends he's Fellini
And Antonioni
And also his countryman Roman Polanski
All rolled into one
One Claude Hooper Bukowski!
Now that I've dropped out,
Why is life dreary, dreary?
Answer my weary query,
Oh, Timothy Leary, dearie!

I wonder whether Fellini and Antonioni were involved in assassinating John Lennon (forgive me John, rest in peace).

Also, in a Russian medium: an article starts with more or less insightful anasysis of The Ghost Writer, and suddenly switches to the interesting part, like - by the way, do you know what? There are fascinating parallels existing between Manson and Polanski [oh give me a break…], for example, they were born on the same day, though different years (after which the author lets his imagination run away with him further beyond the boring borders of bland reality).

Manson was born November 12, motherfucker. The same nonsense, by the way can often be heard about John Lennon (October 9) and Mark David Chapman (May 10). As I said, anything goes, and confirming one’s fantasies with facts is no longer obligatory; the same goes for all media all over the world, amen.

[Brice]

Have you read Ira Levin's book, Jean?

[Jean]

sure; I am going to try to go into the significant differences between the book and the movie when I get around to it

[Brice]

Please do! Especially because I see very little significant difference. In fact I've always felt Polanski's film was one of the truest films to it's original source that I've EVER seen. I've seen the movie and read the book many times as both are all time favorites of mine. IMO there are differences, but they seem subtle.

[Jean]

there are very little differences in the plot, the adaptation is universally considered to be [one of] the truest ever, but as far as the message, the - I don't know - spirit - is concerned, they seem very different to me (but these are, as you said, subtle differences)

By the time I finally get around to review R'sB, I think I have to have re-read the book... don't you, by any chance, have a copy (electronic) handy? though I think I maybe can find it, unlike Button Button, alas!

[Brice]

I agree there are differences in spirit or tone between the two.

Alas, I don't have a file. I just have my copies of the book itself.

Button Button was originally published in Playboy and later in a couple collections I believe. I may track down the original Playboy just to have it.

[Heather19]

I take it you guys would recommend the book then? I might read it after The Exorcist.

[Brice]

Would recommend??? You've never read it? You MUST!

[Heather19]

I hate to admit that I never have :( But I definitely will now!

[Brice]

Yes, do so. It is one of my all time favorite stories.

[alinda]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ9dpNe2NO8&feature=player_embedded

YouTube- Roman Polanski Interview Part 1

[Jean]

YouTube- Roman Polanski Interview Part 2

thank you Linda love, that is one of the very few [relatively] sympathetic interviews; the "odd man out" label is remarkably apt, especially considering that he many times expressed love for the Carol Reed movie.

now -

HAPPIEST OF BIRTHDAYS TO MY FAVORITE MOVIE DIRECTOR OF ALL TIMES!

http://www.bfi.org.uk/features/polanski/images/enlarged/bfi-00m-wz7.jpg

http://www.cinemademerde.com/Repulsion-cower.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ne5Lb2SiFHg/SKxCd1iAAeI/AAAAAAAAPpc/NkRfxr3pl6M/s400/cul-de-sac+01.jpg

http://www.jahsonic.com/TheFearlessVampireKillers.jpg

http://www.aceshowbiz.com/images/news/00014500.jpg

http://www.filmsquish.com/guts/files/images/polanskifinalhead_small.JPG

http://top-10-list.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Chinatown-1974.jpg

http://www.fest21.com/files/images/polanski.preview.jpg

http://www.bfi.org.uk/features/polanski/images/enlarged/bfi-00m-gea.jpg

http://www.thepinksmoke.com/images/piratespolanski.jpg

http://www.altfg.com/Stars/f/frantic-harrison-ford-emmanuelle-seigner.jpg

http://www.buzz-litteraire.com/images/lunes-de-fiel-roman-bruckner.jpg

http://montages.no/2010/03/files/2010/03/Death-and-the-Maiden.jpg

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/7691/ninth.jpg

http://www.onlygoodmovies.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/the-pianist.jpg

http://mmimageslarge.moviemail-online.co.uk/OliverTwist_18A.jpg_cmyk.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_P1KuD6CE6G0/S6XpBky1UVI/AAAAAAAAAaA/s4hM9euUgyo/s400/ghost+writer.jpg

[Brice]

Happy birthday Mr. Polanski! :D

[Jean]

Heather :rose:: since you have Repulsion now, - I hope you will like it, but please let me know your opinion; and watch Cul-de-Sac some time soon: it is far more complicated, thus widely misunderstood, but in my opinion totally superb.

[Heather19]

Heather :rose:: since you have Repulsion now, - I hope you will like it, but please let me know your opinion; and watch Cul-de-Sac some time soon: it is far more complicated, thus widely misunderstood, but in my opinion totally superb.

Will do :huglove:

I also have The Fearless Vampire Killers as well :)

[Seymour_Glass]

Polanski is one of my new favorites. I got Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown in from Netflix a few months back and they captivated me. The Pianist and The Ghost Writer are both very finely crafted films also.

And i can't help but think that there is a great biopic to be made of Roman Polanski.

[Jean]

Polanski is one of my new favorites. I got Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown in from Netflix a few months back and they captivated me. The Pianist and The Ghost Writer are both very finely crafted films also.

And i can't help but think that there is a great biopic to be made of Roman Polanski.
as far as I know, an attempt at this was made last year - I saw something like a trailer. First, the guy who directed it and for some reasons unknown to me chose to play the main part should have lost at least forty pounds and grown a nose; second, it was all the same tired shit taken mostly from the media I mentioned in my posts above.

About 20 years ago Polanski said in the French program Apostrophes (http://www.ina.fr/art-et-culture/cinema/video/CPB84055574/les-grands-metteurs-en-scene.fr.html) (I transcribe and will try to translate, hoping to be able to convey the sarcasm):

Il'y a tant de choses ecrite sur moi sans ma collaboration, meme des sois-disant biographies, ce qu'on appelle en Anglais "Unauthorized Biography", par des gens qui ne me connaissaient pas <...> ils ne se sont pas genes, ils ont reinvente ma vie, avec pas seulement les evenements mais les personnages, allant jusqu'a les noms qui'ils ont donnes <...> Je me suis dit un moment que si vraiment y a un tel interet, si les gens veulent savoir tellement qu'il est possible de publier des conneries pareilles et que les gens les achetent, j'ai pense que la seule chose a faire est d'ecrire une espece de - de - d'almanach, si vous voulez, pour leur donner des instructions s'ils veulent continuer d'ecrire sur moi <...> Mais je me suis rendu compte que finallement ca sert a rien

"There's a lot of things people who have never known me write about me without my collaboration, even so-called biographies, what is in English called "Unauthorized Biography" <...> They don't hesitate to reinvent my life, not only the events but also the personages, going as far as to give them names <...> I told myself once that if there's really such a big interest, if people want to know to such extent that it is possible to publish such bullshit, I thought the only thing left to do was to write a kind of a - an almanac, to give them instructions if they want to go on writing about me. <...> But I realized it would be no use."

well, what that man whose name I forgot tried to make reminded me of the mentioned Unauthorized biographies, in dire need of the almanac.

Seymour - the four films you mentioned are great, in bears' opinion, but the most easily digestible of all Polanski; I would recommend Repulsion and Cul-de-Sac (and all the rest of them, of course...). And definitely The Tenant, which at the moment is my favorite movie ever.

[Darkthoughts]

Jean, your first post was incredible :clap:

It's worth the wait to hear what Bears have to say.

[WeDealInLead]

Sooo, we're going to give this pedophile a free pass because he makes good movies? Did everyone forget he raped a 13 year old girl?

Read up on that please before you glorify that rapist some more. It does NOT matter that it happened a long time ago, that doesn't make the crime go away. His case was never closed and I'm glad he got arrested. Our Swiss friends didn't want to send him back to the States even though of the roughly 200 extradiction requests they deny only 5%. Mr. Polanski somehow ended up being in the 5% and now he's a free man again.

[Jean]

I was expecting this, WeDealInLead.

Luckily, I've been "reading up on that" the whole summer; actually, I was doing nothing but - because I needed to be able to form my own opinion and to have a clear picture, not the one that is imposed upon me. Instead of reading the sick fantasies of American media, I read court transcripts, medical reports, witnesses reports and other documents of the case - not as readily available as the American media hysterics, true, but still quite accessible.

If someone want to proceed along those lines, I am ready to answer all of your questions, although it's pathetic to see how the only thing most people seem to be interested in is that 1977 incident.

Unfortunately, everything in this case depends on words. The first is "girl" - well, her medical report describes her as "adult female", and it is not a dark mystery that she had had previous sexual experience (if someone doubts, she testified to this herself); here's her picture that I spoiler-tag because I don't really want to see her all the time:

http://www.thedarktower.org/gallery/data/536/Roman_Polanski_Wanted_and_Desired_2008_DVDScr_XviD-BaLD_avi_001742617.jpg

- and if she looks a day younger than 18, please kill me now. There also are testimonies of other people who, judging by her looks and behavior, thought her "any age between 18 and 25" (I quote Angelica Huston, one of the witnesses).

I hope you see that the "pedophile" label the mob is so fond of is ridiculous; the actually amusing part is that Polanski is the only (as far as I know) medically certified "normal" among prominent cultural figures; his psychiatric report explicitly states no perversion of any kind, and no deviant inclinations, specifically not toward pedophilia.

Now, the "rape" part. Unfortunately, in some states of the US (not in any other country of the world) there's a notion of "statutory rape", which only means having sex with someone who is below the age of consent, whether or not the intercourse was consensual (which the probation officers concluded that it was; comparing the testimonies, I can't but agree with them; it also corresponds to what Ms.Geimer medical report says, and the testimonies of the doctor).

The horrible picture of someone raping a child (who said herself on multiple occasions, "He wasn't hurting me, he wasn't mean or forceful or anything like that") is in fact an instance of unlawful (according to the US laws; would have been lawful in Spain, by the way, and, should it happen two weeks later, in quite a few other European countries) sex with whom everybody thought a young woman, an idiotic mistake, right, but nothing like what the media revels in.

Our "Swiss friends", luckily, relied on the facts of the case, not their representation in newspaper articles and Internet comments. So did the whole cultural community of Europe, including the French Academy (as well as the President and the Minister of Culture of the French Republic) and the best part of the US cultural community.

(I have a lot more to say, on all the particular details. I hope, however, the majority of those who have posted here are more interested in other aspects of Mr.Polanski's life and work.)

Well - can I give a "free pass" to someone who once had sex with a lady below the age of consent given that she was, as described in documents, "physically mature"? In his probation report it is described as "an exercise of poor judgment by the defendant"; can I forgive this?

I am afraid I can.

I fully realize the responsibility I take.

[CyberGhostface]

The teenager's troubling--and contemporaneous--account of her abuse at Polanski's hands begins with her posing twice for topless photos that the director said were for French Vogue. The girl then told prosecutors how Polanski directed her to, "Take off your underwear" and enter the Jacuzzi, where he photographed her naked. Soon, the director, who was then 43, joined her in the hot tub. He also wasn't wearing any clothes and, according to Gailey's testimony, wrapped his hands around the child's waist.

The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson's home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he "keep away." According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later "started to have intercourse with me." At one point, according to Gailey's testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was "on the pill," and "When did you last have your period?" Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of him."

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/polanski-predator

How can that be considered anything but rape?

And it would be one thing if he had a one-night stand at a bar with someone he didn't know and later found out she was underage but this was premeditated on his part. Polanski knew she was 13. So there's no excuse whatsoever for his horrific behavior.

Also, here are some other images of Samantha from 1977 for the sake of argument as to how old she looked.

http://i35.tinypic.com/2h3c4df.jpghttp://i34.tinypic.com/21l0nkh.jpg

[Jean]

Here we come to the "he said she said" part. Ms.Geimer is remarkably inconsistent in what she says on different occasions; if nobody objects (or, in fact, even if everybody does), I will not take her words (or any given instance of them) for granted, but compare them with other details revealed in the course of the investigation. Before I proceed, however, I have to say one thing.

Now, as I had, alas, expected, there's some agitation in this thread, as well as some quick reaction. Dwelling on the '77 case alone seems to me utterly unfair, so I next time I post about those unfortunate events will be after I, or anybody else, posts something movie-related.


Jean, your first post was incredible :clap:

It's worth the wait to hear what Bears have to say.
Thank you love, I needed this right at this moment. Bears have a lot to say, and they will (they hope to post an analysis of Repulsion some time soon)

[Seymour_Glass]

I saw Frantic tonight. It was pretty good, but easily the least essential Polanski I've seen thus far.

[Jean]

I saw Frantic tonight. It was pretty good, but easily the least essential Polanski I've seen thus far.
Frantic suffered drastic changes, the producer insisted on the ending being radically altered - originally there was to be no happy end (of course), and the last twist was going to leave the Harrison Ford character deep in shit, in full accordance with the developments of the first half of the movie. Polanski elegantly hinted at being made to alter the ending: the last spoken (Walker to his wife) line is "I love you baby", which clashes with everything we'd ever heard, would hear, or expect to hear in his movie.

I love it nevertheless, especially the specific humor. I hope you speak French, it is essential that the movie be watched with both languages active.

[Brice]

Well, I for one am not gonna' "give him a pass" because he was a great director. I honestly don't know enough to decide him guilty or innocent, so I choose to make no judgement at all. It is not my place and it would be an injustice to do so. He is however one of the greatest directors ever....that's not really giving him a pass on his personal life or things he's done. It's merely acknowledging his greatness in one area. Whether he did or didn't do some or all of the things people say neither adds nor takes away from what he's done in his career. If he is a pedophile (and I honestly just don't know enough on that) then he is a pedophile who can really direct some great fucking movies that will have an indelible impression on the industry for all time. In that case he might be a horrible person, but one who's done some great movies.

[WeDealInLead]

Jean, I honestly doubt you'd feel the same if he raped your daughter. He KNEW she was 13. Some girls are more physically mature than others. So what? She was still 13 and she still said no. We still put Nazis on trials even though WWII ended a long time ago. Time doesn't make the crime go away, especially if the accused flees before serving his sentence.

Brice, the charges against him still stand in the US because he commited a crime against a US citizen so really what the Swiss or the French think is irrelevant. If Polanski is truly innocent and an honorable man, he would come to the US and face the judge... he however chooses to hide. What picture does that send you?

[Brice]

It sends me no picture. Unless I'm going to be privy to the relevant info and enough of it to make a fair judgement then I need not make one. Even if he's 100% guilty he still made great movies. I'm not on a jury for him so I don't have the right or the burden to judge him. It's sort of like when the whole Michael Jackson thing happened (and I realize this might be offensive to some), but I said if he's a child molester he's a very talented child molester. Of course I didn't mean this cruelly, but as I said it takes nothing away from his creative output which is all I'm in a position to make judgement on.

[alinda]

To me, it sends a feeling that like the woman in question
has said herself. Life has moved on, and the media has made her to suffer repeatedly
concering this. I think having lived thru' this myself, I can honestly say I am happy it is in my past, let it be.Things happen in life who can say why? We learn from these experiences, and go on.For those that were adults then, enen miniature ones. Life was a blur of sex and drugs, She was there, consentually. Her mommy should have kept her home I can agree with that, but a famous hollywood directer asked for her , and in my view got her with permission. Sorry to be so frank here, but if the man who was with me when I was 14-15 is still alive ( he was 40 something at the time) he is old enough to die with his own feelings about what we did together. I on the other hand have always taken responsibility for my actions right or wrong instead of crying rape after the fact.:pirate:
Sorry everyone, but do not send your children out to play with grown men.

[Brice]

Yeah, I will say I feel that if the victim of a crime wants it to be over then society should give them that instead of some sanctioned watered down revenge where society wasn't the victim, but the individual was.

[Tito_Villa]

Sooo, we're going to give this pedophile a free pass because he makes good movies? Did everyone forget he raped a 13 year old girl?

Read up on that please before you glorify that rapist some more. It does NOT matter that it happened a long time ago, that doesn't make the crime go away. His case was never closed and I'm glad he got arrested. Our Swiss friends didn't want to send him back to the States even though of the roughly 200 extradiction requests they deny only 5%. Mr. Polanski somehow ended up being in the 5% and now he's a free man again.

My thoughts exactly!

[Brice]

Maybe our Swiss friends had sound and valid reasons for putting him in that very small 5% category?

[WeDealInLead]

He's not wanted for trial in Switzerland, their opinion should be irrelevant.

[Brice]

No, it should not be. It is the same as an extradition case between states. A foreign entity has the legal right to review the matter and refuse the request for cause.

[Tito_Villa]

I just can't understand why, if he thinks he's innocent, he doesn't go to the US to clear his name! The only reason i can think of is that he's guilty!

[Brice]

I just can't understand why, if he thinks he's innocent, he doesn't go to the US to clear his name! The only reason i can think of is that he's guilty!

A good portion of the public is already determined he is guilty...whether he is or isn't. Maybe he isn't so sure he'll be declared innocent even if he is. You'd have one hell of a time now finding an impartial jury.

[WeDealInLead]

OK. Here is a simple fact: HE HAD SEX WITH A 13 YEAR OLD. He KNEW how old she was and he KNEW what he was doing. Her mom is an idiot as well but then again, maybe she didn't exactly know a 43 year old man would have anal sex with her daughter?

We have a law regarding sex with minors. That law is there to protect the kids. I don't think it'd be too hard to somehow manipulate a 13 year old into having sex with you.

You know what they say... you made your bed, now lie in it.

[Brice]

OK. Here is a simple fact: HE HAD SEX WITH A 13 YEAR OLD. He KNEW how old she was and he KNEW what he was doing. Her mom is an idiot as well but then again, maybe she didn't exactly know a 43 year old man would have anal sex with her daughter?

We have a law regarding sex with minors. That law is there to protect the kids. I don't think it'd be too hard to somehow manipulate a 13 year old into having sex with you.

You know what they say... you made your bed, now lie in it.

You seem totally convinced. On what evidence are you basing this?

[WeDealInLead]

He doesn't deny it. I think that should speak for itself. Also there are links if you look them up saying even doctors confirmed there was intercourse.

Someone brought up Michael Jackson. Do you want to know the difference between Polanski and Jackson? MJ actually has actually been accused of that stuff before and he faced the judge, the jury and the people each time. This Polanski guy, according to the doctors was sane and there were no indications he had done it before or would do it again but he's still refusing to co-operate. This thread has shown that there are people willing to let it go and let past be past. Maybe the judge would see it his way but Polanski is refusing to accept responsibility.

P.S. We're also talking about a judicial system which let O.J. and Jackson walk away so it's not far-fetched that they would let Polanski go as well. He has time and willingness of his victim to let it go on his side. So the question is, what exactly does he have to hide?

[Jean]

I hear everybody, will answer tomorrow with a clear head (much as I would like to, now that the summer is over I can't devote all of my life to this case - only half of it).

Looks like my review on Repulsion will have to wait, which is a shame.

Brice: thanks a million.

[Brice]

I hear everybody, will answer tomorrow with a clear head (much as I would like to, now that the summer is over I can't devote all of my life to this case - only half of it).

Looks like my review on Repulsion will have to wait, which is a shame.

Brice: thanks a million.

For? :unsure:


He doesn't deny it. I think that should speak for itself. Also there are links if you look them up saying even doctors confirmed there was intercourse.

Someone brought up Michael Jackson. Do you want to know the difference between Polanski and Jackson? MJ actually has actually been accused of that stuff before and he faced the judge, the jury and the people each time. This Polanski guy, according to the doctors was sane and there were no indications he had done it before or would do it again but he's still refusing to co-operate. This thread has shown that there are people willing to let it go and let past be past. Maybe the judge would see it his way but Polanski is refusing to accept responsibility.

P.S. We're also talking about a judicial system which let O.J. and Jackson walk away so it's not far-fetched that they would let Polanski go as well. He has time and willingness of his victim to let it go on his side. So the question is, what exactly does he have to hide?

No, the real question is what business of it of ours. It is for the courts and our government to deal with if they can; not for the public or the media. Until he is tried and found guilty its certainly not my business. Do I doubt he had sex with a teenaged girl? No! Of course not. But I also don't claim to know all the facts here. I haven't read transcripts. I haven't really investigated it myself and I just don't know enough. If that's not a good enough answer I'm sorry for that, but it's the only one I can rightly give. And so for now my opinion stands at leaving it alone.

[Jean]

Brice: thanks a million.
For? :unsure:
oh, just for the fact of your existence in the universe. I sometimes feel like thanking a friend just for this. It happens to old bears.

[Brice]

Brice: thanks a million.
For? :unsure:
oh, just for the fact of your existence in the universe. I sometimes feel like thanking a friend just for this. It happens to old bears.

:D

[Jean]

I just can't understand why, if he thinks he's innocent, he doesn't go to the US to clear his name! The only reason i can think of is that he's guilty!

Well, yes, he is. He pleaded guilty for the unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, and never went back on his word - everything he says throughout the decades is perfectly consistent. Now, the punishment for this may be anything, from probation, should the probation office conclude it is advisable in a particular case, up to 50 years in prison (no, I don't have legal education; I quote Gunson, the prosecutor in the case). That's when we come to the point.

I am going to quote from the 2008 documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (I highly recommend that it be watched, or at least read about here (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/pola-o05.shtml)), entirely dedicated to the misguidedness of how the case was handled, where the people I quote speak the words themselves, aloud, so there can be no danger of misquoting.

"...the really important part of this case is what actually happened to the system of justice. I remain astounded after all these years. This case will never leave me." (Douglas Dalton, the defense attorney)

"The agreement was that Polanski would plead guilty to the one count, that he would be sentenced based upon a probation report and the argument of counsel." (Dalton)

Very good. I already said above what the probation report was: taking everything (including the "He said she said" part, but having access to all other pertaining documents, materials, and witnesses, that could or couldn't corroborate the "he said she said") into account, they concluded, as I said before, that the offense was neither “aggressive nor forceful,” that "circumstances were provocative", that "the victim was not only physically mature, but willing”, and, most important, that “Jail is not being recommended at the present time. The present offense appears to have been spontaneous and an exercise of poor judgment by the defendant.”

"We were very pleased when we got the probation report. It recommended that Polanski serve no time in custody and receive a straight probationary sentence." (Dalton)

I would like to stop for a moment here. The defendant pleaded guilty, and his plea was accepted. He was even allowed to go outside the country to work on a film - and he came back, because at that moment it actually seemed that justice would prevail. He did not run or hide, he was perfectly willing to accept the 3 months in prison for psychiatric evaluation and whatever else was coming, such as that "probationary sentence" everybody agreed upon at that time. And - answering the ever-stupid question, "what would be if it wasn't a famous movie director?" - then it would have ended right then and there. He would have received his probation sentence, accepted it, and everybody would have lived happily ever after; no media frenzy, no lynch mobs for 33 years and more years to come.

The Chino psychiatric report (after a month and a half of examination), like all other reports, recommended probation. Then -

"This thing had reached the point where it was actually becoming surreal." (Dalton)

I'll stop my analysis here because being to native speaker and having no legal education, I am kinda afraid I use a word wrong, and then it will be the reason for people to doubt everything I am saying. I listened carefully, though, and can't but side with Dalton when he says "surreal", some analysts who call the events "kafkaesque" (the judge was eventually dismissed by the case, for ample mishandling of justice), and, finally, Samantha's own attorney who says, "He was supposed to be treated fairly in court, and he clearly was not. " In short, the 50-year sentence was looming large, for all reasons different than the facts of the case (media pressure, well-seasoned public opinion pressure, the media-whoring propensities of the judge, the DA office meddling directly.).

"I told him that it was my opinion that the sentence would be illegal" (Dalton)

Ok, that's when he fled. I believe I would have done the same. Moreover, that's what the prosecutor (Gunson) says, "I'm not surprised that he left under those circumstances."

Neither am I.

Neither am I surprised that he doesn't hurry to come back to the US to experience Chinatown kind of justice once again.

I hope I answered your question, Tito, but there are some more things to be taken into consideration.


We still put Nazis on trials even though WWII ended a long time ago.
That's how far people go. I do not accuse WeDealInLead of inventing this gag - I know he is just repeating what media says; I've seen it before. I won't point out at how sorely, ironically misplaced this particular piece of inanity is; would just be no use if people don't understand themselves. I only want to point out, once again, to what extent the public opinion is manipulated; it appears that there are people about whom you can just say anything that comes to your mind, including the most unhealthy fantasies. I've read enough posts, blogs, and comments (comments on movies, you see, like The Ghost Writer) that recommend that Mr.Polanski be in public, or describe what they would do with [I]his daughter; and it's all on the erotically-fantasizing consciousness of those who write it; what bothers me most, however, is how cleverly orchestrated is all that by the professional journalists (don't really want to review the examples now). My three favorite ones are:

- that Nazi gag (no comments from me)
- Larry King's elegant slip of the tongue while talking with Debra Tate: "How can you remain friends with someone who brutally murdered your sister?" (I wonder what would have happened to Larry King should he have permitted himself a simiilar "slip of the tongue" concerning anyone else?)
- a feminist journalist, laureate of blah-blah-blah (sorry, I didn't bother to memorize her name, but it's all on YouTube), talking on American TV about whether or not Polanski will be extradited, says cheerfully, "And I say, take him out and shoot him!" (merry, vigorous bwahaha from the rest of interlocutors. Very funny indeed.)

That's how where the American public opinion stands at the moment. I am not sure I would put a foot on American soil, under the circumstances, even if I wasn't accused of anything. I don't like lynch mobs, sorry. Neither as a victim, nor as a participant.

Another elegant touch is how difficult it is to post a comment. My comments have been repeatedly deleted from American newspaper sites, and so, as far as I know (we - the supporters of that unspeakable criminal, that is - are surprisingly many, although we are not heard by the lynching majority) have been many other people's, to maintain the appearance of unanimity. Free speech triumphs.

Now that I hope I have answered Tito's question as full as time permits me at the moment (I didn't even go into the political detail, of why this case suddenly resurfaced at the precise moment when it is important for Mr.Cooley career - the materials are available on the Net), I'll get to another favorite of everybody's, the what-if-it-had-been-your-daughter evergreen punchline.

Well, my daughter wouldn't - oh sorry, I can't go on, it would be blackening the victim. I forgot that the woman in such cases can't be discussed; it's only the man who can be called all kinds of names. Well, anyway, my daughter wouldn't. If, however, my daughter did, it would only mean that I didn't care about her since she was born, so what would I care in this case? It's all so obvious it isn't even interesting to argue.

Another aspect, however, appears more interesting. Since all the participants of the present discussion are male - what if it was you? What if your occasional sex partner - what if your wife - suddenly charged (I can think of a number of reasons) you with rape, not corroborated by any evidence other than she allegedly said "no"? That's when you would understand what a "he said she said" case feels like when it's the US of A where whatever "she said" is becoming more and more sacred, beyond doubt; while what "he said" is lies by definition.

And the last thing.


OK. Here is a simple fact: HE HAD SEX WITH A 13 YEAR OLD.
Perfectly correct.

Now the question is, are you now pursuing the moral or the legal aspect? I touched on the legal part above; if you're so keen on the legal side -


We have a law regarding sex with minors. That law is there to protect the kids. I don't think it'd be too hard to somehow manipulate a 13 year old into having sex with you.

you'll have also to take into consideration the legal documents I cited, and stop calling Mr.Polanski a pedophile or the incident "a rape".

"As you know, Mr. Polanski was not convicted of rape. He was convicted
of unlawful sexual intercourse, and that's a different crime than rape." (Stephen Trott. Chief Deputy DA)

Now, for the moral side.


Some girls are more physically mature than others. So what?

For me, so everything. I repeat, 13 is the age of consent in some countries (including Spain), and it doesn't sound awful to nobody except Americans who want to infantilize their children to the upper limit, the better to manipulate them in the future, as well as to allow them to be manipulated (anyone care to object to my opinion that Americans are the easiest manipulated nation in the world?). I admit - I kinda realize what kind of reaction it will provoke from my high-morality opponents, but I intend to be honest - that before I got married, I had a lot of sex with all kinds of girls, without asking for their IDs. I have no idea how old they were. Has anyone else done this, or did all of you wait till you're married? Never had sex with anyone under 18, or whatever your age of consent is nowadays? - I heard rumors that it was going to be raised up to 21, where will that put most, if not all, American men? Aren't most of us statutory rapists? Most girls lose their virginity between the age of 13 and 14 - I am talking about my country and the parts of Europe known to me - and never regret having lost this little gem; care to call me a rapist and a pedophile now? It's all a matter of cultural differences, say sorry. I know how difficult it is for an American to wrap their heads around the concept that their values are not universally accepted. With my own life experience, I don't give a damn about the moral side of the issue; and I have already treated the legal side more than enough.

I may come back to the other aspects of the case later on - but the question is, should I?

Brice said something that got me thinking hard, namely -



the real question is what business of it of ours.

It was my business inasmuch as I vowed to stand by the man I admire; I feel like it's a matter of my personal honor. On the other hand - guys, no offense, but you were not interested in this thread since it appeared, never took part in discussion other than the one pertaining to the sex-scandal which all of a sudden triggered unprecedented traffic here; you don't seem to be interested in anything on-topic except this unfortunate 1977 affair, of which you already seem to have prefabricated opinion; all I will say would result only in more accusations and more mud thrown. I mean, if someone who is interested in Mr.Polanski work or life would ask me where I stand on the '77 case, it feels like I will have to answer; but just to gossip some more? I think Brice may be right.

Now I am not sure how to proceed - should I post on-topic (I hope Brice and Heather have already watched Repulsion, which is absolutely essential for all further analysis) though I know that discussion may at any moment be buried under more accusations, or should I wait till the present wave subsides?

[Tito_Villa]

If he's guilty he should face the consequences - end of story. I have said my bit and i'm not going to post in this thread anymore.

[Brice]

the real question is what business of it of ours.

It was my business inasmuch as I vowed to stand by the man I admire; I feel like it's a matter of my personal honor. On the other hand - guys, no offense, but you were not interested in this thread since it appeared, never took part in discussion other than the one pertaining to the sex-scandal which all of a sudden triggered unprecedented traffic here; you don't seem to be interested in anything on-topic except this unfortunate 1977 affair, of which you already seem to have prefabricated opinion; all I will say would result only in more accusations and more mud thrown. I mean, if someone who is interested in Mr.Polanski work or life would ask me where I stand on the '77 case, it feels like I will have to answer; but just to gossip some more? I think Brice may be right.

Now I am not sure how to proceed - should I post on-topic (I hope Brice and Heather have already watched Repulsion, which is absolutely essential for all further analysis) though I know that discussion may at any moment be buried under more accusations, or should I wait till the present wave subsides?

I meant my statement as a generality. I think we at least in my country have become obsessed with our right to know everything. If Mr. Polanski is dealt with however he is dealt with we only need to know if he is found guilty (in this case he was) and how the courts choose to deal with it...his sentence. I really think what we've allowed the media to become is our enemy. Take all of these high profile crime cases with celebrities. Do we really need these things sometimes broadcast completely (such as the oj case. Would we do this with a regular citizen who committed the same offenses? No, of course not because we have no right to know. It's just put on tv for entertainment value. The reality is in my opinion we know more facts about these cases than we EVER should know whether they are guilty or innocent.

I have not gotten to seeing it yet. :(

I'm really beginning to think any discussion of Mr. Polanski's criminal issues should be handled in one of the news type threads and this one reserved for his career. This forum is for movie discussion. We (including myself) are WAY off topic. I don't mind straying a bit, but I think there's more discussion about his character than his works...which seems not right to me.

[Jean]

Amen.

And now - for something completely different?

ETA: oh no. Watch the Repulsion, for God's sake, how am I supposed to proceed if nobody has seen it?...

[Brice]

Yes! :)

I'll probably send those posts discussing aspects of his life not related to his career elsewhere.

[Jean]

Brice, that would be fantastic. I was actually going to suggest doing just that.

[Brice]

Brice, that would be fantastic. I was actually going to suggest doing just that.

I'll have to work on it a bit later to make sure what should be here is here and what shouldn't be isn't.

[Heather19]

Yes Jean, I'm anxiously waiting on your essay about Repulsion. I think I'm going to watch it this weekend. I've tried watching it several times, but I'm having a hard time getting into it :( But visually I'm very intrigued. I think I just need to devote the time to sit down and give it my full attention.

[Jean]

Actually, I realize that Repulsion may be a little hard to swallow, especially on the first watch; it is totally, ideally art-house, - but I promise the watcher will be eventually rewarded; if it fails to grip you again, however, try Cul-de-Sac first instead. It is, at least, a more or less normal movie, with a lot of superb dialog, characters wildly interacting, and lots of specific dry wit; I think it may come under the header of black comedy, though in the end is more mind-twisting than Repulsion.

[Heather19]

Jean I finally watched Repulsion!!!
I loved it :rose: I will say that it did take me several attempts at watching it to get into it, but once I finally devoted the time to it I really enjoyed it. Visually the film was stunning, and I especially loved the sound effects. The two merged so beautifully together.

But I want to discuss it further with you. I've got a few questions.

[Jean]

:rose: :rose: :rose:

ask your questions!!! bears love to discuss movies with heathers

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif

I am thinking at the moment, trying different approaches - it is a rather complex thing, and tons of literature has been written about it, which I am at the moment trying to abstract myself from. Though it is not easy to influence bears anyway...

[Heather19]

:huglove:
I got a little confused at the end. My first impression was that her sister found her dead in the tub, but then all the neighbors suddenly appeared and she was found under the bed? Was this a further hallucination? I took everything that happened to her once her sister left to be fantasies that she was having. She didn't really kill that guy and leave him in the tub did she?

[Jean]

to make a long story short:

yes, she did

there may be some ambiguity to the end, but only some: the people witness the results of the murders independently from her mind; then, the quality of her hallucinations is very different from the quality of her vision, however distorted, when she just looks at the world around her, existing independently. The sound, of course, as you said, plays very important part - it is always silence when she hallucinates, only the clock ticks.

Then, of course, she would never have hallucinated that neighbor with the dog, in the first murder scene. First, because she is not interested in neighbors with dogs; next, because all her hallucinations are - arguably - abstract.

I said "arguably" because there are two, well, schools of thought: the question is, who do you think is raping her in her hallucinations and where is she looking at that photo?

Sorry I don't spoiler-tag, I don't think it is necessary for arthouse cinema; besides, Brice was going to watch it anyway.

[Heather19]

Thank you :huglove: I think I need to rewatch it again. And I'm sure I'll have more questions for you. But first I may just watch Cul-de-sac.

[Jean]

Watch Cul-de-Sac!!! :rose:

and re-watch Repulsion! you'll see how much you missed on the first watch (I mean, even you're a professional watcher), all them little cracks in the walls, and food preferences, and clothes, and other details of the texture of the universe, lots of little things that eventually fall together to complete the picture.

:rose: :rose: :rose:

[Brice]

to make a long story short:

yes, she did

there may be some ambiguity to the end, but only some: the people witness the results of the murders independently from her mind; then, the quality of her hallucinations is very different from the quality of her vision, however distorted, when she just looks at the world around her, existing independently. The sound, of course, as you said, plays very important part - it is always silence when she hallucinates, only the clock ticks.

Then, of course, she would never have hallucinated that neighbor with the dog, in the first murder scene. First, because she is not interested in neighbors with dogs; next, because all her hallucinations are - arguably - abstract.

I said "arguably" because there are two, well, schools of thought: the question is, who do you think is raping her in her hallucinations and where is she looking at that photo?

Sorry I don't spoiler-tag, I don't think it is necessary for arthouse cinema; besides, Brice was going to watch it anyway.

...and Brices do not believe in spoilers.

[alinda]

What Brices said....:couple:

[Jean]

Repulsion

100% at Rotten Tomatoes; one of "The 25 Most Dangerous Movies" according to Premier (http://www.premiere.com/List/The-25-Most-Dangerous-Movies-Ever-Made: their selection is as subjective as any, but at least we have Eraserhead, “M”, A Clockwork Orange, and Un Chien Andalou there. ) Since it is one of the most influential films in history, volumes have been written about it; as a critic said, “it has become the blueprint by which scores of future filmmakers based their visions of insanity.”

I will not, however, quote what intellectuals have said, but only one simple-minded comment from imdb:
"i love movies and watch a lot of them (probably too many!) Repulsion has to be the most disturbing and upsetting movie i have ever seen. everything about this movie creeps me out, and the end shot of the photograph is almost too much for me. i'm not really sure why, but this movie really upsets me to the point that i don't ever want to watch it again, and i think it was very well done. movies like The Hills Have Eyes and the 1000 Corpses House movies are totally more gruesome than movies like Repulsion and they don't bother me at all! <…> does anyone else feel this traumatized over Repulsion, or over any other movie?"

I think this comment is a gem, and expresses the old controversy of cinema as art vs. movies as commercial product better than many theoretical articles I’ve read which only cloud the issue.

1. Fragility

Repulsion is deeply disturbing, but not because something “horrible” is shown – nothing, in fact, is that horrible: nothing specially wrong with the cracks in the sidewalk or on the wall, the decaying rabbit, the sprouting potatoes, the chiming of the bells, the ticking of the clock, the wardrobe that slowly yields under relentless faceless male force, the mirr –

I’d better shut up, or I’ll scare myself to death.

When Polanski was asked why he loved filming inside closed-up spaces, he said he wanted the viewers to feel the fourth wall right behind their backs. Fuck, yeah.

The horror lurks in the trivial objects, just like insanity lurks within sanity. Carole slides into madness one step at a time, and the every-day objects become more and more menacing. It’s like the slippage described in Black House: everything still there, but not quite. The first part of the movie is all about this precarious ambiguity: there’s nothing wrong in not stepping on the cracks, in shunning a man on the street who makes passes at you, in not wanting to touch food that doesn’t look especially delicious, in forgetting a date, in expressing disgust at someone else’s toothbrush or anxiety over someone making loud love right behind the wall. Every little step, however, is a step in the right (=wrong) direction.

The apartment slips in the same direction, and the slowness of the passage leaves no hope. Nothing really changes much until it’s too late. The rabbit rots, and the potatoes sprout; and they used to be fresh, and she used to be sane; not quite, but who is? The violability of this borderline, the fragility of the human being while the viewer can’t help feeling that the church bell across the yard rings for him is what makes the movie so really disturbing. Did my hand just slip, or did I consciously stick my scissors into that woman’s finger?

2. Repulsion and The Tenant

A critic said The Tenant was a male version of Repulsion, only that it was much more enchanting to watch a beautiful young Catherine Deneuve lose her mind than to watch Polanski do the same; it is well said as far as witticisms go, but in fact doesn’t even begin to touch the essence of the sameness/opposition between the movies.

Repulsion is, obviously enough, the opposite of The Tenant (or rather – chronologically – the other way). The opposition runs throughout, most evident in the most basic things: black-and white vs. elaborate color scheme; clean-cut narrative vs. fantasmagoric multi-layered tale. Female vs. male. Murders vs. suicide.

Opposite, I said, not different, because essentially they are about one and the same thing: a person who slowly develops insanity inside the four walls of an apartment; in both cases, we never leave the main character’s head, being given only their point of view.

There is some common axis, some twinship: both times the characters are strangers in greatest European capitals (there are degrees of foreigness, though: there’s difference between being French in London in the 60s and Polish in Paris in the 70s; but Carole Ledoux only has to be a stranger, while the tenant has to be constantly humiliated for all conceivable reasons). In both movies the city itself plays an important part, as well as the furniture and doors/windows in the apartment, let alone mirrors. In both a home – something there is supposed to be no place like – belongs to someone else and turns to nightmare. In both there’s a scene where the main character is gazing in fascination at the now-absent (away or dead: degrees of being absent) person’s dresses hanging in the wardrobe, and both times dresses symbolize doom: promiscuity, impurity, - or identification with “the former tenant” and suicide. In both a wardrobe serves as a futile barricade.

I wonder if the two movies have any area of mere difference between them, or all about them is only total sameness and total opposition. I also wonder to what extent it was intended. They are considered to be parts of the so-called “apartment trilogy”, with Rosemary’s Baby in between; I don’t really see at the moment how Rosemary’s Baby fits between these exactly opposite twins.

It is followed through to bizarre lengths; the first Repulsion credit is the big “Starring Catherine Deneuve”, while in The Tenant Polanski isn’t credited at all except as the director, and the first credited actor is Isabelle Adjani. The action in Repulsion is accompanied by jazz music typical for the 60s; the glass harmonica that plays in The Tenant can’t be heard anywhere else (it was forbidden as psychiatrically hazardous, and they hardly found, in Germany, the last man on Earth who could play it).

“I had to stay with my uncle, he is unwell”: the tenant to the concierge, explaining his absence from the tenement.
“One of my aunts came to see very suddenly”: Carole to the owner of the parlor, explaining her absence from work.
One might attribute this to the lack of imagination in Polanski/Brach team, but, you know.

There are hands protruding from walls (Repulsion) or the window (The Tenant); while in her case, the hands want to grab, caress, and desecrate her because she is the object of desire, in his case the hand intends to injure or kill, because he is an object undesired by anybody - except Stella, that is: mirrored image again. While in Carol’s insanity sex represents utter horror, the only person who behaves kindly towards the tenant is an obvious nymphomaniac.

The uncannily beautiful woman is the agent of repulsion, while the ugly (Polanski has managed to carefully eradicate all his not inconsiderable charisma) man is its object. He is desperately trying to fit in and gets rejected in every situation; she voluntarily alienates herself from everyone and everything, moving, one step at a time, further and further away. Her surroundings are (however superficially) sympathetic; his are openly hostile. She reasserts her gender by constantly rejecting the opposite sex; he merges with the female “former tenant”. She seldom engages in a conversation, and when she does, she hardly talks, as if words, too, may stain her, while every word of the interlocutor makes her withdraw further into herself; he is in constant dialog, every instance of which ends up proving him that he is guilty for merely being himself and alive – and would be much better off as someone else and dead.

In the end she, a murderess, is lying there quietly, angelically, finally having achieved her perfect state of inviolability, pureness and inaccessibility. He, a suicide, is lying there in a mess of glass and blood. She succeeds in what she aspired for; he can’t even complete his own suicide, not even at the second attempt.

3. Observers

But the neighbors are around in both cases… of course.

I spoke about the importance of this theme in my previous review, now will touch only upon a few things.

All through the movie, we can see only one neighbor: the old woman with the dog. Her sublime hour is when she witnesses the talk between Carole and her young man, and she relishes it to the last, taking in as much as she can.

Then, the young man sees her, tries to shut the door, and it’s at this moment that he gets killed. The neighbor is instrumental in his murder, because he closes that door on her and because of her; of couse, Carole would have killed him anyway, but that’s how everything converged. Observers are murderers, you see, directly or indirectly, literally or metaphorically.

Moreover, the woman with the dog is the germ from which all other observers spring: she is the first to whom the bewildered sister’s boyfriend runs in search for a phone, et voila! There’s a whole lot of them here, only hinted at before (by the presence of that very old woman). The neighbors, whose existence in the film is so short, are each a perfection; all hues of curiosity, solicitousness and obtrusiveness are on display. It is shocking to see how the isolation of the apartment erupts into this hungry multitude; there was some dignity in solitude filled with visions and nightmares, but in the end we see everything as the neighbors see it, not Carole: pathetic mess, miserable decay, she alone is untouched, inviolate. Then everyone goes out, and we are allowed one more view of the debris – and children’s toys, little sweet things, so heartbreakingly ordinary – and, finally, the photo.

4. What Happened

There are, as I mentioned in an earlier post, two schools of thought. One maintains that the photo shows the man who had abused Carole when she was a little girl, and at the photo she looks accusingly at her molester; also the man raping her in her visions is supposed to be that man (probably father). The other disagrees. Since I belong to the latter, I will try to present my arguments.

I think we can all agree that Polanski has never been interested in the origins of evil; evil is inherent to the world, is all; in my first post I already tried to show how nothing is ever surprising for the characters or the viewers. I don’t think he has ever told, or will ever tell, a story where something horrible happens “because” someone did something, or where someone does horrible things “because” something makes him do it. It’s what people are, and what the world is, that makes them do what they do; no excuse of “because” is offered unless it is “because they are what they are”. Tess kills because she is a victim pushed to the limit; Andrzej (Knife in the Water) baits the nameless young man because the latter is an easy prey; vampires suck blood because they are vampires; and Carole Ledoux kills because she is pure.

She, without thinking, does all it takes - all her insanity prompts her to do - to protect her purity, and I don’t think this purity was ever violated. It’s too perfect, too precious a gem to have a flaw. It’s not really men, abusers and molesters, that she is protecting herself from; it’s the world as it is, with foods and old women and dirty sinks, sex being only the most obvious and the most aggressive part of it; that’s why her repulsion from the world takes shape of an anti-sexual obsession. But she separates herself from the whole world, men and women and foods and words and objects alike, finally withdrawing into her own ivory castle of catatonia – ironically, her utmost purity is achieved under the sofa, on the littered floor of an apartment where flies prey on the decay; but nothing can touch her now.

Similarly, her eyes in that photo do not seem (well, not to me, at least) to be fixed on the man, with anything like accusation or horror. I have always interpreted it as an embryo of further full-scale repulsion – she is gazing beyond this world, into some perfect plane of existence only the insane can see, which one day will engulf her completely.

***

I didn’t touch upon the many cinematic aspects that make the movie so unique, like the image and the sound (as Heather:rose: pointed out, the sound is of primary importance); hopefully, later.

My dear friends, bears would be so interested in hearing your thoughts, both related or unrelated to this post (in which, I understand, there’s quite a lot of arguable points).

[Seymour_Glass]

I feel that i need to see the film before I read or comment on what you have written, and am taking the necessary steps to see that it is done.

[Jean]

do that! do that!

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif

[alinda]

I have joined Netflix just so I can see this movie, it is # 1 in my que.:couple:

[alinda]

Just watched The Pianist. I can not view Repulsion untill the DVD arrives in the mail.
I hope it's not a war story...that depressed me some. I am glad he lived to play again tho' .

Next uo The Devils backbone.....watching it now. Its not Polanski, but on
Jeans reccomendation, I will view it.

[Seymour_Glass]

You will not be disappointed. The Devil's Backbone is great.

[Heather19]

Jean :rose:
I just read your essay. I'm going to rewatch the film, and then I'd definitely love to discuss it further with you :huglove:

[alinda]

tickticktickticktickdaluladalulaticktickticktickti ckrack! This movie is insane! , If I could view it again, I would join it.:unsure:

[Jean]

Jean :rose:
I just read your essay. I'm going to rewatch the film, and then I'd definitely love to discuss it further with you :huglove:
oh that would be great! :rose: :rose: :rose:
I dearly hope brices would say something too, they said they read bears' delirious ravings


tickticktickticktickdaluladalulaticktickticktickti ckrack! This movie is insane! , If I could view it again, I would join it.:unsure:
oops, I'm sorry! I strongly recommend that you do not watch The Tenant or all the rest of them... it's all right, as a critic said - it's an acquired taste... http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif

[alinda]

I have already ordered it from the Netflix, I will aquire the taste perhaps? the thing is the film was so darkly asking you to go mad with her. I nearly did.It's not a film that one should watch on a cold dark lonely night for sure.:couple: Don't worry I still hold your oppinions highly inspirational.

[Jean]

sweetheart, The Tenant can't be watched only at daytime, with lots of people around and something to cheer you up afterwards... and of course in the state of full sanity (which is not something I personally can boast)

[Heather19]

Jean I have just watched Cul-de-sac. Thank you so much. I thoroughly enjoyed it :huglove:

[alinda]

sweetheart, The Tenant can't be watched only at daytime, with lots of people around and something to cheer you up afterwards... and of course in the state of full sanity (which is not something I personally can boast)

I'll do my best. :thumbsup: Also, this film stars Roman himself does it not?

[Jean]

Jean I have just watched Cul-de-sac. Thank you so much. I thoroughly enjoyed it :huglove:
oh, that's great! I would love to hear your thoughts on this, and on Repulsion too! I think I post some Cul-de-Sac analysis sooner or later, although it kinda defies analysis, being far more complex than Repulsion.
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif



sweetheart, The Tenant can't be watched only at daytime, with lots of people around and something to cheer you up afterwards... and of course in the state of full sanity (which is not something I personally can boast)

I'll do my best. :thumbsup: Also, this film stars Roman himself does it not?
Yes, although he is uncredited.
I pray you will love the movie, it's my favorite ever, of all world's cinema... but, then again, I am not a very healthy person... bears love it dark and twisted... http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearmood_friendly.gif

[Seymour_Glass]

I got Repulsion in from Netflix, but I haven't had the time to watch it. This saddens me.

[Jean]

don't be sad Seymour, it's not like we're going to die tomorrow... at least I hope we're not

[alinda]

Gan! I have only moved The Tenent down the netflix list, rather than rule it out.
I will try very hard to be unbiased when viewing it and forget Repulsion all together ( if I can) :scared:
There are several films I'd like to view right away you see .

[Jean]

Cul-de-Sac: a Tale of the Abandoned

Aesthetically, I would define Cul-de-Sac as pure delight. I know there’s no such genre, but whatever else critics have been trying to label it just doesn’t stick.

Rarely have I experienced such absolute rapture over the study of the darkest recesses of human soul, global pessimism, a story of humiliation, victimization, misanthropy, misogyny, neurosis, and death.

On Human Dignity

The motif of victimization is most obviously personalized in George. He doesn’t have a chance from the word go: when he meets Richard, he is wearing that frilly nightgown. Thus, Richard treats him with utter contempt by definition – ‘little fairy’ can’t be perceived as the owner of the castle or someone who actually can call the police, not as someone who can stand up to the macho intruder, or to anyone else. Which, of course, he can’t, being singled out Richard’s victim at this very first step: after all, it’s only the logical development of what he apparently had been going through in his new family life – no wonder he accepts his fate right away (his shrill “Nobody’s panicking!!!” speaks volumes of his state of mind).

There is difference, however, between just a victim and someone whose dignity is methodically taken away. The apotheosis of victimhood, monsieur Trelkovsky the tenant, managed to keep some pathetic, miserable kind of dignity throughout his numerous ordeals; George doesn’t only lose his dignity at every step; worse, he is constantly trying to keep it, or regain it when it, invariably, is lost, making a deplorably ridiculous fuss while fighting this lost case. But, then again, the tenant was lonely alone, and the other people as well as the whole order of the universe were only trying to drive him to suicidal insanity; George is much worse off, he is alone with someone who is supposed to love him, and now also confronted with a man she is so likely to form an alliance against him with; and they are both set on humiliating him, and there’s no such thing as “order”, of the universe or anything else.

You can’t remain dignified when you’re not heard; it’s something everyone experienced, I believe, at least once a life.
“What’s the name of this rock pile?” Richard shouts from the top of the wall.
“Rob Roy, Lindisfarne Island, Northumberland!”
“What? Speak up!” This one is especially clever, because we, the audience, are given George’s point of view, not Richard’s. To us, he can be heard perfectly well, and although we believe Richard doesn’t hear, we don’t feel, on emotional level, that George really has to yell. His
“Rob Roy, Lindisfarne Island, Northumberland!!!!!!!” sounds to us less comprehensible than the previous version of same, and leaves some lingering suspicion that comprehensibility wasn’t the main reason for this particular show.

He juggles eggs and breaks them; Teresa laughs, and it’s a bad kind of laugh, mocking and unkind. He only can roll his eyes when Richard slaps him (good-humoredly, as a sign of approval) over the top of the head. The boy bites his hand in the middle of a lecture. When he hears Richard’s drunken singing, he tries to protect Teresa (“don’t move don’t move”), but she is drinking out there too, and throwing stones into the window as a sign of mockery at her inadequate protector.

What other way is there for him to resist what they impose on him? (Yes, there is a “they” – whatever antagonism between these two, they are united against him: there’s nothing sweeter than baiting the defenseless.) “I never drink,” he says and pleads ulcer as his only protection. No, he will have to drink up, “to the last drop”. In the dark, he incidentally tramples on “Albie’s specs”, and must be taught “to respect the dead” – see, now that he already agreed on being the ultimate victim in this microcosm of universal victimization, he can be accused of anything, and he will swallow it: the absurd humiliation has been going on long enough. A misstep is tantamount to disrespecting the dead, and all he can say is, “I didn’t do it on purpose.” Ah, but even this is too much – “Answering back?! Wonders never cease!” - and now he is submitted to a humiliating ear-pulling. How to keep face now? Well, he pretends to laugh; oh Lord, but it is all of us who never know how to behave when faced with brutal force. A worst nightmare of an intellectual, to be humiliated in front of your woman and have to play on someone else’s field, according to the rules you not only don’t know but have always despised and excluded from your life. Now, is that enough, did he hit the bottom, or is there anything else in store for him? Why, of course, the morbidest of all humiliations, with him being pushed inside the grave and forced to dig, only to get the body dumped over him in the end. And then, as the last touch, they start shoveling earth on him, as if to bury him alive. She, at least, fetches him a chair – which will be buried instead.

He wouldn’t have been so ridiculous under other circumstances, but the thing is, there never are other circumstances. When he says, “Grandma Moses was never a Sunday painter” (the guest’s answer, “It is no excuse for treating me like a fool!” is one of the many gems in the brilliant dialog constituent of the movie), he looks actually dignified. But then he is struggling with his painting, trying to fit it back onto the wall, et voilà, he looks ridiculous again; the fabric of the universe won’t let you keep your head high.

The blast of the gun during the party sets him free for a moment, and he can stand up to his guests, again – although kicked in the shin by the little monster and thus losing some form, if not essence, of dignity. But he is no match to them:
“He’s gone completely off his rock, because of that tart”.
“Say that again.” (this was supposed to confuse the opponent. Fat chance.)
“Tart!!!”
And still, still, he manages to do his best. “Get the hell out of my… fortress!” is a deliciously funny line, so incongruous and at the same time oddly endearing him to us for a moment. This is his moment of triumph, predictably and regretfully short. In the wake of this moment of glory, he asks Richard how long he was going to stay here waiting for Katelbach. And is put back to his place at the bottom of the pecking order, of course, his face (in profile) visibly showing the loss of whatever self-assurance and self-respect he had summoned during getting the guests out (“Out! Out!!!”).

George is the precursor of the tenant (even the cross-dressing motif is already present), and both are put so low down that sometimes they appear to have come through to the other side, and acquire some paradoxical magnitude, like Dostoyevsky characters would. But the tenant was given at least one moment (in the car, with the close-up of his haggard eyes and a tear rolling out) to appeal to our compassion directly – right before the grotesque finale. George is never given such an open moment. Everything is entirely up to us, it’s whether or not we find it in ourselves to pity him. Whether or not we possess enough human substance of our own.

These are us, Lord! Only there’s no Lord in this abandoned universe.

Monsters R Us

The first thing we learn about Teresa is that she is absolutely mad. That’s what her lover says, overheard by Richard: “You’re absolutely mad.” All the characters are introduced the way their destiny shines at us: dying; doing something efficient but useless; carrying a cumbersome kite and talking at the same time; being mad. The mad one is the real monster of the freak show.

All the others can be [lesser] monsters at any moment, whether at this given moment they are assigned the part of the torturer or the victim; these roles are interchangeable in this merry-go-round, with only George at the bottom of the food chain; and the pendulum of our sympathy and pity swings wide, surprisingly, in a story that is essentially pitiless.

Even the biggest monster has her moments, when, set off by her spineless husband, she looks courageous and strong – after all, it’s she who can stand up to Richard; and when locked up the first time, she says “swine”, isn’t it a manifestation of human dignity? Well, she gets a snap on the nose. It’s not that you can’t be dignified when you’re faced with brutal force – no, it’s you can’t keep your dignity when you have none. Dignity as a trait can only exist within a system of values, and there’s nothing that has even a nodding acquaintance with values in this deadly mix of whim, neurosis, boredom, amorality and eroticism that constitute her soul.

A critic said, “it's a measure of the film's power that when you're not compelled to look, you're compelled to look away” – I, frankly, prefer not to look at Teresa’s face most of the time; this emptiness inside which any roll of vipers may be breeding is somewhat too disturbing for me. (Thirty-something years later Polanski will direct Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler at Théâtre Marigny; there’s a lot of common between the two women). When she pulls the boy’s ear, her face is really too much to take; or when she says to the guests, “He is going to have an exhibition”: her face is on the foreground, and we can see all that game of emotions on it, this utmost pleasure at doing something incredibly nasty to you near one.

As I said, everybody else is a monster here, but there are degrees. The guests, for example, are not exactly people – like all observers in Polanski movies, they are henchmen of the ghastly horror looming behind the thin façade of reality. They can’t really be human because they are not vulnerable: likewise, in The Tenant you wouldn’t expect the concierge or Madame Dioz to ever suffer, and it’s the suffering and potential or actual victimhood that turns creatures into people. The guests have come to contribute to the basic disorder of things, to hurt whomever is within reach as much as they can. “I want to kill the chicken!” the boy happily shouts. When he is not allowed to, he scratches the record instead: every little helps. But it’s people, not those creatures, who are the scariest monsters.

Their last night began with a peaceful picture; one sleeping in the armchair, the other on the mattress right there on the terrace, and Teresa sitting with a magazine, and chickens adding a pastoral overtone, and the music (main theme) playing – and then it is stuck – again – again – a horrible dissonance, signaling that and all this will end very bad very soon. Then she stops the record, and there’s that abrupt shutup, - and a woman in a black dress is playing with a shotgun in the silence. Then all hell breaks loose, and here she is, inventing right on the spot what all rotten women always invent when they want an excuse: he tried to kiss me. Then, the killing.

George shoots first time with his head turned away, hardly aware that he is shooting. It is a reflex movement after which stopping is impossible (later we’ll see the same when McBeth murders Dunkan). And his face reads only, “It works! It works!” Finally, an action that succeeded. Is murder the only thing we can succeed at? Yes, this, and dying. Also going insane. That’s what comes easiest to all the characters.

Then they, the pathetic murderous fools, try to hide behind each other when Richard gets his automatic. Then, the dying, the last convulsive random shooting, and the fire – George’s silhouette at a weird angle against the fire, the glasses at a weird angle on his nose, only Teresa keeps her cool – again! – because the world she lives in is itself so crooked that no normal categories of tragedy are applicable.

The Slippage and Universal Inadequacy

Nothing is fit for human living: the doorways too low, the eggs and the rungs of the ladder rotten. Everything is arranged the way it is impossible or difficult to use, like that fridge door. Nothing can be found (pajama tops, or frying pans). Whatever is still in any working order will be damaged or destroyed (car dented; bars for the hens demolished), and “a very beautiful… er, something” will eventually be smashed by a rock thrown at random.

The glass case of a grandfather’s clock is used as a mirror, vodka poured in cups, and the cigarette stubs thrown right onto the medieval stairs. George’s paintings are horrendous, of the worst kind: the amateurish horrendous of a man who knows what the modern “real thing” should look like.

Nothing works as intended, nothing subsists, nothing keeps its dignity; things usually manage it better than people, but no, not here. The grave is desecrated, by the diggers themselves, then the chickens, then the little boy. The priceless stained-glass window gets smashed by a gun bullet fired by a spoiled brat.

Everything is ridiculous, given the wrong circumstances. Everything is pathetic. And the circumstances are always wrong. Everything is askew, slipping, what could be an intellectual respected by his peers is a neurotic loser; and what could be a loving wife, proud hostess of a castle, is a dangerous psychopath; and the big gorilla is the most vulnerable of the three – after all, it’s him who dies in the end; and Katelbach (with a t for tea, and b for bast – er, boy) never comes. The ever-sarcastic look on the dying Irishman’s face is the only thing they all deserve.

Richard seems the only efficient one there (even the owl stops hooting when he commands it to shut up!), but the universal law decrees the elimination of the fittest, because the unfittest can only be pushed that far. Even when Richard is brilliant, which he often is, it’s brilliance with one foot in quicksand, slowly but relentlessly sliding down.

He has problems lighting a match. He shoots his pistol at a plane that happened to be “regular plane”, and after the boat brings a man other than Katelbach, he can’t even open the tin can. But, of course, he had a wounded arm.

We’re all amateurs here, and the pros just up and die (both of them), being as amateurish at life as we are. We’re all losers, and even she, the toughest of them all, loses in the end, captured in the hell of her own soul; alas, this planet isn’t really fit for human beings, and nobody can offer us a different globe.

The Absurd

The principle of the absurd is the direct opposition to magic. The latter consists in everything being connected with everything in the hierarchy of planes; when we do something down below, something happens up above, and vice versa. The universe as it appears in Cul-de-Sac is essentially disjointed, discoordinated, godless. No, there’s no “above”, there’s no upper being, and Katelbach never comes. His last message says, “You’re on your own. Count me out.”

We’re alone like Albie in the car, slowly inundated by the sea. At least his Katelbach – Richard – comes, but guess what? Albie dies anyway.

And so does Richard, for that matter.

In the whole world’s cinema there’s few lines as absurdly hilarious than Cecil’s “Good evening” and “Aren’t you coming with us?”, in a civilized British voice, in the middle of chaos and insanity. One would think the man should realize the incongruousness of his words, but then again, why should he? Everything is of equal value[lessness] where hierarchy is nonexistent, and the corpse lying there is no better or worse than, say, an umbrella. All pieces of the puzzle we call the universe are always scattered, and when shaken they form bizarre pictures none of which makes actual sense.

The tragedy of a miserable human being in The Tenant consisted of parts that formed a pattern, and another pattern, all falling together to make some abominable sense; evil principles controlled the evil world and the unspeakable down below was in agreement by highest principles from up above; everything fit into a bigger picture, however sinister. But here, there’s no bigger picture. The world the tenant lived in reflected the hues of hell, but here, there’s not even hell. We are on our own.

[DoctorDodge]

Ok, have just finished watching the Tenant and rated it, but my views in short on here?

"It's fucking insane" just about sums up those feelings in short!

That's not to say I didn't like it. On the contrary, i thought it was extremely well made. Very keen to see Repulsion, now. Well, i say keen, but I think I need a little bit of time to get back my sanity first!

[Jean]

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif

loved your short review you posted in Rate thread; can I re-quote it here? there are some points I would love to discuss

***

among good news: a panel of critics consisting of Gardian and Observer critics named Chinatown the best film ever made (I disagree in details, because in my opinion the best movie ever made is, as everybody understands, The Tenant; but I agree in the essense)

also, The Ghost Writer took six awards at the 2010 European Film Awards (so-called EuroOscars), including best picture, best director and best screenplay.

also, Polanski has been awarded three Prix Lumieres, among them "best director" (for The Ghost Writer) and, at last, Lifetime achievement!

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif

[DoctorDodge]

Yep, feel free to re-quote my review in this thread Jean, especially if it's worth discussing!

And it's been too long since I watched Chinatown! Ordinarily, i'd grab my dvd and watch it, but the final series of Ashes to Ashes arrived in the post today, so i'll be more focused on that tonight! After Repulsion and Cul-de-Sac, i'll definitely give Chinatown the rewatch it deserves!

[Jean]

The Tenant - 9/10

I don't know what to say about this film. To be honest, I find it very difficult to try and put into words how I feel about it from any angle
yes, I know it can confuse a watcher caught unawares, but you did ask me to recommend "a really snobbish, pretentious, rotten, twisted, depressing, disturbing European arthouse film". They don't usually get more so than this one. http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear4bis.gif


but I'll do my best.
thank you! http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif


What can be more likely to drive someone to total insanity? A group of people targeted against one individual, or the individual himself? It's a good question that The Tenant asks, and all throughout the film, it's keen to stick with main character Trelkovsky's perspective throughout occasionally makes it difficult to work out which. As the film progesses, it becomes more and more clear that Trelkovsky, who appears to be a sane and rational man when we're first introduced to him, is becoming more and more distant and isolated from everyone else, whether it's his neighbours or even his friends. As he ends up in more and more trouble with his neighbours, usually due to circumstances that seem to be beyond his control, so it becomes more and more difficult for him to relate to anyone. I think my favourite moment of the film is when he asks someone, "Do you have any trouble with your neighbours?", to which the person he asks just looks completely mystified and says, "I mind my own business." Eventually, it gets to a point where we stop being afraid of what the neighbours might do and more afraid of Trelkovsky might do as his paranoia increases to breaking point, leading to a very well built up, memorable and quite disturbing ending. Perfectly stated all that, thank you! I only disagree a little on the development part - I mean, Trelkovsky doesn't really seem "more and more isolated", at least not socially: there's really no evolution in his relationships with the others. He starts at the very bottom of the pecking order, and there's no way down from there, unless deeper inside himself. It is always interesting how Polanski introduces his characters; the first thing we see about Trelkovsky is the concierge slamming her window on him and going back to her washing-up (then her dog snaps at him - twice, etc). It is, basically, a story with no intrigue because we know, as soon as we see that glass roof, what the finale would be. It's like lyrical poetry, as opposed to epical; it's not what happens, but how it interacts with the personality of the reader (watcher). That is why, I believe, it is so disturbing, on some visceral level.


I'll admit, this isn't the kind of film I usually tend to watch, and it certainly isn't the kind of film that I can watch everyday. Having said that, I do believe there's a ton of layers that I missed watching it the first time,
You know, there's a shit ton of layers I miss having watched it a shit ton of times. I never fail to discover something new, it's kinda inexhaustible. I tried to voice some of my thoughts in the first post of this thread, and then it keeps coming up in the other reviews I posted, it haunts me.


and it's a film I'm very keen to watch again soon. When I'm not too depressed or afraid for my sanity, anyway. Talking about sanity, I do not recommend Repulsion right away, so maybe the next should be Cul-de-Sac. It is - no, not in the least less twisted, depressing and disturbing - but somehow easier on the watcher, having some entertaining constituent. After all, it is a comedy. Hmmm... yes.

[DoctorDodge]

Perfectly stated all that, thank you! I only disagree a little on the development part - I mean, Trelkovsky doesn't really seem "more and more isolated", at least not socially: there's really no evolution in his relationships with the others. He starts at the very bottom of the pecking order, and there's no way down from there, unless deeper inside himself. It is always interesting how Polanski introduces his characters; the first thing we see about Trelkovsky is the concierge slamming her window on him and going back to her washing-up (then her dog snaps at him - twice, etc). It is, basically, a story with no intrigue because we know, as soon as we see that glass roof, what the finale would be. It's like lyrical poetry, as opposed to epical; it's not what happens, but how it interacts with the personality of the reader (watcher). That is why, I believe, it is so disturbing, on some visceral level.

Good points, especially about the concierge and her dog (one thing i overlooked in my review is a slightly dark streak of humour appearing throughout, which I'll get to in a moment). He's hardly the most confident person at the start of the film. But he is shown to have some friends, at least. Well, he's shown to be ok with having a few people over for a flat warming, anyway. Compared to his paranoia and practically running away from everyone towards the film's end, someone who's shown to be more and more on his own as the film goes on, that i got the feeling of increased literal isolation. But you're right, the ending is entirely expected from the moment you see that glass roof, and his awkward behaviour with people at the start only increases that expectation.


You know, there's a shit ton of layers I miss having watched it a shit ton of times. I never fail to discover something new, it's kinda inexhaustible. I tried to voice some of my thoughts in the first post of this thread, and then it keeps coming up in the other reviews I posted, it haunts me.

Which reminds me of a layer I forgot to mention earlier in my review, something that surprised me the most when watching the film: Polanski's dark but perfectly used sense of humour. The dog barking at Trelkovsky twice, the man on the seat behind Trelkovsky and Stella at the cinema. But I think the most surprisingly funny moment, one that I did not expect to laugh at, was the ending.
From the start, we fully expect Trelkovsky to fall through that window himself, that's true. But what I certainly didn't expect was for him to try and commit suicide and yet do it so badly, he has to do it twice. The line, "He's gonna jump again!", was the moment that got one of the biggest laughs out of me, though. All this buildup of Trelkovsky following the previous Simone's actions, and what happens? He screws up. I hope that wasn't just me that found it funny, to be honest. I have been known to have a twisted sense of humour, I must admit.


Talking about sanity, I do not recommend Repulsion right away, so maybe the next should be Cul-de-Sac. It is - no, not in the least less twisted, depressing and disturbing - but somehow easier on the watcher, having some entertaining constituent. After all, it is a comedy. Hmmm... yes.

Well, luckily for me then, due to my dodgy internet connection, i've been having some difficulty in watching Repulsion. Cul-de-Sac shouldn't be too much trouble, though. I know a website where i can find that.

[Jean]

I have emailed you the Repulsion files, and can email Cul-de-Sac, no problem! Say when you're morally ready.


I hope that wasn't just me that found it funny, to be honest. I have been known to have a twisted sense of humour, I must admit. No, it wasn't just you! Everything in the scene is macabrically hilarious, the concierge saying "And we just finished repairing the roof!" is a gem, and so is her dialog with the policeman. I think I will dedicate one of my next essays to this specific kind of humor.

(more later. Your comment made me think about one more thing.)

[DoctorDodge]

Yes, but the only trouble with Repulsion is downloading them: my internet connection cuts out at random points. I've tried twice to download the first part and then the internet disconnects halfway through. But Cul-de-Sac, I can watch online at least, so even if my connection does go off, when it re-connects, i can at least get to where i was watching it last.

[Jean]

You know, if you fail, I think I can cut the files small, so there's a chance they will fit into the brief spells of your connection's sanity. http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearmood_creative.gif

[DoctorDodge]

Well, I'm gonna try one more time whilst I watch the final 2 eps of Ashes to Ashes. If it fails then, i'll let ya know. Or just get on my bike and ride off a cliff after screaming, "BELLBOYYYYYYYYYYYY!" Depends what mood i'll be in, really.

[alinda]

If you can have netflix most are available to play now.

Addition to post :
I know bcuz, yesterday I viewed
roman Polanski : wanted & Desired ...liked it very informative yet not as much as the bears Opus Magun is. ( YEAH Bear! ) ;wub;
Cul de Sac: twisted and yet not as dark as previously viewed RP movies. I loved it when the woman trew the coffee pot out the window, I do this sort of thing myself and derive daily joy from this activity.:lol:
Knife in the water; I actually thought there would have been sa stabbing in this film, and hoped that the woman and hiker would have sailed off together while the man was swimming around the bouy alone but alas....no romance here.Oh well* there are other movies yes?

[Ruthful]

Someone needs to quote this for when Jean loses his mind and posts one of these threads again.


The teenager's troubling--and contemporaneous--account of her abuse at Polanski's hands begins with her posing twice for topless photos that the director said were for French Vogue. The girl then told prosecutors how Polanski directed her to, "Take off your underwear" and enter the Jacuzzi, where he photographed her naked. Soon, the director, who was then 43, joined her in the hot tub. He also wasn't wearing any clothes and, according to Gailey's testimony, wrapped his hands around the child's waist.

The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson's home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he "keep away." According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later "started to have intercourse with me." At one point, according to Gailey's testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was "on the pill," and "When did you last have your period?" Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of him."

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/polanski-predator

How can that be considered anything but rape?

And it would be one thing if he had a one-night stand at a bar with someone he didn't know and later found out she was underage but this was premeditated on his part. Polanski knew she was 13. So there's no excuse whatsoever for his horrific behavior.

Also, here are some other images of Samantha from 1977 for the sake of argument as to how old she looked.

http://i35.tinypic.com/2h3c4df.jpghttp://i34.tinypic.com/21l0nkh.jpg

[Jean]

I don’t really know what you mean by “one of those threads” – it has been here for ages; also, it is in Gem Theater, and it has been everybody's understanding (and a direct request from the managers of this section) that we do not discuss this case here, only movies – which I have been doing.

I leave it to the discretion of this section's mods, namely feverish, Heather, and Brice, whether or not to remove these posts – both Ruthful’s and mine, or do as they see fit.

Now, since I have been challenged, I have to say the following:

I repeat once again that I undertook an analysis of documents, which neither you nor Cyber did. It can be found in my blog: link in my signature. I never ask you to take my word, but I want people to be able to judge for themselves, which is impossible in the absense of information.

Luckily, the three of our friends who've read it so far agreed with me; so did many other people who have already commented.

I can’t repeat here all it took me about 100 pages and a few months to write, and a year of my life to research. I will be brief, and once again hope that any further discussion will take part elsewhere.

You are quoting Cyber who is quoting media which are quoting parts of Ms.Geiley’s statements. Neither of you, I presume, never bothered to look at her testimony as a whole, or compare it with other testimonies, evidence, and reports, or any other documents. Or else you would have discovered that the picture is quite different from what you are made to believe it to be.


The teenager's troubling--and contemporaneous--account of her abuse at Polanski's hands begins with her posing twice for topless photos that the director said were for French Vogue. The girl then told prosecutors how Polanski directed her to, "Take off your underwear" and enter the Jacuzzi, where he photographed her naked. Soon, the director, who was then 43, joined her in the hot tub. He also wasn't wearing any clothes and, according to Gailey's testimony, wrapped his hands around the child's waist.

The “child” in question testified to have had previous sexual experience, said in a later interview, “it was embarrassing to be a virgin among my friends”, and in another interview, “I had had a boyfriend for a long time, and we’d become sexually active”. Everybody who saw her – I provide a long list of statements, including those from police officers and Judge Rittenband himself (who calls her “regrettably not unschooled in sexual matters”; “not an inexperienced and unsophisticated young girl”)– thought she looked no younger than 18, since she was a fully developed young woman. Her medical examination report flatly calls her “adult female”.


Also, here are some other images of Samantha from 1977 for the sake of argument as to how old she looked.

Also, it is stupid to say things that are contrary to the documented facts. These photos were taken a few months previously, by another photographer, and have nothing to do with the case. Here are the pictures taken right after the events - as soon as European press was on the spot:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-6ZpUQMBI4YM/TYcwxXKrZdI/AAAAAAAABso/Rty2XlbEh2g/s1600/Roman.Polanski.Wanted.and.Desired.2008.DVDScr.XviD-BaLD.avi_001742617.jpg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-RQCHNHdgv0M/TY4Py-Wp7PI/AAAAAAAABt4/OBP96ZA7bD8/s1600/Roman.Polanski.Wanted.and.Desired.2008.DVDScr.XviD-BaLD.avi_003074282.jpg

Then, he didn’t “say” the pictures were for French Vogue – they were. The family asked him to photograph her, knowing he was doing this assignment for the magazine. The topless photos were taken a few weeks before the incident at Nicholson house, at no objections from Ms.Geimer. Then the family agreed to have a second session, then at Nicholson house Samantha drank some champagne she chose herself from among the drinks (water and juice including) in the fridge, - she testified to this, and to having drunk champagne before. All this in the presence of Nicholson’s caretaker who said that the young lady looked about 18, and “they behaved as if they were lovers”, so didn't find anything objectionable to her drinking.

Then they called mother and told her they were going to take pictures in Jacuzzi (see Grand Jury testimonies of both mother and daughter). Then she took off her underwear (without any objections or doubt - see her testimony) and got in. Then she says he got in too – he doesn’t confirm this, and all her later descriptions of the event are conflicting (for example, in an interview she says he was not naked); anyway, nothing happened there except she said she wanted to get out, after which she got out. No, by the way, he didn’t photograph her naked. Water covers all of her, as you can see in these pictures. You can also see how really “scared” and “inhibited” she was.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-KxRS-flvXvg/TYcvIkGMAlI/AAAAAAAABsc/7_HORy7dYv8/s1600/bath01.jpg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bwRXg5IyIz0/TYcvUN4LPqI/AAAAAAAABsg/fNEcUwJEMZs/s1600/geimer.bmp https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-6DxzaGLXLGw/TYcvZJMIYbI/AAAAAAAABsk/Mqdy0H7ljJ8/s1600/geimer01.jpg


The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson's home,
According to her own testimony she was naked at the moment, but, according to the same testimony, she didn’t go to put on anything, but went to swim in the pool instead.


where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he "keep away." According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later "started to have intercourse with me." At one point, according to Gailey's testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was "on the pill," and "When did you last have your period?" Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of him."

And nobody ever asks her what exactly she was afraid of. If you read the transcript of the Grand Jury testimony you will see with your own eyes that nothing stands any criticism there. Please read at least the chapter where I analyse her account and then tell me, how what she says is possible physically or logically. You can’t go by one line taken separately and swallow it whole, as God’s truth, without knowing the whole story.

Which is (check my blog for full details):

1. Mother (twice divorced by that time, living with a boyfriend working for Marijuana Weekly; probation report calls the family “permissive”, both daughters being exposed to alcohol, drugs and pornography since very young) asks a man known for his promiscuity (and spending most of his life in Europe, where 14 is the age of consent in 13 countries, and in Spain it is 13) to photograph her non-virginal, sexually active, precocious and underage girl, sees to it that they are undisturbed and doesn't ask any questions.

2. The girl poses topless, without any objections, drinks champagne she chooses herself, gets undressed, again without any objections, drinks some champagne from Polanski's glass, - without being asked, not only from his glass, but at all, only to pose with the glass - and walks about naked without being asked (see her testimony).

3. They have sex, that leaves no trace of forcible – or any other – penetration. Not a slightest mark anywhere in her anal region, either, which means the dry anal sex (she never mentions any lubricants, and no trace thereof was found, either) was entirely a product of imagination. (“no hematoma lacerations or blood… no traumatic acute fissures seen… no sphincter tear… no evidence of force entry and the examination was normal. Vaginal and anal slides were taken which, according to the Los Angeles police department criminalist were negative, tested negative for semen.”)

4. She never ever gives any reasons for her being “afraid” (on the contrary, in one of her petitions she writes, “I don’t believe it was Mr.Polanski’s intention to scare me or do me harm”).

5. She refuses to ever be crossed-examined, to testify in court, to be assessed by a psychiatrist (after it came to light that her statements are in contradiction with the medical findings and common logic, there was such a motion), or to have therapy – that is, anything that would entail any close scrutiny of her allegations;

6. Her statement (never tried in court or subjected to questioning, it can’t really be called “testimony”) contradicts itself, other people’s statements, medical evidence, laws of physical nature and logic - see either all those documents, or my blog where I quote the documents without omitting or adding;

7. All accounts she later gives of the events are conflicting. She invents things ad hoc without bothering to agree them with any of her previous statements, be it testimony or interviews.

8. The only “evidence” the Gaileys produced was a pair of panties stained with semen which, according to the expert, belonged to a male physically unable to have children. - I will not dwell on this now. I hope you can make some conclusions yourself. It is actually very serious, you know.

9. Both Samantha and her mother insisted, with the help of their lawyer, that Polanski should not be given any prison sentence.

10. Later on Ms.Gailey/Geimer filed a civil suit and got a considerable sum of money.

11. Now that she can't possibly refuse cross-examination (and thus, her allegations - either unsubstantiated by anything or flatly refuted by evidence to begin with - being at last tried, that is subjected to questioning and analysis), every time the case comes close to be tried at court, Ms.Geimer vigorously campaigns for it to be dropped and forgotten.

There’s a lot more, both significant facts and details to every one, also some incredible further developments, but I really see no point in repeating here what I displayed for everybody to see – precisely in order to avoid repeating it all in our site. Everything points at one thing – not only was the intercourse consensual, but it was a definite, obvious, classic setup by the Gailey’s family.

Please come to my blog, read everything I unearthed, and whenever you think I’m wrong, tell me what flaws exactly do you see in my argumentation. I have provided a shit ton of arguments and documents, and did my best to organize them the way even an idiot can understand.

I also endeavour to explain there how – and why – this case is used for manipulating the public. Why you are never given the facts, but only the demagogy. It is all rather interesting, although very disturbing.

Now, let me conclude this with this official legal document – it’s probation report, made by officers who didn’t have any reasons to be biased in any way, and saw the case as clearly as I do:

“Defendant is not mentally ill or disordered, does not have a clinically observable personality or character deviation. Is not a sexual deviate… He is not a pedophile… The offense occurred as an isolated instance of transient poor judgment… The provocative circumstances, permissiveness and knowledge of circumstances by mother, physical maturity and willingness and provocativeness of victim, and the lack of coercion by defendant… all contribute to the above impression…”
“… the present offense was neither an aggressive nor forceful sexual act. There was some indication that circumstances were provocative, that there was some permissiveness by the mother, that the victim was not only physically mature, but willing; as one doctor has additionally suggested there was the lack of coercion by the defendant.” (everybody saw it iat that time, and there was no other view, except in the disturbed minds of misinformed public. That was why all those idiotic counts were dropped, and the plea of "unlawful sexual intercourse" accepted. I hope this answers the question, "How can that be considered anything but rape?". Legally, that's how. By the analysis of the testimonies, circumstances and evidence - the total lack thereof or the counterfeit, like the panties.)

Or, if you want to hear the “victim”:

“He had sex with me. He wasn’t mean, or forceful, or anything like that”.
“It was just sex.”

If you want to be brainwashed and manipulated, be. If you want to join the lynch mob, do. I did all I could – not in this post, it’s only bits and pieces, but in my blog, where everything is documented. If you don’t want to know the facts of the case – don’t, it’s your right. Only by refusing to learn or to acknowledge them you forfeit your right to ever speak about it. It is only a question of intellectual honesty. Either inform yourself, or shut up. But do not judge a case you don't know anything about except the distorted pieces the manipulative media feed you. Easy.

[Ruthful]

If we're not supposed to discuss the case, then why did you bring it up? Not only here, but on a needlessly provocative post you made to Facebook? A post, might I add, which you barred anyone critical of your bizarre theory from responding to.

[Ruthful]

It's patently absurd to think that you can start a thread devoted to Roman Polanksi without bringing up the fact that he's a convicted child rapist and fugitive from the law for the past three decades. It's like starting a thread about Norman Mailer and not mentioning the little detail that he almost murdered his wife.

[Jean]

I didn't know I "barred anyone critical". I thought I only defriended you (or "unfriended" is the right word?). I am really sorry - I was totally new at Facebook, still am. I didn't know how it all worked (still not quite sure). I meant only to post the link for my friends; sorry again if posting links to blogs is objectionable. Now for the rest of this:

*I* didn't bring the case up anywhere in our site.

I am not saying we are not supposed to discuss it - not in this forum, though, which is for cinema.

I do not think, however, it would be a good idea to discuss it in our site, the topic being, as I said, potentially explosive. That is why I provided a special place on the outside, where everyone who disagrees with me can do so. Another reason is that I really have a lot to say, and re-posting my whole dissertation here seems superfluous.

I have dedicated a lot of my time and effort to find the documents of the case: it's a full year since I've been researching this, all the time, at every possible angle, from various sources, going through tons of materials. It breaks my heart to see the man I admire being slandered by people who never learned anything about it from any source except media articles.

I have also analyzed (in the chapter called Delusions vs. Sanity) the reasons public opinion is conditioned the way it is, and sorry to say, they are very disturbing.

I collected all relevant information in one place which is my blog. You are very welcome to confront me there, but you'll be required to get acquainted with my arguments and with the actual documents I provide. It is totally beyond me how a man who considers himself capable of thinking can condemn someone or something without listening to the other side (it is not the first time that it happens between us, Ruthful, and it is the only reason why I "unfriended" you).

I do not have any "bizarre" theory. I think in my previous post (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?10975-Roman-Polanski&p=604948&viewfull=1#post604948)I gave some details that might make one begin to think - always assuming one can - and they are only the top of the iceberg.

I only want to provide information to people who respect themselves enough to form their own opinion instead of being brainwashed and manipulated.The experience has shown that all people who learned actual facts came to the same conclusions as I did.

It is a matter of my honor, Ruthful. I couldn't stand the injustice, the twisting of truth, the lies, the slander, the mass idiocy, the ignorance, the hysteria, the Goebbels-type propaganda around the case. And I tried to do what I feel I must do the way it would create least disturbance possible at the site that is my home. Not doing anything, however, would mean forfeiting this part of my soul that lets me hold my head high. Maintain my dignity.

Once again - you, and everyone else who wants to discuss this - come to my blog. You are very welcome. Link in my signature.

I hope I made myself as clear as possible, and answered all your questions.

P.S.

While I was typing this, you came up with another piece of nonsense. Precisely what I meant when I said that people do not know anything about this, don't want to learn, and only repeat the idiotic things media feed them. You don't even know what he was convicted of. You disregarded everything I wrote in the previous post (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?10975-Roman-Polanski&p=604948&viewfull=1#post604948) because it doesn't fit into your picture. That is the only reason why you don't want to look at the other arguments I give. Sorry, Ruthful, it is just plain stupid.

No facts will ever fit into your picture, Ruthful. Because all facts together, and every single one of them prove that:

There was no rape.
There was no child.
There was no justice.

And this is why you, and your likes, just plain disregard the facts. They would smash your picture into pieces. That is why you are afraid of them.

[Jean]

TO EVERYONE: PLEASE HEED -

I will be very grateful if the rest of the discussion goes on in this place (http://polanski-oddmanout.blogspot.com/): it's exactly for this reason that I spent months of my life displaying everything in a readable and commentable manner where it can't hurt anyone.

Thank you.

***

Now I actually would like to address alinda's post on Cul-de-Sac and Knife in the Water. I will do so in a couple of days, if no off-topicality gets in the way again.

[DoctorDodge]

By Jean's request, (which I am very glad about, as I really want some much needed discussion on this film that I'm sure only this thread can provide,) my review of Cul-de-Sac that I just posted in the "Rate the last movie you watched" thread. I hope it provides some more discussion to this long dormant thread!

Cul-de-Sac

I’ve been meaning to watch this one for quite some time. However, after the sheer insanity of The Tennant, I felt I needed to give my own sanity a rest for a bit. How is Polanski’s Cul-de-sac? No less insane, just done in a very different way.

For one thing, it has more elements of a farce to it than The Tennant did. I wouldn’t label it as a farce, though – to be honest, I’m not sure what I could label this film as. But there were occasional farce moments that did make me truly laugh out loud – Dicky’s car being left behind with his friend still in it, then hours later the tide comes in; George being made to dress up as a woman by his wife Teresa before being effectively held hostage by Dicky; and of course, Dicky forced to playing servant whilst some of George’s “friends” make an unexpected visit.

But whilst there are some great moments of comedy mixed in the piece, labelling it as such is too simple, too basic to what Polanski is showing us throughout the film. What is certainly apparent is that both of the two protagonists (for want of a better word) at least are, to some degree, insane themselves. Teresa is so impulsive that she’d just about do the first thing that popped into her head, whether it would be a wise course of action or not, whilst her husband George is so tightly wound up from the start you’re left wondering how long it’ll take before he snaps completely. To be honest, Dicky the criminal seems saner than the pair of them, whether he has a conscience or not. I love the irony that each character seems to be under the (usually false) assumption that they are the only sane person around!

Earlier, I compared it to The Tennant, and whilst not being quite as horrifying and having completely different stories altogether, there are certainly a number of comparisons to be made. The feeling of isolation, in The Tenant’s purely a social sense and in Cul-de-sac a more literal one, as the three remain at their castle home on an island the entire film, is always present, and there is also the exploration of transexual themes, only this time done to more comedic effect. George in a nightie and makeup isn’t the only example, as one of my favourite lines in the film is, “I have a friend who bought a sweater just like that.” “This is a man’s sweater.” “I know, she only wears men’s sweaters.”

Which leads me to a point I’m beginning to appreciate a lot about Polanski’s work: namely, how he can use the perfect shot to show an image that’s both deeply disturbing and completely hilarious at the same time. When Dicky’s friend Albie is being carried by Dicky and George, he awakes to see a man in a nightie and makeup, with a close up on George’s face. It’s a perfect shot that made me laugh out loud at the sheer “what the fuck?!?”ness of it. It’s a rare quality of getting that kind of macabre humour just right that I have yet to see with any other director, really.

Whilst I can’t imagine myself watching this on a regular basis, it is a film that I…well, “enjoyed” might not be the right word. On analysis, there’s no doubt in my mind that it is a quality film, and one I do need to watch again eventually, but I’m trying to think of a way to sum up my feelings about it accurately. It’s a film that has gotten to me on a deeper level than most films do, and like many of my favourites, gets more fascinating the more I think about it. I’ll be honest, initially, I thought about giving this a 7/10, then 8/10, but it’s number of complex levels that cry out to be deeply analysed have forced me to raise my score. It’s not exactly non-stop hysterical from start to finish, and it’s not exactly an easy watch, but it is strange, surreal, and simply brilliant. 9/10

[Jean]

Cul-de-Sac

I’ve been meaning to watch this one for quite some time. However, after the sheer insanity of The Tennant, I felt I needed to give my own sanity a rest for a bit. How is Polanski’s Cul-de-sac? No less insane, just done in a very different way.

Give your sanity some more rest, and then on to Repulsion. I don’t think you are going to like it as much as the other two, but it is definitely a classic and a masterpiece (you’ll also be forevermore surprised how freely it is borrowed from by any director who deals with insanity, isolation, estrangement and creepy flats).


For one thing, it has more elements of a farce to it than The Tennant did. I wouldn’t label it as a farce, though – to be honest, I’m not sure what I could label this film as. Yep. It defies labeling. All Polanski films do – which is the cause of many a misunderstanding, by both critics and public. By the way, after reading your review on The Tenant I clearly realized what I only vaguely felt before: that if we consciously view it as a comedy on one watch and a tragedy on the other, we’ll get two absolutely different watching experiences; the same seem to apply for Cul-de-Sac (or The Ninth Gate, which I am still to review here).


But there were occasional farce moments that did make me truly laugh out loud – Dicky’s car being left behind with his friend still in it, then hours later the tide comes in; George being made to dress up as a woman by his wife Teresa before being effectively held hostage by Dicky; and of course, Dicky forced to playing servant whilst some of George’s “friends” make an unexpected visit. Oh yes. And it is, too, inexhaustibly quotable (like all Polanski/Brach screenwriting work), starting with “there must be a telephone at the end of those wires” and on till the end.


But whilst there are some great moments of comedy mixed in the piece, labelling it as such is too simple, too basic to what Polanski is showing us throughout the film. What is certainly apparent is that both of the two protagonists (for want of a better word) at least are, to some degree, insane themselves. Teresa is so impulsive that she’d just about do the first thing that popped into her head, whether it would be a wise course of action or not, whilst her husband George is so tightly wound up from the start you’re left wondering how long it’ll take before he snaps completely. To be honest, Dicky the criminal seems saner than the pair of them, whether he has a conscience or not. I love the irony that each character seems to be under the (usually false) assumption that they are the only sane person around! Absolutely! – except Teresa, I think. She seems to me to far gone to ever care about anything that comes under normal human categories.


Earlier, I compared it to The Tennant, and whilst not being quite as horrifying and having completely different stories altogether, there are certainly a number of comparisons to be made. The feeling of isolation, in The Tenant’s purely a social sense and in Cul-de-sac a more literal one, as the three remain at their castle home on an island the entire film, is always present, and there is also the exploration of transexual themes, only this time done to more comedic effect. George in a nightie and makeup isn’t the only example, as one of my favourite lines in the film is, “I have a friend who bought a sweater just like that.” “This is a man’s sweater.” “I know, she only wears men’s sweaters.” LOL, yes. As one critic speculated, the cross-dressing in Polanski films is used to bring the victim (and the protagonist – if, as you indicated, it is the right word – is always a victim) to yet another level of victimization, since the ultimate victim in his films (with the single exception of Tess) is always male.


Which leads me to a point I’m beginning to appreciate a lot about Polanski’s work: namely, how he can use the perfect shot to show an image that’s both deeply disturbing and completely hilarious at the same time. When Dicky’s friend Albie is being carried by Dicky and George, he awakes to see a man in a nightie and makeup, with a close up on George’s face. It’s a perfect shot that made me laugh out loud at the sheer “what the fuck?!?”ness of it. It’s a rare quality of getting that kind of macabre humour just right that I have yet to see with any other director, really. Well yes – I don’t think there are many directors who had such a totally gruesome background and managed to retain such a sense of humor at the same time… the only film he has made that is entirely devoid of any comic side is The Pianist (for obvious reasons); even in The Tragedy of Macbeth – that, I believe, you have yet to watch (by the way, I am thinking of having something like a festival here, including all other existing versions of Macbeths: Kurosawa’s, Welles’s and whatever else there is – only I don’t know how many people would be willing to participate in such an academic enterprise) there is this macabric humor, not always sanctioned by the text.


Whilst I can’t imagine myself watching this on a regular basis, it is a film that I…well, “enjoyed” might not be the right word.
Rofl – no, it isn’t! I never enjoyed it myself, none of the countless time I have watched it. “Relished”, I think, is what describes what I’ve felt; one can relish quite unconventional things…


On analysis, there’s no doubt in my mind that it is a quality film, and one I do need to watch again eventually, but I’m trying to think of a way to sum up my feelings about it accurately. It’s a film that has gotten to me on a deeper level than most films do, and like many of my favourites, gets more fascinating the more I think about it. I’ll be honest, initially, I thought about giving this a 7/10, then 8/10, but it’s number of complex levels that cry out to be deeply analysed have forced me to raise my score. It’s not exactly non-stop hysterical from start to finish, and it’s not exactly an easy watch, but it is strange, surreal, and simply brilliant. Well, what did bears say?!

: crazyhappybeardance :


I hope it provides some more discussion to this long dormant thread!

DD, if you can find another minute – well, another hour, I am afraid, sounds more realistic – can you please read my review, here (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?10975-Roman-Polanski&p=565140&viewfull=1#post565140), and tell me what you think? I wrote it a long time ago, and am, in fact, rather proud of it; and it makes me very sad that nobody has apparently read it (for the obvious reason that nobody except us two has apparently watched the movie).

[DoctorDodge]

I actually did take a few minutes to read it earlier, Jean. There were a number of things you commented on that I noticed - George's pathetic existance as the constant victim, and how both Richard and Teresa are effectively against George, whether they like each other or not - but there were a large number of things I failed to see the first time, such as how much detail has gone in to making the home as impossible to live as, well, possible. (The fridge door being one of my favourite particular moments, George accidentally crunching an egg in his hand is another.) When I do have an hour spare later tonight, I'll give more of a discussion on your in-depth analysis, but I must say it's truly fucking fascinating reading (for someone who's watched the film, admittedly).

[Jean]

wow thank you DD! I'll be waiting - take your time, but don't forget I am dying to know any other thought you might have! http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif

[DoctorDodge]

On Human Dignity

The motif of victimization is most obviously personalized in George. He doesn’t have a chance from the word go: when he meets Richard, he is wearing that frilly nightgown. Thus, Richard treats him with utter contempt by definition – ‘little fairy’ can’t be perceived as the owner of the castle or someone who actually can call the police, not as someone who can stand up to the macho intruder, or to anyone else. Which, of course, he can’t, being singled out Richard’s victim at this very first step: after all, it’s only the logical development of what he apparently had been going through in his new family life – no wonder he accepts his fate right away (his shrill “Nobody’s panicking!!!” speaks volumes of his state of mind).

Hell, even before Richard comes along, George is clearly a victim, as we see his relationship with his ever-loving wife - a woman who constantly laughs at him and never with him whenever he makes himself look like a fool, and even more importantly, barely ten minutes into the film she effectively emasculates him by forcing him to wear a nightie and make up. Worst of all is that he allows this: he plays along because, quite simply, he's blinded by his love for his wife. Yes, as you pointed out Jean, he really doesn't have a chance from the word go. He's a victim from the start, and that is something that'll never change for him.


There is difference, however, between just a victim and someone whose dignity is methodically taken away. The apotheosis of victimhood, monsieur Trelkovsky the tenant, managed to keep some pathetic, miserable kind of dignity throughout his numerous ordeals; George doesn’t only lose his dignity at every step; worse, he is constantly trying to keep it, or regain it when it, invariably, is lost, making a deplorably ridiculous fuss while fighting this lost case. But, then again, the tenant was lonely alone, and the other people as well as the whole order of the universe were only trying to drive him to suicidal insanity; George is much worse off, he is alone with someone who is supposed to love him, and now also confronted with a man she is so likely to form an alliance against him with; and they are both set on humiliating him, and there’s no such thing as “order”, of the universe or anything else.

It's quite surprising that George actually does lose dignity as the film goes on, as he doesn't really have that much at the start. Even when he's closing a fridge door near the start of the film, he ends up looking like an idiot when it doesn't close because of the vegetables on top. And yet it's the tragedy of the character that he doesn't have the consolation of not being totally without dignity, that there's nothing left to lose, because there's always some dignity to lose, and never to gain.


You can’t remain dignified when you’re not heard; it’s something everyone experienced, I believe, at least once a life.
“What’s the name of this rock pile?” Richard shouts from the top of the wall.
“Rob Roy, Lindisfarne Island, Northumberland!”
“What? Speak up!” This one is especially clever, because we, the audience, are given George’s point of view, not Richard’s. To us, he can be heard perfectly well, and although we believe Richard doesn’t hear, we don’t feel, on emotional level, that George really has to yell. His
“Rob Roy, Lindisfarne Island, Northumberland!!!!!!!” sounds to us less comprehensible than the previous version of same, and leaves some lingering suspicion that comprehensibility wasn’t the main reason for this particular show.

Yes, it can feel particularly humiliating when you're not being listened to, as though you were a little child. Which, in George's case, would be a fair comparison, with one particular moment springing to mind: when calling Teresa a "bitch", the boy is naturally asked where he heard that word. "From mummy!" "Don't tell lies!" The conversation bears a similar vein to one you brought up, Jean: “Grandma Moses was never a Sunday painter," the response to his answer is, "That's no excuse for treating me like a fool". His opinion, what he thinks, is of absolutely no concern to anyone in this movie, and even the child is better at getting attention and is of more consequence, even if his actions tended to be annoying, frustrating or completely dangerous, as the moment where he fires a shotgun damaging one of George's windows (with George being the only one who actually cares about it) a classic example.


He juggles eggs and breaks them; Teresa laughs, and it’s a bad kind of laugh, mocking and unkind. He only can roll his eyes when Richard slaps him (good-humoredly, as a sign of approval) over the top of the head. The boy bites his hand in the middle of a lecture. When he hears Richard’s drunken singing, he tries to protect Teresa (“don’t move don’t move”), but she is drinking out there too, and throwing stones into the window as a sign of mockery at her inadequate protector.

What other way is there for him to resist what they impose on him? (Yes, there is a “they” – whatever antagonism between these two, they are united against him: there’s nothing sweeter than baiting the defenseless.) “I never drink,” he says and pleads ulcer as his only protection. No, he will have to drink up, “to the last drop”. In the dark, he incidentally tramples on “Albie’s specs”, and must be taught “to respect the dead” – see, now that he already agreed on being the ultimate victim in this microcosm of universal victimization, he can be accused of anything, and he will swallow it: the absurd humiliation has been going on long enough. A misstep is tantamount to disrespecting the dead, and all he can say is, “I didn’t do it on purpose.” Ah, but even this is too much – “Answering back?! Wonders never cease!” - and now he is submitted to a humiliating ear-pulling. How to keep face now? Well, he pretends to laugh; oh Lord, but it is all of us who never know how to behave when faced with brutal force. A worst nightmare of an intellectual, to be humiliated in front of your woman and have to play on someone else’s field, according to the rules you not only don’t know but have always despised and excluded from your life. Now, is that enough, did he hit the bottom, or is there anything else in store for him? Why, of course, the morbidest of all humiliations, with him being pushed inside the grave and forced to dig, only to get the body dumped over him in the end. And then, as the last touch, they start shoveling earth on him, as if to bury him alive. She, at least, fetches him a chair – which will be buried instead.

Those are all classic examples of how this film walks the fine line between hysterical comedy and lingering tragedy. All possibly some of my favourite moments from the film, too.


He wouldn’t have been so ridiculous under other circumstances, but the thing is, there never are other circumstances. When he says, “Grandma Moses was never a Sunday painter” (the guest’s answer, “It is no excuse for treating me like a fool!” is one of the many gems in the brilliant dialog constituent of the movie), he looks actually dignified. But then he is struggling with his painting, trying to fit it back onto the wall, et voilà, he looks ridiculous again; the fabric of the universe won’t let you keep your head high.

The blast of the gun during the party sets him free for a moment, and he can stand up to his guests, again – although kicked in the shin by the little monster and thus losing some form, if not essence, of dignity. But he is no match to them:
“He’s gone completely off his rock, because of that tart”.
“Say that again.” (this was supposed to confuse the opponent. Fat chance.)
“Tart!!!”
And still, still, he manages to do his best. “Get the hell out of my… fortress!” is a deliciously funny line, so incongruous and at the same time oddly endearing him to us for a moment. This is his moment of triumph, predictably and regretfully short. In the wake of this moment of glory, he asks Richard how long he was going to stay here waiting for Katelbach. And is put back to his place at the bottom of the pecking order, of course, his face (in profile) visibly showing the loss of whatever self-assurance and self-respect he had summoned during getting the guests out (“Out! Out!!!”).

And so we come to a theme that is shared with another film we both greatly enjoyed Jean with Withnail & I. Unemployment, humiliation - both these things are linked by a common thread - trying to escape the unescapeable. How it always seems to linger on, always hanging around you, and no matter how great the effort is on your part to once and for all get rid of it, it never goes away, not truly. Yes, George gets his moment of dignity, to shine for a single, brief moment...before he is forced down from his pedestal and effectively crawl back into the hole of his lack of self esteem. Always a theme I particularly like seeing explored in movies, and indeed stories in general.


George is the precursor of the tenant (even the cross-dressing motif is already present), and both are put so low down that sometimes they appear to have come through to the other side, and acquire some paradoxical magnitude, like Dostoyevsky characters would. But the tenant was given at least one moment (in the car, with the close-up of his haggard eyes and a tear rolling out) to appeal to our compassion directly – right before the grotesque finale. George is never given such an open moment. Everything is entirely up to us, it’s whether or not we find it in ourselves to pity him. Whether or not we possess enough human substance of our own.

These are us, Lord! Only there’s no Lord in this abandoned universe.

And once again, I'm reminded of why I do need to check out more of Polanski's work: the way his films can interact with the viewer, and directly affect them and their perceptions and how they feel towards the characters. Neither The Tenant nor Cul-de-Sac made for easy viewing, but they both make for truly challenging viewing, something that I've seen too little of. Other directors may aim to repulse, to push you away, but it is another thing to directly challenge the viewer and draw them in. I still wonder if George is worth our pity, or whether he's so pathetic as to make it impossible.


Monsters R Us

The first thing we learn about Teresa is that she is absolutely mad. That’s what her lover says, overheard by Richard: “You’re absolutely mad.” All the characters are introduced the way their destiny shines at us: dying; doing something efficient but useless; carrying a cumbersome kite and talking at the same time; being mad. The mad one is the real monster of the freak show.

All the others can be [lesser] monsters at any moment, whether at this given moment they are assigned the part of the torturer or the victim; these roles are interchangeable in this merry-go-round, with only George at the bottom of the food chain; and the pendulum of our sympathy and pity swings wide, surprisingly, in a story that is essentially pitiless.

Even the biggest monster has her moments, when, set off by her spineless husband, she looks courageous and strong – after all, it’s she who can stand up to Richard; and when locked up the first time, she says “swine”, isn’t it a manifestation of human dignity? Well, she gets a snap on the nose. It’s not that you can’t be dignified when you’re faced with brutal force – no, it’s you can’t keep your dignity when you have none. Dignity as a trait can only exist within a system of values, and there’s nothing that has even a nodding acquaintance with values in this deadly mix of whim, neurosis, boredom, amorality and eroticism that constitute her soul.

Yes, everyone in the film is presented as mad on some level, and yet nearly every single one of them ask - no, not ask, state - that someone else is mad. It's one of the few things that everyone shares in this film - the knowledge that the world is insane but they alone have kept their sanity. Like The Tenant, Polanski is forcing the audience to really question just how sane they really are.


A critic said, “it's a measure of the film's power that when you're not compelled to look, you're compelled to look away” – I, frankly, prefer not to look at Teresa’s face most of the time; this emptiness inside which any roll of vipers may be breeding is somewhat too disturbing for me. (Thirty-something years later Polanski will direct Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler at Théâtre Marigny; there’s a lot of common between the two women). When she pulls the boy’s ear, her face is really too much to take; or when she says to the guests, “He is going to have an exhibition”: her face is on the foreground, and we can see all that game of emotions on it, this utmost pleasure at doing something incredibly nasty to you near one.

Teresa is undoubtedly the most vile and repulsive character in the whole film. One wonders why she married George in the first place, although my own personal theory would be nothing more than her own amusement. It's less of a wife and husband relationship and more pet and owner, and it's not even really that much, for even an owner would display some love for a pet. Teresa doesn't really show George anything except her disgust and contempt of him.


Their last night began with a peaceful picture; one sleeping in the armchair, the other on the mattress right there on the terrace, and Teresa sitting with a magazine, and chickens adding a pastoral overtone, and the music (main theme) playing – and then it is stuck – again – again – a horrible dissonance, signaling that and all this will end very bad very soon. Then she stops the record, and there’s that abrupt shutup, - and a woman in a black dress is playing with a shotgun in the silence. Then all hell breaks loose, and here she is, inventing right on the spot what all rotten women always invent when they want an excuse: he tried to kiss me. Then, the killing.

I absolutely loved that, that signal of things about to completely fall apart by completely ruining the most peaceful moment we've had the entire time. Fantastic moment of buildup.


George shoots first time with his head turned away, hardly aware that he is shooting. It is a reflex movement after which stopping is impossible (later we’ll see the same when McBeth murders Dunkan). And his face reads only, “It works! It works!” Finally, an action that succeeded. Is murder the only thing we can succeed at? Yes, this, and dying. Also going insane. That’s what comes easiest to all the characters.

A moment that we never feel the slightest bit of surprise about: from the first scene in the kitchen with George crunching those eggs, we knew it would only be a matter of time before this man will eventually crack himself, and of course, it happens more by accident than anything else by George shooting a man in reflex.


Then they, the pathetic murderous fools, try to hide behind each other when Richard gets his automatic. Then, the dying, the last convulsive random shooting, and the fire – George’s silhouette at a weird angle against the fire, the glasses at a weird angle on his nose, only Teresa keeps her cool – again! – because the world she lives in is itself so crooked that no normal categories of tragedy are applicable.

And this moment solidifies George is far more deserving of our pity than Teresa - whilst George has the decency to go mad in such horrific circumstances, Teresa doesn't, because her soul is well and truly cut off from even the most basic horrors, if she even had a soul at all. And yet, at the same time, George proved to be just as much of a coward as his wife when trying to hide behind her when Richard got his automatic. Once again, it is impossible for me to decide whether he deserves my sympathy or not.


The Slippage and Universal Inadequacy

Nothing is fit for human living: the doorways too low, the eggs and the rungs of the ladder rotten. Everything is arranged the way it is impossible or difficult to use, like that fridge door. Nothing can be found (pajama tops, or frying pans). Whatever is still in any working order will be damaged or destroyed (car dented; bars for the hens demolished), and “a very beautiful… er, something” will eventually be smashed by a rock thrown at random.

Again, we're brought back to the feeling of something inescapable. When the universe itself makes the everyday impossible, what hope is there of finding some dignity, for even the slightest hope of escape from all this insanity? The obvious answer is of course none whatsoever.


The glass case of a grandfather’s clock is used as a mirror, vodka poured in cups, and the cigarette stubs thrown right onto the medieval stairs. George’s paintings are horrendous, of the worst kind: the amateurish horrendous of a man who knows what the modern “real thing” should look like.

Nothing works as intended, nothing subsists, nothing keeps its dignity; things usually manage it better than people, but no, not here. The grave is desecrated, by the diggers themselves, then the chickens, then the little boy. The priceless stained-glass window gets smashed by a gun bullet fired by a spoiled brat.

Everything is ridiculous, given the wrong circumstances. Everything is pathetic. And the circumstances are always wrong. Everything is askew, slipping, what could be an intellectual respected by his peers is a neurotic loser; and what could be a loving wife, proud hostess of a castle, is a dangerous psychopath; and the big gorilla is the most vulnerable of the three – after all, it’s him who dies in the end; and Katelbach (with a t for tea, and b for bast – er, boy) never comes. The ever-sarcastic look on the dying Irishman’s face is the only thing they all deserve.

Richard seems the only efficient one there (even the owl stops hooting when he commands it to shut up!), but the universal law decrees the elimination of the fittest, because the unfittest can only be pushed that far. Even when Richard is brilliant, which he often is, it’s brilliance with one foot in quicksand, slowly but relentlessly sliding down.

He has problems lighting a match. He shoots his pistol at a plane that happened to be “regular plane”, and after the boat brings a man other than Katelbach, he can’t even open the tin can. But, of course, he had a wounded arm.

We’re all amateurs here, and the pros just up and die (both of them), being as amateurish at life as we are. We’re all losers, and even she, the toughest of them all, loses in the end, captured in the hell of her own soul; alas, this planet isn’t really fit for human beings, and nobody can offer us a different globe.

Aspect-wise, this was probably my favourite of the film. It added simultaneously both to the visual comedy and to the despair. After all, how can you be happy in a world where even the fucking fridge door is against you?


The Absurd

The principle of the absurd is the direct opposition to magic. The latter consists in everything being connected with everything in the hierarchy of planes; when we do something down below, something happens up above, and vice versa. The universe as it appears in Cul-de-Sac is essentially disjointed, discoordinated, godless. No, there’s no “above”, there’s no upper being, and Katelbach never comes. His last message says, “You’re on your own. Count me out.”

We’re alone like Albie in the car, slowly inundated by the sea. At least his Katelbach – Richard – comes, but guess what? Albie dies anyway.

And so does Richard, for that matter.

In the whole world’s cinema there’s few lines as absurdly hilarious than Cecil’s “Good evening” and “Aren’t you coming with us?”, in a civilized British voice, in the middle of chaos and insanity. One would think the man should realize the incongruousness of his words, but then again, why should he? Everything is of equal value[lessness] where hierarchy is nonexistent, and the corpse lying there is no better or worse than, say, an umbrella. All pieces of the puzzle we call the universe are always scattered, and when shaken they form bizarre pictures none of which makes actual sense.

The tragedy of a miserable human being in The Tenant consisted of parts that formed a pattern, and another pattern, all falling together to make some abominable sense; evil principles controlled the evil world and the unspeakable down below was in agreement by highest principles from up above; everything fit into a bigger picture, however sinister. But here, there’s no bigger picture. The world the tenant lived in reflected the hues of hell, but here, there’s not even hell. We are on our own.

Thus painting another picture of what real insanity is like for the audience, but this one being the complete opposite of The Tenant. Both The Tenant and Cul-de-Sac share some themes and ideas, but they still have their differences. This is reflected in the very settings of the films: we had the claustrophobic building in The Tenant and the cutoff island in Cul-de-Sac, one populated by many people and the other having no people at all except our three characters to focus on, and yet both are inescapeable, both leave the feeling of being trapped, with those who try either simply being cut off by tide, pulled back, or even killed in the attempt, as Richard learned when he finally tried to leave. You may be a free man, but you are still trapped, with no hope of escaping.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy reading these little thoughts of mine on your essay. Much credit to you Jean for seeing so many layers to such a film as Cul-de-Sac as you do, and also describe them so perfectly. Myself, whilst I saw plenty of layers, I couldn't initially see half the layers you described. I hope this provides some worthy discussion, anyway.

[Jean]

yesterday I viewed
roman Polanski : wanted & Desired ...liked it very informative yet not as much as the bears Opus Magun is. ( YEAH Bear! ) ;wub;
a long overdue THANK YOU LOVE, and additional thanks for leaving a wonderful comment. :rose: :rose: :rose:


Knife in the water; I actually thought there would have been sa stabbing in this film, and hoped that the woman and hiker would have sailed off together while the man was swimming around the bouy alone but alas....no romance here. I’ve read in Polanski’s memoirs that after Knife in the Water was Oscar-nominated (as the best foreign film), 20th Century Fox wanted him to either remake it, or sell them the rights; the remake was supposed to be in color, with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton as the married couple, and Warren Beatty as the Young Man. Of course, Polanski refused; that’s how he describes it: “I said I thought it a ridiculous scheme. Why not hire me to make an entirely new movie? Because Knife was such a good story, they replied. I tried to convince them that since I’d had sufficient imagination for Knife, there was more where that came from. I failed.” I believe if he had sold them the right, we might have seen exactly that kind of romantic ending…


Hell, even before Richard comes along, George is clearly a victim, as we see his relationship with his ever-loving wife - a woman who constantly laughs at him and never with him whenever he makes himself look like a fool, and even more importantly, barely ten minutes into the film she effectively emasculates him by forcing him to wear a nightie and make up. Worst of all is that he allows this: he plays along because, quite simply, he's blinded by his love for his wife. Yes, as you pointed out Jean, he really doesn't have a chance from the word go. He's a victim from the start, and that is something that'll never change for him.
I don’t know if love plays any part here at all – I am sure he loves her, but I am rather doubtful as far as the “because” part is concerned. The only relevant “because” I see is the tautological one: he is a victim because he is a victim. Nobody ever really develops, not in a single Polanski film released up to date; nobody’s existential status is a result of anything other than the general order of things in the universe. Which cuts both ways, of course: the inability/unwillingness of the victim to change his victim status, on the one hand, - and the tragic realization that nobody has in fact done anything to deserve what is coming to him, on the other.


It's quite surprising that George actually does lose dignity as the film goes on, as he doesn't really have that much at the start. Even when he's closing a fridge door near the start of the film, he ends up looking like an idiot when it doesn't close because of the vegetables on top. And yet it's the tragedy of the character that he doesn't have the consolation of not being totally without dignity, that there's nothing left to lose, because there's always some dignity to lose, and never to gain. Quite! Perfectly stated. This is the only development reserved for Polanski characters: from bad to worse. There is no “hitting the rock bottom”, unless one dies – and they rarely do. There’s too much dignity in death. Wow DD!!! I’ve only now realized that it is true: Polanski’s protagonists do not die, and in the rarest occasions they do, the death is not shown on the screen (there must be an exception, of course, to prove the rule, and here it goes – The Bitter Moon. But there both protagonists changed their roles, from victims to torturers; they forfeited their victimhood and were allowed to finally hit the rock bottom and escape through death, a privilege denied to genuine victims).

Oh thank you DD! It is all really thought-provoking. I’ll address the rest later – I want to read it slowwwwwwwwwwly…

[Seymour_Glass]

Kind of tangent to the topic at hand, but Black Swan was completely influenced by Polanski.

[Jean]

Kind of tangent to the topic at hand, but Black Swan was completely influenced by Polanski. Well, yes and no. Aronofsky cites Repulsion a lot, but the whole Black Swan consists entirely of citations. That's what enabled Aronofsky to succeed in making the watcher lose grip with reality so efficiently. He did it using totally unconventional methods, as I tried to argue in my review of Black Swan; regrettably, people seemed to think I was being sarcastic, while I wasn't. If we talk about influences, Black Swan seems to be mostly influenced by later Bunuel... who, in his turn, was influenced by Polanski, in particular by What?, a lesser-known 1972 film, so in the end we come back to the same.

As far as the topic at hand is concerned, I so wish you too would watch Cul-de-Sac; even if you don't like the idea (definitely one of the most bizarre and twisted movies ever), I expect you to fully enjoy the fine filmmaking.

[Seymour_Glass]

I'll be sure to check it out.

[Jean]

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif



Those are all classic examples of how this film walks the fine line between hysterical comedy and lingering tragedy.


And so we come to a theme that is shared with another film we both greatly enjoyed Jean with Withnail & I. Unemployment, humiliation - both these things are linked by a common thread - trying to escape the unescapeable. How it always seems to linger on, always hanging around you, and no matter how great the effort is on your part to once and for all get rid of it, it never goes away, not truly. Yes, George gets his moment of dignity, to shine for a single, brief moment...before he is forced down from his pedestal and effectively crawl back into the hole of his lack of self esteem. Always a theme I particularly like seeing explored in movies, and indeed stories in general.


And once again, I'm reminded of why I do need to check out more of Polanski's work: the way his films can interact with the viewer, and directly affect them and their perceptions and how they feel towards the characters. Neither The Tenant nor Cul-de-Sac made for easy viewing, but they both make for truly challenging viewing, something that I've seen too little of. Other directors may aim to repulse, to push you away, but it is another thing to directly challenge the viewer and draw them in. I still wonder if George is worth our pity, or whether he's so pathetic as to make it impossible.


Again, we're brought back to the feeling of something inescapable. When the universe itself makes the everyday impossible, what hope is there of finding some dignity, for even the slightest hope of escape from all this insanity? The obvious answer is of course none whatsoever.


Aspect-wise, this was probably my favourite of the film. It added simultaneously both to the visual comedy and to the despair. After all, how can you be happy in a world where even the fucking fridge door is against you?

All of this made me realize that at least one of the reasons why I so fell in love with Withnail and I is its kinship to Polanski movies. Everything I quoted above can be applied to both; the world is unfit for human living, and any, however marginal, success in adapting comes only at the price of dehumanization. The two characters who feel comfortable in a world where every-fucking-thing turns against living souls - namely, Monty and Danny, aren't really human beings, they are these funny, bizarre, immensely likeable monsters: agents of the universal order of things much rather than subjects of existence. It has been said that Withnail (whom, as you know, I listed among my favorite film characters ever) has no redeeming features; no, he doesn't, other than being alive, inadequate, unfit, lonely by definition and left alone at the end. He is also unbelievably cool, and it's the cool of a loser who doesn't have anything in the world except pose. I feel like I could write a whole essay on W&I/Polanski affinity, and I believe I will, as soon as I watch W&I a couple more times. Which I won't delay doing.


This is reflected in the very settings of the films: we had the claustrophobic building in The Tenant and the cutoff island in Cul-de-Sac, one populated by many people and the other having no people at all except our three characters to focus on, and yet both are inescapeable, both leave the feeling of being trapped, with those who try either simply being cut off by tide, pulled back, or even killed in the attempt, as Richard learned when he finally tried to leave. You may be a free man, but you are still trapped, with no hope of escaping. This seems to be second (the first being the aspects of victimhood) main Polanski theme: being entrapped and the possibility of escape. It has reached its existential acme in [I]The Pianist, and the finest, subtlest, most multi-layered interpretation in The Ghost Writer, but it is always there (an exception is needed, as usual... voila: Chinatown).


And this moment solidifies George is far more deserving of our pity than Teresa - whilst George has the decency to go mad in such horrific circumstances, Teresa doesn't, because her soul is well and truly cut off from even the most basic horrors, if she even had a soul at all. Wonderfully put! http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif

[Seymour_Glass]

There is so much good reading on this thread.

[Jean]

it doesn't have to remain only reading

: hint hint :

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearmood_friendly.gif

[Seymour_Glass]

That's some truth, right there. But in all seriousness, I'm going to film school in the fall, and I can squeeze at least one paper out of this thread. :P

[Jean]

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_thumb.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_thumb.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_thumb.gif

film school? post details somewhere in one of the social threads. Bears are greatly interested.

[DoctorDodge]

All of this made me realize that at least one of the reasons why I so fell in love with Withnail and I is its kinship to Polanski movies. Everything I quoted above can be applied to both; the world is unfit for human living, and any, however marginal, success in adapting comes only at the price of dehumanization. The two characters who feel comfortable in a world where every-fucking-thing turns against living souls - namely, Monty and Danny, aren't really human beings, they are these funny, bizarre, immensely likeable monsters: agents of the universal order of things much rather than subjects of existence. It has been said that Withnail (whom, as you know, I listed among my favorite film characters ever) has no redeeming features; no, he doesn't, other than being alive, inadequate, unfit, lonely by definition and left alone at the end. He is also unbelievably cool, and it's the cool of a loser who doesn't have anything in the world except pose. I feel like I could write a whole essay on W&I/Polanski affinity, and I believe I will, as soon as I watch W&I a couple more times. Which I won't delay doing.

That's something I'd be very interested in reading, bears. I didn't think about the number of parallels to Polanski movies before (but then again, Cul-de-Sac is only the 3rd Polanski movie I've watched), particularly with Danny and Monty not really being human characters so much as monsters. I's line of "Will we never be set free?" after hearing that Danny's arrived is another line that adds to the general feeling of being trapped. God, I love that no matter how many times I watch this film, there's always something new to see and think about that you never noticed before! Anyway, like I said, definitely looking forward to reading the essay, Jean!

[DoctorDodge]

(I've just posted this in the "Rate the last movie you saw" thread, but I knew that Jean would want to discuss it further here. As in fact, would I. I'm amazed to say it, but in the space of a few months, I have gone from someone who mainly enjoys science fiction and escapism films, or at least films designed to be mostly pure entertainment, to someone who is rapidly becoming more and more a fan of Polanski's heavily complex and multi-layered films. Quite an achievement you've made there Jean, I have to say!)

And again, another Polanski film that doesn’t fail to impress me. It’s a slow burner of a film, very slow paced, but also incredibly multi-layered and works on so many subtle levels. Then again, I never expected anything less from a Polanski movie.

Anyway, the plot of the film. The film follows an unnamed character (something I didn’t actually notice until after the film had finished) as he is given the job of finishing former Prime Minister Adam Lang’s autobiography as his ghostwriter, as the previous one had been killed in an accident/suicide. Now, this sounds like the setup for some kind of fast paced conspiracy thriller, but make no mistake: this film is no less than pure Polanski from start to finish. The main character isn’t charismatic or charming or even that inquisitive: he is, from the start, an awkward outsider at best, and a victim at worst. When asked what he could bring as a writer, his answer is of course, “Nothing.” This lets us know from the start just how much presence this guy has, how noticeable he is. Hell, the title itself is a clue: he is a shadow, a person who hardly registers to anyone else, certainly not to the person he is writing for. It’s clear that this isn’t something he’s had a choice in so he can do his job, but more something he’s just always been naturally that just makes him suited for the job. He’s funny, but it’s always in an awkward way. Even worse is that he’s a Brit on an American island, adding more to the general feeling of being an outsider. A huge contradiction right there: he’s invisible and yet he’s singled out. Whatever he is and wherever he is, he’s certainly not part of the group. He’s effectively on his own.

As you’ve noticed so far, I’ve focused more on the ghost writer himself than on the plot or the mystery of the film. That’s because it’s exactly what the film does, and it’s all the better for it. Oh yes, there’s a huge amount of suspense, of tension, but it takes its time to build it up, to let us get to know the characters first, to set up the world, before slowly revealing the cracks and the lies and drawing the main character into a world of fear and paranoia, effectively dragging us along with him.

There’s something else that needs to be mentioned: the humour. I don’t know about anyone else, but there were plenty of times where I found this film to be absolutely fucking hysterical, something that’s rare to find in a really good thriller. Sometimes it’s from the awkwardness of the ghost writer, whether he’s intentionally trying to be funny or not, other times, it comes from moments where there’s not a word spoken. One of my favourite moments in particular comes from a look passed between Adam and his media-handler Amelia that’s both subtle and so fucking obvious at the same time it had me burst out laughing. Another classic moment is of course: “Some peace protestors are trying to kill me!” Absolutely love that line!

One thing I do want to comment on is the title, or at least the title of the film in the UK: The Ghost. I absolutely love that title, not because it’s the original title of the novel it’s based on, since I’ve never actually read it, but simply because it works perfectly for the film on so many levels. On the most basic level, it refers to our main character’s job, but it refers to far more than that. As I said earlier, the character himself is at times little more than a shadow, a character whose name isn’t even given to us in the film. It can also refer to the dead writer, whose written manuscript effectively haunts our main character throughout the entire film and continuously acts as the key character to get our current ghostwriter dragged into it. (Also interesting to note that even the dead ghostwriter, Mike McAra, is not only given a name, but has far more respect in death to many of the other characters in the film than the current ghostwriter has in life.) It’s a title I think works excellently, but I can see why it was necessary to change it for marketing reasons.

In summary, this is, like all the other Polanski films I’ve watched, a film that cries out to be analysed, to make you pay close attention and re-watch it over and over again, and of course, to feel. It’s not quite as psychologically challenging as The Tenant or Cul-de-sac, but it’s still completely Polanski, and is a film I feel I shall be rewatching very soon. 9/10

By the way, can't wait to read your review on this one, Jean!

[Seymour_Glass]

Great review, man.

[DoctorDodge]

Cheers Seymour. I always love discussing about the films I've enjoyed, no matter what genre it's in.

Course, I'm really waiting for Jean's review of the film so I can find out about the number of things I missed, this film more than any other, really. The film was so full of subtlety and irony that it demands repeat viewings I think.

[Jean]

bears are writing right now; if their brains don't melt (fucking weather!!!) they will post tonight - they would procrastinate as usual, but they are too inspired by your awesome review

[DoctorDodge]

Thanks a lot, bears! Extremely looking forward to reading your review!

[Seymour_Glass]

I'm hopefully going to watch cul-de-sac tonight and throw together some thoughts.

[Jean]

do it! do it! http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/awake.gif

(the weather is killing bears... they won't be able to come up with the Ghost review till at least tomorrow night; have been scribbling something hardly coherent)

[DoctorDodge]

Bloody hell, Jean! And here I was thinking it was always snowing in Russia! Hope the weather improves on your end soon, anyway.

[Jean]

Sorry if bears are incoherent this time – weather conditions, you know – anyway, all the most important points have already been made by DD, in a clear and concise manner.

1. Entombed

The word “trapped” can be often heard in the analyses of the film; but trapped doesn’t begin to describe it. A trap is something finite, temporary: liberation is at least theoretically possible, and if the worst comes to the worst, death liberates one from any trap.

You can see the world outside when you are trapped. Or at least you know there is a world outside. Not so much so if you are walled in. Buried alive. Entombed. There sure is no escape, not even through death, and it feels like there is nothing but further walls and layers of soil in the world outside – which may very well be the case.

It is definitely the case with the bleak universe of The Ghost Writer. Everything is gray, brown, black with occasional alarming red. Whether it is the interior or the exterior, there is no elbow room: the two elements that normally symbolize all there is free and open – the sea and the sky – do everything to bury us deeper. The sky is never blue, always low, like a coffin lid.

The foghorns remind us that it is all too easy to lose one’s way in this murk. Desplat’s music doesn’t bring to mind any sunny side, either.

There is no difference between the walls made of bricks and the one made of glass: the latter shows nothing but yet another wall, that of fog, rain, and bleak landscape. When the alarm goes off and the shutter falls down, nothing really changes: it only gets a little darker. It’s not that we’re cut off from the rest of the world – the presence of the rest is questionable. There is a glass wall behind the shutter, and the wall of fog behind the glass wall, and nobody ever sees sunlight. Ours is a confined, walled-in, entombed universe.

The confines are everywhere, physical or social, those imposed by status or fate, the rules and regulations. The first word the ghost hears abroad is “Passport!” A bodyguard follows Adams on his morning jog. When the ghost walks the shore with Ruth, the security man is seen on the background between them, like the axis. These human confines are omnipresent. “Don’t wander around on your own, the security boys don’t like it.”

The ghost blends in perfectly; as DD pointed out, he looks like little more than a shadow.



When asked what he could bring as a writer, his answer is of course, “Nothing.” This lets us know from the start just how much presence this guy has, how noticeable he is. Hell, the title itself is a clue: he is a shadow, a person who hardly registers to anyone else, certainly not to the person he is writing for. It’s clear that this isn’t something he’s had a choice in so he can do his job, but more something he’s just always been naturally that just makes him suited for the job.
It makes him suited for the job, for the landscape, for the interiors – and would make him perfectly fit for this drab colorless universe if the universe was in any way fit for human living.

Lang is the first person who looks incongruous: unlike the ghost, he wasn’t made for such environment. It’s him who is trapped: the idea of a trap involves a hope, to escape - to a brighter world.

There is a hint that a brighter world actually exists. The house where Emmett lives has some colors (green and cream, and precious mahogany); even the trees seem greener when seen out of his window. Those who run the show are apparently exempt from the universal prison-like drabness; or rather, there is a more spacious, better lit tomb right outside the one where we’re buried together with the ghost. It’s where Lang wants to come back to – but he is already marked for the kill, there is no escape, not even to a larger prison cell.

There is something resembling sunshine when Rick comes and draws the curtains, but it is five minutes before the end, and the end is - well, you know. And Rick is, of course, one of the privileged inmates, even if we assume he is alive at all – of all the characters he is the one who most reminds of Polanski’s soulless creatures, agents of the universal order of things.

“Single or return?” – “Return. I hope.” The hope is misplaced: the return is predetermined, and only delays the inevitable. Clues, cues, words, GPS – everything will direct you into the trap. “All right, you win”.


2. Of Cyclops and Men

It’s the first Polanski film where the main division line doesn’t run between human beings (victims, sufferers) and soulless monsters (torturers; invincible, invulnerable): both sides seem to have souls, and Ruth is as prone to suffering as the ghost himself. Both sides seem to be human beings (with a few notable exceptions), and yet there is great difference between them. At first sight it is the difference between the foolers and the fooled, the players and the pawns, but that which makes a person end up with these or those must be an inborn quality.

The key to understanding this difference is the ghost’s apparent idiocy. He does all the wrong things. He says all the wrong words to all the wrong people. He investigates where he should stop, confronts those he should avoid at all costs, gives away everything and can’t keep his mouth shut under any circumstances, As if he doesn’t know he is the main character of a political thriller.

But no, he doesn’t know this, that’s the point! He behaves exactly as any sane person would: he assumes they are all human beings around him. Exactly like I know I would if I were him. There is nothing that can’t be talked over, among people. The fact that we are all alive, endowed with speech and reason, is what matters and is actually present; the remote considerations of power, big money, and political careers are something out of books, they do not apply to the world we are living in; we might know that people kill for them, but do we really feel it?

He doesn’t know how high the stakes are, because there have never been any stakes, high or low, in his own experience. He knows, intellectually, that his predecessor was killed, but he has nothing in his experience that could make him really fathom this. Like all of us, he believes he is immortal; in his experience or personality there is nothing that would warrant such a majestic thing as becoming a victim of a political murder.

His experience is exactly like ours. He is just like us, who would blurt out anything to a human being that happened to be nearby. If we knew we lived in a political thriller with no happy ending, the kind where the protagonist dies, we might all behave differently; but we, none of us, know what is the genre of our flick.

But they – “they”, there is always a “they” – live in a world that is ruled by exactly the categories inapplicable to ours. They betray and spy, sacrifice for “higher aims”, double-cross and get rid of each other, set up and murder. Apparently, they still remain human beings – but here’s where I begin to wonder if there is only one species inside mankind. Or that there are humans per se, and some, say, “advanced” humans; some variations of the basic model that make any understanding between the species impossible.

Emmett’s residence is guarded by Cyclops Security. Cyclops isn’t a bad word for that which I have in mind. They are just humanoid enough. One may argue that Cyclops have but one eye, so may be escaped; but this is where another important characteristic comes forward.

You could escape a Cyclops if he was alone; not when they are an organized group. One eye or no one eye, together they see everything - when they are a collective entity. A “They”.

“You’re working for the good guys,” Rycart says. But there are no good guys. Whenever there are “guys”, it is always bad. The people from this side of the dividing line never form the “guys” entity; Cyclops always do (they have but one eye each, remember?)

“You are practically one of us now”. A joke, of course: never ever will he be one of any group. He will always hold on to his poor basic humanity, behaving exactly like one of those they’d never acknowledge as theirs: see what he does to their precious manuscript, for example, how he shields his head against the rain with it, how he throws it into the fence right into the puddle. Listen to the clumsy jokes he makes. See him yawn.


He’s funny, but it’s always in an awkward way. Even worse is that he’s a Brit on an American island, adding more to the general feeling of being an outsider. A huge contradiction right there: he’s invisible and yet he’s singled out. Whatever he is and wherever he is, he’s certainly not part of the group. He’s effectively on his own.

This last is said explicitly about him a number of times – no, never meaning anything existential, only stating the obvious, whether he says this himself (“I am on my own” - meaning not affiliated with any newspaper), or Emmett’s wife does (“he’s on his own” - meaning he didn’t bring anyone along). His Katelbach will never come, of course; and he is too lonely anyway to ever dream of a Katelbach.


3. The Ghost, the Tenant and Backstage Death

Nor is he Simone Choule.

“Mister McAra loved this car very, very much.”… “Very good. You could be the new Mike McAra.”… “So, this is where you put the granny?” – “No, this is where we put Mike McAra.”

But he won’t stand by the wardrobe, fascinated. He throws the slippers into the waste basket, and dumps everything else into a big suitcase. Not that it changes anything: doomed is doomed, and the phone number discovered during the dumping is a big step forward, into the abyss.

Yesterday, on my 1000th re-watch of The Tenant, I noticed that quite a few times during the film he is shown waking up– and every time he wakes up to find a world slightly different, further gone. Sleep is the doorway to nightmares. Dr.Walker (Frantic) woke to a nightmare, too, and, like the ghost’s, Walker’s heavy unrefreshing sleep was due to jet lag. The ghost sleeps a lot in the beginning of the film – on the plane, on the ferry, in the taxi; reading the manuscript. He awakes to the world he has no business being in.

The film begins and ends with a death; we do not actually see anyone die either time. Both times it’s ghost writers. In the first case, we see at least the body – but that ghost writer had a name, too. The first death spells the other as sure as the broken glass roof spelled Trelkovsky’s suicide; in both films we know the end from the beginning. The most conspicuous thing the ghost sees on the ferry are big red letters on the police poster: FATAL INCIDENT.

“He can’t drown two ghost writers, for god’s sake! You are not kittens.” This echoes The Tenant: “A tenant jumped out of the window.” – “Again? You must be getting them wholesale.”

The ghost refuses to assume MacAra’s identity; not that it changes anything. He has to put on the janitor’s cap and gloves instead, as if a sacrifice has to be dressed up, at some moment, for the ritual (besides The Tenant, the same trick is present in Frantic, Dance of the Vampires, Rosemary’s Baby, and Tess; on the contrary, the female protagonist in Che?, who succeeds in escaping, does so totally naked).

Trelkovsky is denied a first name; the ghost – any, like the Young Man in Knife in the Water. But the tenant’s last name was only used to brand him deeper: a Polack (desperately: “I am a French citizen!”). Carole (Repulsion) is a French woman in England, Oscar (Bitter Moon) an American in Paris, ditto Walker (Frantic); Nancy (Che?) an American in Italy, Szpilman (The Pianist) a Jew in the occupied Poland, Dean Corso (The Ninth Gate) an American in Europe, Prof.Abronsius and Alfred (Dance of the Vampires) strangers in a strange land…

The ghost is both nameless and a stranger: a perfect ghost indeed. Who is he anyway to be allowed to die before our eyes? Lang is a good candidate for a death in the limelight; the ghost can only die backstage. The possibility of inconspicuous death has already been hinted on: “If you turn left, the road will take you deeper into the woods, and you may never be seen again.” In bed with Ruth, he hugs her and momentarily throws one arm up: a white arm clearly seen in the dark room, like that of a drowning man.


Also interesting to note that even the dead ghostwriter, Mike McAra, is not only given a name, but has far more respect in death to many of the other characters in the film than the current ghostwriter has in life


he is, from the start, an awkward outsider at best, and a victim at worst…

… and thus he never did anything to earn a showy death. He allowed everyone to bully him (“Arcadia? A little organization I ran. Very high-brow, no reason you should have heard of it.” “Don’t worry, he isn’t always such a jerk.” “He is calling me ‘man’” – ‘He always does when he can’t remember someone’s name,” etc at infinitum). He allowed everyone to fool, to use, to play him. He allowed them to kill him, thus he won’t have the privilege of a grand death. All he earned is our – well, my – pity, sympathy and eternal gratitude for never betraying himself by becoming one of “them”, not in any way. But sheets of paper will be given more attention in the end.

“It’s quite symbolic and gives an end to the object he carries through the entire movie. It was important to have the manuscript almost as a character throughout the film, and therefore it was good to have it in the end floating, and giving it some kind of conclusion” (Polanski in an interview). Quite. The manuscript is there, the writer is not.

4. What’s so Funny?

The film being almost preternaturally elegant and intelligent, the comic side either works for the watcher fully, or escapes him altogether; it makes me happier than I can express that DD is with bears here yet again.


There’s something else that needs to be mentioned: the humour. I don’t know about anyone else, but there were plenty of times where I found this film to be absolutely fucking hysterical, something that’s rare to find in a really good thriller. Sometimes it’s from the awkwardness of the ghost writer, whether he’s intentionally trying to be funny or not,

It’s what I meant when I said I hated a generic witty dialog. The ghost makes clumsy jokes, as if he doesn’t know that a dialog in the thriller is supposed to be either informative or brilliant and snappy.


other times, it comes from moments where there’s not a word spoken. One of my favourite moments in particular comes from a look passed between Adam and his media-handler Amelia that’s both subtle and so fucking obvious at the same time it had me burst out laughing. Another classic moment is of course: “Some peace protestors are trying to kill me!” Absolutely love that line!

Oh, this is inexhaustible. “Langs are Scottish fold originally and proud of it. Our name is a derivation of ‘long’, the old English word for tall, and it is from north of the border that my forefathers hail. FUUUCK!!!” “Actually, I know a good writer on the Guardian who uses a gym.” “I’ve always been a passionate… no, strong… no, committed supporter of the work of the International Criminal Court... Has he?” etc etc etc

The scenes in the hotel are all hysterical, impending doom notwithstanding – or rather, thanks to impending doom. “This place really comes alive at night” – and the face of the driver, sniffling at the precisely right moment. The sign of Fisherman’s Cove Inn, reminding of old black-and-white horrors, and the receptionist in a costume. “You are the only guest in the hotel, sir.” All in all, The Ghost Writer is a comedy – just like The Tenant or, say, The Ninth Gate.

And, like The Ninth Gate, it is too subtle for its own good. Everyone loves humor, very few love irony. “It takes irony to appreciate the joke which is on oneself,” to quote Jessamyn West, and all the jokes in The Ghost Writer are, in the end, on ourselves.

What’s so funny, indeed? Oh, everything is. Any information can be googled, but woe is him who does - one can “ruin a good story with too much research”: the punchline is the death of the researcher(s). One doesn’t become a politician “out of love”, and “heart” is a word that can only be ridiculed. We hold on to life even though there doesn’t seem anything especially cozy or gratifying about it. We hold on to our dear humanity, too, although the only way to win is to shed it off and join the “guys”. The ultimate irony is that this way out is not accessible: we are different biological species. Hail, loser! R.I.P.

And as a conclusion…


I'm amazed to say it, but in the space of a few months, I have gone from someone who mainly enjoys science fiction and escapism films, or at least films designed to be mostly pure entertainment, to someone who is rapidly becoming more and more a fan of Polanski's heavily complex and multi-layered films. Quite an achievement you've made there Jean, I have to say!)

Well, my own contribution seems rather modest, comparing with the intrinsic value of the object… but it is awesome to hear! http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif

[DoctorDodge]

I would say "wow", but I'm so used to your heavily detailed and well written reviews Jean that I can't use it, since it would imply some sort of surprise. I'm currently busy dealing with a fuckload of work at the moment, but I will aim to give you some discussion on your review later tonight or tomorrow. Thanks for using some of my quotes in this one, though!

[Jean]

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif

[Seymour_Glass]

That scene at th end of the tenant is one of my favorites ever. It's so raw and bombastic, but Polanski makes it completely work.

[DoctorDodge]

Ok, so I know it's long overdue, but I've finally got an hour or two spare for some in-depth discussion of your review, Jean.


Sorry if bears are incoherent this time – weather conditions, you know – anyway, all the most important points have already been made by DD, in a clear and concise manner.

1. Entombed

The word “trapped” can be often heard in the analyses of the film; but trapped doesn’t begin to describe it. A trap is something finite, temporary: liberation is at least theoretically possible, and if the worst comes to the worst, death liberates one from any trap.

You can see the world outside when you are trapped. Or at least you know there is a world outside. Not so much so if you are walled in. Buried alive. Entombed. There sure is no escape, not even through death, and it feels like there is nothing but further walls and layers of soil in the world outside – which may very well be the case.

It is definitely the case with the bleak universe of The Ghost Writer. Everything is gray, brown, black with occasional alarming red. Whether it is the interior or the exterior, there is no elbow room: the two elements that normally symbolize all there is free and open – the sea and the sky – do everything to bury us deeper. The sky is never blue, always low, like a coffin lid.

The foghorns remind us that it is all too easy to lose one’s way in this murk. Desplat’s music doesn’t bring to mind any sunny side, either.

There is no difference between the walls made of bricks and the one made of glass: the latter shows nothing but yet another wall, that of fog, rain, and bleak landscape. When the alarm goes off and the shutter falls down, nothing really changes: it only gets a little darker. It’s not that we’re cut off from the rest of the world – the presence of the rest is questionable. There is a glass wall behind the shutter, and the wall of fog behind the glass wall, and nobody ever sees sunlight. Ours is a confined, walled-in, entombed universe.

The confines are everywhere, physical or social, those imposed by status or fate, the rules and regulations. The first word the ghost hears abroad is “Passport!” A bodyguard follows Adams on his morning jog. When the ghost walks the shore with Ruth, the security man is seen on the background between them, like the axis. These human confines are omnipresent. “Don’t wander around on your own, the security boys don’t like it.”

Once again, we come back to Polanski's theme of entrapment, of being completely unable to escape, and even the weather adds to this feeling. It's hard not to notice as the film goes on that there's not one sunny day we see - nothing but clouds for days and days and days. Yes, it's interesting to see how even the weather is against our main character's freedom.


Lang is the first person who looks incongruous: unlike the ghost, he wasn’t made for such environment. It’s him who is trapped: the idea of a trap involves a hope, to escape - to a brighter world.

Yes, Lang is the one who always feels the most agitated, the most confined in such a place. Everything about his manner is defensive, almost like the look of a man who assumes that everyone thinks he's guilty from when he first meets them. Never do we see him truly relax, either in his home or in front of a camera (one speech he made really made me laugh when he kept punching his hands to prove a point. The sign of many a corrupt dictator everywhere, I think). His house is a prison built specifically for him, which is of course ironic that he gets to leave it not even halfway through the film. He's not the victim, after all, he gets to leave his own prison whenever he wants!


The key to understanding this difference is the ghost’s apparent idiocy. He does all the wrong things. He says all the wrong words to all the wrong people. He investigates where he should stop, confronts those he should avoid at all costs, gives away everything and can’t keep his mouth shut under any circumstances, As if he doesn’t know he is the main character of a political thriller.

But no, he doesn’t know this, that’s the point! He behaves exactly as any sane person would: he assumes they are all human beings around him. Exactly like I know I would if I were him. There is nothing that can’t be talked over, among people. The fact that we are all alive, endowed with speech and reason, is what matters and is actually present; the remote considerations of power, big money, and political careers are something out of books, they do not apply to the world we are living in; we might know that people kill for them, but do we really feel it?

He doesn’t know how high the stakes are, because there have never been any stakes, high or low, in his own experience. He knows, intellectually, that his predecessor was killed, but he has nothing in his experience that could make him really fathom this. Like all of us, he believes he is immortal; in his experience or personality there is nothing that would warrant such a majestic thing as becoming a victim of a political murder.

His experience is exactly like ours. He is just like us, who would blurt out anything to a human being that happened to be nearby. If we knew we lived in a political thriller with no happy ending, the kind where the protagonist dies, we might all behave differently; but we, none of us, know what is the genre of our flick.

That's another thing I enjoyed about this film - this isn't some investigative reporter who knows exactly what to do in the kind of situation he's in, because he really doesn't know what situation he's in. He's not some kind of reporter out for the truth - hell, he doesn't want anything to do with exposing what little he's found until he's threatened to do it - he's just doing a job that basically involves writing for someone else. Hardly a job that anyone would kill over, is it? And even though the previous one died, as you pointed out Jean, there's absolutely no reason the same thing would happen to him. From his point of view, anyway.


The film begins and ends with a death; we do not actually see anyone die either time. Both times it’s ghost writers. In the first case, we see at least the body – but that ghost writer had a name, too. The first death spells the other as sure as the broken glass roof spelled Trelkovsky’s suicide; in both films we know the end from the beginning. The most conspicuous thing the ghost sees on the ferry are big red letters on the police poster: FATAL INCIDENT.

“He can’t drown two ghost writers, for god’s sake! You are not kittens.” This echoes The Tenant: “A tenant jumped out of the window.” – “Again? You must be getting them wholesale.”

Yes, every possible sign is not only telling us but also telling him that taking the job would be a bad idea from the start: even when Rick is recommending it to him, he casually mentions how with the previous ghost writer "it was the book that killed him." "Well, that's encouraging!" he replies, knowing that taking the job would be a bad idea, and yet he still goes to the interview (before which he's actually told by someone that he's not the right man for the job in the first place), still decides to go along with it even when he gets easily knocked down in the street and robbed. He's warned from a start that the whole thing is a trap, and yet still, he willingly walks into it.




Also interesting to note that even the dead ghostwriter, Mike McAra, is not only given a name, but has far more respect in death to many of the other characters in the film than the current ghostwriter has in life


he is, from the start, an awkward outsider at best, and a victim at worst…

… and thus he never did anything to earn a showy death. He allowed everyone to bully him (“Arcadia? A little organization I ran. Very high-brow, no reason you should have heard of it.” “Don’t worry, he isn’t always such a jerk.” “He is calling me ‘man’” – ‘He always does when he can’t remember someone’s name,” etc at infinitum). He allowed everyone to fool, to use, to play him. He allowed them to kill him, thus he won’t have the privilege of a grand death. All he earned is our – well, my – pity, sympathy and eternal gratitude for never betraying himself by becoming one of “them”, not in any way. But sheets of paper will be given more attention in the end.

Even Lang's wife doesn't like him that much, insulting him how he's not a proper writer, even when she's not-so-subtly trying to seduce him. Well, maybe seduce isn't the right word. That implies that she wants to have sex with him, that she feels attracted to him. And yet not once did I feel the slightest bit of genuine sexual tension between the two, not once did I sense feelings of lust for each other. No, she just wanted to use him for nothing more than the sake of sex itself, and he allowed her to do it, despite knowing it was a bad idea. Which reflects how he was seen and actually was in general, really. Yes, a showy death was far from what he deserved.


The scenes in the hotel are all hysterical, impending doom notwithstanding – or rather, thanks to impending doom. “This place really comes alive at night” – and the face of the driver, sniffling at the precisely right moment. The sign of Fisherman’s Cove Inn, reminding of old black-and-white horrors, and the receptionist in a costume. “You are the only guest in the hotel, sir.” All in all, The Ghost Writer is a comedy – just like The Tenant or, say, The Ninth Gate.

Another example of Polanski combining the surreal and disturbing with the hilarious. Yes, those hotel scenes always felt like he was unsure if he was in the wrong genre by mistake, I think.


And as a conclusion…


I'm amazed to say it, but in the space of a few months, I have gone from someone who mainly enjoys science fiction and escapism films, or at least films designed to be mostly pure entertainment, to someone who is rapidly becoming more and more a fan of Polanski's heavily complex and multi-layered films. Quite an achievement you've made there Jean, I have to say!)

Well, my own contribution seems rather modest, comparing with the intrinsic value of the object… but it is awesome to hear! http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif

Well Jean, you pointed me in the direction of his work, of the titles that perhaps get a little overlooked compared to his other films, and it really has opened my eyes, I think. Honestly, I'm not sure if I ever would've watched either Cul-de-Sac or The Tenant without your recommendations specifically, so I'm grateful for that. I know the discussion on your review on The Ghost isn't much, but I hope you enjoy what little there is, at least.

[Seymour_Glass]

Just finished rewatching the ghost writer, as we yanks call it. I'll be back with some thoughts/responses.

[Jean]

oh please do! and you were going to watch Cul-de-Sac too, right?

at the moment bears are relishing DD's latest comments - he managed, yet again, to point out a few things that had escaped bears, and to provide food for thought.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif

[DoctorDodge]

Just finished rewatching the ghost writer, as we yanks call it. I'll be back with some thoughts/responses.

Looking forward to reading them, Seymour! Polanski's films have been some of the most multilayered films I've seen, so it's always great to read and discuss another view on it.


at the moment bears are relishing DD's latest comments - he managed, yet again, to point out a few things that had escaped bears, and to provide food for thought.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif

Glad that I'm able to do so! Naturally, as always, your review covered so much that I couldn't see, so many layers that I missed. Again, why I enjoy this board: it's the only place I can ever fully discuss such movies at.

Also, as a Withnail & I fan, I'm still eager to read the possible essay you mentioned on comparing the film with Polanski's style and works. The fact that such a comparison can be made is certainly a fascinating one to me!

[Jean]

... and a wonderful excuse for me to watch W&I again so soon!... will do at the beginning of the week

Now am meditating on two of your points:

those hotel scenes always felt like he was unsure if he was in the wrong genre by mistake, I think.

He's warned from a start that the whole thing is a trap, and yet still, he willingly walks into it.

I think I'll go back to these after the W&I review.

[Jean]

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Birthday/edmno8xl.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Birthday/1d200d217045d5f5c5ee97ae6bd91d9a.jpghttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Birthday/70655_enlrg.jpg

[Seymour_Glass]

The thing about The Ghost Wrier is that the Ghost is motivated not by self preservation, but curiosity. He knowingly puts himself in danger, not to expose Lang, but to find the secret, to prove to himself that he's smart enough.

[frik]

I have no idea, Jean, if you're even remotely interested in this type of thing, but just in case, here it is.
Little Shoppe of Horrors the one of the best fanzines ever, running for decades. It's mainly a Hammer oriented magazine, focusing on these great British horror movies from way back, but occasionally a non-Hammer flick is squeezed in. Like the upcoming issue:

http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/ee495/lsohgirl/LSOH27Sample.jpg

As The Fearless Vampire Killers is one of my favorite Polanski movies ever (Rosemary's Baby being #1) I can't wait for this issue. Should be a great read.

If interested, check this out!

http://www.littleshoppeofhorrors.com/



sk

[Jean]

bears might be not interested in "this type" of things, but they definitely are interested in everything Polanski-related! thank you frik! http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif


The thing about The Ghost Wrier is that the Ghost is motivated not by self preservation, but curiosity. He knowingly puts himself in danger, not to expose Lang, but to find the secret, to prove to himself that he's smart enough. Yes, this, of course! that's what a normal human being would be motivated with; the one that never grew up enough to understand that he is living in a very serious world, and a totally pitiless one.

[Seymour_Glass]

Just watched Knife In the Water for a class.

[Jean]

oh! one of my favorite films ever

[Seymour_Glass]

It was very good. It's far from my favorite Polanski, but you can see the groundwork for all his future works in there. I quite enjoyed the levity of parts of it, how easygoing it was with the more sinister undercurrents.

[Jean]

you can see the groundwork for all his future works in there. I quite enjoyed the levity of parts of it, how easygoing it was with the more sinister undercurrents.http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_thumb.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_thumb.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_thumb.gif

[Jean]

1. The Other Tenants

I already wrote a lot about the main theme of all Polanski movies: the victim vs. the torturer(s) – where the latter are denied all humanity, being only monsters, agents of the pitiless order of the universe. Whether or not the other tenants in The Tenant have any independent reality, what they do when they are not tormenting him, what relationships they form, what they talk about when they are on their own, was totally irrelevant to the essence of the film; well, now we know. We even know that, after all, they have some – however imperfect – humanity.

Let me introduce them: The Longstreets, Penelope and Michael; The Cowans, Nancy and Alan. What they do in the absence of their rightful victim is, obviously enough, torturing one another. Every one of the four knows how to do it in his or her own way, every one is full of their specific kind of venom, and use their particular weapons with the subtlety or bluntness their nature requires.

The power play starts right away, and the kids’ fight we saw in the prologue is only what it is – baby squabble – comparing with these heavyweights shaking hands on the boxing ring: “Armed?..” – everyone turns, and that’s how we come to see the whole gang. This “armed” will echo later, but now everyone is ostensibly oh so happy with the compromise. Alan tries to maintain his independence by saying: “the kids haven’t got that notion [sense of community] straight yet”, but a glance from his wife makes him hastily correct himself: “I mean, our kid”. Unfortunately, a peaceful solution doesn’t really satisfy anyone here: the thirst is not quenched, and they will be back to square one, to the room that will from now on be their jail cell.

“These tulips are gorgeous!” Like in all Polanski films, the inanimate objects act their parts, and the tulips (straight from Holland) will be the axis of every scene until the very moment they fly, scattered. In the language of flowers, mind you, yellow tulips represent cheerful thoughts and sunshine.

Cheerful thoughts are the farthest possible from anyone’s mind, their contrived smiles notwithstanding. After the “armed” gag failed, Penelope is worried the other side are missing the point, and endeavors to drive it home as soon as an opportunity presents itself.

“He didn’t want to tell on Zachary. It was incredible to see this child, with no face left, no teeth…” This seemingly pointless exaggeration means she insists they fully understand the magnitude of her fair-mindedness, forgiveness, maturity and sense of community, bordering on holiness. They – themselves fair-minded, mature and full of sense of community - swallow it for the moment; but they will avenge.

Back to the room, the troops regroup, and the single winner is Alan who speaks on the phone. The others can’t find anything to say to one another, and since civilized people don’t interrupt a phone conversation, they stand like a group of statues, reflected in the mirror on the wall (another object that will fully play its part), pretending there’s nothing uneasy in their silence. Alan is the only one who is sitting – on the table. This alone would suffice to antagonize them.

Other antagonisms blossom everywhere. “So, you are telling everyone I am a writer?” reveals a shit ton of resentment festering inside this particular happy family.

“And good lord, his direction! Shooting in widescreen cinemascope, Polanski crams these people into increasingly tighter frames, teaming up the actors in elegant arrangements that visually convey the power dynamics within their relationships as the conversation turns, from moment to moment. You can watch Carnage with the sound turned off, and still understand who is winning an argument just by looking at the blocking. It’s masterful work.” (Sean Burns, of Philadelphia weekly.) Quite. Watch them standing, sitting, walking, regrouping.

Now the women are uneasy, alone in the room. An art album comes to rescue, and they peruse it, standing in fantastically uncomfortable poses. “Bacon?” – “Yes, Bacon.” “Cruelty and splendor” – “Chaos, balance”. Penelope wins this round.

“Gingerbread, fantastic!” Alan overreacts, but this won’t make up for his having comfortably sat, oblivious of them all standing - especially not after his phone rings again, and scene repeats: the ostensibly not awkward silence, the mirror, and only one winner, who is eating while talking – thus paying no due respect to the cobbler, - and, to add insult to injury, gesturing with the culinary masterpiece on the prongs of his fork. All this is as improper as dancing at a funeral, so no wonder the cremation theme creeps up. It is promptly smothered: civilized people don’t talk about cremation while eating apple and pear cobbler. They’d much rather have small talk about the difference between pies and cakes; and then it comes to light that Ethan has a gang. Now we see (if we haven’t already) that Penelope is embarrassed by her husband. Writers don’t have such husbands; bookstore assistants might. Jimmy Leach is too much for her to take, and the unseaming starts. “Why do you feel you need to slip in the word 'deliberately'?” is the first open hostility of this, second, stage of the war, and the first genuine fight comes directly after this: between the men this time. “Nobody said you should listen to my conversation” – “Nobody said you should have it under my nose”. Now the strain gets its physiological manifestation, and Nancy throws up splendidly, magnificently, uncivilly and unsubtly.

One of the critics who intensely disliked the movie but couldn’t find any real fault with it, clung to this: why didn’t she go to the bathroom? But let’s see what immediately precedes the event: “If we decide to reprimand our child, we’ll do it in our own way and on our own terms.” Pen’s husband mistakenly agrees, it’s their kid and they are free – and Penelope declares, “No, they are not free!” Here’s when Nancy begins to act irrationally. It’s just too much. First she jumps at her husband, next vomits all over the place and, naturally, right over the rest of the cobbler. And a Kokoshka album, for good measure.

Oh, Penelope will make the most of it. She will be brokenhearted over her Kokoshka, but brisk and efficient (stressed or not, she doesn’t omit to cover the bed) – as a mature human being should be after her guests have (at last! at last!) exposed themselves as crude barbarians.
“Her husband’s in the bathroom” – “He is not on the can!”; “Where’s the blow-dryer” – “He is drying his pants.” She even manage a civilized smile – but when Nancy says, “I don’t know what to say. I am so sorry” – the answer is meaningful silence. Now Penelope can afford it: they have played into her hands.

And when the Cowans are in the bathroom, cursing the cobbler, the Longstreets spray tulips with perfume, cursing, respectively, the other wife and husband: once again it’s the Cowans against the Longstreets, the latter winning by miles. But lo! One faux pas – “he calls her Doodle” – and the roles are reversed, it’s the Longstreets now that have to get all defensive, while Alan can just stand there like an implacable prosecutor, not accepting their feeble babblings. Now it’s the Cowans who have been victimized, and they will use it fully. Every word will serve as a good weapon now, this way or another. “Snitch”. “Armed”. “Gang”. The following three minutes are, in my opinion, the most perfect and the most hilarious of the whole perfect and hilarious movie, and climaxing with Michael’s “You certainly perked up since you lost your cookies”.

Then there’s a screaming Hamster Battle on the landing – no prisoners taken – and the observer appears, played by Polanski himself, in a Hitchcockian cameo appearance (he had done it once before in Frantic). Of course Penelope won’t have this; back to the perfumed tulips. Wow, the Longstreets are defending again, and the Cowans have an upper hand! The hamster is nuclear weapon in this apparently small, but essentially devastating war. Momentarily everyone gangs up on Michael, and he flies off his rocker.

And so it will proceed. Regrouping. Alliances. Hostilities. The subtle art of humiliation and insult grows less subtle with every second. Scotch creates a new alliance: men against women; Alan utters an unpalatable: “Women think too much”, then he insults her Book about Sufferings in Africa; Michael, for his part, says things about marriage, family, and kids. Cigars are offered, but things haven’t gone so horribly far as to actually smoke yet: this last bastion still stands.

Not for long, though: things escalate, the men smoke, Nancy gets ready to throw up again (“Can you stand over the bucket, please? I mean, we’re already set up to handle this now”), any word can be used as a weapon, so no wonder a weapon-word will: thumper. Once before Michael “forgot” the perpetrator’s name (“What’s his name – Zachary – “), now, at long last, Alan retaliates by calling Michael himself “Stephen”. Every little helps.

The one and only time the women form an alliance is when they laugh about the men’s pathetic attempts to save the cell phone (drowned in the tulip vase, of course), but like every alliance based on the wrong principle, it crumbles as soon as Nancy gets the second breath: “Both sides should take the blame”. – “Excuse me?!” The bag flies, Penelope triumphs: “The victim and the criminal are not the same!”

Victim and criminal; no face left, no teeth; armed with a stick; disfigured his schoolmate. Exaggeration is the most cowardly of all deadly weapons, and Polanski knows it like few people on earth do.

Nobody here deserves our pity or our compassion. Closer to the end there’s something approaching peace in the Cowan family. Why? Because the Longstreets are falling apart before their very eyes. What an ignoble cause for satisfaction.

With no genuine victim in sight, Polanski has no-one to identify with – unless it is the hamster. Homeless and defenseless as it may be, it never tortured or humiliated anyone – and is free to go, unlike those people in their makeshift dungeon.

2. Maybe We’ll Talk This Over

But why are they there, indeed? Why don’t the Cowans just leave, why don’t the Longstreets just let them go? They were already out, the compromise was reached, what brought them back?

Ah, but there’s still some issues, some dissatisfaction – nothing, of course, a good civilized talk can’t mend. Alan agreed that it would be good if the kids talked; but “talk” is not what the other side wants. Is Zachary sorry? Is he really sorry? The Longstreets feel they failed to get their point through, and there’s this shadow (aggravated by the ghost of the hamster) that neither side can afford. They can’t part on such a note, while not everything is just right, with shadows lurking and important issues hanging in the air, unresolved; doing so would mean admitting immaturity, inability to settle things like adult, cultured, fair-minded people with a real sense of community should. This is why they go back – this, not any “coffee”, however good, let alone “cobbler”.

Maybe we’ll talk this over, maybe we’ll both get sober. (Dylan)

The first part of movie is all about this pendulum: everything is more or less settled – but more or less is not enough – the point hasn’t been driven through by either side – a shadow passes – we can’t leave on this note. A word is said (“But he realizes that he disfigured his schoolmate?” - “No, he doesn’t realize that he disfigured his schoolmate.”) and everyone is back to square one, because this word is so much more than just a word: it is a sign that the pendulum is ready for another cycle. As soon as they agree on the time of the next meeting, with the kids and the due apologies, Michael deals this decisive blow: “Zachary should come over here. The victim shouldn’t be the one who makes the trip”, and this word resets everything. This is what holds them together, not the absence of reception in the elevator.

Surely now they’ll talk some more and settle everything at last. Talk is an essential achievement of civilization. Penelope is scandalized when she learns that Zachary won’t talk about “it”: “He should! He should talk about it!”, in her indignation (not talking is tantamount to flipping off everything generations of liberals have been fighting for) going just a tiny step too far, and this is when Alan really snaps at her for the first time (and a dog starts barking on the background). Now there’s no leaving. Back to the tulips.

“Coffee?” It means: let’s at last dot all the is, cross all the ts, and mend everything once and forever. Nancy smiles, nods, and prompts her husband: “Thank you”. He growls, “Coffee all right…” It means: “Ok, let’s try again.”

Later, Nancy is so shocked by her own improper behavior that she is the first to sense the flaw of the scheme, the viciousness of the circle, and moans (in the bathroom): “What the hell are we doing here?” But one can’t just puke over priceless Kokoshka and leave; so she will attack instead. After she does, the guests are clearly unwelcome; time to go?

We know by now that they will never leave. None of them will admit defeat – not only being beaten by the other side, but defeat of their civilized values, failure to “talk this over” like adult, progressive people. We can’t leave a festering sore behind us, right? We got to do something about it. One never knows when it’s time to cut one’s losses.

After the Battle of the Hamster, no further attempts to leave will be undertaken. They are all living there.

They often say that in many Polanski movies there’s one and the same essential flaw: the buildup results in nothing, and the first part of the film is a lot better than the second (Dance of the Vampires, The Tenant, Tess, The Ninth Gate, The Ghost Writer, and now Carnage). I totally agree that the first three quarters in all those cases are more promising than the final quarter. The first three quarters are elegant, brisk, “practically perfect in every respect”; then everything starts crumbling.

I wish we would step aside the conventional frame of what a movie should or shouldn’t be, and see the bigger picture. I agree that Polanski sacrifices entertainment quality and formal perfection, and I am sure he is doing it on purpose (indeed, he has proved enough times that he can make a totally perfect film). In the last quarter, everything deteriorates – because it does. Ultimately, the slippage of the universe must be reflected in a work of art that endeavors to honestly depict it, and it’s the highest self-denial from the part of the creator, who refuses a possible rounding up, fulfillment of every promise, catharsis and everyone’s total satisfaction, in favor of showing how exactly everything loses momentum, slips away, gets bogged down, stalls, loses coherence, dies. These people won’t have anything resembling a closure. They are stuck there, with their doomed attempts at breaking the walls of their prison with inadequate tools.

3. Pontypool

Their tools aren’t inadequate because they are “only words”: there’s nothing as powerful as words. No, their tools are inadequate because the words they use are dead.

“It’s so much better than getting caught up in this adversarial mindset… Luckily, some of us still have a sense of community”

Modern psychology played a dirty practical joke on the formerly glorious English language; there’s nothing that can’t be labeled nowadays. One always knows what syndrome one has, what exactly one is going through (midlife crisis or liberating experience), how to define that elusive feeling one is afraid to call “love” (significant other), what other people are like (controlling, manipulative; compliant, avoidant), how to avoid caring and loving (not ready for commitment) or to justify one’s behaving like a total jerk (uninhibited; positive). Everything is put into its cell, given a name that seems to mean something; then, insidiously, people start living up to these words. They don’t only know what they are feeling – they know what they are supposed to feel or to be. Inevitably, they feel – and are – exactly what is expected of them. Every feeling, every experience is unique; but they get reduced to a common denominator – and so do personalities themselves.

“If Zachary sees Ethan in a punitive context, I really don’t see anything positive coming out of that.”
“Accountability skills”.
“I am living with this totally negative person”.
“We all have to be collectively concerned”.

But when even the slightest shit hits the fan, none of this works. And if the whole universe was based on those empty words, the whole universe falls apart – as soon as the slightest shit hits the fan.

They, these pathetic painted sepulchers, have lost their living souls in this drivel, the rigmarole of superficial values reducible to hollow words.

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. (Matthew 23:27)

I’ve just watched Polanski’s interview of May ’86, where he is asked what he hates most in people. “L’hypocrisie”, he says, “Fausseté. Mensonge.” Hypocrisy. Falsity. Lie.

Everyone who tries to fit his unique humanity into a prescribed cell, betrays himself and turns into a false lying hypocrite. There’s nothing easier – and cheaper - than care about the Darfur tragedy. “I know everything about suffering in Africa. I’ve been thinking about it for months”. When her husband, having learned from the bitter experience, tries to warn Alan not to start her on this, she physically attacks him – the first, and almost the only, outburst of actual violence in the film. (“Talk about commitment to world peace and stability,” – Alan).

Don’t think it’s only Penelope. Nancy, a much simpler soul, hasn’t learned all these words yet; but what Alan does is only turning them around, never really leaving the same vicious circle. His cynicism and Penelope’s demagogy are the heads and tails of the same coin. They are all confined inside the same cell, just as well as they are all confined in that room: Penelope is born and raised there, Nancy trying to fit in; the men both pretending they are different.

“My wife dressed me up as a liberal… but I am just a short-tempered son of a bitch,” says Michael (to which Alan, expectedly, replies, “We all are”). “I am not being aggressive, I am being honest”. But there can’t be any honesty there, not ever: it’s either hypocrisy or its flipside, aggression. Some critics suggested that Alan is honest in his own cynical way, but honesty is so much more than telling people nasty things in their faces. You either stay in the cell, or cling to its walls from the outside, attacking the ones who are inside, it’s six of one, half a dozen of the other. Nobody takes a step aside, where the frightening land of honesty, truth, genuineness and integrity is rapidly becoming untrodden.

“You’re blowing this out of proportion,” yells Michael at Penelope. Interesting that this peacemaking sentence is the first someone here actually shouts. “Enough with this politically correct bullshit,” he says, only to replace it with the bullshit that is only the illegitimate son of this same political correctness. “I feel like being openly despicable”: he has made the same career of this as his wife of being “advocate for civilized behavior”. There’s no essential difference. The only genuinely honest sentence was uttered by Nancy: “I am glad my son kicked the shit out of your son!”

Well, yes, this is honest; but really, people? When you stop lying, this is the only kind of honesty that’s left? Is this why the political correctness was invented – because without it you’ll smash the world to pieces? Or is it the other way – the words have poisoned your minds, emptied your souls, turned you into zombies, and the only hope for human race is that your kids will refuse to use your poisonous words, and either go back to the old ones, or will have to invent a whole new language, where killiskiss.

4. People in Glass Houses

Careful what you say! You say “these two little shits” as a figure of speech, and mother, in all seriousness, says tragically “So, Ethan is a shit now!” Watch your tongue, watch your steps, watch your everything – people who live in glass houses can’t throw stones.

Well… what else can’t they do? Move furniture, hang pictures, dance, sing high notes? Snore? Sneeze? Talk? Whisper? The walls are not getting any more solid, and the number of taboos grows exponentially.

Why the fuck did they choose to live in a glass house anyway?

Which is the hen, which is the egg? Have we bound ourselves in this web because otherwise the beast will get loose from inside us, and demolish our precious glass house? Or have we deliberately refused to build the house of solid bricks, to deal with our problems openly, and thus nurtured the beast which grows stronger with every new ban imposed? Irony and pity, humor and open talk, honesty, love and courage, - when exposed to all this, the beast decays, it’s our hypocrisy, pettiness and cowardice that feed him.

“So many parents just take their kid’s sides, acting like children themselves”. If only. No, guys, while you are entrapped in that room with no way out, your children have made up and are playing together on that same playground.

Because the kids haven’t build their own glass houses… yet.

[Brice]

Bears make me want to watch The Tenant again. Actually while I know I've seen parts of it; I'm not sure I've ever seen the whole movie. I believe we have it around here somewhere.


Oh, and what Polanski hates most is what I hate most too; both within others and myself.

[Jean]

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif

... and yes, Brice, watch The Tenant! at least out of curiosity - what is the bears' all-time-favorite film like as a whole?

Do we have an "all-time favorite" thread here, by the way? I think if anyone has something like that (besides DD and bears), I would love to watch every one. I know I didn't fail with DD's.

P.S. Oh yes, and watch Carnage, too!

[Brice]

I will look for them.


Bears do not like Brice's all time favorite. :(

[fernandito]

We have the '25 Favorite Films' thread, is that what you meant Jean ?

[Jean]

No, 25 is 25 - everyone can come up with 25 favorite films, and only a few maniacs have The Film of their lives.

Brice!!! how can it be?? which one was it????

P.S. And don't forget Cul-de-Sac! you were going to watch it two years ago...

[Brice]

ACO ACO ACO!


See, told ya'!

Brices are very forgetful things. :(

[Jean]

Brice - I adored ACO, cinema-wise. It's one of the most perfect, well acted, fantastically shot and awesomely directed films I've ever seen. It's just that the idea itself is something I've been opposed to all my life. I hope we'll talk about it once - do we have a Kubrick thread, by the way? He is one of the biggest ones.

[Brice]

I'm not sure! I don't think so. We probably should. I adore the film and the story.

[needfulthings]

http://imageshack.us/a/img403/6716/img406w.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img846/8449/img407s.jpg

[Jean]

thanks a lot! also thank you for reminding me that I promised to post a Rosemary's Baby review ages ago - or that both me and Brice lobbied Ira Levin's novel for the book club, and never got around to posting a single word about it

(I think I will, in a week or so. I hope now that Brice is here again, he will too)

[Brice]

thanks a lot! also thank you for reminding me that I promised to post a Rosemary's Baby review ages ago - or that both me and Brice lobbied Ira Levin's novel for the book club, and never got around to posting a single word about it

(I think I will, in a week or so. I hope now that Brice is here again, he will too)

To fairly do so a reread is in order.

[Jean]

same here, yes; I don't mind in the least

[Brice]

Nor do I. It is definitely one of my all time favorites.

[needfulthings]

http://imageshack.us/a/img171/8021/img408g.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img717/2683/img409v.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img12/5307/img410p.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img440/4538/img412s.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img210/8914/img411z.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img220/4584/img413o.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img194/4525/img414q.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img85/6624/img416u.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img694/6993/img417j.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img208/8949/img418f.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img841/9333/img419.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img43/1046/img415e.jpg

[needfulthings]

http://imageshack.us/a/img809/4365/img421l.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img846/3337/img423n.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img256/8582/img422a.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img521/8643/img424.jpg

[Jean]

HUGE THANKS, neefdful!!! I never read it before!

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Messages/snuggleupbear.gif

[needfulthings]

http://imageshack.us/a/img809/7097/img420f.jpg

[needfulthings]

http://imageshack.us/a/img98/6535/img427j.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img190/3954/img428uh.jpg

[Heather19]

Thanks Jean, you bring up some good points. The only thing I had problems with was them continually leaving and going back, but it makes sense with what you say. The whole thing was really just a power struggle between them. Excellent review.

[Jean]

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Messages/hug00083.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Messages/hug00083.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Messages/hug00083.gif

[needfulthings]

U.S.A. & U.K. 1st EDITIONS 1973
http://imageshack.us/a/img526/4708/img464.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img844/7127/img465n.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img811/9086/img466b.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img269/5554/img467q.jpg

[Jean]

thank you needful - Che? is another underrated masterpiece I hope to write about one day http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif

[DoctorDodge]

Watched and reviewed Carnage bears. Will read through your analysis and comment on later today! I'm just sorry I haven't got round to it sooner, but my recommendation/review of Cracker had taken me far longer than I originally planned.

[Jean]

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear-176.gif

[DoctorDodge]

Excellent analysis Jean. I feel unable to comment or come up with a new opinion on much of it - perhaps it's the result of watching so much examining the hyprocrisy and cowardice of human beings lately that it's difficult for me to see anything new with that subject matter - but you've still raised many excellent points, which I will try and comment on below.


They often say that in many Polanski movies there’s one and the same essential flaw: the buildup results in nothing, and the first part of the film is a lot better than the second (Dance of the Vampires, The Tenant, Tess, The Ninth Gate, The Ghost Writer, and now Carnage). I totally agree that the first three quarters in all those cases are more promising than the final quarter. The first three quarters are elegant, brisk, “practically perfect in every respect”; then everything starts crumbling.

I wish we would step aside the conventional frame of what a movie should or shouldn’t be, and see the bigger picture. I agree that Polanski sacrifices entertainment quality and formal perfection, and I am sure he is doing it on purpose (indeed, he has proved enough times that he can make a totally perfect film). In the last quarter, everything deteriorates – because it does. Ultimately, the slippage of the universe must be reflected in a work of art that endeavors to honestly depict it, and it’s the highest self-denial from the part of the creator, who refuses a possible rounding up, fulfillment of every promise, catharsis and everyone’s total satisfaction, in favor of showing how exactly everything loses momentum, slips away, gets bogged down, stalls, loses coherence, dies. These people won’t have anything resembling a closure. They are stuck there, with their doomed attempts at breaking the walls of their prison with inadequate tools.

One thing I really loved about the film was the ending: nothing is resolved. It ended as it began: with all 4 people in the same room, unable to reach a simple agreement. That it is a section of life we are seeing and not really a story with an ending, as conflicts like this don't really end. We didn't even really see the start of it, not with these people. The only opening and resolution we are given is with the children: they fight, they move on. The children are civilised, it's the adults who can't resolve things.


Modern psychology played a dirty practical joke on the formerly glorious English language; there’s nothing that can’t be labeled nowadays. One always knows what syndrome one has, what exactly one is going through (midlife crisis or liberating experience), how to define that elusive feeling one is afraid to call “love” (significant other), what other people are like (controlling, manipulative; compliant, avoidant), how to avoid caring and loving (not ready for commitment) or to justify one’s behaving like a total jerk (uninhibited; positive). Everything is put into its cell, given a name that seems to mean something; then, insidiously, people start living up to these words. They don’t only know what they are feeling – they know what they are supposed to feel or to be. Inevitably, they feel – and are – exactly what is expected of them. Every feeling, every experience is unique; but they get reduced to a common denominator – and so do personalities themselves.

Once again, this leads me to believe that you will love Cracker, Jean. At the very least, Fitz - with his gambling, compulsive chain smoking and constantly talking to people about what they really feel, whether they want to admit or discuss such a thing or not - will probably become as much of a hero to you as he is to me, as he is always, to some degree, honest about the nature of humanity, and doesn't care how people prefer to dress it up. He is the exact opposite of what we see here: of people trying to be nice, to get on, to do things like human beings should do, and instead all niceties and lies people tell about themselves and each other just breaks down into chaos.

Of course, the real irony of this all is this: Fitz is a psychologist.

[Jean]

Rosemary’s Baby screenplay is famous for being true to the book; since it is general knowledge, I’ll touch on the differences between the two. My analysis will consist of two parts, the first dealing with the changes necessary for a rendering of a novel to the screen, the second with the essential difference in the message.

1. Form

The screenplay (that is, the adaptation, which Polanski did himself – the first time ever he adapted a book and, to my knowledge, the only time to date he has worked on a screenplay without anybody’s cooperation) was nominated for the Oscar (didn’t get it, though, and it is my only issue with The Lion in Winter, which did). It is, indeed, a paragon of adaptation – and the whole movie is a paragon of how a book should be translated into cinema.

The three devices used are: trimming; (less often) adding; translating. It’s a great pleasure to watch the devices work, how everything unnecessary is pruned, and much of text is replaced by a gesture, a grimace, a movement of the camera, change of light – a visual.

1. 1. Additions

Sometimes, very seldom, a whole new line is added. In the book, quite a big part of the beginning served to get it across to us that Guy is a born liar, someone lies come easy to (“You’re a marvelous liar”, Rosemary says). In the movie, he is introduced with a lie: “Are you a doctor?” Miklas asks, to which Guy promptly replies, “Yes”. It is a quick reaction, immediate, spontaneous lie, unlike his later Hamlet and Sandpiper remark, which is an obvious joke.

Most of the first part of the movie serves to emphasize Guy, to undermine his credibility. He is intense, impatient, restless, - it’s he who stops and looks at the workman (in the book, it’s the other way: “A workman at a sculptured green door marked 7B looked at them and turned back to fitting a peep scope into its cut-out hole.”) and even into that other apartment; he touches everything, even flushes the toilet. Another line added (“There’s mint and basil.” – “No marijuana?”), serves to describes the era and the background.

There’s a lot of television in the film, including the Yamaha commercial, one of Guy’s few career achievements. We actually see it (a sorry sight indeed), as well as the happy, worshipping Rosemary who drops everything at the first sounds of the commercial and runs to watch. Later on, Guy is rehearsing his part in the play – with words (omitted in the book); the walls are decorated by the posters from the two plays he appeared in.

In the first culmination scene, Rosemary is wearing a red suit. Christian color symbolism is thoroughly pursued in the film. Except this moment, Rosemary wears either white (purity, innocence), or blue (Virgin Mary), or, rarely, yellow (hope); even at the funeral, she isn’t dressed in black. Now that Guy suggests that they make a baby, she puts on red: color of martyrdom. The only other red she wears in the movie is the skirt, when she is given the “good-luck charm”, and the dress at the party - after which, still in red, she’ll feel the baby move for the first time.

1.2. Trimming

To make the lease story less complicated and fit it into one short dialog in the street, the Bramford apartment in the film is “bigger and more expensive” than “the other”, instead of the other way round. (The “patched carpet”, by the way, becomes broken tiles, as visibly more conspicuous)

The visions part is too good for words. “She closed her eyes. The bed was a raft that floated on gentle ripples, tilting and swaying pleasantly.” I think everyone who’s ever seen the film will remember this moment even if he forgets the rest. The visions appear on the screen precisely as they are written in the book (the means by which the dreamlike quality is achieved surpass my means of describing them), with one exception: the pope’s ring. “its stone was a silver filigree ball less than an inch in diameter; inside it, very tiny, Anna Maria Alberghetti sat waiting”. The filigree ball is there, but Anna Maria isn’t: what’s ok in verbal form might be ridiculous and/or distracting in visual.

In the film, Dr.Sapirstein is not explicitly defined as a Jew. “He’s a brilliant man,” says Castevet in both the book and the film, but “with all the sensitivity of his much-tormented race” (book) becomes just “very sensitive”.

The whole black candles matter is omitted altogether, apparently as too obvious. Nor does Minnie say “have a fine healthy baby; that’s all the thanks we’ll ever ask for.” – probably for the same reason. I think that’s also why the painting that should be “nude men and women dancing in a circle” became something different in the film, but I haven’t been able to decipher the meaning of that other picture yet (any help appreciated).

Trimming also works for characterization. Baumgart (Tony Curtiz’s voice on the phone) says, in the novel: “I’ve only broken six glasses today, only fell down three flights of stairs, and only went tap-a-tap-tapping in front of two speeding fire engines! Ever day in every way I’m getting better and better and better!” It is a disgusting display of self-pity masquerading as self-irony, calculated to make the listener admire the presence of spirit of the sufferer (something I personally hate like few other things on earth); in the film, he just says, “I’ve only broken six glasses today,” which is truly self-irony, commanding respect; no jarring note distracts us from the sympathy towards Baumgart, thus nothing prevents Guy’s deed from impressing us as thoroughly vile.

Likewise, the following dialog is much neater in the film:

“Go look at His hands,” Minnie said. “And His feet.”
“And His tail,” Laura-Louise said.”
“And the buds of His horns,” Minnie said.

Tail and horns on a baby – in a movie - can’t honestly be perceived as horrible: it reminds of Halloween costumes and toy devils; in other words, it’s overdoing it to the extent it becomes funny, cartoonish. In the film, Minnie says, “Look at His hands,” – and Laura Louise gushes, “And His feet!!” in a way that can’t help but provoke a nervous laugh (typically Polanski kind of laugh: when you can’t help it but know that the joke is on some fundamentals of human existence, ultimately on you), and for precisely that split second the development of events allows you, your imagination is working on what those “hands” and “feet” might be.


1.3. Translating

Their dinner with Hutch doesn’t take place at a restaurant, but at Hutch’s home: he had to be introduced non-verbally, and his apartment tells all we need to know about him. They – in the film only - eat lamb, by the way, one of the many Christian symbols scattered all over the movie.

I already spoke in my other reviews of how important it is for Polanski to introduce a character just right; Guy was introduced with a lie, Hutch in a typical old-friend situation (getting the lamb out of the oven) and bookworm environment. Now, the Castevets, like in the novel, are introduced as a voice from behind the wall (“Roman, bring me some root beer!”), but the context is different. In the film, the Woodhouses are for the first time in the apartment, empty, echoing, and dark. The voice comes as a jarring note. It is funny, too, and they laugh –and immediately after this Rosemary walks to re-inspect the closet we already have uneasy feeling about. Not only have the neighbors startled us in that dark, echoing solitude; the neighbors and the closet that was mysteriously barricaded are now associated.

Theresa Gionoffrio, who in the book looked like Anna Maria Alberghetti, in the movie looks like Victoria Vetri (it’s the real name of Angela Dorian, the actress who plays Theresa); when they see her dead, the book says “Rosemary wheeled, eyes shut, right hand making an automatic cross”. She does cross herself in the movie, but you only see it on rewatch: she is standing with her back to us, and the movement of her hand is hardly visible, although recognizable. It’s a typical Polanski trick: not to let the cat out of the bag too soon, but to test the watcher instead. One must know where to look.

A perfect example of translating text to image is the sequence of the morning after the impregnation: in the book we have a few pages on how “now, looking back over the past weeks and months, she felt a disturbing presence of overlooked signals just beyond memory, signals of a shortcoming in his love for her…”; in the movie - three clear pictures: her sitting at the table almost motionless, seen through two white doors, once moving her cup (one single, distinct sound); her opening the window wide; taking the shower.

Another example is when she is in bed, caressing her belly. Her thoughts of various hazards (leading to wearing the “good-luck charm”), are expressed by the sound of a police siren.

My absolute favorite is, too, both visual and auditory: to make it totally clear for us that it was the Castevets’ bell we heard ringing when Guy went out “to get ice-cream”, it rings immediately in the next scene, and we see Rosemary push the button. The timing is flawless. The first scene fades out, and the bell rings when we haven’t yet forgotten what it sounds like, but with enough delay so we know it’s not the same moment; and we hear it before we see anything, not to be distracted by a visual – then we see that it’s Rosemary, and the idea is formed.

The classic example (another thing everyone usually remembers) is how her confusion is expressed: in the book there are long speculations about the Fantasticks night and Band-Aid on Guy’s shoulder etc; in the movie, it’s her famous walk across the street in the middle of traffic (filmed with a hand-held camera by Polanski himself, by the way, since the cameraman refused – a documented fact).

When she is told by Doctor Hill to do another blood test, she marks it in her calendar. Book: “…in the next day’s square wrote Lab”. Film: she writes “BLOOD” in bold red letters.

A short sentence - ‘she got a Vidal Sassoon haircut’ – brings forth the visual solution of her transition from a [nominally] free woman to the painted bird, the chosen victim. The face, the neck, the collarbones – a concentration camp prisoner. Mark that it’s when she appears in this new image that she first complains of pain. (In the book, Joan says “You look like Miss Concentration Camp of 1966,” but Polanski, understandably, left it out.)

Through many pages of the novel, she remembers the information from the witchcraft book, and replays the situations in her mind. In the film there are no flashbacks. The only Polanski movie that includes flashbacks of any kind is Bitter Moon, where it is an important structural element. At the moment, I can think only of three other movies where flashbacks are structurally necessary: Casablanca, Itinéraire d'un enfant gâté, and El secreto de sus ojos; most anywhere else it’s just a lazy device – with the exception of Nolan films where everything hinges on the elaborateness of structure. Rosemary, in the film, just goes and buys another two books, from which she gets another two crucial concepts; her analysis of the events is reserved for her talk with Dr.Hill, which, as we will see later, kills quite a few birds with this stone.

“A man with his back to the booth turned as she came out; he wasn’t Dr.Sapirstein though, he was somebody else” becomes a wonderful cameo appearance of William Castle, the producer.

When Sapirstein comes to take her from Dr.Hill’s, Guy stays in the background, and his face stays in the shadow - unless he talks to her; then recedes back to the dark.

Some other delightful details: “They had a car. Mr.Guilmore was driving it” – the unforgettable smile when Guilmore turns to her. People tiptoeing behind her back when she is sure she’s finally safe. In Castevet’s apartment, the burning church is on the right, as it should be, but on the left, visible through the open door, there is – Sabbath or no Sabbath - the tiny bathroom with a mop and Jokes for the John on the can. Laura-Louise pulls her tongue at Rosemary when sent to sit with the others. And so on.

And finally, another of my favorites:
In the film, Rosemary doesn’t drug her sentinel (that spares her uttering the rather weak “Yes, I killed her. I stabbed her to death. And I cleaned my knife and I’ll stab to death whoever comes near me”, which is neither here nor there), but Guy comes in, without noticing her. In case we doubted she was ready to do anything at that moment, we are given a thoroughly unsettling image: the empty (no, worse: containing a doll) cradle rocks, and, lest it be noticed, she stops it with her gleaming knife.

This article is already too long, and I am only halfway through, so I won’t dwell on the sound here (Komeda’s music, Mia Farrow singing the theme, Beethoven’s Fur Elise, the metronome etc); I think I will try to write something on how Polanski uses sound later.

2. Essence

2.1. Evil is Not Charming

At some moment, the neighbors, who used to be only voices behind the wall (in the film, by the way, the chants are first heard when Guy and Rosemary start making love), appear, walking towards us like on music-hall stage. And the way Minnie looks and behaves is dramatically different from the way she is described in the book.

“…a tall, broad, white-haired woman (.. later: “her hips and thighs were massive, dabbed with wide bands of fat.”) wrapped in light blue, with snow-white dabs of gloves, purse, shoes, and hat.” Fat chance. No, she is all gaudy, lurid - rouged cheeks, costume jewellery and all, - like a mummified bird of paradise, and though her hat and gloves and bag are actually white, the image created is totally different, - consistently different, throughout the film. Her image in the book vs. same in the movie is that of a Protestant matron vs. a Jewish auntie.

Here, in the movie, she, with her exaggerated grimaces, is a comical figure, a caricature; watch what is done with such a simple sentence as “Mrs.Castevet put on her glasses and looked at her.” All her mannerisms, exclamations, sneers, her talks without full stops, where an affirmative sentence turns into the next, interrogative, without a slightest pause, all about her is comic. Such people can’t be scary because they are laughable. They just can’t be taken seriously. They are here for our entertainment and mild annoyance. They don’t pose a threat. Look at her doing things: later on, in their apartment, when dishing out the cake, she steadies the piece with her finger, right in the middle of the cream, and actually licks it before handing the plate to Guy; when she gives him a second helping, she doesn’t bother with the spatula and uses her own fork. Or how in the finale she pulls the knife out and rubs over the scratch in the floor. (Ruth Gordon got her well-deserved Oscar for this, thank God.)

Different as the two Minnies are, the message is the same: Satan’s minions are not charming. I feel that Levin was more inclined towards the witches being just every-day people, while Polanski emphasized their grotesqueness – they are the worst of every-day people: just like you and me, only much, much more so, - but the point is very much alike: there’s no fascination about them. Both the book and the film insist that that evil is not attractive – it is, actually, the main message of all Polanski films – evil in general, and Satanism in particular (see also the pathetic Satanists in The Ninth Gate); seeing the witches with their middle-class middle-age bodies is so funny it’s creepy. No romantization of evil or Satan here.

While casting, Polanski (who didn’t know anyone in Hollywood at that time), drew pictures of how he imagined the characters, and gave the sketches to the casting director. All the characters, down to the ones who only appear for a minute, are awesome; my second favorite (after Minnie) is, of course, Laura-Louise. The “short, plump, and smiling”, as she is described in the book, doesn’t begin to describe the awesomeness of that face and figure. She is not crocheting, by the way, when they come to Rosemary, nor is Minnie darning – they are, respectively, embroidering and knitting. No changes were made for no reason: embroidering is funny in itself (you don’t only come uninvited – no, you install yourself, like, forever: with an embroidery hoop), and knitting looks sinister to anyone familiar with European history.

There are, however, more significant changes.

2.2. Ambiguity, Carole and the Tenant

One of the essential differences between the book and the film is quite evident: an agnostic (“I don’t believe, period”), Polanski couldn’t honestly depict a woman impregnated by Satan. Tons of stuff have been written on this by critics, so I’ll try to make a point that is a little different.

The film only gives us Rosemary’s point of view (typical Polanski – of his 19 films, 9 give only the POW of one main character). He says that the book “was almost written in the first person”, but literature as a medium, unlike cinema, actually has this possibility – writing in the first person - and Levin did not use it. The third person confirms that the events actually happened. In the film we just don’t know. It might very well be her delusion (as critics point out), or, as I am inclined to think, the group insanity of the Satanist circle becomes contagious and swallows her.

There’s really no such thing as “Apartment Trilogy”, largely invented by critics; but there definitely are three movies: Repulsion, The Tenant, and Rosemary’s Baby, - whose main action takes place inside an apartment (which is itself an important character), and that tell about growing paranoia. In Repulsion, all menace is imaginary; in The Tenant, as I argued here (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?10975-Roman-Polanski&p=529794&viewfull=1#post529794), the grotesqueness of the visions is only a bizarre form given to the actual horrors existing quite independently; Rosemary’s Baby is strategically placed in between.

Her growing insanity – in the film, not in the book – is of little doubt. See her giggle in that phone booth: “All of them. They were all in it together. All of them witches”. It’s a clinical moment.

When she finally gets to Dr.Hill and tells him everything, there’s no direct speech in the book; all we know is “she tried to keep everything coherent and in sequence but she couldn’t. She got it all out without getting hysterical though…”

What we actually see in the movie is a totally undone, crazy woman who says things like: “He sleeps in pajamas now, you know, he never used to before. He’s probably hiding a mark. You know they give you marks when you join.” What with her good-girl earnestness and intense sincerity, all her mannerisms are those of a schizophrenic. “They hold Sabbaths there,” she carefully articulates, emphasizing the word Sabbaths with a little nod, looking directly in Dr.Hill’s eyes. “You can hear them singing through the wall.” And so on, till she tops it with, “I’ve got books here, look!” and she gets down on the floor to reach into her trunk. Certifiably insane.

She may be insane all right; but there’s no doubt that the nice people next door are after her. Whether their reasons are rational (and Satan actually exists), or merely delusional, is not very important in the context of the film. They are after her; they’ll get her. Because they are an organized group, and she is alone. Because she is a living (living = able to suffer, in Polanski’s metaphysics) soul, and they are agents of the implacable order of the universe. Thus, even if she is insane, her insanity is closer to Trelkovsky’s than to Carole’s.

There’s another message, too, one I am not sure the director meant exactly as I see it.

2.3. Hail, Mother

The matter-of-fact, detached narrative in the book (what Polanski called a perfect material for a screenplay) doesn’t really let us follow the changes Guy undergoes. For example, when she tells him that she is pregnant, we don’t know what his “It’s great!” actually sounds like. In the movie it sounds entirely phony. Guy is much more visibly sliding into evil. Only Rosemary, with her white-and-blue innocence and her horrendous platitudes, could not see that something was desperately wrong.

She is someone who quite seriously says things like “Let’s make this a new beginning, okay? A new openness and talking to each other. Because we haven’t been open.” Or, “when you hear so much about apathy, and people who are afraid of getting involved”. Or “parent figures”. And the worst is just how she says it all, in just the right voice: earnest, solemn and sincere bordering on idiocy. She uses the same kind of intonation while repeating – verbatim! - anything anyone told her, carefully articulating the words.

And it’s something she does all the time. Her speech consists of borrowed words; likewise, her head must consist of borrowed ideas she swallows whole. In the novel, she reads Dumaurier and Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and professes her love of Dickens; no such luck in the film. What she reads is Yes, I Can, and her bookshelf contains books of the same kind. If given enough time and a chance to develop, in a couple of decades she would have evolved into Foster’s character in Carnage.

Levin’s Rosemary has doubts, tries to find out the truth: she speaks to Minnie about Roman’s father, and to Guy about how he knew Dr.Shand played the recorder. Polanski’s Rosemary does nothing of the kind. She believes everything as unreservedly as she will believe anything, and as unreservedly abandons her beliefs when another set of ideas turns up. It used to be God and the Bible; then it was modern values and Yes, I Can. It was Guy and the Castevets and Dr.Sapirstein; then it was what she read in a book. This is how I personally see it: a soul that has turned away from God fills with all kinds of stuff, and becomes an easy prey.

That is why the ending is so hopeless.

Polanski disposed of Levin’s ending, with Rosemary’s little victories, which gave the reader hope that something – “positive influence”, most likely – could actually change things, or at least that we don’t know how things might turn up now that she proved to be strong and cool. The film stops when she starts rocking the cradle, with a look on her face which may be mother’s fondness or irreversible madness, or both. Considering her history of accepting beliefs, there’s no doubt for me that the Satanists got their strongest, most loyal adept now. Just give her time to empty her head of one set of ideas and fill it with another, and she will earnestly, solemnly, sincerely, articulately preach the gospel according to the Castevets. Hail, Mother.

[Heather19]

Excellent review Jean! I've been meaning to rewatch this one for some time as it's been ages. I think I'll bump it up near the top of my list soon. And once I get out of my reading slump I'll have to go and pick up the book.

[Jean]

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearmood_inlove.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearmood_inlove.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearmood_inlove.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearmood_inlove.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearmood_inlove.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearmood_inlove.gif

[Jean]

http://petitcroissant.p.e.pic.centerblog.net/srk140b6.gif

[Brice]

Anniversary of what exactly, Jean?

[Jean]

it's what the French say when they mean:

http://gi79.photobucket.com/groups/j159/BV7W30EHIR/137-1.gif
http://www.printscape.co.uk/data/event-products/320x320/party-banner-happy-birthday-red-79th.jpg

[Brice]

Ah! Gotcha! :)

[Jean]

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Birthday/8004_zps479de4f3.jpg (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/mishemplushem/media/Birthday/8004_zps479de4f3.jpg.html)

Today I am posting my review of The Ninth Gate, the only Polanski film to date that may be called cosy and relaxing to watch – in spite of its apparently dark themes and essentially disturbing meaning. I have such a lot to say, and my mind is running to such a lot of directions, that I had to limit myself harshly. Thus, for once, in this first post about the movie I’ll give the floor to other people who have commented on it during the years.

From a certain point of view, there’s a lot of common between TNG and The Ghost Writer: both movies are way too subtle for their own good, neither satisfies those who expected a genre movie (a political or mystical thriller), and, needless to say, like all Polanski movies, both make an inexhaustible watch, and are examples of flawless filmmaking, - but these two really split the audience into two unequal parts, the minority wondering I the majority actually watched the same film. Both films are perfect targets for misunderstanding, gracefully misleading people into believing that there’s nothing more to them than meets the eye.

I recently saw an imdb member’s signature which read: “Movies are IQ tests. The IMDB boards are each person's opportunity to broadcast their score”.(imdb signature: kimrose111). It explains the rage TNG inspires. Here’s a perfect example:


Suspense? Action Packed? Thriller? Exciting? Reading some of the other peoples reviews, I wonder if we saw the same movie. The movie I saw was over 2 hours of some guy studying books. I've never heard the phrase "that's quite a book collection you have there" in one movie. This movie showed promise for about the first five minutes. Good opening credits and good character introduction. Then after about a half an hour, I realized this entire movie was about studying books. How exciting! Nothing like watching a thrilling "rare book collector" study books and smoke for 2 hours. This movie would have been good if it didn't have any books in it. It should have started from the last 15 minutes and have been an adventure through the pits of hell. If you're a 100 year old librarian, go see it!! This movie packs lots of book studying action!

The really interesting thing is that the simple-minded author of the above only said in simple words what most high-brow critics at Rotten Tomatoes (where the film holds a stunningly low rating) said in big complex sentences.

The happier I am reading what the minority has to say, and today I just want to let them speak for me:


After watching this brilliant masterpiece I came to the conclusion that Roman Polanski is one of the best directors in the history of the cinema.


The Ninth Gate is a great film and one of Roman Polanski's most underrated films. Twenty years from now people will give this film the respect it deserves and hail it to be the great film that it is.
Now, I think I have watched it maybe 7 or 8 times, and it keeps getting better and better. This film is really has a life of it's on, and a life filled with passion, that is.
Ninth Gate is a masterpiece and it moves with weightless virtuosity. Polanski has contributed so many brilliant, quirky, unusual, visionesque, funny things. It was exhilarating to watch this graceful, lovely, stylish, mature bit of movie-making. Some of his earlier work has higher highs and lower lows, but this time he's come up with something so balanced in every respect that it seems close to perfect. It's fascinating to watch...the casting, storyline, editing, score, lighting, subtle use of effects...in fact, even his composition in the opening credits is interesting.
Every detail is so carefully placed and so well integrated. Having been inspired by it to read the book it's based on, I can say that he has also accomplished that rare feat of improving the book's story line. Ninth Gate never wastes time. Every moment is calculated and has a reason.


Ignore the negative reviews and comments from people who've been brainwashed and blinded by the current Hollywood fast-food style of film making with the intention of only appealing to the lowest common denominator. A review doesn't make a good film better or a bad film worse. A superb film. Rating 10 out of 10.


A tragically under-appreciated work of art

And finally, this:


If you rent or purchase the DVD, in some cases it comes with a separate disk, where Polanski gives a brief analysis of almost every scene in the movie as they play. This is one case where the extra disc that comes with a movie may be at least as fascinating as the movie itself. Listening to him, and thinking about his work, drives home again the cloddish stupidity, bloated grandiosity posing as power, and utter lack of vision and artistry in almost everything produced today.
Hearing his voice on this discussion, the way he phrases, his accent, his interesting sense of humor, the way he compresses his considerable intellect for this quite sophisticated but casual chat with the viewer,(and you are not short shrifted here....he speaks for over an hour....the conversational tone simply has class) was like listening to an old friend I hadn't seen in a long time. He has a towering gift for film but expresses himself in such a funny canny unassuming way. A genuine and original artist and a terrific movie.

In my post below, the quotes from the director’s comment will be highlighted in blue, like this one, with which I want to finish this introduction:

“I know that some directors are very careful about the choice of subject so it all will look good in the curriculum vitae, but I am personally not very much interested in it. I am much more concerned with the excitement and thrill which working on a particular movie can bring me than where it would be placed in my biography. I make movies that I would like to see on the screen. I am catering to my own desires.”

[Jean]

1. The World

The world as represented in The Ninth Gate is diametrically opposite of the absurd, disjointed world of Cul-de-Sac, and radically different from that of The Tenant.

The former is obvious. The godless universe of Cul-de-Sac was the epitome of the absurd (we talked about it here (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?10975-Roman-Polanski&p=565140&viewfull=1#post565140)), while in the universe of The Ninth Gate, explicitly governed, guided and shaped by superior forces, everything is interconnected. We might say that this reality is a reality as magical (meaning that magic involves inherent interconnection between all entities) as that of The Tenant, but the nature of the magic is different. The Tenant showed us the irrational, insane magic of a mad world; the universe of The Ninth Gate is rationally magical. It is clear and transparent, such as a magical reality should show to an enlightened mind. And Corso, the enlightened mind (unlike the troubled mind, Trelkovski) feels totally at ease in this geometrical structure.

In this world, everything is a symbol, and every symbol yields to interpretation. Coincidence is excluded. The Girl appears at a lecture on demons and medieval literature, and camera looks at her exactly at the moment when Balkan, the lecturer, gives a definition of “witch”. The faces in the three-century-old engravings are those of the characters. The codes Balkan punches on the keypads are, invariably, 666. The femme fatale smokes Black Devils. The camera repeatedly fixes on Shell Oil Logo (symbol of Aphrodite, who is associated with The Whore of Babylon and, via her other symbol - the Morning Star - with Lucifer himself). In France, Corso drives a Chrysler Dodge Viper (viper is already significant enough, plus Chrysler logo is a pentagram; the color – red – also matters). Before the end, Corso hikes a ride in a truck with sheep (his antiXmas). The postcard of the Devil’s Tower has The Girl’s photo as a stamp.There are scores of those, scattered all over the movie, but I think I’ve discovered the following one myself (I don’t remember ever seeing anyone mentioning it): the picture in Corso’s hotel room in Paris is an old engraving of Porte St.Martin (St.Martin being the maiden name of Lianna Telfer, and the castle where the devil worship takes place), I think this:

http://www.french-engravings.com/images/artworks/ART-5552/HQ.jpg

And a rather esoteric moment: in the line to check-in Corso looks for The Girl who had just been there, but can’t see her; he turns around and there’s a little girl staring at him. Well, The Girl is Emmanuelle Seigner, and the little girl is Morgane Seigner-Polanski.

This world, composed of symbols, hints, leads and cues, is also composed of quotations. The Ninth Gate stands alone in Polanski’s heritage to date as his only apparently “post-modern” film. The film lampoons many a cliché, and eventually the post-modern approach itself. Corso is “chain-smoking and drinking whiskey, like Philip Marlow or Sam Spade”, the fatal woman is the fatalest possible, the whole Corso/Lianna lovemaking scene comes, it would seem, directly from Hollywood, as well as the comeback (“Don’t you fuck with me!” – “I thought I already did”). Simultaneously, the clichés are mocked, turned inside out, even in this very scene: the femme fatale has to unleash her wrath on a man whose pants are around his ankles. Then, true to genre again, the scene “ends, as it often ends in these books, by the detective being hit on the head”. After the pants-down dancing scene, it can hardly be taken seriously. “There are a great number of clichés of this type in The Ninth Gate, which I tried to turn around a bit. You can make them appear serious on the surface, but you cannot help but laugh at them”.

Also, in this film Polanski is continuingly quoting himself - both his past and, paradoxically, future films.

The film is about a book, like The Ghost Writer and, like in The Ghost Writer, the precious book is shaken ash upon, carried about in a piece of rag, hidden in all kinds of inappropriate places. Like the Young Man (Knife in the Water) or the Ghost, the Girl has no name. Like Rosemary, Tess, Dr.Walker, Alfred or anyone who is about to lose their life or soul, or undergo a significant metaphysical change, Corso changes his outfit: in the middle of the film, the eyeglasses (after being anointed by the devil girl), and in the very end he enters the light without his overcoat and shoulder bag he never parted with throughout the film. Corso has to walk barefoot like Dr.Walker, to have his face ridiculously altered like Gittes. Hanging himself, Telfer loses his slippers (compare Frantic or The Tenant). A Chinese gardener is raking leaves when Corso leaves Lianna’s house, which means danger in Chinatown and The Ghost Writer as well. Like Rosemary, Corso talks over the phone with an unseen interlocutor (“I like scenes in phone booths”; why of course, it’s cinema in its purest). A drop of blood slowly comes down Corso’s forehead towards his eyes (“…on cue, and being discreet enough and yet noticeable. I didn’t want any ketchup splashing over his glasses, I just wanted one drop to slowly go down”), like in Death and the Maiden.

So, in this world, “trying to mix irony with macabre (some don’t get it, it’s a gamble)”, so Polanski and at the same essentially so different, due to its outwardly pastiche character, from the world he has created in his other films, will we see the old themes again? Or is the main character now a winner, and evil suddenly attractive?

2. The Light

“Devil is a good protagonist for films <…> I am not a believer myself, and I can’t talk about devil without humor, or irony, but he is a good guy to make a film about.”

I’ll assume that my readers agree that the Girl is the devil (whether himself, or his associate and messenger, is immaterial), so I don’t have to prove this obvious point.

It is, of course, a very non-conventional devil, in mismatched socks and very simple clothes. She reads How to Win Friends and Influence People; self-help books are, as we already know from Rosemary’s Baby, the devil’s favorite tool. She treats the devil worshippers with cool, weary contempt: such a lot of effort to summon her, and she is right here.

Nobody seems to ever see her, though, unless she wants to appear to them. She seems to be unnoticed, unquestioned anywhere she goes in her jeans, trainers and overcoat. It takes Corso a few attempts to really see her: first time he hardly registers her presence before falling asleep, second time he only catches a sudden glimpse through the gap in books, third time she is all blurred, and when he puts on his glasses, she’s gone. And he never sees her flying.

She guides and protects him. She anoints him with blood. She saves his life. She fucks him. She leads him to the light. And she is attractive.

The others, the pathetic devil worshippers, are not. They are ridiculous in their robes (note the bourgeois face in expensive eyeglasses on the foreground), especially when Balkan appears among them in a suit. Their fleeing from him is hilarious (don’t miss the one who, already in the yard, is rapidly pulling on his pants). Like in Rosemary’s Baby, they are not fascinating or awe-inspiring, or mysterious; unlike in Rosemary’s Baby, they are not even scary. They are silly and, in the big scheme of things, quite nonexistent. Balkan himself, the ultimate loser of this game, has more substance, but zero fascination. He is a typical “bad guy”, and it’s nice to see, for once, the downfall of one.

The Girl, however, is an entirely different kettle of fish.

It’s how devil will appear to those who don’t believe in him, who don’t believe in anything. To those who do not seek vulgar things like money or power. To the agnostic souls, empty of values, who only seek knowledge and enlightment.

Well, they’ll have their knowledge and enlightment and the blood ritual will be performed. Corso, glasses broken, forehead blood-smeared, talks on the phone in the hotel lobby and looks at himself in a brass plate on the wall: he recognizes his new self. Ceniza twins, the gatekeepers, whose face is that of the Cherub guarding the bridge, in their timeless, suspended corner of the universe where the same boy yells “Si, mama!” regardless of the shape the Ash brothers take this time, will provide the final key.

Balkan aspired to the carnal, the sinful, the vulgar (the idea that the devil can be summoned by an incantation is utterly vulgar, it comes from magic and directly contradicts Christian concepts), he goes down in flames. Corso goes up the spiritual ladder, and the eternal light greets him, the enlightened one. After all, who is Lucifer but Light-Bearer: his light shines eternal. That’s where Corso goes in the end.

It takes more than intellect to separate the light of Lucifer from the true light of God.

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” (Isaiah 5:20)

In all other Polanski films, we were never faced with a necessity to separate them, to make our choice – it was done for us, because we only saw the evil with the eyes of the victim, with his or her living, suffering, tortured humanity.

Here, for the first (and the last to date) time we see the main character who is apparently a winner, not a loser; a predator, not a prey. Oh good Lord… if you’re the victim, you go down. Otherwise, you lose your soul.

“And if the light you think you have is actually darkness, how deep that darkness is!” (Mat 6:22)

3. The Man

So, why does the devil choose Corso? Surely there are people far more depraved, vicious, those who seem like they should be Satan’s chosen ones? Balkan would seem the right guy for the devil. Looking at him, we feel that there’s no deadly sin (well, except sloth) he hasn’t committed due to his obsession and his obviously passionate nature.

Moreover, he does commit a few before our very eyes, and in his satanic pride, is proud of them. And here, I believe, lies the crucial point. He deceives and murders for the devil. He believes devil must recognize his own. Thus, doing what he does, he knows it is bad.

Back to Corso, now, whose is an entirely different soul.

All his qualities, good or bad, can be defined by negatives. He is pitiless, unscrupulous, impassionate, altogether not giving a fuck. The only positive definition I can come up with is “cynical”, which implies the absence of values rather than the presence of anything. (See how he yawns at exactly the right moment: when accused of stabbing friends in the back.)

He is above deadly sins. Wrath? Too cool and detached. Sloth? Obviously hard-working. Lust? Nothing out of the ordinary. Gluttony? Hard to imaging him gorging himself. Envy? What and whom would he envy?

Greed? A mercenary by trade, he ought to love money; given his professional reputation, he ought to have made quite a lot; but look at his apartment. No luxury there, except for the priceless volumes on the shelves. For dinner he microwaves frozen pizza. Remember his shabby clothes, his shoulder bag, his cheap plastic lighter, and the Luckies he smokes, always in the soft pack so they are bent when he takes them out of his pocket (compare to the gold case Lianna carries her Black Devils in, and her lighter). No, it has never been about money, or anything money could buy, although he explicitly says a few times that it is.

What was it about, then?

Pride? Mother of all sins, this is the only one that doesn’t necessary imply passion. Here we might be hitting on something. I would say that he mercilessly hunts for money because it’s the integral part of the profession he chose, and he wants to be the best in his chosen field: otherwise, what would be the point of working there at all. But if it is at all objectionable, it’s only because of the nature of the field; in itself, it’s a laudable quality. There’s something preventing us accusing of pride those who want to be the best in whatever they do; and there’s something else that totally prevents me suspecting Corso of being a sinner of any kind.

Committing a sin, as opposed to committing a crime, involves knowing that you’re sinning, involves accepting the concept of sin. Corso is as sinless as a newborn baby.

He is, in fact, one step beyond Rosemary; he starts where she left off. She went through the motions of abandoning God and filling the emptiness inside with instant modern values; he is quite comfortable with the emptiness (there apparently was no faith there to begin with). I said in my Rosemary’s Baby analysis (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?10975-Roman-Polanski&p=718190&viewfull=1#post718190) that I believe she will belong to the sect body and soul, but we never see her make this step. We see Corso, though.

In a word, the difference between Balkan and Corso is that between immorality and amorality. Immorality negates morality, while amorality isn’t even aware of its existence. Corso’s is a postmodern soul, where all values are of equal value[lessness]: there’s no hierarchy.

Hence the ostensibly post-modern form of the film itself: no mistake should be made about its purpose.

Technically, this approach allowed the director to show the supernatural without ambiguity (unlike what he did Rosemary’s Baby), because “the whole film is not very serious… I wouldn’t say parody, but it makes fun of detective genre and supernatural genre”. Substantially, the form fits the essence of the main character.

You can’t commit a sacrilege if you have no concept of the sacred. You can’t commit a sinful act of moral transgression if both the concepts of sin and moral are foreign to you. Balkan can do all this; Balkan can overthrow his values because he had an idea of values to begin with. Where there are no icons, there’s no iconoclasm. To kill a thing, you must admit it exists. To refuse God, you must believe in Him. To go beyond limits, you must be aware of there being limits. To negate, you must first uphold. Balkan does; Corso doesn’t.

I won’t analyse this little gem, but those who’ve seen the film will know what I mean:
Balkan: Correctly interpreted with the aid of the original text and sufficient inside information, they're reputed to conjure up the Prince of Darkness in person.
Corso: You don't say.

“Well, Mr.Corso,” approves the Girl when Corso beats Pablo to death, “I didn’t know you had it in you.” It’s a bonus, but not a prerequisite. She didn’t know he had it in him, but he fit the requirements anyway. He doesn’t have to commit any sins, his axiological blankness will do. A positivist who only believes what he sees, an enlightened soul with no hierarchy of values - this is the devil’s chosen one.

“Being what thou art, lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, thou wilt make me vomit thee out of my mouth.”( Apocalypse 3:16)

[Heather19]

Great analysis Jean. The Ninth Gate is one of my favorite Polanski films, and I too think it's highly underrated. I'm going to have to pay particular attention to all the symbols you've mentioned when I rewatch it. I'm sure I didn't catch them all. And I'm going to look for that dvd that includes Polanski discussing the film. That would be really interesting to watch.

[Jean]

thank you love! http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_wub.gif (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/mishemplushem/media/Facilitation/bear_wub.gif.html)http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_wub.gif (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/mishemplushem/media/Facilitation/bear_wub.gif.html)http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_wub.gif (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/mishemplushem/media/Facilitation/bear_wub.gif.html)
I too wish more people would watch and appreciate this exceptional movie.

***
Here's an interesting event going on: http://seetimaar.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/roman-polanski-blogathon-aug-18-sep-22013/
I am one of the participants, of course, and there are quite interesting and insightful reviews there (besides mine, that is)

[Heather19]

Excellent, I'll check it out. I was just reading on there that he adapted Tess of D’Ubervilles? Have you seen it, and is it worth watching?

[Jean]

yes to both! (don't ask a bear if a Polanski film is worth watching...)

also, there is a big documental on the making of Tess, and he writes a lot about it in his memoir, it's amazing

I am surprized that you didn't see it, it's an absolute must for any cinema lover. I will review it some time, love it immensely.

:rose: :rose: :rose:

[Heather19]

:lol: I should have guessed. Have you seen every Polanski film, or is there an obscure one or two you haven't seen?

[Jean]

have seen them all, including the court-metrages he made in the movie school, and all the films where he played, including the old black-and-white in Polish, not only where he had leading parts, like Koniec Nocy, but also those where he appears for a moment; let alone all the documentals, interviews and any other footage I could get. Yes, the bear is a monomaniac.

His only film I haven't seen so far is La Vénus à la fourrure, because it isn't available yet.

[DoctorDodge]

Just watched the Ninth Gate, will finally read your analysis Jean in a short while.

[Jean]

awesome!! bears want to hear your thoughts!

[Heather19]

And Heathers are eagerly waiting to hear if you loved it or not.

[Heather19]

Jean, I'm assuming you've seen Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. How was it, and is it worth a watch? I was curious if it gave a lot of insight into the case.

[Jean]

Unfortunately, they leave out such a lot of important documents that it devaluates their effort. I suggest you reading the analysis of the documents first (link in my signature), and then see the film as an illustration.

[Heather19]

Ah ok, thanks. Maybe I'll just skip it then. I've been meaning to read your blog. I've read bits and pieces but not the whole thing yet.

[Jean]

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/mishemplushem/media/Facilitation/bearheart.gif.html)http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/mishemplushem/media/Facilitation/bearheart.gif.html)http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/mishemplushem/media/Facilitation/bearheart.gif.html)

[mae]

The Films of Roman Polanski, Ranked Worst to Best: http://www.indiewire.com/article/ranked-roman-polanski-from-worst-to-best

[Jean]

thank you pablo! LOL, it's a funny list, but very expected. The two Hollywood films are ranked "the best", the indie masterpieces - the worst (even though the site calls itself indiewire) and Repulsion, made with the only purpose to raise money for Cul-de-Sac, but acclaimed by critics, is the third best. Soooooo unlike my own rating! The only good thing about the list is that they, unexpectedly, placed McBeth near the top.

[Randall Flagg]

I hate to be a buzz killer, but Polanski needs to return to the USA and serve his time for the self-admitted rape of a 13 year-old.

[CyberGhostface]

I hate to be a buzz killer, but Polanski needs to return to the USA and serve his time for the self-admitted rape of a 13 year-old.

IKR? And I can't with people who go "She looks/acts older". Thirteen is thirteen. Even if it was 'consensual' (which it wasn't), she's still thirteen. She had sex before? Still thirteen. Ugh.

[Jean]

I hate to be a buzz killer, but Polanski needs to return to the USA and serve his time for the self-admitted rape of a 13 year-old.



I hate to be a buzz killer, but Polanski needs to return to the USA and serve his time for the self-admitted rape of a 13 year-old.

IKR? And I can't with people who go "She looks/acts older". Thirteen is thirteen. Even if it was 'consensual' (which it wasn't), she's still thirteen. She had sex before? Still thirteen. Ugh.

This thread has been here for years by now, and the moderators of this section (Gem Theater) decided it would be reserved for cinema discussion. We all agreed to keep this casa out of this forum.

I have been studying the '77 case for 4 years. If you want to get acquainted with my arguments and the documents, the link is in my signature. I realize that you never saw the documents.

I don't think here is the right place for me to repeat all I said in my research. For example, if I remind you that this "thirteen" admitted to have had "wonderful sex" (her own words) with other men (none of whom was ever reported by her family) at the same time, or quote the official conclusion, namely, that "He is not a pedophile… The offense occurred as an isolated instance of transient poor judgment… The provocative circumstances, permissiveness and knowledge of circumstances by mother, physical maturity and willingness and provocativeness of victim, and the lack of coercion by defendant… all contribute to the above impression…", or remind you that he has already done the agreed-upon time - twice! - it would be only a beginning of a long and useless discussion about isolated points. I analyzed all the existing documents on my blog with this main purpose in mind: to keep Gem Theater here clear of this drama.

So, you are all very welcome to see my research here (http://polanski-oddmanout.blogspot.ru/).

[CyberGhostface]

physical maturity and willingness and provocativeness of victim

She's. Thirteen.

[Jean]

physical maturity and willingness and provocativeness of victim

She's. Thirteen.

do you absolutely want to involve me into this discussion here? OK, yes, she was thirteen (she wasn't, but I can't go into it now). She was banging the whole neighborhood, I am sorry to say this, but it's in her memoirs. It's not me who said "physical maturity and willingness" - it's the probation officers after the investigation. Her medical examination calls her "adult female".

You may believe all you want that it's something extraordinary for girls that age to be sexually active, but it is not. Her own mother got pregnant at 13 (14 at the latest, I don't know the month). The age of consent in Europe started at 12 at that time (Italy) was 13 (and still is) in Spain (also Japan - still is), and 14 (still is) in most other countries. In the very US of A it was 14 in the State of Georgia at that time; so Geimer was only three weeks and a few state borders away from being able to legally have sex (though even that isn't true. She was not 13. She was 14 and a half, but it's a story for another day - see my research). She herself keeps speaking in her book of how good sex was, and how nobody at the time considered it dirty.

Yes, some girls mature earlier. Yes, some girls have "wonderful sex" before the time you consider it appropriate. Juliet, for God's sake, was thirteen.

didn't want to pollute this thread with her photos, but here you are:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BkSfFcvx4_M/UIABvt10TQI/AAAAAAAAByk/88c4M_kESmg/s1600/geimer+collage.jpg

[CyberGhostface]

She looks like a child to me.

http://i.imgur.com/L1wKBxq.png

Also whether or not it's normal for 13 year olds to have sex, it's not normal for 43 year olds to have sex with them after drugging them. That's just disgusting. Polanski isn't the victim here. By his own admission, she is.

[Jean]

Cyber, you are sadly misinformed. Even the photo you posted doesn't belong to the same time, or to the case, it's from the family archive, taken long before.

No, he didn't "drug" her. No, he didn't "rape" her.

The conclusion I quoted is official, made after the investigation.

I have been through tons of documents. All those years. While you have only read what was in the media. And they have been lying to you. And I know how, and I know why, and I have analyzed the mechanism of their manipulation.

But you didn't even read what I posted here right now for you. Let alone my long and detailed research.

Do what you will, guys. You don't care a damn for the facts. You don't care a fuck for the documents. You don't want my arguments. You only want to assert your self-righteousness. You repeat the same old lies that have been refuted by the documents, and you will repeat them indefinitely, without listening to me. I've been through this before. I've had enough of ignorance and hypocrisy.

[Jean]

By the way, I've just made a stupid mistake.

I started answering what was officially declared to be off-topic.

From now on I will not respond to any more slanderous or misinformed remarks. I have said everything here (http://polanski-oddmanout.blogspot.ru/). My research is open to comments and discussion. Everyone is welcome.

[Br!an]

physical maturity and willingness and provocativeness of victim

She's. Thirteen.

In some societies a young woman could be considered of age to be married at thirteen.. That is not the case in the US. In the United States a minor cannot give consent to sexual relations with an adult.

He plead guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

There isn't any question of his guilt.

************************************************** **

To get back on track I do agree that he is a very talented film director.

[Mattrick]

I watched Carnage (only the second Polanski I've watched) and I loved it. Just seeing four great actors going at it the way they did was a spectacle.

[Jean]

I watched Carnage (only the second Polanski I've watched) and I loved it. Just seeing four great actors going at it the way they did was a spectacle.

yes! http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/mishemplushem/media/Facilitation/bearheart.gif.html)http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/mishemplushem/media/Facilitation/bearheart.gif.html)http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/mishemplushem/media/Facilitation/bearheart.gif.html)

I posted my review here (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?10975-Roman-Polanski&p=692961&viewfull=1#post692961), but since you haven't watched The Tenant (the key film to all the rest) yet, I can't offer it to you. (I refer to Pontypool there a lot, by the way http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_original.gif (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/mishemplushem/media/Facilitation/bear_original.gif.html) )

Watch The Tenant!!!

[Mattrick]

I have The Tenant but you love that film so much I'm a little intimidated to watch it...kind of like why I haven't watch the much touted Citizen Kane. As for Carnage, the final shot (I believe it keeps running during some of the credits) is a stroke of genius.

[Jean]

don't be intimidated! I will perfectly understand if you don't like it (although I don't really think it is going to happen), exactly because it is a film that has personal appeal for me, and so doesn't have to be universally liked!

I would also absolutely recommend Cul-de-Sac, Kinife in the Water, Death and the Maiden and The Tragedy of McBeth (in any order). I strongly suspect you are going to love them.

[mae]

There will soon be a great new edition of Macbeth from Criterion: http://www.criterion.com/films/28020-macbeth

[Jean]

oh, that's good news! a great film so regrettably under-appreciated!

[Heather19]

I have The Tenant but you love that film so much I'm a little intimidated to watch it...kind of like why I haven't watch the much touted Citizen Kane. As for Carnage, the final shot (I believe it keeps running during some of the credits) is a stroke of genius.

What was the other film of his you've seen? Out of the ones I've seen I'd probably rank Carnage near the bottom (that's not to say it's a bad film though). And I still have to watch some of the ones Jean recommended to you. What about Repulsion Jean? I thought that was one of your favorites?


And how is it that you've never seen Citizen Kane?!?!....

[Mattrick]

I've always wanted to see Polanski's Macbeth because I know the Manson Family played a big roll in its genesis.


What was the other film of his you've seen? Out of the ones I've seen I'd probably rank Carnage near the bottom (that's not to say it's a bad film though). And I still have to watch some of the ones Jean recommended to you. What about Repulsion Jean? I thought that was one of your favorites?

The Pianist, about a dozen times. I also saw a good chunk of Frantic one time when my dad was watching it.

EDIT - Totally forgot I watched Chinatown last year and I loved it.

[Jean]

What about Repulsion Jean? I thought that was one of your favorites?They are all my favorites - all 20 (to date) of them, plus all the shorts. But some are my, well, special favorites, and they are not either the two Hollywood whales, nor Repulsion - which is a masterpiece, definitely, but it only proves that a genius can make a masterpiece at any pretext.

I don't know if you know its history. Polanski just left Poland and came to Paris, met Brach there and they became friends (till Brach's death in 2006); they tried to make some money, taking various cinema jobs, but without much success; at that time, they were writing and rewriting Cul-de-Sac, and failing to find anyone to sponsor the production. Then (it's a long and very funny story, but I'll make it short), Gene Gutowski appeared and introduced them to Compton group - the group was making porn movies in a small, obscure studio in London and wanted to make something a step (just one step!) higher, namely, a horror B-movie. Polanski accepted immediately, and together with Brach wrote Repulsion within two weeks - with the only purpose to pave the way towards Cul-de-Sac.

All the time he was filming, Compton group drank his blood, saying, "We don't need a masterpiece, we only want a B-movie!" meaning that his perfectionism was entirely out of place. These pages in his memoir are hilarious, I love them, and you really should read it. Then, when the film was released, it immediately got the Silver Bear at Berlin festival, to the profound astonishment of the Compton group (who put the bear behind the glass in their office and never gave it to the director, bastards!). Anyway - Polanski says that this was the closest he ever came to prostitution; but after this Compton group agreed to finance Cul-de-Sac - which subsequently got another Bear, the Gold Bear this time. And Repulsion is considered a supermegaclassic. And it truly is.

I love Repulsion, I really do, and I analyzed it (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?10975-Roman-Polanski&p=542626&viewfull=1#post542626) in all its profound, existential details - but still I can't take it too seriously!

P.S. Both Frantic and The Ninth Gate are among my special favorites (shit, all of them are, as I said! except those three above mentioned that I adore anyway too) - they are very much alike, hirariously funny and somehow soothing to watch. Both horrendously underappreciated.

[Heather19]

Do you have a ranking of his films somewhere Jean, or would that be an impossible task?

[Lookwhoitis]

I need to watch some more Polanski...

[Jean]

Do you have a ranking of his films somewhere Jean, or would that be an impossible task?It would! I can only say that The Tenant is my everything, and the three most popular ones - Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown - would be at the bottom of my list if there ever was such a list. I am going to review some lesser-popular ones (like Frantic, Bitter Moon and Pirates) and try to explain why they are so incredibly awesome; some time during the summer. Meanwhile, it would be great if you watched those of what I recommended to Mattrick that you haven't seen yet, I am sure you're gonna love them! :rose: :rose: :rose:


I need to watch some more Polanski...
You definitely do! http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/mishemplushem/media/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif.html)http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/mishemplushem/media/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif.html)http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/mishemplushem/media/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif.html)

[mae]

What about The Fearless Vampire Killers?

[Jean]

I absolutely adore it! But the same can be said about the other 17 (even the three I love a little less). I actually started writing a review of it a few months ago, but got distracted by The Ninth Gate, which took a lot of time to write. http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/mishemplushem/media/Facilitation/bearheart.gif.html)

ETA: and it ain't The Fearless Vampire Killers! It's Dance of the Vampires!!!

[mae]

Well officially it's still: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fearless_Vampire_Killers

[Jean]

you know, of course, what bears will choose if the options are "what wiki says" and "what the director called his film, which he specifically emphasizes"? http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_wink-1.gif (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/mishemplushem/media/Facilitation/bear_wink-1.gif.html)

[mae]

Well Wikipedia only uses what is the most prevalent English title.

[Jean]

Yes. It's the title invented by the American distributor, who also cut the film beyond recognition, re-scored it, removed the best parts as irrelevant, and altogether ruined the version that was shown in the USA (of which Polanski said, "I felt like a mother who gave birth to a deformed chid"). When speaking about that film, I always mean the original version, not "new and improved" (reference to one of my favorite, and also regrettably underappreciated, King novel http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_original.gif (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/mishemplushem/media/Facilitation/bear_original.gif.html))

[mae]

Well, the DVD released in the US (I have it) is of the complete version but still under that title.

[Jean]

yes, because otherwise nobody would have recognized it. I will always call it the way it was and is called by its creator http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_tongue.gif (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/mishemplushem/media/Facilitation/bear_tongue.gif.html)

[Heather19]

Do you have a ranking of his films somewhere Jean, or would that be an impossible task?It would! I can only say that The Tenant is my everything, and the three most popular ones - Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown - would be at the bottom of my list if there ever was such a list. I am going to review some lesser-popular ones (like Frantic, Bitter Moon and Pirates) and try to explain why they are so incredibly awesome; some time during the summer. Meanwhile, it would be great if you watched those of what I recommended to Mattrick that you haven't seen yet, I am sure you're gonna love them! :rose: :rose: :rose:

Will do. I actually have Tess near the top of my queue at the moment. It's been on a long wait forever, but hopefully they'll send it soon. And I wonder if I saw a cut version of The Fearless Vampire Killers. I wasn't all that impressed with it.

[frik]

The Fearless Vampire Killers is one of my top-3 Polanski movies. The other two being The Tenant (love Shelley Winters here!) and Rosemary's Baby!

sk

[Heather19]

The Ninth Gate is my absolute favorite. Then I'd probably rank Cul-de-Sac, Knife in the Water, Repulsion, and The Tenant next. Followed by Rosemary's Baby. Carnage was just ok, and the only ones I didn't enjoy were The Ghost and The Fearless Vampire Killers. I've still got so many I need to watch.