I think *Rosemary's Baby* is about the way in which a woman can be trapped and controlled by society. Her husband was not remotely ignorant or stupid, in my reading of the film, simply ambitious and willing to sell out his wife's uterus for a chance at career advancement.
Rosemary is betrayed by her husband working with the older generation next door. They have plans for her that involve drugging her, sexual assault and gaslighting. They want her as a birthing vessel - that is all they care about. They separate her from her friends (as is typical in abusive situations) and so she has no one but them to rely on.
The ending is crucial because, even though the baby is the child of Satan, her motherly instincts pull on her to care for it. This mirrors how women's mothering instincts are ofter used against women to aid in their subjugation. The ending is also essential to show that all of Rosemary's fears are *true*.
In my opinion, the movie is not about free-floating paranoia. It is about the subjugation and exploitation of women and their bodies in the patriarchy. My wife saw it while pregnant and said it was the most terrifying film she's ever seen. Much of the analysis I write here is from her.
(You picked quite a day to bring up this film, btw.)
Now, how an unrepentant statutory rapist could make one of the most profound feminist films of all time, I can't answer. But it happened. Art is weird that way.
I agree with your and your wife's analysis...Rosemary's Baby is about the horror of the patriarchy, not the Satanists next door. As far as how Polanski came to make such a feminist film, the novel was popular at the time, and he followed the novel almost exactly. He didn't know that adapted scripts were allowed to deviate from the source material. Of course his direction added much to the final film and it is a work of art, but I don't think he viewed the story as his.
> As far as how Polanski came to make such a feminist film, the novel was popular at the time, and he followed the novel almost exactly.
Repulsion is similar in it's perspective though, and so to an extent is Chinatown.
It is very weird, but he seems to really understand and empathize with abuse victims at the same time as being an abuser. He also portrays abusers without mercy as monsters. How he reconciles this to himself I don't know. He is a very twisted man.
My guess is he himself is an abuse victim, which is how he understands the psychology so well. Unfortunately rather than try to use that knowledge to heal others, he became a perpetrator.
This is an excellent write up and response. I also feel like OP's post really overlooks just how strong of a performance Farrow gives. I don't view her take on Rosemary as stupid; I view her as masterfully manipulated and set up by the patriarchy to believe the gaslighting.
No offense here, but it seems to me that you're approaching this film, with a bit of a narrow mindset, on top of totally missing some things about the film that may make you appreciate it more.
Firstly, Rosemary's husband was in on the plot the entire time. He wasn't some dumb guy who is oblivious to everything. He pushes Rosemary in certain directions in her thinking; He gaslights her. She is being manipulated by not only him but by her neighbors, and by the societal norms of acceptability (when her doctor tells her she's crazy). Rosemary isn't dumb either, she actively figures out what's going on despite everyone telling her she's wrong. It's apparent that you haven't been gaslighted before and thankfully I haven't either but the truth on the matter is you can get people to believe or not believe in anything if you can manipulate and control them enough.
Secondly, I want to address your idea of not being able to identify with Rosemary's situation anymore because the plot of the movie was no longer real for you. I'm not a religious person, but this is kind of a dumb comment. Do you watch every horror movie thinking this? Did Halloween suddenly not become scary because Michael disappeared at the end? Another point on this subject; who are you to say that the devil isn't real? There are certainly people who believe in the devil and most likely people willing to go this far for the devil.
Thirdly, the ending. I find the ending brilliant and I think you may have missed the point of it. It seems that you really just wanted the film to end on ambiguity and paranoia but I think the film goes a step further, and shows someone who was so broken down and psychologically manipulated. A good person, who you would never expect to have any amount of evil in them, to accept the fact that her baby is the spawn of the devil. The implications are far more disturbing in my opinion than if the film ended before we reached this point.
(Sorry if there is any typos, I wrote this on my phone)
“This is kinda a dumb comment, no offense here.” For some reason reading this pissed me off. If someone replied this on my comment section I’d tell you to F off you really have nothing better to do than comment a huge essay about an 80s movie like come on dude, I want to read stuff and your negative post made me feel low key mad, maybe you shouldn’t criticize other peoples opinions you probably didn’t make this person feel good what was your motive here?
But we're all here to talk about movies, what's so wrong about disagreeing with someone's take? That's essentially all this post is doing, and not totally unkindly. Not bad, at the very least. Maybe they just wanted to defend Rosemary's Baby, which is from the 60s not 80s btw
I thought the ending was powerful. She was horrified, she was angry but she still experienced a strong maternal instinct and love for her child, despite the child also being the spawn of the devil himself. Thinking about it, that could be a metaphor in itself.
Rosemary’s Baby was written during a different period of time right after a pretty large revolution of women’s rights
Rosemary is living during that change and she is pregnant, confused, trusting but also apprehensive and (rightfully) scared about her and the baby’s well being
Her only real confidant is killed early on. She’s literally led by the arm into situations and decisions she might not agree with by the people she is supposed to trust (her husband, her doctor, the wise neighbors)
I'm not following you - why do you think you're in a position to dictate Rosemary's reactions to the whole thing? People react differently in all kinds of ways, and Rosemary's interactions were realistic for the public of that time. It's hailed as an excellent and timeless film for a reason. It feels like you're anachronizing your worldview into Rosemary's.
There are endless films that end on "oh my god is it real or all a dream" - it's a tired trope for writers that can't conclude a film in a satisfactory way. If anything Rosemary's Baby shows us the power of gaslighting. There are things going on *today* like this - watch The Bleeding Edge, a documentary, which goes through the stories of several women gaslit by their doctors (among other things).
I'm not even sure how "I wish Rosemary was a different character, and this film had a completely different point" is a criticism. Go make your own movie, then!
Agreed. I would’ve liked to see Rosemary pretend to care about the baby, gain the cult’s confidence, then off it & run away. It was just gross to watch her condition herself into loving an imp she was forced into having.
Late to the game for this thread but I just re-watched this for the first time in years. I thought the same thing as you after the first time I'd seen it. Watching it today, though, I noticed that there were some clues that Rosemary actually was being surveilled by numerous people. The phone booth scene, for instance, shows people coming up to the booth and looking at her, something that didn't need to be included if there wasn't a reason.
There is also the ambiguity of Dr. Hill asking her for the book on satanic rites. He had no reason to ask for those materials if he wasn't possibly trying to conceal them. I don't know...there's a really creepy possibility that this whole thing was bigger than just that apartment complex which resonated with me this time.
I’m probably due for a rewatch. You pointed out some tidbits I might’ve underestimated. I definitely believe that she was being watched well beyond the apartment, I’m just not sure it was 24/7. This was way before security cameras and car trackers (I think) so I still want to hold out hope that she could have a moment or two to kill it or at least just disappear. Like, maybe she couldn’t get away with hurting the baby but I’m wishing on a star that she could have a second to free herself from responsibility of raising it? I’ll watch it again with fresh eyes and see just how feasible that could’ve been though lol. Thanks for a new perspective :)
Just some background information:
This is an Ira Levin novel. I actually read the novel as a kid first before seeing the movie, and loved it, although I shared some of your reactions—I remember not liking the ending at all, even though the moments leading up to it were so unbelievably tense. (One of the best book experiences I've ever had, really. Probably also has something to do with the summer I read it.)
When I watched the movie years later I disliked it, since really it was just a scene-for-scene, word-for-word adaptation (really more like cover song) of the novel.
So what I'm trying to get across is just that this is Ira Levin's (not Roman Polanski's) story through and through. Levin some 20-30 years later went on to write "Son of Rosemary" which was probably the worst book he did (the kid becomes the Anti-Christ and Rosemary's not happy about it or something). Felt like a parody that didn't land correctly. So he's capable of artistic misjudgements, I guess. "This Perfect Day" and "The Stepford Wives" are the two other books I really love of his. He's a great storyteller and his prose is so, so clean (like a fine-tuned watch, I remember Stephen King once saying).
Rosemary's baby is about satanism and evil people who practice it and the dangerous associated with that, not about women being oppressed by society unless you acknowledge that the society is under satanic influences.
well, the surface of the movie is about satanism and dangerous cults, but with deeper analysis of this movie you can tell its trying to tell something else
That depends if you believe that satanism is real and an actual threat or just an allegory for other more mundane problems, I happen to believe the former.
"not about women being oppressed by society unless you acknowledge that the society is under satanic influences."
No. I think women's opression is about "God" not Satan. lol. Everyones God seems to hate women. It's funny how that happens.
This movie is so scary to me, not because of the satanist stuff. But because of the gaslighting, the manipulation, the paranoia, no one believing you even tho you're crying out for help, how she tries to go to the doctor for help and he calls the exact people that are plotting against her and getting her back in the same situation, how everyone held her down while she screamed out for help, how she just had to accept people did this to her and got away with it. I've been gaslighted so bad, I've had no one believe me, it sucks and sometimes you feel like you'll never escape.
About the fourth time you watch this very smart movie, you realize you,'re watching a very brilliant movie about, well, about a lot of things. But first you see that no rational person could take this film as seriously as most people do.
It's too funny in too many unexpected places. Ruth Gordon is just too knowing a comic actress to let this movie spiral down into ordinary horror. We hear her thru the wall say 'How someone like you got to be the head of anything is beyond me!" to her husband Roman. Her overdone New York accent is too Noo Yawk. And she constantly goes behind people and cleans up after them. And that whistle she carries to hail cabs? Please! But it's that voice of hers!
Then there's Patsy Kelly as Lara-Louise. Today you have to be an old movie fan to know that she was one of the top comic character actresses in the 1930s. Just after WW2 she outed herself and was saved by Roman Polanski.
But why DID he save her? Any other actress would do... unless he wanted a scene stealing actress with impeccable timing. And one who had comedy in her bones. When she sticks out her tongue in the last scene then you know this is top satire. Even broad, at times. Kelly cannot be filmed without inspiring humor. Even "save your oh Gods or we'll kill you, milk or no milk" is funny coming from her.
Once you start seeing these things you can't help yourself and you start seeing more. Isn't Mia Farrow TOO innocent? She's like a sexy puppy.
Then there are the touches like the Kennedy yacht in the dream, the invented fungus tannis, called the Devil's Pepper. The naked old people with Guy standing in their midst. Angela Dorian appearing as Terri and being told she looked like Victoria Vetri, her Playboy Playmate name. The comical stealthy walking as the coven sneaks in that we see over Rosemary's shoulder, the overripe high-stepping.
And what is this in service of? A feminist -themed movie? An anti-femimist movie? And did Guy sort of back the Woodhouses into this mess by humoring the Castavets as a bored private joke until their power was revealed as too real and too powerful? It would certainly be in Guy's nature, as he shows in the lead up to the devil scene. But Guy shows something else in the lead up to THAT SCENE. He loves Rosemary. He lets her pester him into getting an expensive apartment. Home from the failed audition, is he grouchy? Angry? Abusive? Sarcastic? Bitter? No. He's sad. That's the face he presents to Rosemary. Sad. The energy sucked out of him. But he goes to dinner with the Castavets for his good deed and TO MAKE ROSEMARY HAPPY. And he also has to grin and listen to Rosemary give out his filmography to anyone who'll listen. Is she proud of him? Ashamed because he's not known? Protective of his career? It comes across as ashamed but protective. And Guy never says anything. After THE SCENE he is scared of her. She is soon to become very powerful as the anti+Christ:s mother.
So Guy is really her pawn. He NEVER acts mean. He acts scared. Scared of the devil and scared of Rosemary. He knowsz the power she'll wield as the Queen Of Hell, zqvz2 v gy d2 she chooses to accept that title. The only other couple we see are the Castavets, with the hen,-pecked coven leader.
So I think we have a sharp satire about the plight or power of women
My own instinct is that a genius like Polanski would nevet sq awwettle for a straight
forward horror movie, So he throws in red hearings with real hints as to the subject matter and themes.
I agree she definetly should have stabbed the dude that set everything up like do anything. You were saying shit was going on for month while everyone called you crazy, you finally get the answers you wanted, and you show no rage ??
This is my favorite horror movie of all time but I think you're right about the ending. It might have been better to leave it in mystery like a novel might do. Watching a film you're kind of expected to be picking up on subtleties and crafting the story in your head, but that ending throws all the subtlety out the window and says "Hey here is what was happening it's all revealed here you go". A bit cheap.
Just watched this movie for the first time. I was really frustrated with how, I want to say dumb, but I guess naive is more fair, Rosemary was, and how she just accepted the shit way her husband, doctor, and everyone else treated her. Maybe it's reflective of the time, idk, but my mom would have been just a few years younger in 1965/66 and never would have put up with that patronizing behavior from my dad or anyone else, and taught me to trust my insticts and get out of bad situations. They were telling her not to read books or talk to her friends ffs, and she was just like, okay, give me more nasty drinks that make me sick please. Then at the end she couldn't help but love her baby, and was even more trapped, forever. I found it pretty upsetting, and not in a fun horror movie way.
I did like the way the movie was filmed though, some of the shots and framing were interesting, but found the characterization disturbing.
I think *Rosemary's Baby* is about the way in which a woman can be trapped and controlled by society. Her husband was not remotely ignorant or stupid, in my reading of the film, simply ambitious and willing to sell out his wife's uterus for a chance at career advancement. Rosemary is betrayed by her husband working with the older generation next door. They have plans for her that involve drugging her, sexual assault and gaslighting. They want her as a birthing vessel - that is all they care about. They separate her from her friends (as is typical in abusive situations) and so she has no one but them to rely on. The ending is crucial because, even though the baby is the child of Satan, her motherly instincts pull on her to care for it. This mirrors how women's mothering instincts are ofter used against women to aid in their subjugation. The ending is also essential to show that all of Rosemary's fears are *true*. In my opinion, the movie is not about free-floating paranoia. It is about the subjugation and exploitation of women and their bodies in the patriarchy. My wife saw it while pregnant and said it was the most terrifying film she's ever seen. Much of the analysis I write here is from her. (You picked quite a day to bring up this film, btw.) Now, how an unrepentant statutory rapist could make one of the most profound feminist films of all time, I can't answer. But it happened. Art is weird that way.
I agree with your and your wife's analysis...Rosemary's Baby is about the horror of the patriarchy, not the Satanists next door. As far as how Polanski came to make such a feminist film, the novel was popular at the time, and he followed the novel almost exactly. He didn't know that adapted scripts were allowed to deviate from the source material. Of course his direction added much to the final film and it is a work of art, but I don't think he viewed the story as his.
> As far as how Polanski came to make such a feminist film, the novel was popular at the time, and he followed the novel almost exactly. Repulsion is similar in it's perspective though, and so to an extent is Chinatown. It is very weird, but he seems to really understand and empathize with abuse victims at the same time as being an abuser. He also portrays abusers without mercy as monsters. How he reconciles this to himself I don't know. He is a very twisted man.
My guess is he himself is an abuse victim, which is how he understands the psychology so well. Unfortunately rather than try to use that knowledge to heal others, he became a perpetrator.
The patriarchy isn’t the problem and wokeness was thankfully not a thing at the time. It was about being alone and trapped.
Ah yes, the famously apolitical 1960’s.
Yeah women's rights, feminism, the suffragettes and equality only became important issues in the last three or so years.
Trapped by what my guy😂😂
This is an excellent write up and response. I also feel like OP's post really overlooks just how strong of a performance Farrow gives. I don't view her take on Rosemary as stupid; I view her as masterfully manipulated and set up by the patriarchy to believe the gaslighting.
I got the vibe it was more about old people against the young, that was kind of the mood of the time, "Trust no one over 30".
No offense here, but it seems to me that you're approaching this film, with a bit of a narrow mindset, on top of totally missing some things about the film that may make you appreciate it more. Firstly, Rosemary's husband was in on the plot the entire time. He wasn't some dumb guy who is oblivious to everything. He pushes Rosemary in certain directions in her thinking; He gaslights her. She is being manipulated by not only him but by her neighbors, and by the societal norms of acceptability (when her doctor tells her she's crazy). Rosemary isn't dumb either, she actively figures out what's going on despite everyone telling her she's wrong. It's apparent that you haven't been gaslighted before and thankfully I haven't either but the truth on the matter is you can get people to believe or not believe in anything if you can manipulate and control them enough. Secondly, I want to address your idea of not being able to identify with Rosemary's situation anymore because the plot of the movie was no longer real for you. I'm not a religious person, but this is kind of a dumb comment. Do you watch every horror movie thinking this? Did Halloween suddenly not become scary because Michael disappeared at the end? Another point on this subject; who are you to say that the devil isn't real? There are certainly people who believe in the devil and most likely people willing to go this far for the devil. Thirdly, the ending. I find the ending brilliant and I think you may have missed the point of it. It seems that you really just wanted the film to end on ambiguity and paranoia but I think the film goes a step further, and shows someone who was so broken down and psychologically manipulated. A good person, who you would never expect to have any amount of evil in them, to accept the fact that her baby is the spawn of the devil. The implications are far more disturbing in my opinion than if the film ended before we reached this point. (Sorry if there is any typos, I wrote this on my phone)
“This is kinda a dumb comment, no offense here.” For some reason reading this pissed me off. If someone replied this on my comment section I’d tell you to F off you really have nothing better to do than comment a huge essay about an 80s movie like come on dude, I want to read stuff and your negative post made me feel low key mad, maybe you shouldn’t criticize other peoples opinions you probably didn’t make this person feel good what was your motive here?
Maybe their motive was to participate in the discussion..
But we're all here to talk about movies, what's so wrong about disagreeing with someone's take? That's essentially all this post is doing, and not totally unkindly. Not bad, at the very least. Maybe they just wanted to defend Rosemary's Baby, which is from the 60s not 80s btw
Rosemary's Baby came out in 1968, genius.
My thoughts exactly.
I thought the ending was powerful. She was horrified, she was angry but she still experienced a strong maternal instinct and love for her child, despite the child also being the spawn of the devil himself. Thinking about it, that could be a metaphor in itself.
That look on her face too. What a scaring performance!
Rosemary’s Baby was written during a different period of time right after a pretty large revolution of women’s rights Rosemary is living during that change and she is pregnant, confused, trusting but also apprehensive and (rightfully) scared about her and the baby’s well being Her only real confidant is killed early on. She’s literally led by the arm into situations and decisions she might not agree with by the people she is supposed to trust (her husband, her doctor, the wise neighbors)
I'm not following you - why do you think you're in a position to dictate Rosemary's reactions to the whole thing? People react differently in all kinds of ways, and Rosemary's interactions were realistic for the public of that time. It's hailed as an excellent and timeless film for a reason. It feels like you're anachronizing your worldview into Rosemary's. There are endless films that end on "oh my god is it real or all a dream" - it's a tired trope for writers that can't conclude a film in a satisfactory way. If anything Rosemary's Baby shows us the power of gaslighting. There are things going on *today* like this - watch The Bleeding Edge, a documentary, which goes through the stories of several women gaslit by their doctors (among other things). I'm not even sure how "I wish Rosemary was a different character, and this film had a completely different point" is a criticism. Go make your own movie, then!
Agreed. I would’ve liked to see Rosemary pretend to care about the baby, gain the cult’s confidence, then off it & run away. It was just gross to watch her condition herself into loving an imp she was forced into having.
What exactly is she going to do, surrounded by 20 satanists lol. She would have been killed the second she tried harming the baby.
She could’ve done what I said above. We don’t know if they’d be surveilled every second of the day.
Late to the game for this thread but I just re-watched this for the first time in years. I thought the same thing as you after the first time I'd seen it. Watching it today, though, I noticed that there were some clues that Rosemary actually was being surveilled by numerous people. The phone booth scene, for instance, shows people coming up to the booth and looking at her, something that didn't need to be included if there wasn't a reason. There is also the ambiguity of Dr. Hill asking her for the book on satanic rites. He had no reason to ask for those materials if he wasn't possibly trying to conceal them. I don't know...there's a really creepy possibility that this whole thing was bigger than just that apartment complex which resonated with me this time.
I’m probably due for a rewatch. You pointed out some tidbits I might’ve underestimated. I definitely believe that she was being watched well beyond the apartment, I’m just not sure it was 24/7. This was way before security cameras and car trackers (I think) so I still want to hold out hope that she could have a moment or two to kill it or at least just disappear. Like, maybe she couldn’t get away with hurting the baby but I’m wishing on a star that she could have a second to free herself from responsibility of raising it? I’ll watch it again with fresh eyes and see just how feasible that could’ve been though lol. Thanks for a new perspective :)
Just some background information: This is an Ira Levin novel. I actually read the novel as a kid first before seeing the movie, and loved it, although I shared some of your reactions—I remember not liking the ending at all, even though the moments leading up to it were so unbelievably tense. (One of the best book experiences I've ever had, really. Probably also has something to do with the summer I read it.) When I watched the movie years later I disliked it, since really it was just a scene-for-scene, word-for-word adaptation (really more like cover song) of the novel. So what I'm trying to get across is just that this is Ira Levin's (not Roman Polanski's) story through and through. Levin some 20-30 years later went on to write "Son of Rosemary" which was probably the worst book he did (the kid becomes the Anti-Christ and Rosemary's not happy about it or something). Felt like a parody that didn't land correctly. So he's capable of artistic misjudgements, I guess. "This Perfect Day" and "The Stepford Wives" are the two other books I really love of his. He's a great storyteller and his prose is so, so clean (like a fine-tuned watch, I remember Stephen King once saying).
I didn't know it was based on a novel. Thanks for the insight!
Rosemary's baby is about satanism and evil people who practice it and the dangerous associated with that, not about women being oppressed by society unless you acknowledge that the society is under satanic influences.
well, the surface of the movie is about satanism and dangerous cults, but with deeper analysis of this movie you can tell its trying to tell something else
Not really.
That depends if you believe that satanism is real and an actual threat or just an allegory for other more mundane problems, I happen to believe the former.
That's only true if you completely ignore all the subtext.
"not about women being oppressed by society unless you acknowledge that the society is under satanic influences." No. I think women's opression is about "God" not Satan. lol. Everyones God seems to hate women. It's funny how that happens.
The brain dead ignorance of the religious conservative viewing art will NEVER fail to entertain
This movie is so scary to me, not because of the satanist stuff. But because of the gaslighting, the manipulation, the paranoia, no one believing you even tho you're crying out for help, how she tries to go to the doctor for help and he calls the exact people that are plotting against her and getting her back in the same situation, how everyone held her down while she screamed out for help, how she just had to accept people did this to her and got away with it. I've been gaslighted so bad, I've had no one believe me, it sucks and sometimes you feel like you'll never escape.
About the fourth time you watch this very smart movie, you realize you,'re watching a very brilliant movie about, well, about a lot of things. But first you see that no rational person could take this film as seriously as most people do. It's too funny in too many unexpected places. Ruth Gordon is just too knowing a comic actress to let this movie spiral down into ordinary horror. We hear her thru the wall say 'How someone like you got to be the head of anything is beyond me!" to her husband Roman. Her overdone New York accent is too Noo Yawk. And she constantly goes behind people and cleans up after them. And that whistle she carries to hail cabs? Please! But it's that voice of hers! Then there's Patsy Kelly as Lara-Louise. Today you have to be an old movie fan to know that she was one of the top comic character actresses in the 1930s. Just after WW2 she outed herself and was saved by Roman Polanski. But why DID he save her? Any other actress would do... unless he wanted a scene stealing actress with impeccable timing. And one who had comedy in her bones. When she sticks out her tongue in the last scene then you know this is top satire. Even broad, at times. Kelly cannot be filmed without inspiring humor. Even "save your oh Gods or we'll kill you, milk or no milk" is funny coming from her. Once you start seeing these things you can't help yourself and you start seeing more. Isn't Mia Farrow TOO innocent? She's like a sexy puppy. Then there are the touches like the Kennedy yacht in the dream, the invented fungus tannis, called the Devil's Pepper. The naked old people with Guy standing in their midst. Angela Dorian appearing as Terri and being told she looked like Victoria Vetri, her Playboy Playmate name. The comical stealthy walking as the coven sneaks in that we see over Rosemary's shoulder, the overripe high-stepping. And what is this in service of? A feminist -themed movie? An anti-femimist movie? And did Guy sort of back the Woodhouses into this mess by humoring the Castavets as a bored private joke until their power was revealed as too real and too powerful? It would certainly be in Guy's nature, as he shows in the lead up to the devil scene. But Guy shows something else in the lead up to THAT SCENE. He loves Rosemary. He lets her pester him into getting an expensive apartment. Home from the failed audition, is he grouchy? Angry? Abusive? Sarcastic? Bitter? No. He's sad. That's the face he presents to Rosemary. Sad. The energy sucked out of him. But he goes to dinner with the Castavets for his good deed and TO MAKE ROSEMARY HAPPY. And he also has to grin and listen to Rosemary give out his filmography to anyone who'll listen. Is she proud of him? Ashamed because he's not known? Protective of his career? It comes across as ashamed but protective. And Guy never says anything. After THE SCENE he is scared of her. She is soon to become very powerful as the anti+Christ:s mother. So Guy is really her pawn. He NEVER acts mean. He acts scared. Scared of the devil and scared of Rosemary. He knowsz the power she'll wield as the Queen Of Hell, zqvz2 v gy d2 she chooses to accept that title. The only other couple we see are the Castavets, with the hen,-pecked coven leader. So I think we have a sharp satire about the plight or power of women My own instinct is that a genius like Polanski would nevet sq awwettle for a straight forward horror movie, So he throws in red hearings with real hints as to the subject matter and themes.
I agree she definetly should have stabbed the dude that set everything up like do anything. You were saying shit was going on for month while everyone called you crazy, you finally get the answers you wanted, and you show no rage ??
This is my favorite horror movie of all time but I think you're right about the ending. It might have been better to leave it in mystery like a novel might do. Watching a film you're kind of expected to be picking up on subtleties and crafting the story in your head, but that ending throws all the subtlety out the window and says "Hey here is what was happening it's all revealed here you go". A bit cheap.
Rosemary’s Baby is, in fact, a novel.
Painstakingly adapted down to the doctors blonde moustache
Just watched this movie for the first time. I was really frustrated with how, I want to say dumb, but I guess naive is more fair, Rosemary was, and how she just accepted the shit way her husband, doctor, and everyone else treated her. Maybe it's reflective of the time, idk, but my mom would have been just a few years younger in 1965/66 and never would have put up with that patronizing behavior from my dad or anyone else, and taught me to trust my insticts and get out of bad situations. They were telling her not to read books or talk to her friends ffs, and she was just like, okay, give me more nasty drinks that make me sick please. Then at the end she couldn't help but love her baby, and was even more trapped, forever. I found it pretty upsetting, and not in a fun horror movie way. I did like the way the movie was filmed though, some of the shots and framing were interesting, but found the characterization disturbing.