Rosemary’s Baby
Many years ago, I saw the film among Shii’s DVDs and was intrigued, but he quickly told me that he disliked the film. Ever since, it has never even occurred to me to see the film until Mad Men’s recent episode explicitly mentioned it. The episode reminded me that “Rosemary’s Baby” was a huge hit in the US (see Design*Sponge’s Living In article and Pinterest inspiration boards around the film), and that I am a Polanski fan ever since “Knife in the Water”.
My first encounters with Polanski were mostly one of hearsay. It took me forever to see “The Fearless Vampire Killers” (I was recommended the film in 2005 and finally saw it in 2011), and while I have known his name since “The Pianist”, none of his 2000s films were interesting enough for me to take a more serious look at them. Later on, we saw “Repulsion” at a PIFF and I began to understand why he was such a famed director. While “Chinatown” was a letdown for me (maybe my expectations were too high), “Rosemary’s Baby” was a pleasant surprise. I never expect horror films to please me, and even though I know that some of the psychohorror classics out there are awesome (e.g. “The Shining”), I went into “Rosemary’s Baby” with relatively low expectations. Mia Farrow’s amazingly annoying voice certainly did not help with that.
But how could I have known that this would be a well-written, wonderfully acted piece of thrill? The premise was simple enough, but its execution was splendid. There is no gore whatsoever – you don’t see a single drop of blood in the entire film, and the rape scene looks tame and like a “normal” dream sequence. It may look a little psychedelic and the imagery of the pope almost made me laugh a little there. No, the true horror lies with the unknown, the feeling of tenseness and the main character’s incapability to escape her own life. She is imprisoned in her beautiful apartment, by her creepy lovely friends and subtly mentally abusive husband.
If I think about it, I can’t even pinpoint why I liked the film so much. I think it’s totally worthy of its reputation.
The hail of bullets:
- This is mean, but I laughed a little bit every time she said “Andy or Jenny”. This is probably because I find both names horrendous. No name should ever end in y, ugh. If he ever reads it, perhaps I should preemptively apologize to this friend of mine whose name is Andy… As for me, if we ever have another baby again, I will not likely think of him/her as “Thomas or Teresa”.
- The aforementioned Design*Sponge posting comments on how the film features one of the most lovely house make-overs. It is true, the new version of the house is drastically different from the old one – but the dark old style had its own charms, I think. With that said, it has always been my dream to live in the house in “Life as a House”.
- Mia Farrow looks surprisingly cute with the Jean Seberg haircut. In 2013 eyes, that hair was more stylish than the old hair for sure.
- The style in the film is notable in general. It’s the real stuff, where “Mad Men” is an admittedly very good imitation. Every style Mia Farrow wears looks like out of a magazine (some dresses are nicer, some less nice in today’s fashion mindset), but especially her maternity clothes are an inspiration.
- Obviously the true reason to see this film is Ruth Gordon. Oh she is so wonderful, and it’s great to see her again.
- Speaking of humorous scenes, I really loved the “Oh you look like Victoria Vetri” inside joke. Of course I didn’t know who she was and only realized its meaning later on, but it still made me smile.
- I had so much fun seeing Ralph Bellamy again. He is one of my secret favorite actors, and so awfully underused in practically all of his films.