MovieChat Forums > Repulsion (1965) Discussion > Photo at the end, line of sight, rape th...

Photo at the end, line of sight, rape theory

posted 9 years ago by lombano
21 replies | jump to latest

You can see the overall composition here:

http://www.midnightonly.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/repulsion1.jpg

and a close-up of Carol here:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Xh8OsdXukAM/TQE_ugl11oI/AAAAAAAAAh4/vOvtpJWZ8H8/s1600/repulsion+photo.jpg

Note in the close-up her head is turned towards her left (you can see more of the right side of her face), at about 45 degrees from the front of her body. Note also that her irises are at the far left of her eyes. Now, try turning your head at about that angle and turn your vision about as far left as you can. You'll be seeing to your left and slightly behind you. Now, check the other pic - Carol is clearly standing well behind the other characters. In other words, she cannot be looking at any of them, but rather at something on the wall (perhaps trying to look through the window, inside the house?). If she were looking at the man, she'd be looking towards the front and her left, not behind her and to her left.
She's, therefore, not looking at the man (nor at any other character we can see), plain and simple. Sure, she might've been raped as a child, and it conceivable could've been by the man in the pic, and he may or may not be her father, but umanambiguously, factually, she's not staring at him in the pic. The photo, due to the look in her eyes, shows she was disturbed from a young age, but it provides zero evidence she was raped, by her father or anyone else. This isn't a matter of interpretation, but a matter of carefully examining the photo. The only way the actual photo is compatible with her staring at her rapist is if he's inside the house, but that's pure speculation.

[–] kenny-164 9 years ago

lombano,

You are overanalyzing the last shot. The child is looking to her left, and the man to her left is in her line of sight.

What other possible inference an audience is supposed to make after all that has gone before, with that being the final frame, is not addressed by your analysis, either.

[–] franzkabuki 9 years ago

But he's not "overanalyzing" it, he's establishing a relevant fact about the photo - that the man is NOT in her line of sight; she's not looking at him. It's relevant because so many see the photo, her supposed eyeballing of the older dude, as some kind of clincher that explains everything. With her just blankly staring off into space, probably at nothing in particular, tells us that she's always been kind of waywards, but leaves a healthy ambiguity as to the cause of her phobia(s) - which I find more satisfying than a concrete, nice and tidy explanation. There's something mystifying and scary about the picture that way, an element of unknown. And it is my understanding that mental illness rarely has a direct cause, some experience or event that can be easily identified - there's also this same element of unknown.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] mariasrt 8 years ago

I totally agree, and I really like how this element of uncanny pervades all three of these films.

[–] deRider84 9 years ago

You are overanalyzing the last shot. The child is looking to her left, and the man to her left is in her line of sight.

What other possible inference an audience is supposed to make after all that has gone before, with that being the final frame, is not addressed by your analysis, either.

Absolutely correct. I don't think there is any sliver of doubt whatsoever that we're meant to infer sexual abuse by her father. That's what makes that final shot so damn creepy. I was shocked there was so much dissent and seeming confusion as to what the photograph was meant to represent. Why highlight the man's face as well as her own if he had nothing to do with it? The shot simply makes no sense without the abuse component. OK, so it's too neat an explanation by half, but we have to remember that Repulsion is a 60s movie, when Freudian psychobabble was all the rage, and psychoses could be pinpointed to a specific childhood trauma and explained away via simplistically precise psycho-sexual reasoning. This was a decade of Marnie and Psycho, after all...

I dunno, it works for me. I was genuinely shaken by the photograph.

[–] franzkabuki 9 years ago

She FACES the dude with the dog, so at first it would seem she's looking at him, but when the camera zooms in on her, it becomes clear her EYES look in an altogether different direction, past the guy, to the upper left (from her pov). All of which MAY of course mean that she simply doesn't want to look at her tormentor, but that's kind of pushing it. There's a strong vibe there's something more generally wrong with her, the blankness of her stare. And Polanski was never known to be as boringly obvious and literal minded as that, regardless of the goddamn decade (as a matter of fact, I'd probably lower the film's score by a point if it became somehow clear that this daddy or whoever is indeed unquestionably to blame). In fact, the entire thing could well be a deliberate misdirection, a subtle prank on the poor souls yearning for a definitive answer - at first it seems she stares at the guy, but the camera keeps closing in... and we finally see she ain't looking at him at all...

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] deRider84 9 years ago

It may be obvious (Repulsion is hardly a subtle movie in general), but I certainly wouldn't call it boring. It gave me a real jolt and a sense of horrible dread precisely because it dawned on me that the guy was sexually abusing her. Literal-minded or not, I'd say it's my very favourite shot in the whole movie. I doubt I'd have such a visceral reaction to it if I thought she was just staring off into space because she was naturally crazy. We already knew she was crazy. Big deal.

And I was happy for it to end the shot before. I certainly wasn't yearning for a definitive answer or anything, but when one came, and was delivered so brutally and uniquely, I was pretty much bowled over. It was amazing.

I agree there was a horrible blankness in her stare though - and we're obviously meant to think it's because a relative had been sticking it in her since she was very young. It's no misdirection. It's as clear as day!

I think Repulsion may very well be my favourite film of the 60s or at least in the top 3, unless there are some 10/10s I'm completely forgetting about... EDIT: OK, so it's definitely behind 2001 and probably The Wild Bunch, but what else is better from the decade? EDIT 2: Not even Rosemary's Baby, though that one's definitely due for a rewatch. I wasn't expecting or in the mood for such a slow-burn psycho-drama at the time. I kept hoping for something ferociously intense to happen and it never quite did, so I was ultimately a little disappointed, though I'm not blaming it on the movie. I was simply in the wrong frame of mind.

[–] franzkabuki 9 years ago

"Naturally crazy"? Just a hint, the seeds that would fully bloom in London 1965.

You know, if pressed, I might actually lay Rosemary's Baby on the table as my number one favourite 1960's movie - and I usually can't stand Mia f-cking Farrow in anything (well, there're Broadway Danny Rose & Purple Rose Of Cairo). Love the understated vibes and atmosphere of quiet menace, the bizarrely funny Polanskian touches, how expertly and seamlessly its big-shock-free story developes (quite incredible to realize that in this horror movie, nobody dies on-screen, there's no blood or any physical violence). Full of scenes of subdued beauty & menace, and it has one of the most haunting dream sequences ever filmed. Getting this feeling right now that I should watch it... for the 15th time... But I've been awake for 55 hours. Simply beau-ti-ful.

Closest rivals? Probably Last Year In Marienbad, Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf, Point Blank.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] deRider84 9 years ago

Yeah, I've only seen RB once. Shocking, I know. Gotta correct that really soon.

Marienbad is definitely a contender. Point Blank is an excellent film, but not quite in the same league. I haven't seen Virginia Wolf. It always sounded boring to me. If I wanted to see a play, I'd go to the theatre, and if I wanted to see people arguing over dinner, I'd simply get my family together with several bottles of wine. Besides, I really hated Polanski's Carnage, which I'm led to believe is roughly a similar kind of thing.

[–] franzkabuki 9 years ago

Carnage does take the basic ingredience of Virginia Woolf, but forgets all those things that made it great - starting with a story that has some real emotional impact. And the low-key, "naturalistic" verbosity of the Polanski movie is in no way reminiscent of the poetic/operatic flourishes of WAOVW. In all, I wouldn't say Carnage is bad - just utterly dull and forgettable.

I must say though that I find these arguments regarding going to the theatre or staging a domestic dinner table argument, kind of short sighted (especially as there is no dinner in WAOVW - the entire film takes place from about 2 a.m. and... well, it's light outside when it ends). Firstly, the odds of actually seeing it in theater aren't that great and secondly, you sure won't be seeing Richard Burton & Liz Taylor in that play, both of whom arguably give their career-best performances, ripping into each other with real drunken savagery. And, yes, there's this other asset the film has - it's a great drinking movie (all 4 characters are loaded throughout) as well as a great one for a drinkalong, as I've experienced. And I don't think you can "drinkalong" in a theater... or do it 'right', in any event. Do not start the movie before beer number 6 at the very least, have stuff to eat, get real cozy...

And don't tell me you've never met a movie based on a play that you've approved of... Of course, the over-the-top florid, melodramatic stylistics of an Albee or a Tennessee Williams might take some getting used to.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] deRider84 9 years ago

I must say though that I find these arguments regarding going to the theatre or staging a domestic dinner table argument, kind of short sighted

You're right, though in my experience, plays don't often translate too well to the screen. I can't really think of any theatrical productions that blew me away as films, but there must of course be some. I'm thinking of Equus - good but almost terminally static. Dial M for Murder and Rope - same thing. I know you'll protest, but even Glengarry Glen Ross was a bit too closed in for my liking. Then again, one of my favourite movies is Greenaway's The Cook..., which was never a play, but could easily have worked as one.

Anyway, maz said that Virginia Wolf is the one film he most associates with you, so I'll have to check it out!

Do not start the movie before beer number 6 at the very least, have stuff to eat, get real cozy...

Haha, I really have no idea how you can concentrate on movies when drunk. I can't watch anything even a little bit tipsy. 3 beers, and I start getting too restless for any art-form besides music. I remember going with my girlfriend to see the midnight screening of A Clockwork Orange in Sydney (when it was finally unbanned in Australia around 2002), but we had drunk a lot beforehand. We got kicked out about 45 minutes in. It was kind of embarrassing. A similar thing happened with The Truman Show. I wasn't kicked out that time, but it felt like I didn't even watch the movie afterwards. It was simply impossible to stare at the screen for so long...

[–] franzkabuki 9 years ago

Well, yeah, obviously, film and theater are quite different things. And from my general preferations, I bet you've gathered I'm usually quite overwhelmingly more drawn to the visually oriented cinema as opposed to the blather-heavy stuff. So for a play to make an impact, it has to be, like, really-really great in the dialogue/acting department. I feel Virginia Woolf & Glengarry are that (talking of the latter, the jazzy score and incessant rain and the token train passing by during the first half sort of give me enough atmospheric fodder to not feel I'm being trapped in some crummy theater. And Mamet's writing is absolutely great and there's hardly a performance that isn't powerhouse - as this anecdote goes, the actors who had completed their job for the day, often stayed long after hours in order to observe and enjoy the other performers in action. And I may be somewhat biased as a big Pacino fan in general, but I still think he gives the best performance of the amazing lot - by virtue of the contrast between his understated persuasiveness during act one and the volatile top dog antics during act two... as someone wrote, it's always worth the while to hear Pacino tell people off. F-cking cacaroaches).

Dial M is a straightforward whodunit and as such not terribly exciting... but I still dig its deep colors and stuff. Rope's certainly amongst my top 10 Hitchcocks though - maybe top 6. Something about that pastel color palette and the expressionistic fake skyline in the window... the vibes and the timing, too, I guess, as it's almost like happening in real time (the film really clicked with me on about the 3rd viewing though... has gone from 5/10 to 8/10).

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] deRider84 9 years ago

I was disappointed in Rope after all the hype. There was just nothing really exciting about it. Even the dialogue was nothing special, though it's encouraging to hear that it gets better on repeat viewings.

Now I'm kind of ashamed to say I've always called cannabis 'pot' almost exclusively. I only say 'weed' on here because most other people seem to, but I never use the word in real life. I think the latter is much more American. 'Pot' sounds more British to me. Anyway, it's a good drug for watching movies and sometimes even improves them, but I often tend to zone out too much and miss lots of details. I've come to realize it's best to watch films completely sober.

Alcohol becomes a depressant when I'm coming down, and the day after. However, the first 3 or 12 drinks seem to act as nothing but a stimulant on me. I've never been one of those sad or aggressive drunks, so maybe it's different for them. I always get bouncy at first, and then too foggy/dreggy/sleepy later to watch any films.

[–] undomiel152003-1 9 years ago

The blankness of her stare might be a direct result of sexual abuse, these kids do not connect and as a matter of fact disconnect themselves from their own bodies. The desire to disappear, to 'leave' the body at the time of the abuse, so not to feel pain, fear, whatever, it becomes a defense mechanism, to the point that it might become their standard behavior, they are there, but not 'there'.

Quit ya moanin

[–] cassandra_mortmain 8 years ago

i don't at all see blankness in her stare in the photograph. it looks like pure rage in her eyes, at least to me.

[–] Sugarminx 9 years ago

Nothing is ever actually said about the cause of her dysfunction so it's all open to conjecture, really.

The last shot of the family photo was obviously there for a reason.

The camera 'tracks' slowly from the ghastly scenes we've just witnessed to that photograph - a pretty clear indication that everything that occurred in the flat can be 'tracked' back to something in her childhood.

Whether it was her father who abused her or not (and I'm of the opinion that she was sexually abused as a child), we can't know for sure.

I agree that she's not necessarily looking at her father (if that's who that man in the photo is). What it looks like to me is that she is staring off into space, retreating inside her head, not engaging with the world - something that she will continue to do as an adult.

So put some spice in my sauce, honey in my tea, an ace up my sleeve and a slinkyplanb

[–] somesunnyday 9 years ago

I think the OP has a valid point. The ambiguous nature of that photo is very much something Polanski would deliberately create. Is she looking at a supposed perpetrator of all her problems or is she looking at something that's purely in her mind?

[–] nativenewyorker88 9 years ago

I agree. When I first saw the photo, I didn't think she was looking at the guy (her father) at all but rather staring off into space, lost in her own world, and none too happy about it to boot. I think someone from another thread said it best. She was always odd from the start but no one intervened to help her. Probably because they were either too busy and later on because she was so stunningly attractive, they dismissed the seriousness of her mental state. Research has proven that the more attractive someone is, the less inclined people will think they are disturbed even though they are clearly exhibiting odd behavior! The tendency is for people to think beautiful people cannot be evil or mentally unstable.

[–] Bloodfordracula 8 years ago

She's looking at her father with disgust, even it it's just the back of his head.

[–] SforSmile 8 years ago

you're wrong, she is indeed looking at her father's back of the head in a way that suggests she was abused by him which led to her psychosis later in life, any other explanation isn't intended or invoked by that photo.

"Some people are immune to good advice."
-Saul Goodman

"I ignore pathetic trolls"

[–] rtodd110 8 years ago

Ok I am almost positive she is clearly staring at the man, and that man is her father. The creepy old *beep* who keeps popping up and raping her is her father (obviously it isn't happening, but a clear form of PTSD).

The whole movie including the title alludes to all of this. She is repulsed by men due to the sexual abuse she endured by her father and finally snaps once this guy starts showing interest and keeps coming on so strongly. The crack signify her breaking point and her clear dive into insanity. The hands groping her.

Once she started obsessively cleaning her lips when he basically forced the kiss on her in the car I started to pick up on what was really wrong
with her. Then the rape dream sealed it.

Wow this movie for being that old was pretty incredible. Heavy subject matter, but handled with a lot of skill. The only scene I couldn't help but kind of laugh at was when she kept hitting the camera with the candle stick, looked silly.

Great character study very sad in a lot of ways. A good look into rape culture and still very relevant. One of the best horror movies I've ever scene, can't believe I never saw it until now.

9/10

[–] kmags84 7 years ago

I think Rape/Incest is one element, as Polanski used the theme in a lot of his work, especially early on. But it's the opening scene... Not The Eye... But the scene with her doing nails directly after that, in which I start questioning her motives. It's been noted before that her refusal to accept the "Woman's Role in Society" seems to be hinted at. And in that first scene, it's almost as if she made the decision right then and there to not become that woman, some day down the line. She sees her sister's struggles, the Woman with her Dog(Strangely she plays with a Stuffed Dog Animal)... Idk, I just think it's more than just one problem. She also doesn't look like her sister or anyone else in the photo, nevermind wtf or who she is looking at. Just a well crafted film. Many great ideas hold weight due to certain scenes.