You can let it be supernatural or you could intellectualize that Rosemary would rather believe her husband is a satanist rather than admit he raped her and doesn't lover her at all.
Besides the fact that Polanski has indeed stated in a video interview that both the supernatural and psychological interpretations were potentially valid (there isn't a single supernatural happening in the whole film), the film is so much more interesting and pervert if you leave room for both explanations.
It leaves the viewer with a much tougher and more interesting dilemma on his hands: either entertain the idea that "this is no dream, this is really happening" (and therefore accept that the devil is real, which is a bit silly) or decide that it's all "in Roe's head", which is the most plausible explanation but one that
de facto makes you side with the very unsympathetic doctor Hill and his unbearable patriarchal and condescending ways.
Why is it that from Polanski's so-called "apartment trilogy" (Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby and The Tenant), Rosemary's Baby is the only film where so many viewers seem so passionately intent on disregarding the psychological explanation in favour of the supernatural one?
Could the reason be that Mia Farrow's fantastic turn as Rosemary makes it so easy to root for the poor girl that opting for the psychological explanation (which definitely feels like the right one to me) is even more depressing than believing in the supernatural one, because it feels like "betraying" Rosemary and it leaves her utterly alone, with not even the viewer to believe her.
It puts the viewer in a very uncomfortable position (siding with Dr. Hill who is depicted as a cold, heartless individual by Polanski), whereas believing in the devil is easier and doesn't make the viewer accountable for anything (just like it's easier for Rosemary to believe in the devil than to realise the man she loves is a major creep and she needs to find the strength to leave him).
reply
share
franzkabuki
7 years ago
"The devil is real, which is a bit silly".
On the face of it, it obviously is. But as viewed from a broader perspective & looking at the point of what Polanski ultimately seems to be making - the acceptance of evil as part of our world, the need to sort of reconcile with that darkness, then it's not quite as silly as that.
"Why is it that from Polanski's so-called "apartment rilogy", RB is the only film where so many viewers seem so passionately intent on disregasrding the psychological explanation in favour of the supernaturaal?"
Well, as far as I'm concerned, it's because the narrative and the character behaviour simply do not seem to support the "Nutty Ro" explanation. I've been wrong before, though.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan
reply
share
MichaelJacksonPollock
7 years ago
the acceptance of evil as part of our world, the need to sort of reconcile with that darkness, then it's not quite as silly as that.
No, I guess no one could call this silly indeed, especially coming from someone with as tragic a past as Polanski's.
That being said Polanski never really stroke me as a filmmaker who believed in a purely external manifestation of evil -say, as John Carpenter for example- or who would need the mediation of a figure like The Devil to explain the evil Man commits against Man.
Which is why I think Ro's husband is depicted as a way creepier and evil bastard than Satan himself (or as Satan himself actually, as their images are superimposed at some point).
Now a frail, innocent, 60's young woman like Ro on the other hand (with a religious education and good dose of guilt, as shown in her first dream sequence) would probably need the intervention of The Devil to make sense of why the man she loves and whose child she's going to bear would rape her while she's passed out.
I think The Devil appears in the film more out of necessity for Rosemary to make sense of the world than for Polanksi.
[...]the narrative and the character behaviour simply do not seem to support the "Nutty Ro" explanation.
I'm not too keen on calling the psychological interpretation the "Nutty Ro" explanation.
Makes it sound like she's crazy and the blame is almost on her, regardless of any prior aggression/traumatic event she might have been the victim of, and which might have pushed her to elaborate a delusional fantasy to block out a truth way too devastating and depressingly ugly for her to handle.
reply
share
franzkabuki
7 years ago
"Polanski never really struck me as a filmmaker who believed in a purely external manifestion of evil - say, as John Carpenter for example - or who would need the mediation of a figure like The Devil to explain the evil Man commits against Man".
Yes, that's generally true of course - but then again one might say that, for instance, that Bulgakov wasn't exactly that kind of an author either and yet he chose to bring Satan smack in the middle of then-contemporary Moscow. So I guess sometimes you adapt if it serves some other purpose or if you find aspects in it that make it fascinating enough in different ways... Of course, Polanski originally wanted to turn directing RB down because he did not believe in that Christian mythology, didn't have any personal access to it. So it would follow that he changed his mind because a) he saw some metaphoric possibilities there or b) he chose to look at it as an exercise in paranoia (which it sort of is under both readings, no?).
And I guess I ultimately go with option A simply because, above all, within this particular story I find there being a literal coven next door more potent. As for the narrative problems I mentioned... well, I don't really want to go too far down that road of picking the story apart, but just two things - firstly, the whole notion of Guy having raped her seems a bit difficult to understand. Why would he suddenly go crazy and steal something he could get for free any time? Especially as up to that point, he'd shown fairly little interest in Rosemary anyway, to the point of neglect, preferring to concentrate on his career. Secondly, even before the rape scene, before Rosemary had any reason to be paranoid about anything, there was a tremendous amount of strange and suspicious stuff going on in the building - bit too much for my tastes to be wholly coincidental. And Guy's behaviour becomes increasingly sneaky and suspect right after their first dinner with the Castevets (as someone noted, he "often behaved as if he wanted to hide from the camera"). Surely, he didn't plan the violation of his sleeping wife ahead over such an amount of time...?
But, yeah, I did say I wouldn't want to drag it out... This is the way I see things here, though.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan
reply
share