Rosemary's Baby
Director: Roman Polanski
Writers: Roman Polanski. Based upon the novel by Ira Levin.
Cast: Mia Farrow, John Cassavetes, Ruth Gordon, Sidney Blackmer, Maurice Evans, Ralph Bellamy, Charles Grodin, Victoria Vetri
Overview
Rosemary's Baby is widely regarded as a classic horror film. It certainly has some clever twists and creepy elements, but it ultimately left me underwhelmed. Furthermore, while Rosemary's Baby can be seen as having pro-feminist leanings, there are elements of the film that are highly problematic when it comes to it's depiction of sexual assault.
Synopsis
Rosemary (Mia Farrrow) and her new husband Guy (John Cassavetes) move into a new apartment and soon after, start trying to conceive a baby. One night, after they were planning on having sex, Rosemary falls into a deep sleep, in which she has a sequence of disturbing dreams. When she wakes up, she finds scratches along her body, which her husband claims he did to her while he had intercourse with her while she slept. Later, Rosemary discovers she is pregnant and she starts seeing Dr. Dr. Sapirstein when Guy insists, rather than see their old family physician. When Rosemary develops a sharp pain in her abdomen that won't stop, Dr. Sapirstein dismisses her concerns. As time progresses, Rosemary becomes suspicious that she is trapped in a plot involving witchcraft and becomes increasingly desperate to escape, only to find all of her efforts thwarted.
The Queering
As I understand it, Rosemary's Baby has strongly resonated with woman over the decades due to the way it captures the typical fears and anxieties that can emanate from anyone expecting a child. Furthermore, the way Rosemary is carefully controlled by both her husband and those around her certainly mimics the way society both overtly and subtly takes control of women's bodies when they are pregnant. Rosemary finds everything, her appearance, her weight, and her diet, constantly commented on and criticized by others. Meanwhile, her pains and fears are dismissed as both crazy and further reason for her to be placed under increasing systems of control, until finally she is locked up and sedated right before she is to give birth. Therefore, once the final "twist" is revealed, that this was all the work of a group of Satanists (who had recruited her husband early on in the film), can be seen as the film taking the evil that is typically done to women (particularly pregnant woman) and making it literally real.
For a variety of reasons, I do not wish to dismiss this interpretation out of hand. However, while watching Rosemary's Baby I found myself looking at the film from a rather different lens, one that I should point out at the outset involves me having a very biased opinion of Roman Polanski, due to his conviction of sexually assaulting a thirteen year old minor and the subsequent rape apologism that spewed forth from Polanski's supporters.
What I'm getting at, is that there are elements in Rosemary's Baby that can be seen as forms of rape apologism.
I'll start with the night in which Guy drugs Rosemary so that she can be impregnated by Satan. When she wakes up the next morning, she finds scratches on her body, which Guy admits that he did to her while he was having sex with her while she was asleep. In other words, he just admitted that he raped her, which the film never really strongly condemns as being rape, at least for my tastes. Instead, we later find out that Guy drugged her so that she could be instead raped by Satan, but the film doesn't really treat this as shocking until this is revealed. As it stands, it seems almost as if the film is agreeing with the legal standards of the time that a woman cannot be raped by her husband, thanks to the spousal exemption standards that existed.
To put it another way, in either scenario, Rosemary is raped, gets pregnant, and chooses to have the child in spite of having been raped. The only element that really has changed by the end, in terms of what we the audience and the character know, is who the actual rapist was. Guy simply goes from being the sexual assailant to being an accessory to rape. The fact that the crime itself occurred does not change, but the film doesn't treat it as a crime until the end.
Furthermore, another problematic element here, with regards to Rosemary being sexually assaulted, is the "Devil Made Me Do It" element that the final plot twist evokes, which helps soften the culpability for Guy. Rather than "The Devil Made Me Do It", it's "The Devil Actually Did It". Following this line of reasoning to the end, and one must conclude that the film is evoking the idea of "Stranger Danger" by blaming the crime on the devil, while minimizing the danger that frequently comes from more domestic sources.
The other really problematic element comes from the end, where Rosemary runs around, making an increasingly number of irrational mistakes and puts herself in unnecessary danger as a result. It takes her waaaaaaay too long to realize that Dr. Sapirstein may be a part of the conspiracy against her. Given the fact he was the one prescribing the strange drink for her, he should have been suspect number one. Then there is the way she blabs her entire tale to her new doctor, including the fact that she suspects Dr. Sapirstein and others of practicing witchcraft. Honestly, there was no reason to have included that detail, all she should have said in that scene was "help me, my husband is an abusive fuck and my old doctor, Dr. Sapirstein was an enabler. I don't want them to know where I am." In all fairness, this part could be included to comment on how society conditions people to not believe woman when they are claiming to have been abused. But it undermines the point due to the fact that a doctor has every reason to believe that a person may in fact be mentally ill, especially when they claim to be the victim of a conspiracy of actual witches.
Maybe this is the result of having watched too much Buffy: The Vampire Slayer but honestly, watching a female protagonist act this foolishly is difficult and makes me think that it is set up to enable victim blaming. There were points where Rosemary showed signs of autonomy and intelligence, which makes her ultimate inability to escape from the clutches the bad guys appear to be all the more her fault.
In short, while Rosemary's Baby may in fact capture the uncertainty and difficulties of being pregnant, by minimizing the culpability of Guy in the rape of his wife and evoking the idea of victim blaming, I find myself questioning the films message and intentions.
Recommendation
Rosemary's Baby is only for those interested in films solely for their historical value. This is one troubled pregnancy not worth trying to save.
The Rating
** out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Showing posts with label Roman Polanski. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roman Polanski. Show all posts
October 31, 2013
August 2, 2012
Gore Vidal, Rape Apologist.
For those who were unaware, Gore Vidal, American author, and stringent anti-imperialist passed away this week.
I will admit to having been a little upset about the news when I first heard it. Vidal after all was an extremely quotable writer. I found the following quote from him to be particularly incisive:
However, that quote took on a decidedly ironic overtone, when I came across the following statement that Vidal had made in an interview with The Atlantic (published in 2009) in response to the question the interviewer had asked regarding Roman Polanski raping a 13 year year old girl:
Honestly, I am not sure where to begin on this one. The facts of what Mr. Polanski had done were well established at the time of this interview.
First off, the individual in question was 13 years old at the time of the incident. A little young to be engaging in sex work, one might think.
Second, I must have forgotten to read the memo that says that sex workers give up their right to refuse consent when they are working.
Third, the thirteen year old victim was drugged by Polanski before he raped her. The victim was with Polanski, as Polanski had promised her mother that she (the victim) would be photographed for an edition of Vogue. Which is another memo I must have lost, the one that argues that getting photographed for a non-pornographic magazine is the equivalent of engaging in sex work.
What makes Vidal's defending Polanski so reprehensible is that Vidal makes it very clear that this comment was not simply off the cuff, he genuinely believes in what is saying.
As the interview in question proceeds, Vidal goes on to claim that Polanski's persecution was motivated by antisemitism and had nothing to do with, you know, Polanski raping a 13 year old.
I am reminded here, of when I doing research on Harry Hay and finding out that he had, at one point defended NAMBLA (North Atlantic Man Boy Love Association) an organization that essentially promotes pedophilia. And while doing research for this article I found out that Allen Ginsberg had also defended the organization.
It seems as if you can't knock too hard on the door of anybody's closet, without knocking out a skeleton or two. There is a line between defending sexual activity between consenting adults and defending sexual activity with those too young to give consent. Too bad there are pro-queer activists who were unable to make that distinction.
I am also reminded here of the response to the Sandusky scandal at Penn State and the revelation that many members of the Penn State elite -- such as Joe Paterno -- had covered up for Sandusky. Consider also, the cover ups that occurred within the Catholic Church over numerous incidents of sexual assault by priests against children.
Coming back to Vidal, it is worth noting that he was not the only celebrity who had defended Polanski. Over a hundred of Hollywood's elite signed a petition to demand the release of Polanski following his arrest in Switzerland while he was traveling to a film festiveal.
It seems that as a species, few of us are immune to the desire to stick our head in the sand and ignore any problem that is shoved in front of our faces. But a problem cannot be solved through ignorance, nor by blaming the victims.
While Gore Vidal may have been a talented and progressive author (he did after all write one of the first major pro-queer novels in the United States) I cannot defend, his slut-shaming, rape defending, comment. Nor do I think it should be dismissed. By claiming that a 13 year old, who had been drugged and raped by a man in his 40's, was a "hooker" who had simply felt she had been taken advantage of, Gore Vidal committed a sin too ugly for description.
I will admit to having been a little upset about the news when I first heard it. Vidal after all was an extremely quotable writer. I found the following quote from him to be particularly incisive:
At any given moment, public opinion is a chaos of superstition, misinformation, and prejudice.
However, that quote took on a decidedly ironic overtone, when I came across the following statement that Vidal had made in an interview with The Atlantic (published in 2009) in response to the question the interviewer had asked regarding Roman Polanski raping a 13 year year old girl:
I really don’t give a fuck. Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she’s been taken advantage of?
Honestly, I am not sure where to begin on this one. The facts of what Mr. Polanski had done were well established at the time of this interview.
First off, the individual in question was 13 years old at the time of the incident. A little young to be engaging in sex work, one might think.
Second, I must have forgotten to read the memo that says that sex workers give up their right to refuse consent when they are working.
Third, the thirteen year old victim was drugged by Polanski before he raped her. The victim was with Polanski, as Polanski had promised her mother that she (the victim) would be photographed for an edition of Vogue. Which is another memo I must have lost, the one that argues that getting photographed for a non-pornographic magazine is the equivalent of engaging in sex work.
What makes Vidal's defending Polanski so reprehensible is that Vidal makes it very clear that this comment was not simply off the cuff, he genuinely believes in what is saying.
As the interview in question proceeds, Vidal goes on to claim that Polanski's persecution was motivated by antisemitism and had nothing to do with, you know, Polanski raping a 13 year old.
I am reminded here, of when I doing research on Harry Hay and finding out that he had, at one point defended NAMBLA (North Atlantic Man Boy Love Association) an organization that essentially promotes pedophilia. And while doing research for this article I found out that Allen Ginsberg had also defended the organization.
It seems as if you can't knock too hard on the door of anybody's closet, without knocking out a skeleton or two. There is a line between defending sexual activity between consenting adults and defending sexual activity with those too young to give consent. Too bad there are pro-queer activists who were unable to make that distinction.
I am also reminded here of the response to the Sandusky scandal at Penn State and the revelation that many members of the Penn State elite -- such as Joe Paterno -- had covered up for Sandusky. Consider also, the cover ups that occurred within the Catholic Church over numerous incidents of sexual assault by priests against children.
Coming back to Vidal, it is worth noting that he was not the only celebrity who had defended Polanski. Over a hundred of Hollywood's elite signed a petition to demand the release of Polanski following his arrest in Switzerland while he was traveling to a film festiveal.
It seems that as a species, few of us are immune to the desire to stick our head in the sand and ignore any problem that is shoved in front of our faces. But a problem cannot be solved through ignorance, nor by blaming the victims.
While Gore Vidal may have been a talented and progressive author (he did after all write one of the first major pro-queer novels in the United States) I cannot defend, his slut-shaming, rape defending, comment. Nor do I think it should be dismissed. By claiming that a 13 year old, who had been drugged and raped by a man in his 40's, was a "hooker" who had simply felt she had been taken advantage of, Gore Vidal committed a sin too ugly for description.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)