"ROSEMARY’S BABY" A GOOD PLACE TO START REVISITING CINEMATIC HISTORY

I have been in a bit of a wilderness as far as catching up with cinematic history goes. Oh I know. It’s an impossible endeavour – or very close to being so anyway. But the simple fact is, I have not watched nowhere near as many of the classics as I would have liked to have by now. That’s why I have decided to really make it a priority. There is a certain place in my head that I would really like to reach, now I don’t know how realistic it is, but we shall see. And I mean, you lot get quite a lot of film reviews out of it so… Not such a bad thing, is it?

Now having a rather active imagination that really enjoyed taking slightly bizarre angles on even everyday life (To give but one example, as a young child I was adamant that when you got into an elevator, the elevator stood still and the building moved…  As you can imagine my Mother was subjected to a whole series of very bizarre questions as I grew up) I was fascinated by horror films and yet tried to avoid them. Knowing that my watching even one would mean nightmares for weeks and a whole new universe of bizarre questions, Mom was incredibly strict about my not watching anything even vaguely horror. Understandably. This is probably why I got a weird sensation of guilty excitement when I came across Rosemary’s Baby the other day. I had to watch it. It was like, I don’t know… That “forbidden pleasure” kind of excitement. I mean obviously Mom doesn’t have a say in what I watch any more (although she shudders at the very mention of Quentin Tarantino – she gets faint at the mere idea of blood you see, much less large quantities of it on her TV screen) but still. You know. It’s that kind of film. It has the reputation. It led to people firmly believing Polanski was into spells and witchcraft himself (How else could he have known? Asked people, momentarily forgetting this little thing called research). Anyway, at 30 years of age I just about felt ready for the experience. I dived (dove?) right in…

So Rosemary (Mia Farrow) and Guy, a newlywed couple move into their brand new home. Guy is an actor looking for his big break, Rosemary is a homemaker and they are madly in love. And although the new flat seems like a dream home to the young couple, soon the peculiar occurrences begin. Rosemary initially explains it all away. Their neighbours are a bit eccentric but they seem ok – if a little nosey. But surely this is to be expected from an old couple with no children of their own? Things take on a slightly sinister turn when Rosemary finds herself pregnant. As her pregnancy advances Rosemary gets more and more sure that her unborn child’s life is in danger… But with Guy seemingly in cahoots with the neighbours who can she trust?

If there is one thing that annoys me above all others when it comes to horror films, it is over-reliance on monsters and jump-scares. A good jump-scare from time to time is a fine thing, however, it should NOT form the backbone of a horror film. A film is not a film if it isn’t playing with your mind. As is the want of Mr Polanski, in this film he DEFINITELY plays with your mind. In fact mind games – with you and poor Rosemary – is mainly what the film is all about. Every filmmaker has a “thing” you may have noticed. In fact I think this is true of books as well, this thing can be a theme, a place, a character, just something that every single one of their artworks share. For some it’s more obvious, for others less so. For Mr Polanski, it’s very clearly flats. In many of his works the flat itself becomes the enemy, turning on its inhabitant. You would have thought with various different films along the same theme, “one more” wouldn’t be anything too special. But this one is. This film is the granddaddy of all the films that came after it, irrespective of the genre, that built themselves up on that feeling of eyes constantly on you, a sense of constantly mounting dread and the complete inability to find a place to turn.     It starts small and slowly grows into an all-engulfing monster which is the heart of this cinematic classic. In fact I believe this film should be watched if only JUST to see how that sense of being completely surrounded, constantly watched and engulfed SHOULD be done on film. And as I write these lines it has only just occurred to me that one of the main reasons Mr Polanski is so good at it has to be his own experience of the feeling.  It is an opportune moment to remember that Mr Polanski is a Holocaust survivor. Couple this fact with Rosemary in the latter part of the film with her shortly cropped hair… Oh I’m not saying it’s an allegory or anything but I think the feeling, the emotion portrayed must surely have its roots in that particular historical moment. I mean yes, her haircut is purportedly Vidal Sassoon but is the prison-style close crop not there to give a message? At the very least it tells us that Rosemary is the prisoner of her circumstances, the house and everyone that surrounds her.

I defy anyone to watch this film and then be able to instantly shrug off the sense of dread it fills you with. These are the kinds of monsters that do not melt away in the sunlight. I know horror is not everyone’s thing… But if monsters do float your boat… This is one film NOT to be missed… 

FACING "THE GHOST (WRITER)" OF HIS PAST...

I am not quite sure where this borderline obsession with Roman Polanski stems from. It  wasn’t a “wow” moment for me. Like Kubrick for example. I saw Clockwork Orange and the film shook me up so much that I simply had to watch everything he did. Same with Tarantino. I saw Pulp Fiction – I had to see them all. Not Polanski. Of course his “reputation” usually precedes him. You hear the stories, the arguments back and forth. You decide to watch a film or two he did, just to get a view into the mind of the man. Then another. Then, oh incidentally another seems to come your way. Oh, there’s another Polanski in the bargain baskets – shame to leave it there really… Before you know it, you turn around and you’ve actually watched almost everything he has directed. It’s like that moment you look down at the box of chocolates you had on your lap to find that you’ve actually finished the box without realising it. Or a typical Captain Jack Sparrow “Where has all the rum gone?” moment.  Polanski is a versatile director with a great many talents but I think suspense is very much his forte.  So I honestly think this political thriller plays to his strengths and coupled with some rather brilliant acting from actors like Ewan McGregor and Pierce Brosnan, it makes for the kind of thriller that makes you wave your arms and squeal at the television set at key moments. (Yes, this really happened. The fact that I was alone in the house at the time only adds to the um… Atmosphere…).

Ewan McGregor plays an ordinary ghost writer with an extraordinary assignment. He has been hired to complete the memoirs of a former British Prime Minister Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan) after the tragic suicide of the former ghost writer on the job. Mr Lang has retired to the USA and lives on an island with his wife and core staff. The ghost (whose name we never discover, rather poignantly) starts doing a good job on the memoirs, but soon their work is interrupted by Lang getting embroiled in a political scandal. This affair obviously stirs up a lot of emotions and events, from which The Ghost begins to glean, firstly, that his predecessor may not actually have committed suicide. That secondly, he may have discovered something that meant that he now “knew too much” and had to be disposed of. Then, he realises what his predecessor has discovered… The question is can he “survive” the consequences of this discovery?

As I said, one thing Polanski is a master of is racking up the suspense. And his method, I have found, very much lies in his minimalism. You see, there are hints. Subtle hints. But that is just what they are, hints. In some more mainstream films, one has to admit, the “hints” take the form of large neon signs and arrows. No, these are tiny. So in the first instance we are hanging onto the edges of our seats desperately scrutinising the screen trying to figure out where the next tiny clue might be. We know it’s there somewhere we’re just not…quite… And then there is another thing. A lot of Polanski’s films are very much based on dialogue. There is A LOT of talking. And not necessarily much in the way of illustration of what is being said. Now this is a risky method, it has to be said, but as Polanski often works with the best actors around; it almost never blows back into his face. But the result is, of course that not only are we desperately searching for clues, we are hanging on to every word that is being uttered to figure out the next twist. Then we catch something. We follow it through into the next sequences… Oh my God, hang on, NO!! The reason this is so successful is that Polanski’s world is, in its subtleties, very close to the real world. No massive, weird coincidences, no  “neon lights” pointing the way, little clues. And these little clues make us all the more uncomfortable. So no, you will feel no surge of adrenaline or wave of fear. You will, however, have millions of niggling little questions. You will, with a growing sense of dread, piece them together with The Ghost, picking up an answer here and an answer there. And as you go through your discoveries with The Ghost, who at some point becomes your partner in crime (Metaphorically) I defy you not to wave your arms at the television at certain key moments… A truly brilliant watch. Do NOT miss it.  

AND LAST OF ALL, THE HUMAN MIND : "KNIFE IN THE WATER"

You will have noticed I have a bit of a soft spot for Roman Polanski. As a director I mean. He is one of the most successful directors I know in portraying human psychology. Well, the common wisdom goes that there is nothing as queer as folk, and this is undoubtedly true. In fact, why venture into fantasy lands (don’t get me wrong I am absolutely hooked on fantasy as a genre) when some of the most unbelievable things are going on right inside our own heads? This first film by Polanski returns to a theme he takes up in Carnage (reviewed a couple of weeks back), his latest film. Power struggles. Andrzrej and Kristina are a couple. He is a sports reporter, a rather vain man who needs to be right at absolutely everything. She is his pretty young wife. They are headed out for a day’s sailing on their boat one Sunday morning when they run into (almost literally) a hitchhiker. One thing leads to another and although Andrzej is clearly rather annoyed with the young man, they decide to take him along, not only in the car, but also in the boat, to sail. With the three people crammed in this rather limited space a power struggle begins between the two men. At first it is purely psychological but more and more it begins to border on the physical. The young hitchhiker is seemingly obsessed with his knife but the older man has some tricks up his sleeve too. How will the struggle end? Who will get the upper hand and more to the point, what will become of the looser? I have small criticism of the DVD I watched. It is the school copy so there is really very little I could do about the choice but still. The subtitles. There were holes. Many holes. Which is a problem if you don’t speak Polish. Which I don’t. However the good thing is that, from what I was able to grasp, the bits missing weren’t exactly the vital bits. And you could, from the context, guess what’s going on. I mean, it didn’t affect my grasp of the story but you know what I mean. As to the story, it is another exercise in suspense and subtlety by Polanski. At first you might find the film a bit boring. Mundane. No big action, not much dramatic dialogue. But if you continue watching it, you see the tension building between the two men. You slowly become involved. Without realising how, you’re taking sides, getting annoyed with one character or the other. And then of course, the film’s climax. Again, Polanski is a master of surprise endings and he seems to have started off as he meant to continue, if you feel a bit confused and mind blown at the end of it, trust me, the characters feel much worse. Plus, add to all this, the fact that the film has a total cast of three. Shot mostly on an actual boat. That is a whole barrage of technical difficulties if there ever was one and yet out of it emerges an Oscar ®nominated masterpiece. I know, it is an acquired taste. But do give it a whirl. Or a paddle.

"CARNAGE" IN ALL BUT THE PHYSICAL WAY

As you know, if I’m doing a mixed bag, I try and vary the contents as much as possible. You know, make it pretty much something for everyone. That’s why I was glad when this one crossed my path. I’ve always admired Polanski as an artist, even though I have to admit there is a very questionable side to him as a person. But like I’ve always said, leave that to one side and concentrate on the art, because no matter what you think of him as a person, he is one HECK of a director. A fact that he has proved once again with this film. It all starts out as a tiny incident really. Zachary and Ethan are two little boys who have a fight in the playground. It ends a bit rougher than expected, Zachary hitting Ethan in the face with a stick, resulting in Ethan losing a tooth and sustaining damage to a second tooth. The parents get together to sort this situation out; they want to be “adult” about the whole affair. But what starts off as a very civilized conversation between two – admittedly different – couples; soon takes a very strange turn. As time goes on though, it becomes obvious that it is not really so much about the differences in the couple’s lifestyles. True, Ethan’s parents - Nancy and Alan Cpwan (the legendary Kate Winslet and Christopher Waltz) are a power couple, both firmly ensconced in the business world and Zachary’s parents, Penelope and Michael Longstreet (the equally legendary Jodie Foster and John C. Reily) are the more liberal writer /artist types but this in itself is not the problem. The problem is much deeper – not between the couples but in the couples. As the tense situation continues fault lines begin to appear in the first perfectly smooth veneers and dirty laundry within both couples, along with the real faces under the masks begin to get aired. Which is when the real carnage begins… Ok, first up a technical note or two about this film. If you settle down to watch it you will very quickly pick up on the fact that it is actually adapted from a play (God of Carnage by Yasmina Reza to be precise). Thus it uses a minimal number of settings; in fact 90% of the film takes place in the Longstreet’s living room and the whole story is driven mainly by dialogue, not action. Now you may find that daunting as a film initially. But luckily the dialogue is very witty and both easy and enjoyable to follow. And plus of course there is the difference made by the actors actually delivering the lines – I mean take a look at that cast! The concentration on dialogue is, in my opinion, a good thing here because it brings so much great talent to light in the shape of the four actors. Plus, another good thing if the idea of a dialogue driven play /film daunts you is that it is not actually that long – so you don’t have that much to be scared of if you’re not used to the whole thing. But honestly, I reckon anyone with any kinda taste for cinema will enjoy this one. It is very witty, very clever, ok, admittedly it’s as dark as pitch as far as comedy goes but hey… It’s also a very good consideration on adult relationships and life. You really do not want to miss it.

GREAT DIRECTORS MEDLY : ROMAN POLANSKI - "LE LOCATAIRE / THE TENANT"

Now, we have been trudging along together for a while now. This is why I assume you know some of my pet hates when it comes to film. And the pettest of my pet hates, as you well know, is the director and the leading actor/actress of a film being one and the same. It seems to me the absolute height of conceit; I also feel it rarely works out. Humans will be humans and once you are the director, the temptation to give yourself a favorable light thus tipping the balance is rather too great. Usually. But of course to every rule there are exceptions. Roman Polanski appears to be one of them. This is not the first film I have seen by mister Polanski; it’s just that I am very sadly behind on my write-ups. I am glad however, that this is the one I start talking about Mr. Polanski in. The first one I watched was impressive – it will make the blog as soon as I catch up with my writing! – but this is… Well… In a word, superb.
Mr. Trelkovsky (Roman Polanski) is a French citizen. He lives in Paris – but this, as you may know, is easier said than done. I am talking on a purely practical level; rents and house prices there were at the time (and still are as a matter of fact) exorbitant to say the very least. But he feels he has finally found a suitable place when he views a little attic room at the top of an old apartment. There is one snag though. The previous tenant has thrown herself out of the window and is now agonizing in hospital. The owner of the flat is understandably reticent to let the flat until she actually passes away. The young woman will pass away by the by, but in the meanwhile Trelkovsky will get to know a bit more about her from her lover, her friends and when she actually passes away her things. However as Trelkovsky settles in to the apartment he appears to be filling the previous tenants shoes in more senses than one… Either he is just being over sensitive… Or there is an actual plot going on, aiming to drive him insane…
The Tenant is, and this is purely my personal opinion, what might be called an “old master”. Now, you know what an old master is as far as pictures are concerned, right? It’s when a painter uses one of his old paintings as a canvass and paints over them. Thus when you x-ray the second painting (or apply another similar method) you are actually able to discover the second picture underneath. Now, on the surface (and ladies and gentlemen, what a surface!) The Tenant is a superb psychological thriller. Polanski establishes the general sense of unease and mystery within ten minutes of the opening. It’s really brilliant, when you think back, there is nothing that has actually happened and yet you are on pins and needles. If nothing else you will be gripping the arms of your seat (unless you have eaten all your fingernails away by this point) until the end.
But underneath all that, I can’t help but feel Mr. Polanski is giving French society a not so gentle poke. Well, maybe not French society in general but the right wing side of it. The people who bung “foreigners”, homosexuals, single parents, the disabled all into one big mass. “The others”. They are expected to act in a certain way, the pressure is turned on from the first minute, pushing the poor object of the negative attention, no matter their strength or character, into a state of abject paranoia and breaking down communication entirely.
The Tenant is the second film of a trilogy – lose trilogy - by Roman Polanski. The third is the famous /infamous “Rosemary’s Baby” and the first is Répulsion starring Catherine Deneuve. The trilogy is that of three films based around flats and houses that makes the tenants… Well… Uneasy… Mr. Polanski, no matter what you think of him as a person, proves in this film that he is not only a master of suspense but also a damn shrewd director… Check out this blog in the coming weeks for my opinions on Répulsion… =)

IT'S CLASSICS TIME! "CHINATOWN"

Now, I make no pretences at being a big cinema connoisseur as you all know. There is a lot in the world of film I have yet to explore, a lot of great directors I have yet to “re-discover”. Roman Polanski was one of them. Now I have heard a lot about him – well haven’t we all – and a few of my colleagues (especially one with a six year-old daughter – you know why I specified this btw, right? If not just Google the guy.) say that they are so prejudiced and disgusted by what they have heard that they would never watch his films. That it would turn their stomach. Maybe you share this opinion, I honestly don’t know. I personally have, over the years, somehow managed to separate the artistic side of someone and the “personal” side. What I mean is, there are several actors, directors, writers who I dislike personally (well Jesus, when I say personally – you get what I mean, right?) whose works I thoroughly enjoy. Take Wagner for instance. A thoroughly unpleasant and arrogant man by all accounts but did that stop him being a great composer? Same difference here. And no matter what you may or may not think of him, Mr. Polanski is without a doubt, one GREAT director. I am looking forward to getting my grubby paws on more of his work. In the meanwhile, however, welcome to Chinatown…
Now, our hero is J.J. Gittes (a mind-blowingly young Jack Nicholson. I won’t go as far as saying he hasn’t aged well but he was A LOOKER when he was younger, no?). Mr. Gittes is a private investigator. Unfaithful spouses are his main bread and butter and he thinks very little of the whole event when a woman claiming to be the wife of Hollis Mulwray one of the senior officials on the Water and Energy Board of L.A. comes to him, asking for proof her husband is unfaithful. Mr. Gittes does what he does best, and obtains photos of the gentleman with a young woman – not actually risqué but intimate. These leak to the press, there is a SCANDAL. Mr. Gittes is ok with this – it’s just publicity for him. So imagine his shock when he enters his office and comes face to face with the REAL Mrs. Mulwray (Faye Dunaway) absolutely irate and threatening to drag him through the courts… Now Mr. Gettys may have few principals in his line work but being made a fool of is a MAJOR dislike. So he starts investigating what on earth really happened. He will find himself in the middle of intrigue and scandal on a national basis. He will also uncover a rather horrible secret of a very personal nature…
This film, I have to say, is not for the faint hearted or faint stomached. You won’t “get” what I mean until you reach the end (and the film is two hours long so if you get that far, you will undoubtedly watch the end) and by that time, it will be “too late”. I mean it starts off (if you can with a clear conscience call 90 minutes of a film “starts off” – I evidently can! =)) as your typical whodunit from the 60’s. Charismatic hero with a slightly shady past, beautiful damsels in distress, secrets, intrigue… I was amused to note Mr. Polanski actually cast himself as a “mobster” (if you watched and are unsure, he’s the one who cuts Jack Nicholson’s nose). Then, suddenly, the film derails into something else. Nothing “psychedelic” but well, disturbing… Some might say “what did you expect from a guy like that” and carry on being prejudiced. Personally, I admire a director that can twist the plot like that at the end. Admittedly, the direction he twisted it in was not actually “pleasant” but hand on heart, I never expected it. Never saw it coming. And, for those of you to whom this matters (my dear Mother is one of them) no, it most certainly does NOT have a happy ending. It starts of as a whodunit and ends in a film noir in fact – a successful yet slightly disturbing combination… Not to mention the fact that the film actually won an Oscar for Best Screenplay (and 10 nominations from everything from Best Director to Best Sound)
And what of the title, Chinatown? Well, although the film ends in Chinatown, Chinatown itself features very VERY little in the film physically; it is very present though, despite that. It is more of a symbol: It looms all through the film reminding us that life is in fact very unfair, that the good and innocent do not always triumph and the baddies WILL get away with it if they have the means and the connections. That’s why the last line of the film has become something of a movie classic “Come on Jake, this is Chinatown…” I understand completely if this brand of realism is not something you want to think about on the precious evening you have to yourself or your weekend – so be warned… None the less, the film deserves respect, NO two ways about it.

ROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED AND DESIRED

Although it’s actually rather rude to ask a lady her age, I can divulge that I am too young to remember the Roman Polanski incident. He had deflected to France a good while ago by the time I was born. But naturally, I had heard a lot about it. And naturally, the idea of a grown man having sex with a 13 year-old is in a word, disgusting. Which is why I strongly recommend you watch this documentary on Roman Polanski, his life and the incident in question. It’s easy to categorize this event under the label of “simply disgusting” and dismiss it, but the truth of the matter, and the truth about what went on in the courtroom is very far from simple. Roman Polanski is, no matter what you think of him as a person – on any level – one of the greatest directors of our time. This is why I believe you at least owe it to him to make an informed decision about him. Not an easy mission, believe you me.

At this point I should technically give you an account of the story, but really I am not sure where to begin. My point is, the whole reason one would watch a documentary on an event so “talked about” as the Polanski case is to get a fresh angle, more information. If I gave a detailed account of the documentary and the things it uncovers, in my opinion, there would hardly be a point in your watching it. A cursory summary of events would not do either – most of us know so much about Polanski’s life one way or the other. The tragic beginning he had in life is known: after having lost both parents in the Dachau concentration camp, he was left completely alone in the world in his early teens. He didn’t let that drag him down, rose like a comet in the world of cinema and not only made it to Hollywood but also managed to hold his own and stay original there. He was adored by both the stars and the public. Then, fortune smiled on him once more – he found love, true love. Indeed, his marriage with Sharon Tate is also well documented; it was one of the great love stories of his era. She was eight months pregnant to their first child – a baby boy – when she was brutally murdered at their home at the hands of the Charles Manson family. Polanski almost physically disintegrated from the sheer misery – this is also well documented. But he is, as all who know him testify, a survivor and survive he did. Then came his encounter with Sandra Gates and I will not be going into that as what happened there is technically still being discussed in courts – and is the main topic of the documentary. But add to that the courtroom shenanigans that ensued… Suffice it to say, it ended in Polanski’s lawyer Doug Doulton giving in a petition declaring the judge assigned to the case was too prejudiced to give a fair trial. If you think “that serves him right”, let me also add that Mr Doulton had as a very willing witness the assistant D.A. who should have been his “rival”, Roger Gunson. Believe me, it’s a story you would be interested in hearing even if you aren’t particularly “in” to courtroom drama.

In my initial paragraph, I talk of “giving an informed decision”. Considering the subject matter, this documentary is about as objective as you can possibly get. Interviews with Sandra Gates herself, the afore-mentioned Doug Doulton and Roger Gunson, journalists and courtroom employees of the day make up the bulk of the documentary. Mr Polanski himself does not figure in it personally; however, he is naturally present in the great quantity of archive footage of the day, not to mention extensive archive interviews with him – and he basically does say all he - I can only presume – wanted to say there. The extensive use of archive footage is important – the director has succeeded greatly in giving the ambiance of the day. It was one of the first “media feeding frenzies” of modern times. Naturally, we are used to such thing now, but it’s fascinating to see things develop, “all those years ago” back in 1977. And the way the documentary itself is actually put together is also quite spectacular. I mean, you may be bothered by the “subject matter” if you see what I mean – have no fear. No seedy reconstructions here. It is strikingly edited (striking as in it received the prize for best editing at the Sundance film festival in 2008. While we’re on the subject, Wanted and Desired was nominated for the Grand Jury prize for Best documentary at the same festival, won 2 Emmys (outstanding directing and writing) and was nominated for a further 3 Emmys : outstanding nonfiction special, outstanding picture editing and outstanding sound editing. In truth, if you are at all into media studies you wouldn’t do badly to watch the film purely from an academic point of view). And said editing gives the full impact of the importance of the event – without letting it disintegrate into the realm of the seedy, which is a great accomplishment. In fact, director Marina Zenovich has done such a good job of it, I am actively searching for more of her work. In short, it is a frank and open account – that is artistically put together to boot.

Another good thing is the fact that the documentary doesn’t hold sides. You may or may not think this a good thing, but the whole point is that nothing in life is that simple – especially not something as grave as what Polanski’s being charged with. I mean, there were things in the documentary that disturbed me – but it had little to do with Polanski : the way the courts handled the victim Sandra Gates in a word, made my skin crawl. And here’s another piece of information for you to chew on : Roger Gunson (as I mentioned before, the assistant D.A. in charge of the case) plainly states on tape that he “is not surprised Polanski left the country under those circumstances”. He is not some “hippy” by the way. He is a Mormon who seems to be renowned at the time for his straight-thinking and common sense…

In short, Wanted and Desired doesn’t want you to “pick a side”. Just listen to the whole story and make your mind up then. No matter what you think of Polanski and considering what a long and complicated story it is, that’s fair enough, wouldn’t you say?