What does this mean? “By Modern Standards”
Because by modern standards, we would see a CGI devil baby who would not hesitate in eating one of the celebrants while the gushing blood would cover the rest of the cheering crowd in an orgy of viscera and gratuitousness.
So “by modern standards”, I will take old school heart-breaking and muted over in-your-face and stupid any day.
Abraham Sapirstein, the doctor (and devil worshipper) that Rosemary is referred to, is a very highly thought of doctor. It’s implied that the other doctor called him and got the “pre-partum psychosis” diagnosis.
The third painting on the wall was of St. Paul’s Cathedral in flames.
I think that bit is perfect - this, plus the bit at the very beginning where he mocks Elisha Cook, Jr. and a few other choice bits say so much about his character and about the marriage. Basically, he wasn’t corrupted by the satanists, he was a prick all along who cared about his ambitions, his pleasure, his ‘wittyness,’ not about his wife or anyone else. The satanists glommed on to the couple because it took just a nudge to get him on their side, as much as because of any particular qualities (or lack) that Rosemary posessed.
I don’t think he’s in the conspiracy, he doesn’t need to be. He’s part of the patriarchy, holding up the societal norms (bitches be crazy, mostly) that the satanists are taking advantage of.
Yep. The satanists aren’t presented as having access to particularly powerful magic - they are able to conjure the devil, but not to do much else that a similarly connected group of wealthy folks with access to doctors and drugs couldn’t have done without supernatural assistance.
That line is right from the book, and one of those things that has stayed with me in all the years since first reading it, because it is, as you say, so PERFECT for that weird calm that often comes with fantastic events. Like if you are ever so ill with a fever that you hallucinate, it could be very scary but sometimes the experience seems more detached and almost soothing. I have said that line to myself during times when I was in situations that seemed surreal. And almost always when chocolate mousse is served.
Anyway, I confess I don’t remember the film very clearly (maybe I was bitten by a mouse), but I think the book has held up fairly well. Sure, a lot of it is dated and it’s hard to be surprised by any of the plot – even if you’ve never read it, at this point it’s just a cultural thing that people know Rosemary’s baby is also the devil’s baby. But the creepy parts remain very creepy, even when the suspense isn’t really there.
I agree that Ira Levin was a sexist jerk … but in ways he probably didn’t even intend, the book does a great job of showing what life was like in real life for a lot of women. Rosemary (and this is another awesome thing about the book) is an adult woman who doesn’t have much agency and her frustration with her lack of recourse comes through so strongly. In addition to being impregnated by the Devil, married women at that time couldn’t, in many cases, get a mortgage or loan without the consent of their husbands, consult with a doctor and have any expectation that information would remain confidential, or in some states, be raped by their husband in the eyes of the law, even violent rape. In light of all that, having the Devil’s baby just seems like one more crappy thing to put up with.
Making Donald Baumgert, Guy’s theatrical rival who gets the role he really wanted, suddenly go blind was supernatural assistance. When Rosemary is putting the pieces together, she wonders why Guy would go along with the plan. What could he possibly get from it?
Then she realizes she’s known all along. Asking the question was simply a way to acknowledge what she already knew.
The blindness of Donald Baumgert. If you believed.
Trivia: Donald Baumgert was voiced by Tony Curtis.
I always assumed the tannis root, and the odd necklace it was kept in, had some kind of supernatural properties as well. (There’s no such thing as tannis root- it was cooked up by Levin, and even in the book it’s clear it wasn’t actually a root but something the witches didn’t want identified.)
Further trivia: Mia Farrow was a very good friend of Tony Curtis, and did not know he was visiting her on the set the day the telephone scene was filmed. She is real life wondering “I know that voice. Who is that?” Her bewilderment comes across perfectly.
Did not know that.
I’d say tannis root is only supernatural in the same way that eye of newt is supernatural. It’s the raw material that can be used with the proper other ingredients and incantations – foul and horrible knowledge only obtained by consorting with the Evil One.
Oh, yes, for sure. I wasn’t meaning to say that they weren’t working spells (though they certainly could have taken Baumgart out in some other way if need be), just that it wasn’t the devilish magics that really screwed Rosemary over, it was devilish magics plus a much bigger helping of restrictive patriarchy.
The satanists could have been stringing Guy along with promises of bigger things they had no intention of delivering, or they could be advancing his career through earthly means (poisoning rivals, using financial connections or Hollywood-chapter satanists to get him jobs etc).
Thus, in my read of the film, the actual existence of the devil and the ability of the satanists to access his power could have been removed without changing the substance of the story. OTOH, the patriarchal structure of society and Rosemary’s marriage could not be so easily excised.
I mean it’s a bit corny and laughable and not at all chilling - the rest of the movie was pretty good at keeping the suspense ratcheted up, but it fell flat in the final scene. “By modern standards” in this instance meant the “shock” doesn’t really work. IMHO.
That’s certainly an interesting read, although a very different movie – if you remove all the supernatural elements, you’re left with a story of power and influence and the role of women in society – kind of a combination of Ibsen and The Godfather.
Fortunately 
we actually have a fairly straight-forward supernatural horror story.
Read the book or see the movie. You don’t have to do both.
I liked it the same when I saw it when I was 28 as when I was 12. Which is to say not at all. I only watched it again because in the meantime I’d read the last chapter of the book, which describes the baby, and hoped that I’d missed something when I’d seen it as a kid. Nope.
Clearly, YMMV. But I don’t think the “shock” is the baby. The audience can see that coming. The shock is really in her reaction–not of horror, but of gradual acceptance and maternal love, rather than full-scale revulsion. That’s what makes the ending disturbing (and IMHO, not corny), and that is what lingers in the memory.
This is jaw-dropping for me. I would say Ira Levin was one of the more feminist writers in his genre at that time. So many of his stories are darkly humorous, maybe the satire doesn’t come across? I mean, the Stepford Wives is (in my opinion) explicitly feminist. Yes, it’s also dealing with men’s reaction to feminism, but it’s mocking that backlash. I don’t know what to say. I’m kind of blown away that’s how it read to you, and it makes me want to go an re-read some of these books. But to me they always read as feminist as, say, The Handmaiden’s Tale (well, ok, that’s a bit of an exaggeration).
My whole problem was with her reaction - rather than the acceptance being gradual, it seemed to be immediate, which I found unbelievable given her reservations during the rest of the movie (and also corny, with the maternal instinct overcoming all her morality). But it didn’t ruin the whole thing for me. Overall, I like it.
Isn’t that rather universally true of all books & movies?
Thanks, this was my reaction as well. Granted, it’s been a while since I read an Ira Levin novel, but I remember both Stepford Wives and Rosemary’s Baby very clearly, and neither was sexist at all. The whole point was that he was writing about women trying to fight against and overcome the inherent sexism of their surroundings. Accusing Levin of being sexist because Rosemary is condescended to by her husband and doctors is like accusing the writer of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” of being pro-alien invasion.
Oh, and yes the movie holds up wonderfully. Polanski is a master at maintaining just the right tone. He draws you in bit by careful bit, never going over the top, just hitting every note perfectly. Love that movie.
Also: anyone who likes “Rosemary’s Baby” might also like Polanski’s “The Tenant,” which has a similarly eerie, surreal tone. The earlier “Repulsion” with Catherine Deneuve is the other part of his “apartment trilogy,” but to me it isn’t as successful as the other two.
Interesting. I find Repulsion the best of the three–a nightmarish window into the gradual erosion of sanity, and one of the best (and most disturbing) final shots in all of cinema. A vivid fever dream of a film, and the one most dependent on his skills as a director.
The Tenant I enjoy, but find the most dissimilar of the three, though it owes quite a lot to Kafka, making it more surreal and divorced from the real world (which is what makes the other two more effective, to me). Plus, Polanski’s choice to cast himself in the lead is a little problematic, IMHO.