TWDuke is right. It’s unlikely that it would have occurred to Rosemary to try to press charges against her husband for rape, and even less likely that she’d have been taken seriously if she did. The rape of a spouse was not a crime *anywhere *in the US until 1975, and Rosemary’s Baby was several years before that. It was not until the early '80s that anyone in New York was actually convicted of martial rape (see NYT article preview).
It’s the only book I’ve ever literally pitched at unsuspecting plaster. The man must’ve had a contractual obligation. Can’t think of any other excuse for it.
To answer my own question (and, yes I was talking about the movie, unless there is a TiVO that is in competition with Kindle for book storage), I didn’t miss anything.
Here is the ending, on Youtube.
Ugh. Yeah, true, how could I have forgotten that? I guess on some level it just bothers me so much every time I read that, even though Rosemary seems like a normal 1966 woman…she just seems so okay with the knowledge that she was raped, even if she doesn’t know the whole truth. Though I guess at the time it wasn’t rape in the same way we think of it.
Anyway, this has inspired me. I’m rereading Stepford Wives for the first time in years. Love that book.
Rosemary’s Baby is a classic. The sequel was so bad I had to do somersaults just to get it out of my head!
They show the credits.
This is from an era when credits came at the beginning of the movie.
The idea that Ira Levin’s female characters are always “Stepford wives” is extremely inaccurate. If you read his first work “A Kiss Before Dying” (and it is in my top five of absolutely best first books), while Dorothy is a littly ninny, Ellen’s downfall is looking into her death, and Marion is an independant career women.
I love all of Levin’s book except for Son of Rosemary. He is a marvelous writer, but he sure dropped the ball on that one.
I like to think that Rosemary goes into a coma after giving birth, and the whole last chapter is a dream sequence. She eventually recovers and she and Guy go on to live a happy life. Roman drops dead in Europe and Minnie soon after, and the whole “witches coven” (the people were Satanists, not witches, and in that case Levin did a huge disservice to Wiccans) was Rosemary’s pre-natal paranoia.
BTW, about six months after writing my annotated “Rosemary’s Baby” I looked at the cover and realized “Rosemary’s Baby. Rose-mary’s Baby. Mary’s Baby.” :smack:
No, you are missing my point because I am not inclined, nor do I have the time, to bang out a dissertation on feminist literature theory and how the collective works of Ira Levin shows a distinct pattern of fear and loathing of women throughout all of his books. I see the same thing in John Updike and Hemingway novels.
You are correct, however, in characterizing my posts as “overly simplified interpretations.” Yeah. I am stating my opinion in an overly simplified way. Because this is a message board, not Contemporary English Lit 301. I am not making my points in a very salient manner because that would be a thread-jack, which is not germaine to the issue at hand, which is how Rosemary’s Baby ended.
It took me a LONG time to realize that, too. I have no idea why.
Oh, roast mules. 
Er…okay. You just seem to be the only person I’ve ever met who thinks the Stepford Wives is an example of misogyny. It’s like saying that Elie Wiesel’s Night is an example of antisemitism because bad things happen to Jews. The main character of Stepford Wives, prior to her…well, Stepfordization, is inquisitive, bright, etc. Where are you getting the passive doormat thing from?
Dogzilla, I’d like to see you support exactly why you think that Levin shows “a distinct pattern of fear and loathing of women throughout all of his books” (versus demonstrating that *society *has a fear and loathing of women, which would be what one would expect a reasonable person to get out of the movie version of Stepford Wives).
At the time the movie was new, there was a letter to the editor in Psychology Today pointing out that the very last scene pans from Rosemary’s face to the window, then cuts to the view of the street below. The writer insisted that there was no reason for this final shot except to imply that Rosemary did not accept the baby, and was in fact about to throw him out the window. Never seen this interpretation anywhere else.
Or it could be another juxtaposition of the bizarre world Rosemary has found herself in with the everyday life of everyone else, or it could cause us to think of how the baby will grow to affect the world that is still ignorant of its existence, or…
Most readers/viewers seem to understand that in “Rosemary’s Baby” and “The Stepford Wives,” the husbands are the bad guys. If anything, that makes Levin’s works anti-male, but that too would be a gross oversimplification.
This is the last ten minutes of the movie on Youtube.
Ok, when the Asian guy started taking pictures, I burst out laughing.
A a distinct pattern of fear and loathing of Asians! 
So did I when I first saw the movie. It seemed to be an odd place to put in a joke featuring a stereotypical Japanese tourist taking pictures.
Yeah, that was my take on it. Not that it’s anti-male but that Levin is anti-male is the obvious interpretation that you could come away with if you were just looking for an easy answer. Stepford Wives is a book where a bunch of vibrant, intelligent women who have outside interests and in most cases, an interest in feminism get turned into big boobed, housework loving fembots because their husbands prefer them that way. We’re meant to be horrified and saddened that this is what happens, not happy.
I doubt he was doing service of any kind to Wiccans, “dis-” or otherwise. The whole point of a coven of witches is that they get together to worship Satan. That’s why people kept burning them in the Middle Ages. That’s the primary cultural understanding of what witches are and it’s perfectly valid for a work of fiction to work with that definition. The whole pseudo-neo-Wiccan thing was invented later and its understanding of the words witch and coven are part of a subcultural jargon that have little to do with the general understanding of those words.