DVD

The men in my little girl's life

By July 15, 2009No Comments

Repulsion #1

Last week Jeffrey Wells pos­ted a bit of a sneak pre­view of Criterion’s upcom­ing DVD and Blu-ray disc of Roman Polanski’s fab­ulous 1965 Repulsion, and I was kind of amused by the “two cents” put in by one com­menter: “[Catherine] Deneuve’s char­ac­ter is kind of a drippy pain in the ass.” It’s funny, because, you know, he sounds exactly like an American ver­sion of one of the male char­ac­ters in the film itself!

 

More than just a tale of mad­ness, Repulsion is the story of a woman who breaks apart under the weight of sex­ist oppres­sion that better-adjusted females con­tend with and largely shrug off on a day-to-day basis. I’ll leave it to oth­ers to rumin­ate on the irony of Polanski hav­ing made not one, but two of the best, most sens­it­ive pic­tures about how a pat­ri­arch­al soci­ety can crush women: this one and Tess, filmed in 1979 after Polanski’s depar­ture from the United States.

 

The cracked por­cel­ain beauty of Deneuve’s Carol is fas­cin­at­ingly refrac­ted by the vari­et­ies of ugli­ness embod­ied by the film’s male char­ac­ters, all of whose por­traits are etched in acid. You’d almost think Polanski was man-bashing or something! 

 

Gentle read­ers, meet…

 

Construction worker
Mike Pratt as “The Workman

This rough and ready sort, stand­ing out­side a tent that leads to the under­ground lair where he does his mys­ter­i­ous toil, ogles Carol as she hur­ries through a London inter­sec­tion, drawl­ing “How about a bit of the oth­er, then?” He will return in Carol’s night­mares and day­mares of rape and viol­a­tion later in the film.

 

Michael
Ian Hendrie as “Michael”

The boy­friend of Carol’s sis­ter Helen (Yvonne Furneaux). A smug, faux-sophisticated, peev­ish pig­let who refers to Carol as “Cinderella.” Rude bas­tard: takes up all the shelf space in the bath­room and leaves his tooth­brush in Carol’s water glass. Also, he should grow some fuck­ing hair. Bonus points: Sorry, girls, he’s married!

Colin
James Villiers, John Fraser, and Hugh Futcher as “John,” “Colin,” and “Reggie.”

Colin, cen­ter, is the over-eager drip in obli­vi­ous pur­suit of Carol. Completely clue­less about, or per­haps merely crassly indif­fer­ent to, her deteri­or­at­ing men­tal state, his idea of turn­ing on the charm is to say things like “You really make me feel wanted.” Clearly, his time would be bet­ter spent audi­tion­ing for The Dave Clark Five. Colin’s mates, John and Reggie, don’t have any inter­ac­tion with Carol (lucky for her…and them), but are full of manly encour­age­ment and advice for their pal. “Still keep­ing her lags crossed?” John enquires of the young woman he refers to as “Little Miss Muffet.” The above pub com­mis­er­a­tion reaches a cli­max of sort when John recom­mends that Colin invite Carol over to Reggie’s place so the three of them can gang-rape her. Nice. As for Colin, he con­tin­ues his petu­lant pul­ing until Carol, shall we say, makes it stop. You’ll be hor­ri­fied, but strangely relieved.

LandlordPatrick Wymark as “The Landlord”

As much as Carol may not have it togeth­er, sis­ter Helen’s a bit of a fuck-up too, neg­lect­ing to pay the rent for an unspe­cified peri­od and then rolling her eyes and com­plain­ing that their land­lord only ever thinks of money after he calls look­ing for it. That’s what land­lords do, honey. Helen pulls it togeth­er and hands the rent money to Carol before going off on hol­i­day with the charm­ing Michael, but Carol gets a…little pre­oc­cu­pied, and for­gets to walk it over. So, soon enough, the land­lord comes to pay a visit. 

He’s not impressed with what Carol’s done with the place in her sis­ter­’s absence. There’s the wooden board she’s nailed to the front door in an effort to dis­cour­age vis­it­ors, for one thing. “You’re dam­aging the prop­erty,” he notes. And then there’s that rab­bit. “It’s like a pig­sty,” he says, under­stand­ably appalled. And for all that he still comes on to Carol any­way! Men really are something.

And, finally, there’s “Daddy.” But reveal­ing him would be a bit of a spoil­er, actually.

No Comments

  • Allen Belz says:

    Colin was def­in­itely the one that killed me (so to speak). Clueless is part of his thing, manip­u­lat­ive is anoth­er, but half-clueless in his manip­u­la­tion, as if he’s doing and say­ing all the stuff he’s been told to say to make her go for him, so why isn’t she going for him? Guyyyy! So per­fect a spe­ci­men of the fella-hood of the time that he barely seems to be acting.

  • Allen Belz says:

    Forgot to add that there does seem to be an under­cur­rent of actu­al human­ity in him…that’s inter­ested in Carol, would hon­estly like to know more about her, and would even like to per­haps slough off his hor­rible bud­dies. But it’s so hope­lessly enmeshed in all the soci­et­al mes­sages and pres­sures its actions and desires emerge on the sur­face all fucked-up.

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    That’s true, Allen. But he’s also objec­ti­fied her so thor­oughly that he takes her genu­ine men­tal dis­turb­ance for hard-to-get coyness.

  • Allen Belz says:

    Agreed, definitely…a product of those afore­men­tioned mes­sages and pres­sures. In ten years time he may’ve “pro­gressed” to the “Women…such mys­ter­i­ous creatures” stage of objectivification.

  • Fabian W. says:

    Glenn: So you think (SPOILER) that her fath­er abused or raped her as a child? And that this is the root of her men­tal break­down? Because that’s what I thought, too, but could­n’t find ‘proof’ anywhere…in German lit­er­at­ure, at least. They just noted her ’empty stare’ even as a girl.

  • Genn Kenny says:

    @ F.W.: Let’s say I con­sider that a reas­on­able surmise…

  • Fabian W. says:

    @ Glenn: What else, right? They were prob­ably just busy try­ing to find a reas­on to write about the Manson murders instead of the actu­al movie.

  • Campaspe says:

    I actu­ally think Rosemary’s Baby has a great deal to say about the infant­il­iz­a­tion of women dur­ing preg­nancy. When I was preg­nant the last time, I was startled to find that it was the one movie that really GOT preg­nancy and was will­ing to con­front all the things that women hardly even admit to themselves–the fears that beset you, the feel­ing of being out of con­trol, the way every­body pats you on the head and tells you it will be all right, the way you mon­it­or every little phys­ic­al mani­fest­a­tion. I was expect­ing you to name that one and not Tess, truth be told.
    Repulsion, when I saw it, struck me as a not-terribly-interesting take on women’s sexu­al­ity. WAIT – before you boot me off the blog forever, let me say that you’ve con­vinced me I need to see it again and pay more atten­tion to the male characters.

  • Campaspe says:

    Come to think of it, this movie also makes an inter­est­ing pendant to the one being dis­cussed just below …

  • Sara says:

    People tend to get side­tracked by Polanski’s per­son­al life when view­ing his female char­ac­ters. They throw the miso­gyny label around without really artic­u­lat­ing what they mean. It’s really nice to read an actu­al cri­tique of his films from a some­what fem­in­ist per­spect­ive. So, thank you! Polanski is my favor­ite film­maker and I’ve always found his female char­ac­ters, espe­cially the cent­ral fig­ures like Carole, Tess, Rosemary, and Paulina, to be authen­t­ic mar­tyrs and/or sur­viv­ors to their sep­ar­ate situ­ations. Polanski puts all of his char­ac­ters through hell, but his female char­ac­ters are almost spe­cific­ally cre­ated to show exactly what you said: “how a pat­ri­arch­al soci­ety can crush women.” I’m look­ing for­ward to buy­ing Repulsion on blu-ray as soon as I can.

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    @ Sara: Thanks, it’s nice to know I’m not grop­ing in the dark on this.
    @ Campaspe: You’ll have to try harder to get booted off this blog! I’m kick­ing myself for not includ­ing the great “Rosemary’s Baby” in my con­sid­er­a­tion of Polanski’s women, and I do look for­ward to learn­ing of what you make of “Repulsion” when you revis­it it. This thread has got me think­ing that I ought to look into the power dynam­ics of “Knife In The Water” again…This is, when you get right down to it, one of the more fas­cin­at­ing top­ics in late-20th-century cinema!..

  • partisan says:

    Ah, Polanski, the anti-Ford (much as James Cameron is the anti-Ozu). Claustrophobia, intim­ate betray­al, people doing the right thing and so not get­ting rewar­ded for it: you could say that “The Pianist” is his most gen­er­ous ver­sion of com­munity. After all, it’s not Warsaw that’s mak­ing Adrien Brody’s life miser­able. It’s the fact that the city is being sys­tem­at­ic­ally oblit­er­ated through­out the movie that’s his prob­lem. And at the end, a whole con­cert hall full of Poles applauds him! Anyway, it’s nice to know that someone likes “Tess.” It’s one of my favor­ite movies, though appar­ently no-one else’s.

  • Allen Belz says:

    As I recall, KITW was filled with plenty of them­at­ic juice as well. Might have to rewatch that one again myself.

  • Allen Belz says:

    OK, dam­mit, due to the price of the Blu-Ray being identic­al to the DVD and see­ing that the prices of play­ers are reach­ing reas­on­able levels I’m…yes, I’m mak­ing the switch. Of course it won’t make that much dif­fer­ence at the moment as my TV’s the same old one I’ve had for 10 or so years, but…