Rosemary's Baby - Book vs Movie
Tony Whitaker
most significant differences between the book and the movie. I may be wrong
about some of these differences. I was going by memory of the movie, and I
haven't rewatched it yet with list-in-hand. As some have told me, none of
the differences are of much importance except those at the end where the
baby is fully described, and we find out what happens right after the last
scene in the movie. Most of the book, though, is identical to the movie,
right down to the dialog. Even little details, like when Minnie tells
Rosemary "It's just plain ordinary Lipton's tea." and Rosemary seeing her
reflection in the chromed toaster while eating the raw chicken heart, are
identical. The dream sequence is identical, although there is explanation of
what Rosemary understands about what we we see in her dream.
Anyway - here's my list if anyone's interested:
Difference 1
At the beginning of the book, Guy and Rosemary have just signed a lease on a
modern 5 room flat that neither really likes. They've been on a waiting list
for a long time to get into the Bramford. The day after signing the lease,
they learn there's an opening at the "Bram". To get out of the lease, Guy
makes up a story about needing to substitute for a fellow actor who's beome
ill while performing for the troops in Vietnam. Guy is the only one who
knows the part and can step in to keep the show going. Otherwise, the show
would have to be postponed for 2 weeks "which would be a damn shame the way
those kids are slogging away over there against the commies.". "Come Blow
Your Horn" is the name of the USO production.
Difference 2
Rosemary is from Omaha, Nebraska.
Difference 3
Rosemary and Guy have dinner with Hutch at a Restaurant. They have dinner
together about once a month, and alternate between restaurants (when Hutch
treats) and Guy's apartment.
Difference 4
Mr. Miklas, the man who shows the apartment, is missing fingers.
Difference 5
Hutch, who Ro and Guy used as a reference, tells them he considered
sabotaging their lease by telling the renters they are drug addicts and
litterbugs because he thought it a mistake to live in the Bram. He suggests
they go to other gothic apartments like the Dakota or Osborne instead.
Difference 6
Guy does not mention marijuana when they're looking at the herbs.
Difference 7
Rosemary thinks Terry is Anna Maria Alberghetti. Terry says Ro looks like
Piper Laurie. Ro says Guy used to date Piper Laurie.
Difference 8
The Castevets are reclusive and seldom seen. Ro meets many of the other
neighbors first.
Difference 9
Guy has a recurring part on "Another World" and makes a significant amount
of money from Anacin commercials in which he's appeared.
Difference 10
Roman is tall and thin. Minnie is "broad", her "thighs were massive, slabbed
with wide bands of fat.".
Difference 11
Ro is estranged from her family. They are unhappy about her marriage to a
protestant whose mother divorced twice and then married a Jew living in
Canada.
Difference 12
The day before "baby night", Ro gets a call from her sister who's had a
terrible feeling all day that Ro had been in an accident or some other bad
event.
Difference 13
The Pope actually visits NY. Ro doesn't go out to see him. Her mom and dad
had considered flying to NY to see him.
Difference 14
It's more clear in the book that Ro is extremely upset about Guy choosing to
"not miss baby night". She goes to Hutch's apartment to ask if she may use
his cabin for a week. Hutch says "no problem" and even lets her borrow his
car. She drives to the cabin and stays there alone for 3 days before
contacting anyone.
Difference 15
Hutch's funeral takes place in an auditorium. Rosemary does not arrive just
as everyone is leaving. She is there for the whole service. It is a short
service.
Difference 16
Statement made by Rosemary regarding all them "witches": "I'm not saying
they're really witches. I know they haven't got real power. But there are
people who do believe, even if we don't; just the way my family believes God
hears their prayers...".
Difference 17
Hutch underlined in All of Them Witches the following sentence: "The
stubborn fact remains that whether or not we believe, they assuredly do.".
Difference 18
Hutch's friend who at the funeral gives Rosemary All of Them Witches says to
her "he seemed to fight his way out of the coma and then die of the
effort.".
Difference 19
Rosemary's suspicions about Guy are confirmed when she happens to run into
Guy's friend while out walking. This is the friend who Guy said had given
him the tickets to "The Fantastiks". Ro thanks him for the tickets, and he
replies (in general) "I don't know what you're talking about". She realizes
then that Guy had lied about the source of the tickets, and probably just
wanted to get her out of the house so he could engage in some kind of
initiation ceremony with the witches. She also wonders how Guy knew that Dr
Shand, who played the recorder in her dream, played it in real life. (Also,
I don't recall hearing the recorder - or flute - playing during the chanting
in the movie, or Guy making any comment about it).
Difference 20
Rosemary realizes that the black candles Hutch had seen during his visit to
her new apartment, that Roman and Minnie had brought over and which Hutch
asked about, were a major clue that led Hutch to the witch idea. She reads
about black candles in All of Them Witches .
Difference 21
Rosemary stuffs the pills between the mattess and the box spring. She puts
all 8 pills she collected into Clare's coffee after asking her to go make a
cheese sandwich for her. This quickly puts Clare to sleep, freeing Ro to go
investigate the crying she hears.
Difference 22
Rosemary deduces that there must be a passage between the apartments because
she knows the door was chained that night she escaped from Guy and Dr
Sapirstein after returning from her visit with Dr Hill. There was no other
way for them to get in, and the linen closet was the most likely place for a
passage.
Difference 23
Guy does not return while Rosemary gets the kitchen knife, and she does not
need to quickly hide from him or anyone else before crossing through the
passage.
Difference 24
The baby looks normal to Rosemary until he opens his eyes. The baby's eyes
were "golden-yellow, all golden-yellow, with neither whites nor irises; all
golden-yellow with vertical black-slit pupils.".
Difference 25
In response to Rosemary's comment "It can't be!", Minnie says "Go look at
his hands and his feet.". Laura-Louise says "And his tail.". Minnie says
"And the buds of his horns.".
Difference 26
Rosemary's breast milk is greenish and smells faintly of tannis root.
Difference 27
Roman thinks Rosemary killed Clare, and offers to fix things so she won't be
punished if she'll be the baby's mother. She says "I didn't kill her. I just
gave her pills. She's asleep.".
Difference 28
Rosemary reasons that because the baby is only half satan - she being the
other half - she may be able to raise the baby against evil.
Difference 29
While Ro is rocking the baby, Dr Sapirstein approaches. Ro says "Go away or
I'm going to spit in your face.".
Difference 30
Rosemary comments repeatedly that the baby looks "worried".
Difference 31
While Rosemary watches the baby, she starts talking to him sweetly. She
tries to make him more comfortable, and calls him "Mr Worryface". The coven
gathers around and starts shouting "Hail Rosemary".
Difference 32
Roman says "Hail Rosemary, mother of Adrian!". Ro replies "It's Andrew.
Andrew John Woodhouse.". Roman objects, declaring it to be Adrian Steven. Ro
says "His name is Andrew John. He's my child, not yours...". Minnie, takes
Rosemary's side by saying "Hail Andrew!". Everyone else chimes in with
chants of "hail Andrew" and "hail Rosemary, mother of Andrew".
Eldritch
> I finished reading "Rosemary's Baby", and wrote down what struck me as the
> most significant differences between the book and the movie.
I remember the movie and book well. Distant memories to be sure, but
fond ones, nonetheless. Enjoyed them both. Glad to see they're both
being appreciated today.
So do you think the book's view of God is as valid today as it was back
then? As the movie was still playing in theaters, the cover of Time
magazine was solid black with red lettering asking, "Is God Dead?"
E
JMKAUFFMAN
>magazine was solid black with red lettering asking, "Is God Dead?"
Actually, isn't that directly referenced in either the book or the movie? It's
been years since I've read/seen either, but I'm pretty sure that Time was from
1966 or 1967 and is mentioned in the book, and it seems to me Ro picks up a
copy of the magazine when she's in the waiting room of the Doctor at one point.
I could be making this all up, of course... :)
The Truth About Frances Farmer:
http://hometown.aol.com/jmkauffman/sheddinglight.html
Tony Whitaker
news:2tdmk0F...@uni-berlin.de...
> I remember the movie and book well. Distant memories to be sure, but
> fond ones, nonetheless. Enjoyed them both. Glad to see they're both
> being appreciated today.
> So do you think the book's view of God is as valid today as it was back
> then? As the movie was still playing in theaters, the cover of Time
> magazine was solid black with red lettering asking, "Is God Dead?"
If you've read my other comments about "Rosemary's Baby", you know that I
can only like the movie - and I do like the movie alot - if all supernatural
elements are removed from it. And, of course, everything supernatural in the
movie is only implied, never explicitly shown or described. So, in my view
of the story, there's no "view of God" expressed. There's only the idea that
some people would like to create an anti-God, but their delusions are not
real.
I prefer the way Polanski did it. He left the question unanswered about
whether the baby was really the son of satan. I guess you could think from
the book that the clawed hands and feet, the horn buds, the yellow eyes, and
the tail were deformities caused by the strange herb drinks, tannis root,
and white cakes that Minnie fed to Rosemary, but that many things makes it
harder to believe. In the movie, all we know about the baby is that there's
something peculiar-looking about the baby's eyes. Because Rosemary is the
only trustworthy character in the movie (well, except for Hutch), everything
the others say is subject to doubt. Whatever it is that is "wierd" about the
baby's eyes could reasonably be thought to be a human-induced deformity or
mutilation. In the movie, when Rosemary says "it can't be", the flat
expression on Miinnie's face looks almost defensive when she says "look at
his hands" and makes me think she knows it isn't real, that they've done
something physical to the child's hands and feet to fool people into
believing their story. The tail isn't mentioned in the movie. I prefer to
think that the "coven" is trying to create a "truth", but that it's all
fake. They use poisons, not magical spells, to put people into comas. They
use a network of conspirators to pull strings that help Guy get his breaks,
not magic. The child is different-looking because they've fostered his
prenatal development in a peculiar way that, perhaps known from ancient but
lost discoveries about certian herbs and natural consumables, results in
deformity.
It's harder to see the book this way, but not impossible.
Tony Whitaker
news:20041016195104...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> Actually, isn't that directly referenced in either the book or the movie?
> It's
> been years since I've read/seen either, but I'm pretty sure that Time was
> from
> 1966 or 1967 and is mentioned in the book, and it seems to me Ro picks up
> a
> copy of the magazine when she's in the waiting room of the Doctor at one
> point.
> I could be making this all up, of course... :)
Yes. You are exactly right. The Time magazine "God is Dead" issue is
mentioned in the book, and I'm quite sure you're also right about when it is
mentioned - Rosemary sees it in Dr Hill's office. In the movie, and in the
book, at the end after Rosemary enters the adjacent apartment through the
secret passage, Roman shouts "God is dead! The year is 1!", or something
like that. I don't think the Time magazine is actually shown in the movie,
but I could be wrong.
Tony Whitaker
news:3fjcd.7382$SZ5...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "JMKAUFFMAN" <jmkau...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
> news:20041016195104...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> could be wrong.
I was wrong. I just watched it in the movie. It's in Dr Sapirstein's office
before Rosemary goes to Dr Hill and while she still thinks Sapirstein is
trustworthy - just before she learns that Sapirstein wears cologne that
smells like tannis root. The Time magaizine is shown closeup in the movie.
It fills the screen. The title, BTW, is a question, not a statement: "Is God
Dead?".
Tony Whitaker
> then?
I was just thinking, after watching the movie again, "wouldn't it be ironic
(not funny) if my personal disbelief in the existence of satan was proved
wrong because satan's existence occurs in the minds of men who want him to
exist:, and that satan's existence occurs because man created him".
Tony Whitaker
There's one difference I forgot to mention:
Difference 33:
In the book, Roman tells a story about how his father, who was known to be a
satanist, was forced to sleep in the stables after seeking shelter at a
hotel (IIRC, in Scotland) during a trip. This explains Roman's comment at
the end of the movie, which has always struck me, "he (Rosemary's baby)
shall seek vengeance for the despised and the tortured" (or something like
that). It has always struck me how that line makes satan sound heroic.
Tony Whitaker
news:_7dcd.6266$NX5....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
I watched the movie again and made note of the following facts.
Also, I noticed something I never had before. In the scene where Rosemary
first shows Guy the book "All of Them Witches", Ro and Guy walk down the
hallway toward the secret passage and turn into their bedroom. As they do
so, there's a definite dot of bright light in the middle of the linen
clostet door, as if there's a peep hole through which light is shining from
the other side. Is this a subliminal clue for the audience? If you've seen
alot of Polanski films, you surely know he's fond of peep holes.
> Difference 2
> Rosemary is from Omaha, Nebraska.
I was wrong about this one. She's from Omaha in the movie, too.
> Difference 4
> Mr. Miklas, the man who shows the apartment, is missing fingers.
In the movie, Mr. Miklas definitely has all his fingers.
> Difference 7
> Rosemary thinks Terry is Anna Maria Alberghetti. Terry says Ro looks like
> Piper Laurie. Ro says Guy used to date Piper Laurie.
In the movie, Rosemary tells terry she looks like Victoria Vetri, which is
the real name of the actress who plays Terry.
> Difference 13
> The Pope actually visits NY. Ro doesn't go out to see him. Her mom and dad
> had considered flying to NY to see him.
I was wrong about this one, too. In the movie, Guy sees the Pope on TV at
Yankee Stadium.
> Difference 14
> It's more clear in the book that Ro is extremely upset about Guy choosing
> to "not miss baby night". She goes to Hutch's apartment to ask if she may
> use his cabin for a week. Hutch says "no problem" and even lets her borrow
> his car. She drives to the cabin and stays there alone for 3 days before
> contacting anyone.
In the movie, Rosemary visits Hutch at Hutch's apartment **before** "baby
night".
> Difference 19
> Rosemary's suspicions about Guy are confirmed when she happens to run into
> Guy's friend while out walking. This is the friend who Guy said had given
> him the tickets to "The Fantastiks". Ro thanks him for the tickets, and he
> replies (in general) "I don't know what you're talking about". She
> realizes then that Guy had lied about the source of the tickets, and
> probably just wanted to get her out of the house so he could engage in
> some kind of initiation ceremony with the witches.
If this had occurred in the movie, it would have occurred just before
Rosemary drops Terry's charm necklace into the storm sewer, which is exactly
what she does in the book.
> She also wonders how Guy knew that Dr Shand, who played the recorder in
> her dream, played it in real life. (Also, I don't recall hearing the
> recorder - or flute - playing during the chanting in the movie, or Guy
> making any comment about it).
The sound of the recorder does appear in the movie, it just isn't very
melodious or noticeable. It sounds almost like squeaky disc brakes.
> Difference 25
> In response to Rosemary's comment "It can't be!", Minnie says "Go look at
> his hands and his feet.". Laura-Louise says "And his tail.". Minnie says
> "And the buds of his horns.".
In the movie, Minnie says "look at his feet", Laura-Louise says "and his
feet", and there is no mention of a tail or horn buds.
> Difference 27
> Roman thinks Rosemary killed Clare, and offers to fix things so she won't
> be punished if she'll be the baby's mother. She says "I didn't kill her. I
> just gave her pills. She's asleep.".
In the movie, Clare is neither dead nor asleep. She wasn't even the one
watching over Rosemary - Laura-Louise watched her. Clare appears several
times in the group of witches in the Castevet's apartment at the end of the
movie.
Eldritch
>>As the movie was still playing in theaters, the cover of Time
>>magazine was solid black with red lettering asking, "Is God Dead?"
>
>
> Actually, isn't that directly referenced in either the book or the movie? It's
> been years since I've read/seen either, but I'm pretty sure that Time was from
> 1966 or 1967 and is mentioned in the book, and it seems to me Ro picks up a
> copy of the magazine when she's in the waiting room of the Doctor at one point.
> I could be making this all up, of course... :)
Yeh. I think you're right.
E
Eldritch
> "Tony Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:_7dcd.6266$NX5....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> There's one difference I forgot to mention:
>
>...It has always struck me how that line makes satan sound heroic.
>
>
To the Satanists, Satan *would* be heroic. And if you think about
it, we *have* treated him and his devotees rather badly. I'm sure
he'd want to get even.
Remember, history is written by the victors. If Hitler had won the
war, today we'd be taught that Roosevelt was a bad guy. By the same
token, watch any western made in the 50's. Weren't the Indians always
evil savages?
E
Eldritch
>
>
> If you've read my other comments about "Rosemary's Baby", you know that I
> can only like the movie - and I do like the movie alot - if all supernatural
> elements are removed from it. And, of course, everything supernatural in the
> movie is only implied, never explicitly shown or described. So, in my view
> of the story, there's no "view of God" expressed. There's only the idea that
> some people would like to create an anti-God, but their delusions are not
> real.
>
> I prefer the way Polanski did it. He left the question unanswered about
> whether the baby was really the son of satan.
He directed a great movie, no doubt. But which is scarier? a hand
full of nuts doing weird stuff or learning that Satan is real and his
anti-christ has entered the world? A handful of nuts or looming
Armageddon?
I think learning that Satan was real at the end of the movie is what
gave it it's punch. The ambiguity leading up to that disclosure gave
the movie a lot of it's tension. What would the movie be about if at
the end, we only discover Mini and Roman are lunatics? The movie would
end with Rosemary walking over to her physically deformed baby.... and
what? Nothing really. She doesn't grab the baby and run off with him
as she intended. He's not rescued. No one's upset that she's there.
They welcome her. "Hail, Rosemary, Mother of Satan!" Does she become a
lunatic herself? What is there?
But as it is, she begins the movie as a gd fearing woman who eventually
becomes the mother of the Anti-christ and joins the Satanists.
Remember, in the book at least, she begins playing with the baby by
swinging the "silver ornament" dangling in his crib. The book called
it an ornament (or something like that) in the last paragraph, but
earlier it had been described as an upside down crucifix, the sign of
the anti-christ. Her conversion to the dark side is what gave the
story punch.
E
Tony Whitaker
> Tony Whitaker wrote:
> He directed a great movie, no doubt. But which is scarier? a hand full
> of nuts doing weird stuff or learning that Satan is real and his
> anti-christ has entered the world? A handful of nuts or looming
> Armageddon?
Well, I guess if I **could** believe that, it would be scarier. But I simply
don't have a brain that can take that scenario seriously. If that had been
the clear and only interpretation of the movie, I'd hate the movie. However,
there is a third option that I mentioned in my other post - the idea that
satan is real, but not supernatural at all. He's a mortal creation of man.
The lunatics have, literally, created satan. Or at least they plan to. I
think a wonderful story could be written about the baby growing up under the
influence of the lunatics who want him to be satan. Could he overcome such
brainwashing that starts from birth? In this scenario, just because satan is
not a being with supernatural powers doesn't mean that this mortal satan
isn't a very frightening presence in the world.
> But as it is, she begins the movie as a gd fearing woman who eventually
> becomes the mother of the Anti-christ and joins the Satanists. Remember,
> in the book at least, she begins playing with the baby by swinging the
> "silver ornament" dangling in his crib. The book called it an ornament
> (or something like that) in the last paragraph, but earlier it had been
> described as an upside down crucifix, the sign of the anti-christ. Her
> conversion to the dark side is what gave the story punch.
The book says she plans to raise the child against the witches. As I
mentioned, she reasons in the book that because the baby is only half satan,
maybe, with her help and love, the baby can be diverted from the path the
witches have in mind. She never converts "to the dark side".
Tony Whitaker
> Remember, history is written by the victors. If Hitler had won the war,
> today we'd be taught that Roosevelt was a bad guy.
Oh, don't go there. Sometimes, the victors write the truth. The allies did
so for the most part after WW2. Yes, if Hitler had won, he'd have ensured
that Roosevelt got defined as evil. But that would have been a lie.
Fortunately, the allies won, and they wrote the truth about Hitler being
evil. The victors write history, yes, but the good victors don't lie about
it.
Eldritch
> Well, I guess if I **could** believe that, it would be scarier. But I simply
> don't have a brain that can take that scenario seriously. If that had been
> the clear and only interpretation of the movie, I'd hate the movie. However,
> there is a third option that I mentioned in my other post - the idea that
> satan is real, but not supernatural at all. He's a mortal creation of man.
> The lunatics have, literally, created satan. Or at least they plan to. I
> think a wonderful story could be written about the baby growing up under the
> influence of the lunatics who want him to be satan. Could he overcome such
> brainwashing that starts from birth? In this scenario, just because satan is
> not a being with supernatural powers doesn't mean that this mortal satan
> isn't a very frightening presence in the world.
I don't believe in Satan either. It's just a movie. Suspension of
disbelief and all that. Let yourself go wit the flow, at least within
the running time of the film. Spider man can't really stick to walls
either, but while the movie's still on, I go with it. Imagination and
escapism. That's why people like movies.
> The book says she plans to raise the child against the witches. As I
> mentioned, she reasons in the book that because the baby is only half satan,
> maybe, with her help and love, the baby can be diverted from the path the
> witches have in mind. She never converts "to the dark side".
She's in denial. She just fooling herself. She's been their dupe from
the beginning. Nothing she did even slowed them down over the entire 9
months she was pregnant. She's fully under their control. That's why
no one got upset when she showed up among them in the last scene. She
just doesn't accept it yet.
You know there was a sequel, don't you? It was a lousy movie, but it
dealt with the question, what if the baby didn't want to be the
anti-christ? Could Rosemary have any influence on him for the good?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074815/
E
Eldritch
Right. Hitler was a bad guy. No argument there. And the history
we're all taught is truthful there. But is our own history truthful
about everything?
What did our own history teach us about the American Indian until about
10 years ago? Was it truthful that they were just ignorant savages who
deserved to lose their land? Was imprisoning them on reservations good
for them? Trail of Tears mean anything to you? What did our own
history teach about that for the first 200 years of our country?
How about the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans in World War II? How
about the Tusked Experiment or our history of dealing with minorities,
African-American, Mexican, anybody who wasn't white?
It's easy to portray Hitler as a creep because he was the enemy. It's
harder to be completely truthful about our own flaws. General Custer:
Hero or villain? Often when you tell the ugly truth about ourselves,
others may not want to hear it. You get called names, unpatriotic,
communist, love it or leave it.
You said the "good victors" tell the truth. I've lived too long.
Believe me, no one tells the truth, not the whole truth. McCarthyism.
What are we teaching our kids about why we went into Viet Nam? Is it
anything like what Robert McNamara said in "Fog of War?" I honestly
don't know, but somehow I doubt it.
Anyway. Don't get my wrong. I'm a patriotic American. I like
America. There's no other place I'd rather be. I like the constitution
and think it does a good job. You add the plusses and minuses together
and I think our country comes out pretty positive. But there are still
flaws. And if you're going to be honest with yourself, then you
acknowledge them. But don't count on others doing that. That's why
victors write black and white histories.
Besides, we're talking about a movie, and I'm pretty sure Roman and
Minnie would write things that put Satan in a favorable light.
E
Tony Whitaker
> I don't believe in Satan either. It's just a movie. Suspension of
> disbelief and all that. Let yourself go wit the flow, at least within the
> running time of the film. Spider man can't really stick to walls either,
> but while the movie's still on, I go with it. Imagination and escapism.
> That's why people like movies.
There are many reasons why people like movies, but some movies, I think,
rise to the level of art. "Rosemary's Baby" is one of those movies IMO, and
I think a reason it's better than most is because you can't shrug it off 30
minutes after watching it. It is not just escapism. It has depth that keeps
the imagination working, filling in blanks, developing ideas, and thinking
about all the different ways to perceive it. "Spider Man" might be fun, but
it doesn't make you think about anything important. How many times can you
watch it without getting sick of it? If Godzilla was real and might come
rampaging through your city tomorrow, that would be a terrifying thought;
but who over the age of 8 can hold that idea in their brain for 10 seconds
without laughing their ass off?
I'm glad Polanski made the movie so that my interpretation (that the baby is
mortal, mentally normal, but physically deformed) can live. Here's a flight
my imagination has taken with "Rosemary's Baby". I've imagined what might
have happened in Roman's (Steven's) family history that led him to be who he
is. Perhaps his great great grandmother was burned at the stake (remember
Roman's line in the movie "He shall seek vengeance for the burned and the
tortured!") because she was called a witch and blamed for causing some kind
of deformity in Roman's great grandfather. Perhaps that was the seed of
hatred, and the defining moment that created a desire in the Marcato family
to destroy the Christian religion. Let's call the great great grandfather
Addison and the great grandfather Aiden. Addison begat Aiden, and Aiden
begat Adrian, who begat Steven (Roman).
"Addison had pleaded for weeks for mercy for his wife. His tears had now all
dried up. All around him stood the Christians, holding crosses, holding
Bibles, pointing to heaven; and, in the center, his love was burning alive.
No tears flowed down his cheeks now, because only anger filled his soul.
"Today, they torture my wife to death, and tomorrow they will gather in
their church, when my sweet wife's charred bones lay cool upon the ashes of
her burned flesh, and they'll talk of god's love. What fools they are to let
me and my son live, for I now seek vengeance. I will destroy this evil
religion, the product of which I watch now in the flames.".
The truth was that Elizabeth was not a witch, and the genetic abnormality
that had caused Aiden's deformity was on the father's side. Addison raised
Aiden with a deep hatred of Christians, and told Aiden every horrid detail
of his mother's violent death at their hands. The seeds of a new religion
were being sown, a religion to replace Christianity. The goal of this
religion was to bring into the world the anti-Christ - satan - and the
religion's founder wished to be the progenitor of this world-changing
offspring. Two things conspired, though, to dash Addison's plans.
First, although Adrian Marcato was raised with the same seething hatred of
Christians as was Aiden; and although Addison and Aiden had hoped to call
Adrian satan; not only did few people believe the gentle-looking Adrian to
be evil incarnate, Adrian himself found as he grew older that he could not
believe it himself.
Second, Adrian's only male child Steven was infertile.
Though Steven's infertility was a crushing blow, the Marcato family was not
about to give up, and stupidity was not a family trait. They had learned
that thoughts weren't enough to make satan. The anti-Christ must LOOK like
satan, not only to convince the world but to convince the name-holder
himself. If ever a doubt entered the child's mind about his true nature,
he'd need reinforcement from the mirror. And the inculcation of this persona
must begin so early that satan would never have any mental handle with which
he could disrobe from it."
I think that little story I wrote is thoroughly believable - and quite
frightening - without an ounce of anything supernatural.
> You know there was a sequel, don't you? It was a lousy movie, but it
> dealt with the question, what if the baby didn't want to be the
> anti-christ? Could Rosemary have any influence on him for the good?
No. I did not know that. I did see that Levin wrote a sequel - "Son of
Rosemary" IIRC - when I was looking for the book at the used book store. So
the sequel is bad? I probably won't watch it. I'll look it up on IMDB.com
and then decide whether or not to see it.
Eldritch
> There are many reasons why people like movies, but some movies, I think,
> rise to the level of art. "Rosemary's Baby" is one of those movies IMO, and
> I think a reason it's better than most is because you can't shrug it off 30
> minutes after watching it. It is not just escapism. It has depth that keeps
> the imagination working, filling in blanks, developing ideas, and thinking
> about all the different ways to perceive it. "Spider Man" might be fun, but
> it doesn't make you think about anything important. How many times can you
> watch it without getting sick of it? If Godzilla was real and might come
> rampaging through your city tomorrow, that would be a terrifying thought;
> but who over the age of 8 can hold that idea in their brain for 10 seconds
> without laughing their ass off?
Nicely put. Some things are good. Some things are really good. Some
things have meaning. Rosemary was a good movie. Polanski was a good
director. Did some good movies. Chinatown comes to mind.
> I'm glad Polanski made the movie so that my interpretation (that the baby is
> mortal, mentally normal, but physically deformed) can live.
Well, that's good too. Perhaps The Matrix was similar in that way.
Specific enough to be intriguing; vague enough to allow alternative
interpretations.
> Here's a flight
> my imagination has taken with "Rosemary's Baby".
Nicely done. It works.
> No. I did not know that. I did see that Levin wrote a sequel - "Son of
> Rosemary" IIRC - when I was looking for the book at the used book store.
Really? Didn't know about Levin's sequel. I'll check it out.
> So
> the sequel is bad? I probably won't watch it. I'll look it up on IMDB.com
> and then decide whether or not to see it.
Yeh. Pretty bad.
E
Eldritch
>
> ... Levin wrote a sequel - "Son of
> Rosemary" IIRC - when I was looking for the book at the used book store. So
> the sequel is bad? I probably won't watch it. I'll look it up on IMDB.com
> and then decide whether or not to see it.
I've found that my local library has a copy. I may just run down to
pick it up. But I see from the customer reviews at Amazon.com, the
written sequel didn't go over very well either.
Have you read it? How'd it strike you?
E
Tony Whitaker
> I've found that my local library has a copy. I may just run down to pick
> it up. But I see from the customer reviews at Amazon.com, the written
> sequel didn't go over very well either.
> Have you read it? How'd it strike you?
No, I haven't read the sequel. I was reading about "Look What's Happened to
Rosemary's Baby" yesterday, and it's just too intriguing. Yes, it sounds
really stupid - even the name sounds stupid - but I've gotta watch it:)
Patty Duke as Rosemary. Ruth Gordon returns as Minnie Castevet. Roman is
played by Ray Milland!!! Tina Louise is in it - that's, of course, Ginger
from "Gilligan's Island".
I expect a laugh riot.
Tony Whitaker
> No, I haven't read the sequel.
Oh man! I just learned on Amazon that Ira Levin also wrote "The Stepford
Wives". I did not know that.
Tony Whitaker
> Oh man! I just learned on Amazon that Ira Levin also wrote "The Stepford
Oh man! He also wrote "A Kiss Before Dying", "The Boys from Brazil",
"Sliver", and "Deathtrap", all of which were made into movies. It looks like
the only book Levin wrote that was not made into a movie was his sequel to
"Rosemary's Baby".
Eldritch
A star-studded cast, for sure! Hard to see how that could go wrong.
Intriguing as hell.
E
Eldritch
Right. His two best probably.
E
ribbet
***SPOILERS FOR THE OMEN/THE SHINNING***
I agree with you, I like the ambiguity and the notion of what may
happen if someone believes in the supernatural, without it actually
being supernatural. I was always a little dissapointed with the scene
in The Shinning where Jack gets out of the locked pantry, because it
removes the ambiguity of whether or not the house is really a living
entity.
I always thought that The Omen would have been much better if at the
end, when Gregory Peck is killing his son, it was written so that he
realizes his son is not the anti-christ and that he realizes he got
caught up in other peoples madness. The supernatural aspects where
projected on some horrible coincedences, accelerated by his desent
into the insanity of the idea. Imagine the horror he would feel.
---Jay