FEATURE: Why Cracked Is Wrong About "Rosemary's Baby"

Bullshit.  That was the first word I thought while I read the Cracked article "4 Classic Horror Movies That Get More Love Than They Deserve."  The article is one of roughly 450,000 lists produced by Cracked, a pop-culture site notable for its endless internal battle between genuinely off-beat subjects and shallow, clickbaity presentation.  Cracked emphasizes countdowns and middle-school humor even as it de-emphasizes meaningful citations and cogent arguments.  Knowledge plays backup to jokes.  This is less a problem when the site's dealing with more absurd subjects, more troublesome when it's dealing with history or... say... classic cinema.

Two quick examples.  The "4 Classic Horror..." article culminates with a dressing-down of Brett Ratner's Red Dragon.  A film from a decade ago remembered mostly as a marginal improvement on preceding series chapter Hannibal.  Another example, when discussing The Ring...

I don't pay enough attention or do enough research to know if it started with this one in particular, but at some point around the late '90s or so, Hollywood fell in love with remaking Japanese horror films.

[Sidebar: it takes 60 seconds of Googling to determine that Asian horror remakes started in 2002 with The Ring.]

The most frustrating portion of this article, however, arrives early, as the entrance point for unworthy classics is Rosemary's Baby.  For those not in the know, Rosemary's Baby was produced in 1968, directed by Roman Polanski, based on the 1967 novel by Ira Levin - who also wrote The Stepford Wives, The Boys From Brazil, and A Kiss Before Dying.  To quote Walter Sobchak, not exactly a lightweight.  The story focuses on Rosemary, a newlywed and soon-to-be-expecting mother who suspects her nosy neighbors are involved with a cult.

Heralded upon release, Rosemary's Baby became an Oscar winner and a legacy horror film.  It earned high marks on AFI's 100 Thrills.  It foretold the coming of films like The Exorcist and The Omen and influenced a generation of "bad birth" movies.  A "classic" in every sense.  Loved then, loved now, cited constantly.  Which is to say, if someone's going to shoot the film down, the son of a bitch needs to be packing an elephant gun.  The Cracked article is more of a pea shooter.

The argument begins.

Even if you've never seen or heard of Rosemary's Baby, if you watch it today, you will figure out what's going on about 10 minutes into the movie...

A problem right away.  This criticism assumes that the filmmakers tried to put something over on the audience.  In fact, there was little doubt at the time of release as to what Rosemary's Baby was building towards.  Not only was the story available on bookshelves, but people knew the film's secret by concept alone.  As Roger Ebert notes in his 1968 review, "When the conclusion comes, it works not because it is a surprise but because it is horrifyingly inevitable."  Rosemary herself announces "This is no dream, this is really happening!" at the 45 minute mark, making clear to the viewer what she will forget when she wakes later.

This kind of storytelling obviously has the effect of taking away a traditional form of suspense, the kind in which viewers know only as much as the heroes (Shyamalan's Signs is a good example).  Rosemary's Baby replaces that familiar suspense with a more subsumed kind of dread - the dread of tragedy and dramatic irony, which comes from watching sympathetic heroes fall headfirst into an abyss they couldn't see and we couldn't miss.  And let's not even get into the paradox of suspense, the common phenomenon in which viewers still feel suspense despite knowing an outcome.  In short, knowing a story's destination doesn't divest us a priori of engagement.  There must be something else failing in Rosemary for this kind of attack to carry any weight.  But that "something else" is never mentioned.

And so the poor reasoning continues.

Oh! What about that scene where they finally reveal the baby, though? Right: For one thing, it's hard to even spot. If you've ever heard someone gush about the "baby scene" in that movie, allow me to shatter any perceptions of awesome you may have with this screenshot.

There's a deeper problem here, but let's address the most obvious error first: the demonic image in the climax is not the baby.  It's a flashback to Satan.  Specifically, the Satan from an earlier dream sequence.  Compare.

 Dream Satan.

Flashback Satan.

Not convinced?  Still might be her kid?  Nope.  Reason one: Rosemary steps away from the crib and looks up in realization of who the "father" is, clearly flashing back.

Reason two: the face we see is attached to a body that is visibly thrusting.

Ignoring the matter that the article can't differentiate between a baby and a turgid sexing demon, the bigger problem here is the misguided idea that the movie's ending is about seeing a monster-baby.  Wrong.  Polanski completely denies the viewer an image of Rosemary's child, emphasizing only its black, cloaked bassinet.  What he does show, in abundance, are the reactions.  Rosemary's crushing despair.  Guy's shame and evasion.  The conspirators' joy - an old lady chirps "Hail Satan!"

Which means that the horror we're supposed to glean from the ending is supposed to come from character, not image - emotion, not shock.  The "horror" isn't found in a demon baby, but in the more relatable and awful idea that everyone is against you, and that evil will win.

The last meaningful comment in the article states:

...why do people continue to recommend Rosemary's Baby as if it's some sort of essential watching in the "movies where the old people next door are Satanists" subgenre?

The answer to this question is simple.  The "movies where the old people next door are Satanists" is not a big subgenre.  If somebody doesn't at least name-check Rosemary's Baby, the goddamn founder of the sub-genre, then that person does not know what the word "essential" means.

This article's half-assed reasoning makes a bit more sense when the author suggests that readers, instead of watching Rosemary's Baby, should watch The Devil's Advocate, another religious conspiracy picture with the shock of supernatural reality at the end.  Recommended mostly for Pacino's camp overacting in the climax, the film is admittedly a not-bad one.  So long as the viewer ignores Reeves's middling performance, the thudding symbolism, and the unbelievably cheap final twist.

[Sidebar: better alternatives would be oldie The Seventh Victim, newbie The House of the Devil, or Polanski's other female-centered paranoia fest, Repulsion.]

The use of The Devil's Advocate as some sort of meaningful alternative suggests that the article is a marginal troll job (remember that line about not bothering to research?).  Certainly there's not much value in attacking article author Adam Tod Brown, who's a comedian first and foremost.  His podcast, the nakedly risible Unpopular Opinions, suggests he's more interested in disagreement than discussion.  Hard to blame him.  Who doesn't like a good controversy?

Am I giving him what he wants by throwing an argument back into the internet ether?  Not exactly.  My problem is not that he attacked Rosemary's Baby.  My problem is that he did it so poorly.  That his foremost attack hinges on him not understanding how the plot's meant to work.  That a subsequent attack hinges on him not knowing what he's looking at.  There are fundamental, obvious mistakes in the commentary, little real thought, a flip manner that reveals a serious lack of care.  There are a few rules about discussion that I think most people should live by.  The most important is this: if you don't know what you're talking about, it's time to stop talking.