483 Repulsion

[cdnchris]

DVD Review
Blu-ray Review

[Person]

What is stated in the "about the transfer" section in the booklet? Was the transfer done wholly by Sony?

[Matt]

Criterion just e-mailed everyone on their newsletter mailing list a giant spoiler about this film.

[James]

Criterion just e-mailed everyone on their newsletter mailing list a giant spoiler about this film.

SpoilerShow

I only read the title.

Thanks for the warning.

[Matt]

Thanks for the warning.

Unfortunately,

SpoilerShow

the title, "Psycho Killer, qu'est-ce que c'est?" is the spoiler. Maybe I'm being too careful, but I feel knowing that she murders someone is a big spoiler.

[Murdoch]

What was the spoiler? I unsubscribed from their newsletter a while ago now. I've watched this film many times so this is just curiosity on my part.

[Matt]

I just edited my post above to include that.

[Murdoch]

SpoilerShow

Ah, I see. I think that is a pretty big spoiler for someone unfamiliar with the film since the first murder is such a shock, but it also reveals very little since Carol's motivations for murder are far more interesting than the act itself (at least for me). But honestly I have no idea what someone first going into the film is expecting since it's been so long since I first saw it.

[James]

Thanks for the warning.

Unfortunately,

SpoilerShow

the title, "Psycho Killer, qu'est-ce que c'est?" is the spoiler. Maybe I'm being too careful, but I feel knowing that she murders someone is a big spoiler.

Oh, I just figured

SpoilerShow

the "psycho killer"

part was just a general plot point. Thanks a lot.

But no, I generally don't care about spoilers as much any more, so no worries. I'm just surprised Criterion Collection would do something that could potentially decrease their sales.

[kaujot]

I've never seen the movie, knew very little about it, and just assumed she ended up killing someone (or a few people, even). I can't imagine this will hurt sales whatsoever.

[swo17]

I'm going to buy Repulsion now solely because I assume the Talking Heads song plays over the credits.

[JAP]

What is stated in the "about the transfer" section in the booklet? Was the transfer done wholly by Sony?

Telecine supervisor: Grover Crisp/Sony Pictures, Los Angeles
Telecine colorist: Scott Ostrowsky/Sony Pictures, Los Angeles
Film scanning and photochemical compositing: Soho Images, London; Cinetech, Los Angeles; Technicolor, Los Angeles
DVD mastering: Criterion Post, New York; Gentuza Inc., Rochester, NY
Blu-ray disc mastering: Radius60, Los Angeles

[Person]

Thanks for providing that info, JAP.

[R0lf]

But honestly I have no idea what someone first going into the film is expecting since it's been so long since I first saw it.[/spoiler]

I first saw this in a box set a friend bought me which included Cul-de-sac and Knife in the Water. I watched them in the reverse order and watching Knife in the Water last with its title after watching those other two movies my expectations of that movie were considerably different to how the movie actually is.

[LQ]

A question about the final frame:

SpoilerShow

A friend swears up and down that Carol is staring at the seated man to her right, and that this is the man who must've raped her. I'd never even entertained the thought that she was casting her gaze at someone; I see only a cold, vacant stare into nothingness (similar to her zone-outs throughout the film). Not that it really matters, but I was just curious if anyone else saw that in the final frame.

Just an aside, this is one of my favorite film-closing shots ever. No matter if her gaze is directed at someone or not, her haunting look inspires terror and sadness and sends chills down my spine. What a perfect end to what is now my favorite Polanski movie.

[Murdoch]

A question about the final frame:

SpoilerShow

A friend swears up and down that Carol is staring at the seated man to her right, and that this is the man who must've raped her. I'd never even entertained the thought that she was casting her gaze at someone; I see only a cold, vacant stare into nothingness (similar to her zone-outs throughout the film). Not that it really matters, but I was just curious if anyone else saw that in the final frame.

Just an aside, this is one of my favorite film-closing shots ever. No matter if her gaze is directed at someone or not, her haunting look inspires terror and sadness and sends chills down my spine. What a perfect end to what is now my favorite Polanski movie.

SpoilerShow

I took it that she was staring at the seated man and I assumed it was her father. It's all up for interpretation and is rather ambiguous, but I thought that the man raped her and that she has been carrying that burden her entire life, leading to her psychological breakdown as she struggled with the sexual advances of the men around her. I think her being a victim of rape at an early age helps to explain her behavior around others - especially men - and to me the movie doesn't come off as strongly if she was just staring vacantly.

[LQ]

SpoilerShow

I took it that she was staring at the seated man and I assumed it was her father. It's all up for interpretation and is rather ambiguous, but I thought that the man raped her and that she has been carrying that burden her entire life, leading to her psychological breakdown as she struggled with the sexual advances of the men around her. I think her being a victim of rape at an early age helps to explain her behavior around others - especially men - and to me the movie doesn't come off as strongly if she was just staring vacantly.

Thanks for the response, I agree fully

SpoilerShow

that she must've been raped when she was young because of the reasons you laid out. The "specter", so to speak, of her assailant that rapes her during the nights was powerful proof enough for me, so I never connected the invisible line from her eyes to the man in the final shot.. maybe because I feel that the film is effective enough with the anonymous menace of a male attacker present only in Carol's memories ...?
Interesting observation though, I'm glad it was brought to my attention!

[Feego]

Thanks for the response, I agree fully

SpoilerShow

that she must've been raped when she was young because of the reasons you laid out. The "specter", so to speak, of her assailant that rapes her during the nights was powerful proof enough for me, so I never connected the invisible line from her eyes to the man in the final shot.. maybe because I feel that the film is effective enough with the anonymous menace of a male attacker present only in Carol's memories ...?
Interesting observation though, I'm glad it was brought to my attention!

Don't know if you've listened to Polanski's commentary track yet, but

SpoilerShow

he reveals that the actor who plays Carol's spectral rapist appears at the beginning of the film as a street worker who eyes her as she walks by. There is even a close-up on his face! That, of course, has no real bearing on who the specter is supposed to represent, but I thought it was rather interesting. I never would have realized it was the same actor had Polanski not pointed it out (and he himself wonders if viewers generally pick up on it).

[LQ]

I didn't pick up on that either. I'm very much looking forward to listening to the commentary!

[denti alligator]

In the '64 documentary (the French one) both Polanski and Deneuve mention that

SpoilerShow

she kills three people: two men and one woman. Did I miss the third murder?

[Murdoch]

In the '64 documentary (the French one) both Polanski and Deneuve mention that

SpoilerShow

she kills three people: two men and one woman. Did I miss the third murder?

SpoilerShow

Perhaps the third murder was cut? I don't even remember a woman's murder being hinted at, maybe in another cut Carol killed the older woman at the salon who she was always attending to.

Although I haven't seen the documentary yet, is it in A British Horror Film or the TV doc?

[cdnchris]

In the commentary there was a mention of it.

SpoilerShow

It was the sister's boyfriend's wife. But it was never shot.

[Haggai]

In the commentary there was a mention of it.

SpoilerShow

It was the sister's boyfriend's wife. But it was never shot.

Actually at one point in the commentary, Polanski says that when he showed a rough cut to the Polish-born Hollywood composer Bronislau Kaper, that's when the decision was made to cut the scene in question, so apparently it was shot. Polanski says Kaper pointed out that:

SpoilerShow

The motivation behind that murder was too "rational," in comparison to the other two murders. Carol was just killing the woman to prevent her from discovering her husband's body, while the other two murders came from Carol's psychosexual "repulsion" to men who desire her. Polanski also says he thought having the third murder pushed the film too much in the direction of straight-up horror, at the expense of the psychological thriller atmosphere he was going for.

[Dr. Snaut]

I think this was an extremely interesting cover for Repulsion. I don't really understand it, and it just seems unnecessarily surreal, like something out of a Lynch movie.

[cdnchris]

Actually at one point in the commentary, Polanski says that when he showed a rough cut to the Polish-born Hollywood composer Bronislau Kaper, that's when the decision was made to cut the scene in question, so apparently it was shot. Polanski says Kaper pointed out that:

SpoilerShow

The motivation behind that murder was too "rational," in comparison to the other two murders. Carol was just killing the woman to prevent her from discovering her husband's body, while the other two murders came from Carol's psychosexual "repulsion" to men who desire her. Polanski also says he thought having the third murder pushed the film too much in the direction of straight-up horror, at the expense of the psychological thriller atmosphere he was going for.

I swore it was said somewhere it wasn't actually filmed but I guess I was mistaken. Thanks!