I read that in his interviews, Roman Polansky called this film his best film and, if he wanted, would shoot only films like this. This is the movie "Cul-de-sac" (1966). Two thugs, wounded after a failed robbery and even on a broken down car, stuck near the so-called tidal island of Lindisfarne. Dickie (Lyonel Stender) sees poles with telephone wires and goes where they lead to call his boss in the hope that he will get them out of there. Alby with a wound in his abdomen remains waiting for him in the car in the tidal zone. Having reached the island, Dickie discovers a castle there, as it gradually turns out, a rather strange married couple lives in it surrounded by a huge number of chickens - not the first young English husband George (Donald Pleasance) and his French wife Teresa (Françoise Dorleac). We observe the behavior of these people, in places clearly deviant, in places simply cruel, and not even the bandit Dickie there is the most cruel, but just the beauty Teresa, bitchy, mean and lying person. For some time there appear and guests, but they are no better than the owners, there is the most vile is a little boy who behaves like a complete scumbag (probably there is someone). We see how people’s behavior changes – at first, the cowardly and indecisive George ends up getting all serious, inspired by Teresa’s false statement that Dickie molested her, he kills him, it seems that he did not expect this from himself, after which he finally goes off the rails. Teresa tries to force him to leave, but he is completely out of his mind, and Teresa leaves. I must say, despite the fact that one of the genres of the film is indicated by comedy, I did not see anything particularly comedic in the film, except that some elements of black and absurd comedy, this is more of a dramatic thriller. The film is interesting, the actors play great.
The third feature film by Roman Polanski is this absurd black comedy about an eccentric couple, Theresa and George, who decide to escape the big world to a coastal castle on the secluded island of Northumburn in Britain. Timid George sold his factory and retired to live with his fervent, pretty young wife in seclusion, raising chickens and doing amateur painting. Their calm is broken when a wounded fugitive named Richard (Dickie) and his dying partner Albert take refuge in their castle and take the couple hostage.
The plot of the film resembles a bourgeois comedy of errors, despite the fact that the visual effects are more consistent with existential horror. In the ebb and flow of malicious power games, the desert can suddenly be flooded - a typical Roman Polanski landscape. A screaming seagull suspended in the air, an airplane circling overhead, a wrecked car pushed up a hill and crashing into another car are examples of how form prevails over content. In a seven-minute beach scene, George laments a lost "romantic age," Dickie shoots a plane and Teresa splashes in the ocean, the camera redraws a song from the movie "Knife in the Water" before dissolving into a mocking rooster. The director created a new, isolated, strange, all-destructive life on this island.
For more than an hour and a half, we are shown people who have one thing in common: madness. Drawing his usual broad strokes, Polanski plays with what Hitchcock called "pure cinema." You never know where this will lead, and each development brings with it bitter humor, intoxicating and gradually destroying the remnants of sanity. Sexual perversion, insecurity and humiliation, the eruption of nightmarish chaos into a seemingly orderly world, human betrayal, venality and self-destruction are the dead end.
A criminal drama with a certain social overtones and a dubious image of a woman, as it happens in Polanski.
In the castle on the island, which periodically becomes hermit due to the tides, wounded bandits come. There lives a rich mattress, his young cocky and clearly bored wife and periodically pop up pompous rich guests. Between one of the bandits and the main characters tied up a strange relationship. The owners, in fact, are held hostage, but with some semblance of Stockholm syndrome. The lives of these people are so dull because of saturation and boredom that an extreme stressful situation seems to open up new sensations for them, giving a good shake, to revise reality. Although, it seems that this feeling is too traumatic for their ossified mores.
Interesting non-standard plot, expressive game, bright types, excellent shooting. For moviegoers.
An absurd thriller that some film critics, as well as the director himself, consider Polanski's best work. Black humor gushes from each frame, and the action seems to encourage the viewer to commit some sadistic prank. Polanski (at birth Liebling, which in German means "favorite") instills in each character the spirit of that scottish, nasty boy who appears in the second half of the film along with annoying guests. During his short visit, the boy bites the finger of the protagonist George, scratches records and even shoots a hunting rifle, spoiling an ancient mosaic in the window. He is the flesh of that sarcastic, caustic and odious favorite sitting in the director's chair.
The first ten minutes of the film are saturated with gags: a killed car, which the main gangster Dickie (externally and in his voice he strongly resembles the singer of alco-jazz Tom Waits) pushes along the road; once this big guy sits in a stroller, it swings like a “boat”; his half-dead partner named Alby rests on the lower back of the machine – this causes discomfort and moans; a chicken coop and an endless cack, and a staircase breaking under the weight of Dicky. It seems that the whole film is intended as a parody of criminal history. Partners come back from a failed mission. Two gangsters-podolags with all their appearance set the ridiculous atmosphere, against which any movements of feelings and passions in the future will be painful to look at.
In the film, one technique is also noticeable, which in another film the director used as “running gag”: the characters have injuries (Dickie’s hand on a bandage), suffer minor troubles (broken glasses). Here you can remember Jack Nicholson in the role of a sneaky detective in Chinatown. The detective for the film collected on his face a blackhead under his left eye and a deep cut along his left nostril, and also lost his left shoe. And to the finale, of course, the evil and fatal accent on the shot left eye of the main character. Such "jokes" are typical of Polanski.
Attraction of humiliation
A gloomy Lindisfarne castle with tides at its foot. It is home to George and his French wife Teresa. In many descriptions of the plot, she is called a former prostitute, a nymphomaniac. In a fit of nasty hatred, the guest will call Teresa a “whore”, and at the beginning of the film she spins checkers with the neighbor’s guy. Personally, I think there is no need for such stigma. Theresa is clearly bored and her character rather corresponds to the sarcastic tone of the picture, in which freedom or captivity is a matter of responsibility and determination of the characters. The couple is a caricature of newlyweds who do not get along. The husband is a cowardly dreamer, a prisoner of the spell of his wife, a subordinate. One of the brightest scenes is played out when Theresa dresses George in a white dress and gives him a light makeup, not yet knowing what prepares him for the arrival of guests from the underworld. George smiles at the viewer in the mirror. Despite all the farce of the situation, a moment of strange harmony arises, perhaps giving an answer to the question of what helps a couple get along.
The relationship of domination and subordination, sadomasochism, coercion by power, blatant abuse and violence are topics that greatly excite the director and Polanski’s man. Many of his films are permeated with this, especially the classical period. However, it is in “Stupid” that the sadomasochistic roll is so strong that it dumps the plot in the direction of the tetra of the absurd. Theresa is said to have been inspired by Polanski’s first wife, Barbara Kwiatkowska. This creative thinking seems to suggest the conclusion: “marriage is sadomasochism.” All this is interesting, considering how some people from the world of cinema who have worked with him speak about the director. They highlighted Polanski's authoritarian tone, sometimes reaching tyranny on set. Polanski is clearly no stranger to power and domination. Whether George is then a clot of his resentment and unsuccessful marriage experience, perhaps even submission, is at least an interesting question for biographers. Whatever it is, that George, who is the protagonist from The Tenant (played by Polanski himself), testifies not only to an interest in cross-dressing, but also to a queer identity. However, the director can not be called a pioneer in this field, since the strokes are added not for the depth of the hero, but for the sake of fun and eccentricity. In addition, these are obvious homages to Hitchcock’s Psycho, one of the director’s favorite films.
So, George is the owner of the castle, the mythologeme is traditionally patriarchal. The case challenges the owner in the face of two gangsters. Drive them out and you’re a man, first of all for Theresa, who constantly tries to encourage George to act heroically, reproaching him for not being a man. Regarding the further course of events, the viewer begins to expect that George will finally gather and drive the criminal away. Instead, discontent and frustration are only growing. The heroic act is constantly postponed, George allows himself to push around, can not stand up for Theresa, and in general, the couple are organically drawn into the adventure of a gangster who sat down in the castle to wait for the boss. Teresa is in the looking glass of the patriarchal world, where her husband seems to have a broken inner spring, and his antipode Dickie is a straight-hearted man who holds two hostages in fear with one hand. Emotionally, Teresa moves in the plane of indifference. Her image and type suggest that if she escapes from this mirror, she will surely fall into another, for example, in Polanski’s absurdist comedy What?
The soulful scene on the beach lasts seven and a half minutes. While Teresa bathes, George pours out his soul to the gangster. This marriage drama is grotesque from start to finish, as is the embrace George holds Dickie in as he opens his heart to him. Maybe they'll all live together. And good-natured Dickie will clean up this poorly constructed chicken coop marriage? Whatever George may end up looking like—a rag, a weakling, a victim, an unhappy lover—he is definitely the one from whom the ropes of absurdity are drawn. Anyone can become a victim of circumstances, but George’s case is an evil fantasy of total submission, where unshared feelings expose a very plausible asymmetry in human relationships.
Why - then did not cause feelings of empathy what is happening on the screen - i.e. mentally did not put yourself in the place of the "oppressed" & #39; married couple. For the emergence of a correlation with movie heroes, a conflict was necessary - and it is precisely not in the plot - that is, there is no suspense. And there is no conflict because even before the meeting with crime, a couple of married people behave like animals - they fuck as they get, live in the mud, eat what they get and transition them from ' wild ' domesticated ' occurs without unnecessary breaks and arcs of characters - naturally and not forced.
It was in content - now in form: it's gorgeous. Beginning with 'obtrusive' frames - the work of cameras with an objective approximation or acting - this is not often seen in Western cinema. Also, it seems to me that you rarely see scenes of wind in Hollywood, at least it is there and attracts attention. And then the stage production and work with the camera are good, but at the beginning of the film they are simply ' drumming' - take at least the approximation of the car from afar to the foreground to the music.
Next - the music also plays well with the plot - especially 'fashionable' - sad - corresponding to the abandonment and remoteness of the location of what is happening.
The game and images of the actors - magnificent & #39; sculpted & #39; - spelled out. Villain - ' bouncer ' - rude and appearance, and clothes and voice. Villain ' the intellectual - to crime for the sake of children' - helpless, pathetic and comedic hysterical. The husband is a half-distraught spender of rent, doing nothing in his life, used to buying - first education - then ' Scott's Castle' and there and his wife. And there and ' rent' ended - hello immersion in an animal existence with progressive abnormality. The wife - finely honed in beautiful poses of the content - useless body.
All the roles are played demonstratively and texturally - but remain by themselves - without relation to meanings and ideas - without telling us anything or offering anything - a beautiful packaging in the halls of which it is possible, of course, to consider cultural agents and the answer to the universal question - but to see life - no.
5 out of 10
This in its own interesting movie really baffles. We, people, were so spoiled with the new cinema with their “that’s the twists”, unexpected endings and shocking discoveries that throughout the film in my head could not calm down the thought that right now something will happen, that very little so revealed the terrible mystery that in the end we are waiting for a grand event with the story turned upside down. And the face won't crack, like Leha Styr said? As a result, the viewing left behind a trail of embarrassment and deception. Which is nice.
With the exception of the noisy and annoying guests, the story on the exit turned out to be a chamber with three main and important characters. I think the actors to play such roles is a pleasure. We have an assumption that Roman Polanski even gave them the freedom to improvise to fill the heroes to the brim. Moreover, not beautiful mannequins were chosen for men's positions, but beautiful types there. Brash, brazen and self-confident – Lionel Stander. Soft, insecure and touchy - Donald Plesens. And above them rises the hot Françoise Dorleac. Delicious.
Having dealt with a couple of men and one woman, the inner empire of the Nolens Volens will want a fascinating story as a gift. It was especially hot when a drunken smear husband used the word "peculiar" (specific; special; peculiar; unusual) in reference to the castle. What an imagination! It seemed that now it turns out that a childless couple cannot get out of the island until someone else takes their place in the castle. Or a place like purgatory for sinners. Or that the criminal was deliberately lured into a trap forever.
But these and other ideas are diligently broken against the wall when, walking with the director through his labyrinth of fantasies and dreams, you constantly stumble upon another dead end. In the script plan for the narrator it is almost an ideal option - to lead the viewer by the nose for as long as possible. In terms of directing, all this is brilliantly staged. Without music and sound noises, Roman Polanski creates a decent intrigue, not letting the movie watcher smoke or chase the hairy. We believe that no matter what anyone imagines, who watches "Blockhead" for the first time, a Pole, a beetle, will confidently break his thoughts there.
As you know, Roman Polanski had a difficult childhood, a difficult youth and a lot of problems from the non-recognition of the debut film in his homeland. In the criticism of the then Polish elite “Knife in the water” almost lost a curious nuance. A Jewish pilgrim from cinema has shown real passion by isolating three people into a sealed space. It could be a yacht, or, say, Walter Scott's castle. Add to this a sophisticated game on psychological weaknesses, a bunch of hidden social overtones, a craving for domination and submission – we get one of the key plots throughout a long career. For Polanski, the grandmaster party in three figures became a kind of quiet bay, in which he, like a ship, sailed after long cruises through the waters of other genres. So it will be later with “Bitter Moon”, and with “Death and Girl”, and with “Venus in Fur”. But in the sixties, the author was not interested in amorous affairs. In the end, strong love can become just another lever of influence, a point of influence on a pliable person. And passion passion passions, and the desire to feel like the master of the situation - motivation is stronger than monotonous and therefore extremely boring confessions of eternal loyalty, the desire to kiss your feet and do whatever you want.
Cut off by a strong tide, the heroes of "Stupid" are the perfect puppets for a mocking director. In the film, crowning the so-called trilogy of alienation, Polanski rid himself of strict genre frameworks. Theatrical production is literally sprinkled with farcical humor, bordering on the mocking trampling of traditional gender relationships. It is the order of things here to fight for leadership, impose your rules and get pleasure from breaking the will. The initial positions of people who have fallen into a figurative and quite real impasse are more than obvious. The husband is a rag and a hen hen, the wife is a turntail and a slacker, the gangster is a rude and a scumbag. Everything is clear and understandable, but a long stay in solitude transforms characters, people themselves do not notice how they adopt each other’s features, and negative ones in the first place. Polanski equates moral weakness with impudent temper and dictatorial manners, but with each quarrel or quite peaceful conversation, the victims of isolation change roles. Metamorphosis is accompanied by so many comic situations that you no longer understand who is the worst here and who can be sympathetic. In this subtle game, one feels the desire of the director to reach the end in search of an answer to the question: what is everyone ready to go for the sake of the coveted power?
As is often the case with incorrigible pessimists, Polanski quickly determines that bitter disappointments do not spoil his own idea. The heroes have a lot of upheavals, and the magnificent acting makes them experience aesthetic pleasure from a multi-round duel. Momentary events lose importance, the denouement acquires the character of a kind of anti-catharsis, and no matter what the actors do on the screen, there is no doubt: their images can be revealed indefinitely. It is significant how deftly the author treated the type of young wife Theresa. A windy girl, accustomed to taking everything from life, instructing her husband horns almost in front of him, evolves into a characteristic personality, deftly adapting to circumstances and demonstrating outstanding strong-willed qualities. As before with Polanski, the stage is again dominated by a lady. Needless to say, working with Catherine Deneuve and Francoise Dorleac provided the director with excellent results. As much as the younger sister was schizophrenicly persuasive in an atmosphere of incarceration, the older one is as beautiful as the prisoner of a power-loving castle. In order to make the characters empathize and hate them at the same time, original means were also useful, such as a shot from a gun, marking the traditional third act of the play and the accompanying explosion of passions.
Deadlock is exceptionally good as a psychological drama, evasive thriller and grotesque comedy of images, but it is even stronger ideologically. For the first time, Polanski was able to create without regard to the Communist Party’s task or the tastes of the picky West European public. The picture became, without exaggeration, the author’s statement on the topic of perversion of morals. Behind the majestic walls, predatory instincts luxuriate, and instead of the usual everyday things, sardonic laughter sounds over the misconception that people can always find a common language. In an environment of existential impasse, quite different qualities are revealed. In moderation, they can be beneficial, but in critical amounts, they only help survival. Something to rethink, think up and analyze has literally on the go, because strained nerves are ready to burst in an instant. A characteristic feature of the film was the stretching of this moment to complete moral burnout. The real winner of the triple duel is not the one who triumphantly emerges from confinement, but the one who enjoys most of his brief emotional triumph. Then you can howl, sitting on a rock. The game is done anyway.
The path that led to a dead end. The dead end that opened the whole world to him.
The extraordinary story of the life of Roman Palansky is full of nightmare tragedies and unexpected successes. The history of the creation of this film is also the director’s path to fame, and most importantly, the realization of his dream – the shooting of the perfect film, which, according to his own thinking, he succeeded. Half a century later, many people will see this film in large part because Polanski considered it his best work.
Work on the script "Stupid" (originally working title "Waiting for Catelbach") began in 1963 in Paris, where not recognized in his homeland Pole Polanski met aspiring screenwriter Gerard Brasch, inspired by the ideas of the French new wave. They had no illusions about the possibility of filming their creation, were guided by a number of very specific ideas that would be difficult to interest filmmakers. That is why they created, as they say, from the heart, any ideas were welcomed, here and the theater of cruelty Artaud and the theater of the absurd Beckett, something from Kafka, something from the French existentialists, undoubtedly something from Hitchcock. As many critics later noted, the film turned out to be a stunning mix of film styles and trends of modern art.
Of course, the creation of such a film would be difficult to interest any serious film industry. It is very difficult to do this for the unknown creators of Paris infested with grandiose ideas of the 60s, but not for the rising star of European cinema! Back in 1962, Knife in the Water, Polanski’s film, not accepted in socialist Poland, began a slow journey through film festivals, won the Venice Film Critics Prize, was released in Britain, and eventually in 1964 was nominated for a gold statuette of American film academics. He did not receive this prize, but became the first Polish film nominated for an Oscar. And Polanski was in demand. From several proposals, he chose the British, who made films of category “B”, with an emphasis on thrillers and horror. Here Polanski, with the cooperation of Gerard Brasch, who became indispensable in the following years, creates an intermediate workshop work “Disgust”. The picture, also to date has become legendary, was warmly received by criticism and had an unexpected success with the viewer. Unexpected success was for the studio and distributors, but not for the director. Polanski deliberately sought to approach the hearts of the audience and the purses of the producers, not allowing to fully unfold his imagination, because he was going to his dream – the film as a true work of art. After the success of “Disgust” Gene Gutowski gave the go-ahead to shoot a new project Palansky, giving the director carte blanche.
Deadlock was filmed in northern England on Lindisfarne Island. Here, clouds hang over the creators, literally and figuratively. The weather was inclement, the lack of minimal amenities on the island added fuel to the fire of the conflict that flared up between the film crew and the director. The more interesting it will be in the film to watch the sparkling play of the actors, given that in reality they were on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Speaking of actors, one cannot but mention another luck - casting. Polanski considered it necessary to take on the role of the main character unknown actress, and better debutante. Casting took place in London and visibly battered the stubborn director: it was simply impossible to find a young talent with sufficient professionalism. When Polanski finally despaired, one of the producers hinted that now in London is the sister of the same Catherine Deneuve, with whom he recently worked wonderfully in “Disgust”. So Francoise Dorleac appeared on the set. Despite the fact that she was French (the director did not want this) and very famous (in 1964 she worked for Truffaut in Tender Skin and received a lot of approval reviews), Polanski departed from the original plan and approved her for the main role, even without preliminary tests. This role became perhaps the best in the career, so early extinguished by the French star, in the mid-60s, Françoise was a symbol of a modern French woman - sexy, independent, unpredictable. No less interesting are their partners on the site. Lionel Stender is an actor who has already gained fame in Hollywood, but in the early 50s he was blacklisted because of his communist views, and spent almost a decade without a job in the United States until he moved to Europe. Donald Pleasens, known as the “man with a hypnotic look”, played in his career mainly villains or insane, perhaps only in “Stupid” he revealed his not small potential.
In general, and in particular in the "Stupid" - everything is fine. Focusing on the script and acting work, it is impossible not to mention the operator. Gilbert Taylor was already successful and in demand, he managed to work with Lester on Hard Day's Night and Kubrick on Doctor Strangelove. In the "Stalemate" he brought gloomy natural plans that, coupled with gloomy weather conditions, perfectly pump up the atmosphere, it seems that Polansky's plan is even overfulfilled. The picture is incredibly gloomy. Well, where the atmosphere was excessive or insufficiently heated, the overall plan is complemented by the stylish jazz melody Comeda. Krzysztof Komeda wrote music for more than 70 films, in Poland he is considered the ancestor of jazz, and for Polanski’s early paintings he is like Morricone for Sergio Leone. It's hard to imagine "Stalemate" without a jazz-experimental main theme, or a stylish bass introduction with "pushing the car."
All this and much more was woven in the end in the stunning canvas of Roman Polansky “Stupid”, recognized by critics in his time and not forgotten to this day. He was awarded the “Golden Bear” of Berlinarium, bought for American rental, which definitely failed, but opened, nevertheless, its creator the way to Hollywood. Ahead was Rosemary's Baby and dizzying success on both sides of the Atlantic, but it's "Stalemate" that considers the director his best film yet. This work has been said and I want to say a lot more. But today, half a century after it came out, I think I would agree with the author — it’s his best work... along with, of course, The Pianist, but that’s another story altogether.
Roman Polanski has undoubtedly contributed to world cinema and he has films that I love very much. This director shoots in his own style in his pleasant atmosphere, so all his films are worthy of attention. I recommend watching this 1966 movie at night. I watched this movie at night and it was the perfect time for this black comedy.
Deadlock is a black and white, gangster, witty, criminal and ironic comedy, which turned out to be a difficult and unusual film, which has nothing to compare with, well, if only with some other films of this Polish director. We see a bandit break into the life of one couple, and a series of ridiculous situations, a funny, criminal story and an unexpected finale begin. Polanski likes to surprise the audience in films and show something fascinating and interesting. His film, shot in 1966, turned out to be very different from other films of the time. Actor Donald Pleasens played in this film very talented and funny, and his character for some reason I remember. But all the attention is on Françoise Dorleac. The older star of the French diva Catherine Deneuve, in this crime comedy was charming, and it was nice to see her. After all, the sisters are similar, and both in their youth were beautiful and desirable. It is a pity that Francoise Dorleac died early, I think she had a good future in cinema, because as an actress she was an interesting person.
If you are a connoisseur of "another movie" and something unusual, then I recommend this film to you for watching.
8 out of 10
Two wounded gangsters of old age are trying to get to a village in a broken car. Instead, they find themselves on a small island, which, due to constant tides, joins the mainland, then separates from it. Here unlucky robbers get into an ancient castle, which once belonged to Walter Scott, and now is in the possession of an extravagant married couple - the eccentric British George and French Teresa.
Despite the fact that the family experience of the owners is only ten months, the young wife has already managed to have a lover with whom she regularly entertains in the dunes. After one of the gangsters gives up, the second unexpectedly finds favor in the face of Teresa. The emancipated spouse begins to sympathize with the brutal “occupier”, but, as it turns out, only up to a certain point.
Cul-de-sac, it seems, does not particularly adorn the impressive filmography of Polansky, meanwhile, by his own admission, is his favorite creation. Perhaps because he managed to gather here under one roof all his favorites, to varying degrees influenced the work of the Director – Kafka, Pinter and Buñuel. Polanski again, as in his Polish debut Knife in the Water (1962), as well as the later thriller Bitter Moon (1992), splits the main game into three characters - two men and a woman. At the end of the game, it turns out that the weak link will be much stronger and more cunning than those who are considered to be the patrons of this very weakness.
This seemingly completely unassuming story, which can be called a “bad joke”, is interesting by the ease with which the director destroys the genre images of the heroes here, radically changes their characteristics, turning upside down. But it does not do it for the sake of some author’s whim: when everything is turned inside out, the plot puzzles form a completely new, in their own way flawless and harmonious pattern of relationships. All heroes have their own specific interests, but to achieve them, everyone has to play an unusual role.
The couple are forced to pretend in front of unexpected guests that everything is fine, while both are hostages of a gangster who, in turn, has to play the role of a servant serving the assembled nobility. A lot of small comedy gags, almost like in a silent movie, does not turn into a clown, on the contrary, in the finale suddenly rolls a sense of insurmountable longing, such that you want to howl a couple with an abandoned husband George, a lonely curled up on a stone in the middle of the impending tide.
Polansky perfected a unique tragicomic style, mixed with provocations and black humor, platitudes, absurdities and omissions. Something similar he did earlier in short films, filmed at the dawn of foggy youth in his native Poland. Although it seemed that after the psychologically verified “Knife in the water” and the paranoid thriller “Disgust”, those long-standing experiences were forever in the past.
While the first person of the British film absurd Richard Lester (“Evening of a difficult day”, “To help!”), who grabbed the “Golden Palm” for the comedy “Skill, and how to get it” (1965), a year after the triumph in Cannes began to give up, having exhausted the genre potential, the star of Roman Polansky rose on Foggy Albion. It was an alien Pole who showed the British how to shoot a paradoxical movie in a completely different way.
It happened in 1966, the year, which was especially generous to masterpieces: Tarkovsky finished "Passion for Andrew", Antonioni - "Blow-up", Bergman - "Persona". But even against this background, Polansky's "optional" film was not lost. Like Disgust, he was presented at the IFF in Berlin, but now he returned with the Golden Bear instead of silver.
Two criminals, Dickie and Alby, find themselves trapped after a failed case. They are stuck in a broken car in the middle of the water space surrounding a lonely mansion on the peninsula. Both bandits are wounded and Dickie has no choice but to leave his bleeding comrade in the car and try his luck with the owners. What he succeeds in – a caricatured married couple, capricious and wayward Teresa and spineless George, who is in love with her, turn out to be an easy target for manipulation. But when friends come to visit, Dickie has to play the maid until his boss arrives. The situation is turned upside down, and the relations of the heroes, each of whom is trying to bend his line, are heated to the limit.
One of the main freelance film artists of the second half of the twentieth century, Roman Polanski is a figure in itself as unusual and peculiar as his films. And “Stalemate”, made by him in 1966, is still considered both by the director and his fans, the film that most revealingly reflects the main motives in his work. Deadlock closes the trilogy of alienation begun by Knife in the Water and continued by Polanski in Disgust. Once again, his characters find themselves in an enclosed space, an emotional “dead end”, creating all the conditions for revealing and exploring their personality and inner motives of their behavior. Rough but straight and honest, Dickie faces dough-soft George and manipulative Teresa in a virtually unsolvable conflict of interest that provokes endless contradictions between them. And Polansky himself, like an experienced research scientist, watches his heroes through a camera, as through laboratory glass, constantly throwing them new material to clarify the relationship, simultaneously revealing to the viewer the nature of each of them. “Stalemate” really has almost all of the usual attributes characteristic of the director’s films. Hefty portions of black humor alternate with the unpredictability of the plot and the signature for Polansky psychological delights. Also, the inherent absurdity of the situation in "Stalemate", in comparison with his other films, reaches a maximum - especially when Dickie has to act as a tutor in front of unexpected guests. Essentially, Deadlock combines almost all the genres and motifs that Polansky turned to during his long and busy career. There is a comedy of positions (“What?”), and a detective (“Chinatown”), and a criminal drama (“Indomitable”), not to mention the most ironic-dramatic mood of the picture and characters recognizable in their character. Perhaps, if we talk about the interest of viewing “Stupid” from the purely spectator side, the listed films are worth more attention, as genre and more integral. But, from the point of view of the director himself and the context of his work as a whole, "Stalemate" cannot be overestimated. The picture, which is important for Polansky himself, is at the origins of his career in cinema, and therefore has great value primarily for him, and therefore for those who appreciate him - real, devoted viewers.
It's like someone gave us a canvas and brushes and said, "Create, guys." R. Polanski on the film
This film concludes the so-called trilogy of alienation in the work of the director, started by Knife in the Water, and continued in Disgust. These are films about loneliness, about isolation, about a psychological crisis of personality, filled with an atmosphere of hopelessness and the inevitability of the approaching end. Polanski deliberately places his characters in borderline, close to stressful, conditions, exposing their weaknesses, revealing painful ulcers of problems, confronting uneasy characters. And if the action of the first film takes place on a yacht, the second - in an apartment, "Stupid" takes us to an ancient castle on a tide of land cut off from the rest of the world.
In the spotlight are newlyweds George and Teresa, who recently moved to the castle where Walter Scott once created his "Rob Roy", and two wounded bandits, Dickie and Alby, accidentally stuck in a broken car after a failed case near the castle. Hoping to find a phone to communicate with the chief, Dickie goes straight to the castle on poles with wires and meets its inhabitants.
The owner of the castle, George, is a British businessman, hen-heeled, feminine and cowardly type, who got himself an ulcer, married to the beautiful Theresa, and in love with her to the point of madness. Intrigue, provocateur and adaptor Teresa, at any opportunity, cheating on her husband, constantly humiliates him, laughing at his involuntaryness and lack of masculinity. Bandit Dickie, the third corner of the formed triangle of heroes (Alby soon dies), a noble gangster, rude but fair, the most real and honest of all the characters of the tape.
On the example of the relationships of the main characters, Polanski studies the limit of human capabilities, searches for the moral maximum of the personality, tests the internal mechanism of self-control and self-control. All three are cornered: Dick, who has lost a friend and the support of his boss, the uncertainty of his future, George and Theresa – the inability to kick out an intruder from the castle.
And if Dickie hit a dead end only now, then George, recklessly married to Theresa, and she herself, generously washing down the boredom of her stay in the castle with vodka, entered it long ago. Communication with Dickie only increases the discord between the spouses, widens the crack of omissions to a gaping hole of misunderstanding and alienation.
And everyone in their own way is trying to find a way out of the situation. George, first snapped at Dickie, seeks to gain his trust in order to mitigate the situation. Teresa, entangled in her desires, dreaming of getting out of the prison of the castle, purposefully pits her husband against the bandit. And the gangster, fastening the torn telephone cord, clutches at it as a life-saving straw, the last thread connecting him with the former world.
The arrival of a family of unexpected guests becomes the last straw in a crowded bowl of simmering problems and conflicts, and the shot of their child with a gun - the detonator of a bomb ready to explode at any minute. And the explosion is really happening. But it shocks the viewer first.
Teresa and Dickie, unable to withstand the tension, still break: she is on the child who spoiled the record, he is on it for a rather stupid and cruel prank. But they still maintain their balance, continuing to balance on the edge of reason. And George, who committed the only act in the whole film, drives himself into a dead end, losing his mind and the meaning of further existence.
Limited location, a small number of characters, laconic surroundings - everything in this picture Polanski gravitates to theatrical spectacle. That not only allows the actors to get used to their roles as much as possible, without being distracted by unnecessary details, but also confidently captures the entire concentration of the viewer. The genre of the film is elusive: it is a criminal comedy, and a psychological drama, and a thriller with a masterfully conveyed increase in tension (hello Hitchcock). However, the general absurdity of what is happening, flavored with a fair amount of black humor and some grotesque characters, erases all the frames, mixing genres into one explosive cocktail.
To this day, "Stalemate" remains the favorite brainchild of the director. Sharp, whiplashy, truthful, this black and white canvas, lost among the paintings in the workshop of the empty castle, did not dust at all and continues to please fans of intellectual cinema around the world.
“We have come full of ass. Thank you for your stupid plan.
A kind of comrade after all, this Polanski. And many of his films, especially his early ones, are also quite peculiar. So in the "Stupid" - behind the bacchanalia of absurdity and blackish humor still hides a certain essence. However, it still needs to be considered.
Once upon a time, the newlyweds George and Teresa lived in an ancient castle. George is a hilariously stiff Englishman with a head resembling a billiard ball, and his French wife Teresa is a maiden of somewhat promiscuous behavior. A couple of bandits come to them with an unfriendly visit: Richard with a non-working hand and Alby, who somehow looks like Hitler. Because of the tide, the bandits cannot leave, the newlyweds cannot escape either. That's where it all started.
Since almost nothing happens in the film, it remains to look at the characters and created images. And they, I must admit, are bright, albeit somewhat grotesque and even caricatured.
For some reason, George looks most interesting (although it is quite possible that this is the merit of Donald Pleasance with his habits and grievances) - a muddy life and suffering from an ulcer businessman, almost incapable of any decisive actions. The brazen bandit does not dare to contradict, even managing to find something like an understanding with him, he saws his wife with nagging and does not see beyond his own nose. It is very reminiscent of a nasty cockroach, which you want to slap with a slipper. Only in the end will he do something, but apparently, not because he suddenly woke up positive qualities, but because simply entered into a rage. He's got an existential stalemate. It is unclear if he will ever be able to get out.
It was not clear what scare Teresa had married him. From the very beginning, it is clear that these two do not fit each other in all respects. If George explains that he fell in love with a young French woman with no memory, then why Teresa needed it is not very clear. But in general, the girl has a very nasty character. Goes to “catch shrimp” (probably, adultery was called then), egocentric, bitchy, prone to adventures and provocations (what are the episodes when she helped one of the bandits to dig a grave and set fire to paper), while not forgetting to laugh at her husband and tease him on the subject of non-humanity. And that’s where the climax comes in.
And the bandit Richard is an uncouth man with a raucous naughty voice, a kind of collective image of the gang members of the unforgettable Colombo. And for all his negativity, he's not that bad. Maybe it’s a parody of what’s going on, or maybe it’s that George and Teresa have the worst enemies and villains—they have their own weaknesses. He found himself in a dead end in a literal sense - cut off from the world and clearly forgotten by his own boss. Surprisingly, Lionel Stender does not make a special impression on the background of the performance of the same Pleasance, whose character turned out to be the brightest, although the type is very suitable.
In general, the situation, which, if you want, can be represented by a strong thriller, and a chilling horror, and a good comedy, and even a serious drama, show how incredible that is. On the one hand, everything is serious - bandits, shootings, deaths. On the other hand, the grotesqueness of the situation and humor are very flashy. Bandit Richard sleeping in a chicken coop; a man running out to meet uninvited guests in a nightgown and with makeup; Alby can mock with glasses alone; many scenes are absurd. Not very clearly noticeable moment where everything and turned upside down, and a little stupid narrative becomes serious and even with a claim to drama.
And surely Peckinpah, filming Straw Dogs, no, no, but looked at the corner of his eye at this work Polanski. There is something similar.
Not a bad movie about people who in every sense beat their heads against the wall, not finding a way out. After all, as a result, all the characters were at a dead end. But they drove themselves there. And if one sins in half, but gets out, then it is not destined for two.