Rosemary’s Baby: The Devil is in… the Vitamin Drinks

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Images Use

Editorial use of the images from Rosemary’s Baby (USA, 1968) authorized by Paramount Pictures (personal communication).

Notes

1 In this essay, the version of the film used for the analysis is the one available on https://archive.org/details/rosemarys-baby_202105 (Added date: 2021-05-01; 22:27:45). For Ira Levin’s novel, the 2003 reprinted edition by Stephen King Horror Library was used: Levin (1967)

2 In fact, the British Film Institute (BFI) published in 2020, as part of its series “BFI Film Classics,” the volume “Rosemary’s Baby” signed by Michael Newton.

3 For a detailed analysis of the rape sequence and the possibility that Rosemary’s experience has been dreamed, hallucinated (I would say, illusory), diegetically real, or some combination of the three, see Caputo (2012, 125–130). Anyway, Caputo reads the film’s epilogue as a result of schizophrenia or pre-partum psychosis (Caputo 2012, 140–141). He justifies the final scene, when Rosemary is faced with the monstrous sight of the baby, as a sort of Wunschtraum (“wish-fulfilment dream”) hallucination “which serves as a means for her to reverse the death of her child” (Caputo 2012, 141). As ingenious as Caputo’s reading is, I find it unconvincing. In fact, there are many elements and clues left during the plot that indicate that Rosemary is living a diegetically real experience. Furthermore, although in some sequences the boundary between dream and reality is imprecise (as in part of the rape scene), in others it is given to the spectator to clearly know what is a dream (as when Rosemary is on the Kennedy’s yacht, for example) and what is reality. In my view, the final sequence, when Rosemary breaks into Castevet’s apartment, leaves no doubt that the events are actual and not a mere dream of hers.

4 Michael Newton seems to believe in this possibility (Newton 2020, 44).

5 Lucy Fischer has correctly pointed out that Minnie is “an ersatz modern midwife” (Fischer 1992, 8). She added: “From her first entrance into the Woodhouse apartment (when she asks if Rosemary will have children), she is concerned with her neighbor’s reproductive life, and when Rosemary becomes pregnant, it is Minnie who administers homeopathic potions (filled with “snails and puppy dog tails”). Like the ancient midwife, she must transfer her power to a male physician (Abe Sapirstein), who, nonetheless, relies on her expertise” (Fischer loc. cit).

6 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063522/faq/

7 In similar lines, Julio Ibarra (13 April 2021) considers that “A possible purpose for Tannis Root is as a tranquilizer of sorts to keep Rosemary weak and compliant. Other drugs have been used in such a way in real life, such as the motion sickness drug scopolamine” (https://nofspodcast.com/devils-in-the-details-examining-the-satanic-practices-and-drugged-mousse-of-rosemarys-baby). An alternative, but related explanation, is given by Daniel Bird: “Sapirstein, who prescribes Rosemary a drink which makes her pale and drawn” (my emphasis) (Bird 2002, 49). Finally, without discussing its role, the critic of Time called the vitamin drink ‘the satanic tonic of herbs.’ (Time, 21 June 1968, Vol. 91, No. 25) (https://time.com/vault/issue/1968-06-21/page/96/).

8 Cholelithiasis (gallstones) is a biliary disease typically characterized by abdominal cramps, such as Rosemary’s.

9 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063522/faq/.

10 In fact, Rosemary is telling the truth because we can see her throwing the vitamin down the sink, three days before the party (1:17:22).

11 Truly, Rosemary referred to “minor pains that had been overshadowed by the major one […] but these discomforts had been mentioned as typical in the paperback book Dr. Sapirstein had made her throw away” (Levin 1967, 164). This, obviously, was not the pain Rosemary was complaining about.

12 Here, there is a divergence of dates between the film and the novel. In the novel, it seems that Rosemary started taking the vitamin again the day after the party, specifically, on 23 January 1966 (Table 1, passage VIII). However, in the film’s screenplay (http://www.sellingyourscreenplay.com/script-library/1068/rosemary%5C%5C%5C%27s-baby-screenplay/), the next scene after the party is dated 15 April 1966. Significantly, Polanski’s deletions regarding to Levin’s novel are widely acknowledged (see McElhaney 2007, 202, for some brief discussion about it). Anyway, even if the date considered for the restart of taking the vitamin is 15 April 1966, Rosemary has drunk it for 50 consecutive days without experiencing a resurgence of pain.

13 Lucy Fischer aptly characterizes Rosemary’s pregnancy as “demonic poisoning” standing “in inverse relation to the usual plentitude of pregnancy” (Fischer 1992, 10). Karyn Valerius talks about “the toxic effects of the pregnancy on Rosemary’s body” (Valerius 2005, 120). Thomas Aiello refers to the pregnancy with the expression “diabolical experiment” (Aiello 2013, 111).

14 In the novel, there is no specification of what kind of test it is. Dr. Hill asserts that “I generally have them run a few others beside – blood sugar and so forth” (Levin 1967, 105). But it is not said that the second test would be a blood sugar test. Similarly, in the film, Dr. Hill commented that “It’s just for blood sugar and so forth” (53:39). But he did not say that the second sample is only for blood sugar. Though not discussing this passage directly, Angela Connolly seems to consider that the second blood test points to problems in Rosemary’s pregnancy (Connolly 2018, 175). Similarly, Karyn Valerius makes an interesting comment about this: “Hill trusts Sapirstein’s reputation over Rosemary’s claim that she is in danger, despite corroborating physical evidence provided by a strange test result that had puzzled him early in her pregnancy” (Valerius 2005, 127).

15 Indirectly related to this point, Michael Newton makes a very pertinent observation: he judges that the coven was looking for a woman who was Catholic, in such a way as to prevent her from seeking abortion as a solution to the eventual discovery that the baby was the child of Satan (Newton 2020, 52). Later, he reaffirms that he believes Rosemary would not have an abortion (Newton 2020, 72). Although I consider Newton’s analysis one of the best so far made for the film, I am not so sure about this, for some reasons. First, Rosemary’s Catholicism was no longer as solid, as she herself let it show, at the dinner with the Castevets (cf. Aiello 2013, 120). Second, although she told her friends, “I won’t have an abortion!” (Levin 1967, 156) (1:20:32), the depth of the trauma of knowing that she will be the mother of the Antichrist himself and all the harm that the child would bring into the world could perfectly make Rosemary change her mind and seriously consider an abortion. Finally, as Newton pointed out, Roe vs Wade was only a year or so off its inception, and the legal possibility for an abortion was open (Newton 2020, 52). See also Valerius (2005, 117). Curiously, the film was already characterized as “a wicked argument against planned parenthood,” a position with which I agree, though I would say that it is “a good argument against planned parenthood” (Time June 21, 1968, Vol. 91, No. 25) (https://time.com/vault/issue/1968-06-21/page/96/).

16 Curiously, some years earlier (1961), Sherri Finkbine, an American children’s television host, took, in the initial stages of her fifth pregnancy, sedative pills containing thalidomide, which is known for causing serious morphological abnormalities in the fetus.

17 Still, it is possible that Roman lied about this point, to keep Rosemary from becoming even more enraged over the fact that her son had been “poisoned” over the course of months, turning him into a monster. Davide Caputo, although he does not directly raise this possibility, recalls that Dr. Hill mentions an issue related to the so-called witches denounced by Rosemary: “these are ‘witches’ in name only, but ‘witches’ who believe in their convictions so strongly that they do indeed pose a legitimate threat” (Caputo 2012, 139). Accordingly, near the end of the plot, Rosemary, after seeing the baby, believes that the coven has done him some harm. She cries out: “What have you done to him, you maniacs?” (Levin 1967, 236) (2:10:49).

18 Miscarriage is defined as a spontaneous loss of an intrauterine pregnancy, which occurs before the fetus can survive outside the uterus (Jurkovic, Overton, and Bender-Atik 2013, 1).

19 At this point, I write the word “baby” in quotes to reinforce that, in fact, Rosemary’s baby was, as aptly noticed by Rhona Berenstein, a “child-as-monster” (Berenstein 1990, 64). She adds: “After her baby is born and she finds out it’s a boy, she refuses to recognize him as such; ‘where is it . . . what have you done to it, what have you done to its eyes?’” (emphasis in the original) (Berenstein loc. cit.). It seems that it was the abnormal “baby,” a corporeal mixture of human and nonhuman tissues, that Rosemary’s pregnant body was trying to expel, and, significantly, it was this ‘ongoing miscarriage’ that justified the constant abdominal pain she suffers.

20 For a curious study about witchcraft and herbcraft, see Ostling (2014, 180ff).

21 Interestingly, a note included in Maisie K. Pearson’s article (Pearson 1968, 501) asserts: “Hannah Madison, ‘Witch or Warlock?’” eye (October 1968) 27. “According to the First Satanic Church of the United States, the tannis root is an ingredient in transvection ointment.” Unfortunately, I could not have access to Hannah Madison’s article. Nonetheless, I did not find any “tannis root” at the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (https://www.itis.gov/) or at the plants database of the United States Department of Agriculture (https://www.usda.gov/).

22 For a detailed analysis of the different sources of the fictional book All of Them Witches, see the text of Arthur O’Dwyer on https://quuxplusone.github.io/blog/2019/08/26/rosemarys-baby-book/. This page of the book can be seen in the film but is not described in Levin’s novel.

23 Not only this: truly, the tannis root/Devil’s Pepper was used in the form of incense on the night of conception: “She opened her eyes and looked into yellow furnace-eyes, smelled sulphur and tannis root” (Levin 1967, 89).

24 Curiously, although herbs are traditionally associated with witchcraft and demonology, some of them could be used against the possession of a victim by the Devil (Deetjen 1934, 172) and to cure people (Deetjen 1934, 174).

25 The embryonic period (up to 12 weeks, the third month) is the period of organogenesis, which specifically occurs from the 4th to the 8th week. After this phase, the risk of miscarriage or a non-progressive pregnancy drastically decreases. When the pain disappears (22 January 1966), Rosemary is approximately in the fourth month of pregnancy (around 16 weeks), which is a low-risk period for miscarriage.

26 Miscarriage is traditionally classified as threatened, inevitable, incomplete, or complete based on clinical history and findings on speculum and digital pelvic examination (Jurkovic, Overton, and Bender-Atik 2013, 1). Thus, Dr. Sapirstein could have considered that Rosemary was still susceptible to a “threatened miscarriage.”

27 Of note: the name “tannis” is a quasi-anagram for “Satan:” “satin root.” Interestingly, “satin” is phonetically similar to the pronunciation of the word Satan: /ˈseɪ.t(ə)n/.

28 For an analysis of the relationship between religion, medicine, and witchcraft, see Deetjen (1934, 164–175).

29 As aptly put by Karyn Valerius, “The success of the coven’s plot depends on Sapirstein maintaining his position as Rosemary’s sole source of information, and he instructs her not to read books or heed the advice of family and friends.” (Valerius 2005, 126). Not so obvious, however, is the prima facie reason Dr. Sapirstein (and not another obstetrician) should take care of Rosemary’s pregnancy. After the analysis of the plot, I maintain that the reason is unquestionable: the vitamin drinks.

30 For the definition of the Gothic as a narrative technique, see Halberstam (1995, 22).

31 “Conspiracy too, we might say, offers not only terror but also the likelihood that there exists something else beneath the experiences and encounters we have, that randomness is not the way things work, but that another, more powerful realm is at work, controlling things” (my emphasis) (Frankfurter 2008, 83). Notably, Polanski’s agnostic worldview undoubtedly contributed to the air of uncertainty that permeates the plot: “That is why a thread of deliberate ambiguity runs throughout the film” (Polanski 1984, 265).

32 For a brief, but interesting analysis of Guy, see Tarratt (1969, 92–93).

33 Robert Lima gives a similar explanation: “In the chilling atmosphere the prefix ‘Rose’ gives the name of Mary a thorny quality; this is yet another parody of Catholic tradition: the Angel’s salutation to the Virgin Mary. Ironically, however, the protagonist’s name, from an evergreen bush of the mint family, is symbolic of remembrance and constancy; and Rosemary will live up to these qualities” (Lima 1974, 219).

34 As pointed out by Tony Williams, “Guy (John Cassavetes) and Rosemary (Mia Farrow) become Joseph and Mary in a new satanic order inversely paralleling the Christian Messiah’s birth” (Williams 1996, 99). Robert Lima aptly noticed that even the final act of the film shows “her [scil. Rosemary] child and it is being worshipped by the assembled coven and ‘visitors from the East bearing gifts.’ It is a grotesque inversion of the scene at Bethlehem” (Lima 1974, 219). See also Valerius (2015, 118).

35 Levin wrote a “letter to editor” to Time concerning the movie version of Rosemary’s Baby: “I am delighted by your praise of the movie version of my book Rosemary’s Baby [June 21] and aghast at your reference to its apartment-house setting as the ‘Branford,’ rather than the ‘Bramford.’ I chose the name in memory of writer Bram Stoker, and I shudder to think that you may have offended his baby, who is still alive − you know he is − and whose name is Dracula” (Time, 28 June 1968, Vol. 91, No. 28) (https://time.com/vault/issue/1968-06-28/page/22/). Moreover, in recently compiled documents known as “Rosemary’s Baby Album,” it was shown that Levin “spent a great deal of time picking characters’ names, going for certain sounds and associations that seem right” (https://iralevin.org/rb_album/06.htm). I suspect that, beyond the search for mere appropriate names for his characters, Levin undertook depth research which encompassed many aspects of witchcraft. For example, the blindness of Donald Baumgart, promoted by the coven, is a widely recognized product of witchcraft practices (see Deetjen 1934, 167).

36 I will discuss the fate of Mrs. Gardenia and Terry Ginoffrio in a forthcoming essay.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Daniel Mazza Matos

Daniel Mazza Matos (Fortaleza, Brazil, 1975). He holds a medical degree from the Federal University of Ceará (UFC), as well as a master’s degree (MSc) and a doctorate (PhD) in medical sciences from the University of São Paulo (USP). Other areas of interest and study include: (1) Brazilian poetry (he has published four collections of poetry). (2) Ancient Greek philosophy (portion of a research project on the philosopher Melissus of Samos presented at the Seventh International Association for Presocratic Studies Conference, IAPS 2022). (3) Cinema: Roman Polanski’s films.