Rosemary's Baby ending question ...SPOILERS !!!

[wynterfire]

i just got done watching the DVD, and i distinctly remember a shot at the end of the movie when i saw it on VHS a few years ago where they actually show the baby and it's black eyes. but it wasn't on the DVD.

i thought i was going nuts, but my girlfriend says she remembers it too.

now am i crazy, or was there a shot like that at the end? cause if there was, it's not on the DVD.

i looked on IMDB for alternate versions, but it didn't have any info about it.

anybody familiar enough with the movie to remember?

[larphillips]

I've seen this a few times recently, both on the DVD and uncut on cable and neither time do I actually recall seeing the eyes, nor do I remember seeing them in the past.

I could be wrong here, but my only theory is perhaps the imagery you did see, combined with the dialogue, was so vivid as to leaving an impression in your mind that they actually showed the baby's eyes.

[wynterfire]

Originally Posted by larphillips

I could be wrong here, but my only theory is perhaps the imagery you did see, combined with the dialogue, was so vivid as to leaving an impression in your mind that they actually showed the baby's eyes.

that could very well be as it is such a great movie. either that or i am thinking of a scene from another movie that is similar in nature. but for some reason i DO remember it being this movie.

...maybe i am going nuts.

[Marq]

One of my absolute favourite movies.

In all the times I've seen it (TV, VHS, DVD) I've never seen any part of the baby (including the eyes).
I'd agree with lar that the vivid descriptions sure make the viewer feel the impact of this devil-baby anyways.

Perhaps Mia Farrow's classic panicked dialogue also made you think you were seeing something:

Rosemary Woodhouse: What have you done to him? What have you done to his eyes, you maniacs!
Roman Castevet: He has his father's eyes.
Rosemary Woodhouse: What do you mean? Guy's eyes are normal!

You DO see the eyes (and other body areas) of the "father" earlier in the film though...

[ebuzz79]

"I told Sister Veronica about the windows and she withdrew the school from the competition"

You do see a shot of the eyes right before she drops the knife in the floor. Whether it's supposed to be a flashback to the fater's eyes or the baby's I'm not sure.

[wynterfire]

Originally Posted by ebuzz79

You do see a shot of the eyes right before she drops the knife in the floor. Whether it's supposed to be a flashback to the fater's eyes or the baby's I'm not sure.

yea, i know about that shot. it's a shot of her recollecting the night she was impregnated and the eyes that she saw. i just could have sworn that there was a clear shot of the baby lying in the black cradle, looking up, with it's eyes totally black. is there any shots like that in any other movies that i could be confusing it with?

[PALMERLIME]

Originally Posted by wynterfire

yea, i know about that shot. it's a shot of her recollecting the night she was impregnated and the eyes that she saw. i just could have sworn that there was a clear shot of the baby lying in the black cradle, looking up, with it's eyes totally black. is there any shots like that in any other movies that i could be confusing it with?

Perhaps this is how that film with the half guy/half tank ends!!

[manigrasso]

Originally Posted by wynterfire

yea, i know about that shot. it's a shot of her recollecting the night she was impregnated and the eyes that she saw. i just could have sworn that there was a clear shot of the baby lying in the black cradle, looking up, with it's eyes totally black. is there any shots like that in any other movies that i could be confusing it with?

the end of Angel Heart, maybe?

[Latigre]

I too am sure that I saw the baby's eyes, although to my memory they were not black but yellow. I too did some research on IMDB and found practically nothing. Only one man in Denmark also claims to have seen the baby.

At this point I thought I was going a bit crazy, even though my mother too claimed to have seen the baby, it did seem and still does seem awfully odd that most people who have seen the film have not seen the baby.

After delving a little deeper I came across a website where a discussion about the film had started up and a few people remembered seeing the baby and all of them remembered the yellow eyes. One person who did not believe such claims offered the argument that perhaps all of these people were having a group hallucination. To me, that just seems a little too strange.

Now, if I had looked on the internet and found that nobody had seen the baby, I would have realised that it was just me, and my slightly old mother who had concocted this image. Also if I had found a large number of people who had seen the baby then I would have known that I had not concocted the image. But to find millions of people who can't believe it, and a seriously small amount of people who have seen the baby, is frankly a little scary. Either that or it stinks of some kind of coverup.

My theory is that different audiences in different areas responded differently to different test screenings and therefore only a certain few places showed the version of the film with the baby in it. However after the release Polanski may have realised that the version without the baby was always more popular. As future releases of the film came out be they on video, commemorative video or DVD, none had the baby in. By the time Polanski came to do his commentary and interview for the DVD release he was in a position where he could say that the baby was never meant to be seen, as though he never filmed such a scene. In this way it would seem the only people who would know he was wrong would be in their mid 50's and in various places in the world, but due to their minority and the many years between their viewing of the original film they could be persuaded by the major majority who had only seen the non-baby version that such a version never existed.

However, I am only 18 and therefore far too young to have seen the film in its original form. Or am I? It is entirely possible that a television station like the BBC in England (on which I first saw the film - with the baby in) would air a version of a film which it had bought the rights to many years ago. Therefore the version that I saw about 5 years ago as a 13 year old boy, with the baby in may well have been an original British release version which never came out on a video or DVD. The BBC may have missed the difference, for whatever reason and seen no reason in buying a newer edition of the film.

Although to many this might seem like nothing, I personally find it rather interesting. Also on the website where other people remember the yellow eyes some also remember the baby being called "Damian" and not "Adrian." While I don't remember this I assume it could be possible that the name may have been different from place to place depending on where a certain name was popular. I know that in 1960's England there were far more Adrians then Damians.

Finally, it would be great to get to the bottom of what seems to me to be quite a mystery.

Thank God some people share my memory! Otherwise I'd be crazy!

[irussel]

I had previously seen the movie either on regular tv or vhs, and also remember the shot of the baby with black eyes. I rented the dvd recently and there is a shot where i think they superimpose a wolf (with yellow eyes), but thats not the same shot i remember. I think this may have been a case where they added the shot for vhs release to sell more videos...kinda like the extra ending tacked onto Close Encounters when it was shown on TV. There's gotta be a shot of that baby out there somewhere...

irussel

[Lex M]

Sure you guys aren't thinking of the sequel, perhaps?

[irussel]

Originally Posted by Lex M

Sure you guys aren't thinking of the sequel, perhaps?

I don't think i've seen the sequel. If it is from a different movie, somebody find a screen shot.

irussel

[Dilmo]

I rewatched it a few months ago on TCM, and I saw the baby's eyes. Everytime I've seen it, the scene has been there.

PS It is only a very quick glimpse.

[Marq]

Originally Posted by Dilmo

I rewatched it a few months ago on TCM, and I saw the baby's eyes. Everytime I've seen it, the scene has been there.

PS It is only a very quick glimpse.

Is this scene at the very end in the apartment or during the conception scene (where the devil's eyes are shown)?

... Why have I not gone to check my own damn copy of it yet?

[Dilmo]

Originally Posted by Marq

Is this scene at the very end in the apartment or during the conception scene (where the devil's eyes are shown)?

... Why have I not gone to check my own damn copy of it yet?

It's at the very end after she looks into the cradle. It, like I said, is very brief. But I did see it. I don't know what is going on, or why a change would be made.

[Marq]

Originally Posted by Dilmo

It's at the very end after she looks into the cradle. It, like I said, is very brief. But I did see it. I don't know what is going on, or why a change would be made.

I'll try to remember to check my copy tonight. I can't believe it wouldn't register with me after all the times I've seen it!

[theta]

Ten bucks says it's a flash cut, five frames or so. I personally don't remember it but I've only seen the movie the once.

[clemato]

Originally Posted by Dilmo

I rewatched it a few months ago on TCM, and I saw the baby's eyes. Everytime I've seen it, the scene has been there.

PS It is only a very quick glimpse.

Same here and it's a flash. I could swear I've seen the same thing.

Never have seen it on video, only TCM.

Great movie!! Rosemia's BooBoo (for you Mad mag. fans). :p

[wmajero]

Trust me...the baby was never shown in the original film. No hands, no feet, no eyes. However, there was a horrible sequel in the 1970s called "Look What's Happened To Rosemary's Baby" with Patty Duke as Rosemary. It was a TV movie and it's possible that the scene was recreated in some way and the baby was shown. However, I am 100% sure that the original film did not show the baby at the end. That's why it's such a great film...you have to use your imagination.

[Dilmo]

I have never seen the sequel. I know what I have seen over the years. I can't explain why you haven't or anyone else, but it's there in some version.

[Marq]

Naturally, I forgot to check my DVD last night. Must remember to do so tonight.

[Chewbacca]

There are no eyes at the end, it's earlier in the film. But wouldn't it be something if the filmmakers actually had inserted "the eyes" shot in some of the prints and not in others, that would explain a lot of the controversy.

[Marq]

So I watched my copy again last night finally and can now provide a fully accurate report on this matter. So whatever cut is on the DVD is the one I'll be discussing. So far as I know it's the only version I've ever seen and I never noticed anything new or missing from the old VHS I used to own.

There are NO baby eyes. No baby face. No baby imagery at all. None. They never show it.

But eyes DO appear twice in the film (at least that I saw). The first time is during the conception scene, where Rosemary is doped up and has her "real" nightmare of the devil having sex with her, while the coven looks on, nude. At one point Rosemary stares into the devil's eyes and we are shown a close-upon the beast's face, eyes and all. The eyes are yellowish and kinda cat-like. The face is hairy as hell. Sorry for the pun. The shot lasts about 2 second.

The second time the eyes appear, and this is where many seem to have gotten confused, is at the end. Rosemary has just walked up to her baby in the black cradle, shouted the immortal "What have you done to it!? What have you done to it's eyes!?" speech and she starts to have a semi-breakdown. After being told "Satan is his father. Hail Satan!" she begins to messily piece it together. You can see her mind working. And at one point, she recalls that deep stare into the devil's eyes from her dream/ nightmare that she hadn't been able to recall until just now. She remember's that, it's true, she did indeed sleep with the devil and confirms it by recalling his face/eyes. The audience is shown this moment of Rosemary's thinking with a very brief (I wouldn't call it a flash or a jump-cut) fading in and fading out of the exact same devil's (hairy, beast-like) face and yellowish eyes. In remembering this moment, she breaks down even more. The moment does last much longer than 1 second.

So, NO there were no baby eyes or face or body, etc. in Rosemary's Baby. Just the devil's face (including eyes) twice.

[FilmFanSea]

Excellent detective work, Marq---thanks for clearing that up. I, too, could have sworn that the baby's eyes were shown, but it's just as you describe it. Shows how suggestible (and faulty) the memory can be.

[asphodel5]

I know that I'm jumping in a bit late, but a few years ago, my roommate and I swore that we saw the baby's eyes too. Later, we watched the film in a horror film class... no eyes. We were convinced that we had just blinked when it appeared, so we checked my DVD. We came to the same conclusion as Marq. We always thought that we were the only two who had the misconception. It's interesting to hear that others were similarly affected.

[Ashenden]

I remember seing eyes as well. Not the whole face, just the eyes. I remember this while as a kid I had nightmares about it.......

[Ashenden]

here there is a reference to

She picks up a large carving knife and walks into Minnie and Roman's living room, where the witches are assembled. The elderly couple are there as well. She sees a black crib and walks over to it, where she's horrified to see that the baby's eyes are not human.

[Dilmo]

I'm with Ashenden. I don't know what to say.