Talk:Repulsion (film)

Racial Implications of Repulsion.
While the film involves the repressed sexuality of the young heroine "Carol," one issue that has not been discussed is the fact that the "rapists" in Carol's nightmares are primarily Black men. In the US there have been many examples in film of the fear that all black men want to rape "virginal" white woman. This was graphically depicted in the film "Birth of a Nation" by D.W. Griffith. While the mental stability of the main character is the basis of most discussion I wonder how bringing in the discussion of race comments on the sign of times in which the film was made or another critique on Carol's mental stability.


 * -reply- I don't agree that the "Black" men raping white women is a significant theme in this movie. I don't even agree that these men are black.  The men are often shadowed, but the features aren't African, they are Caucasian.  These are white European laborers; perhaps resembling her father, however there does appear to be several of them so they only loosely resemble her father.  I'd like to point out the more significant theme of the rotting rabbit.  I believe this is something like innocence lost.  I'll also point out the maggots and flies are forcibly penetrating the rabbit’s corpse.  The razorblade signifies the violence and dominance of this act.  Both the deterioration of the rabbit and the deterioration of the apartment are parallels to her deteriorating mental state, initially triggered by the audible sex of her sister, and the persistent suitor who is later murdered by Carol.  Also, significant is the fact that Carol appears to have gotten away with everything.  It appears that her innocent beauty is also significant in how she is perceived by our male dominated society.


 * - reply - The men in the film are not African-American men. In fact, there seem to be no men of color in the film at all. Carol's nightmares are based, presumably, on either repressed memories or conscious memories of childhood trauma, the implication arising from the photograph depicted at the end of the film which clearly shows Carol looking toward the male figure in fear. TGTommyrocket (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)TGTommyrocket


 * -reply- Sometimes you have to wonder where these comments come from. If one has watched the movie, there are no black men in it. Every single male is a typical Englishman of the day. I guess if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail 203.160.80.237 (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Article Name
I was just looking on an article about Printmaking Techniques and it came up with a link to a page with the name repulsion. Somehow I don't think this is the right article, maybe someone could put up a link to the meaning of the word repulsionKalishnikov 14:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Original research?
Someone has put this in the article: "As in those two films, the horrors are not external threats, but rather the horrors that lie within the minds of the protagonists." Is that really true about Rosemary's Baby? There is an external horror at force in that film! 195.195.71.146 (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Rosemary's Baby comparison...
Um, in RB, the threat clearly is external. The devil has intercourse with her and she does have his baby. It's not all in her head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.237.68 (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Two corrections are needed
The article says "repelled and attracted by the idea of sex due to repressed memories". In fact nothing in the film suggests that it's due to "repressed memories". You clearly haven't seen the ending of the movie. It shows, in that order: Childhood toys, Leaning Tower of Piza (damaged architecture), and finally family photo of Carol, looking at elderly man (father?grandfather?uncle?) with disgust and fear. It is quite obvious symbolic scene: Carol was sexually abused as a child, she grew up to be broken woman, and finally succumbed to mental illness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.60.6.163 (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The article says that "Polanski shows a photograph of the young Carol hinting at a childhood of sexual abuse". Again, nothing of the sort is necessarily implied. JanBielawski (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your response to this film is an opinion. REPULSION at sexual situations which recall past traumas is a symptom of repressed childhood sexual abuse. See: http://www.wwcarecenter.org/parent-info.asp The very title of the film is an allusion to one of the major symptoms, the others being shock and numbness, of repressed childhood sexual trauma. You seem to have missed the point of the film which continually refers back to a photograph of Carol and what is alluded to be her family. In its final shot, the film highlights two faces - a male face at the right of the photograph, and young Carol, whose face is regarding the man with horror. Given the dozens of other allusions to sexual abuse in the film as well, its interpretation is not ambiguous. TGTommyrocket (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)TGTommyrocket


 * Umm...did it ever occur to you that the film's promotion is making it a pretty big point that she's clearly a virgin? And even if you're gonna tell us now that the virginity expressed in the film's promotion could (perhaps, maybe, potentially, who would ever know?) only refer to penetration to save your pretty little theory, your "repressed memories" theory is still only about as likely as one about repression of her own desires because she considers them filthy, and, well, repulsive because that's how she's been brought up, in a prudish way, perhaps. Also note that Polanski himself pretty much said that he wanted to show Carol as "born this kind of evil", which is what he said the last shot is all about, to express that she'd "always been like that from the very beginning", as even in that childhood photo, she already looks like the possessed kid from The Exorcist, basically radiating pure evil. The other figures with lightspots on them in that photo can be assumed to be (some of) her first murder victims. Just one other theory on this film with about the same credibility as yours, only that this one actually considers Polanski's own expressed opinion from the 1960s.


 * And if you're gonna come up with "scientifically proven facts" now gained by manipulative means such as drugs and hypnosis that used to be labeled a "therapy" to "recover" "repressed memories" administered in fact by authoritarian, esoteric cults and sects akin to Scientology, I'll be pointing Ofshe & Watters at you who crushed the backbone to your so-called "scientifically proven facts" back in the mid-90s already and who had more scientific credibility in their little finger than all your fraudulent voodoo-hoodoo priests and priestesses (such as Bass & Davis) combined that under the paleoconservative Reagan administration back in the 1980s were mistaken for respectable doctors. --79.193.36.81 (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

"Similar Films"?
Is this section really necessary? Seems ultimately non-NPV and probably more of a link factory that doesn't really do anything but hook (effectively) random pages up to this one. Manys (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Inspiration?
It seems that in his autobiography, Polansky claims that Deneuve's character was based on a girl who seemed normal and pleasant when you first met her but, when she moved in with a friend of his, she became subject to bouts of violence and would find sex both attractive and repellent. In his own biography of Polansky, Thomas Kiernan suggests that the "boyfriend" she moved in with may have been Polansky himself! Can anyone who has these books check out these statements?--Marktreut (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Polanski Cameo?
"Polanski himself makes a cameo as a mandolin player who is part of a trio of street buskers."

What's the citation for this? Most articles say he's playing the spoons, not the mandolin. He doesn't seem to be part of the trio when we first see them in the street (they are all older men). At least one person has claimed online that he appears later on in the film when Carole looks out the window and sees the buskers walking along the street down below. Unfortunately it's impossible to make out their faces in that long shot. Muzilon (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Typo(s) in Plot section?
From the Plot section:
 * Michael returns and carries Carol out, staring creepily at her wide-open eye, face and body.

I don't know what that means, and I'm not familiar enough with the film to edit it... Someone? – AndyFielding (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 24 November 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. There's unanimous agreement that there's no clear primary topic. Cúchullain t/ c 20:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

– The current WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status isn't daft (unlike some other media products squatting on the baseline); this is unquestionably a great and famous 1965 film, ...but... I wonder how many under the age of 60 have heard of it? It is 50 years ago and Repulsion (magnetism) Repulsion (genetics) etc. etc. are real existing topics in books and articles. I went through and only found 7 mislinks to the various science topics (which I fixed), but it looks as though other editors have been catching them and fixing them before. By WP:ASTONISH it's not going astonish anyone looking on their iPhone for the film to see Repulsion (film), in fact it will help. Wheras anyone looking for the various science meanings, and articles, would do better not being sent to the film. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Repulsion → Repulsion (film)
 * Repulsion (disambiguation) → Repulsion


 * Strong support clearly not the primary topic. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This should be the disambig page.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. No clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support since there are other topics that are broad-concept, so the film itself should not trump these. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as not unequivocally the primary topic. TheAstuteObserver (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I would never have guess this word went to a film article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.