The Worst Film Ever

It is a performances centric movie

Good start, but then it gets ruined

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Roman Polanski and his screenwriter in this film, Gerard Brach, were said to be enamored of theater of the absurd during their sojourn in Paris in the mid-60s, and wished to make a cinematic version of the then prevailing absurdist drama. It's been reported that they asked Samuel Becket, of "Waiting for Godot" fame, if they could film one of his absurdist dramas, particularly Godot, but he refused saying that his plays were meant for the stage, and only the stage. So Brach and Polanski decided to write their own absurdist film script and wrote "Cul-De-Sac" while in France, but could find no financial backing which they later sought in England. Financial support was also difficult to find in England but their success with Repulsion (1965), a psychological-horror film, made financing available for Cul-De-Sac, which was the film they wanted to make all along. In an interview in 1970 (before Chinatown), Polanski called it "my best film. I always loved it. I always believed in it. It is real cinema." What it is is "absurdist" cinema that simultaneously, and not separately, combines melodrama and comedy, where two dim-witted, small-time gangsters confront a sadomasochistic couple in a Gothic, horror-like setting. The two criminals, trying to get away from a job they botched for the mysterious Mr. Katelbach, lose their auto on the causeway to a medieval castle on a island just off the Northumberland coast in England, and as the tide comes in, they find themselves trapped on the island with the couple who live in the foreboding castle, or rather the couple finds themselves trapped with the hoods. And so begins the wait for the rescue by Ketelbach who is sure to turn up and rescue these dim-wits from the authorities who are surely on their tail. The owner, George, is older than his wife, somewhat effete and scared, and scorned by his wife, who's sexually flirtatious; the two hoods have been shot, one is dying, and the other (Dickie) uses towels as a bandage and becomes increasingly abusive, albeit in a comical way. The actions and dialogue of the four often make no sense, but there's some macabre humor when the castle receives visitors and the couple, afraid of revealing Dickie to be who he is, use him as their butler, but the rough hood's manners, movements, and speech indicate he's never worked at Downton Abbey. In the end, one of the characters dies, one is shot, one goes crazy, and one goes off with an apparent new lover, but has Ketelbach shown up?Technically, this is a well-shot film, as you might expect from a Polanski film, but I don't believe absurdist drama is perfectly made for film. I believe absurdist drama is more suitable for the stage where dialogue is everything, but I'm sure some readers can cite examples that can refute my assertion. In any event, the weird humor might have been more compelling in the 1960s than I found it in 2015.

I am a big Polanski fan and finally got around to watching this early movie of his. It appears to be low budget, but nicely shot, nonetheless. I love the environments he creates, and this wonderful castle used for the location is the most alive thing in the movie (if it hadn't been used for some slapstick comedy and thus falling apart). Some of the acting is reasonable (Jacqueline Bisset in an early, but non-speaking role, alas, is the most interesting thing, really; wish there was more of her or she had lines). Even with the few good things I listed, the movie misses on almost all cylinders, even though Polanski attempts, and almost succeeds, in making an old plot into something new, and into a black comedy as well (although it really is a rather 'gray' black comedy). It is a character study but they are all so distasteful that that fails. A very irritating movie, overall, due to the characters. I guess Polanski is a human director, after all! It could not be further from his other movies. The tragic murder of his wife, Sharon Tate, plus his later legal problems, have not happened by this release, so no obvious excuse for this self-indulgent film.

I am surprised the film won the Golden Bear at Berlin. I have loved Polanski's "Chinatown,"" Tess," and "Death and the Maiden." Polanski in Cul-de sac, presented great performances from two actors: Lionel Stander (whose career was wrecked by the McCarthy commission) and Donald Pleasance. Little else. The Jacqueline Bisset role was a cameo, nothing more and yet some posters have her name alongside the main actors.What irked me most was the fact that film was supposed to be set in America but the filming was in UK. Can American telephones and telephone lines make UK look like USA? Are there 11th century forts in USA? That's part of the Polanski script!!!

So we are getting in the way back machine a little bit for this one. Cul-De-Sac, Roman Polanski's third film, was made in 1966. I saw one of his other early films, Repulsion and I was pretty impressed so I figured I would give this one a try when I saw it on Netflix.Two criminals, Albie (Jack MacGowran) and Richard (Lionel Stander) are on the run from the law after a botched robbery. They are both wounded and their car has run out of gas. Desperate for a place to hide out, they stumble upon an isolated castle that sits on an Island.The castle is occupied by George (Donald Pleasence) and his wife Teresa (Francoise Dorleac). George is a pushover who dotes on his forceful and promiscuous wife. They are resistant to the two men when they first arrive but George is unwilling to fight and bends to the whim of much larger Richard. Teresa becomes resentful that George will not stand up for himself and conflicts occur.You can't help but think of one film in particular while I was watching this movie; Straw Dogs. The two films are definitely similar in a lot of ways. The theme here is basically the same. A bully(s) push around a much smaller protagonist and emasculate him until he is pushed too far. Once they have hit their limit, they attack ruthlessly.Cul-De-Sac differs in that the George doesn't seem to "man up" until after he has committed his acts of violence. His attack against his aggressor is more accidental and somewhat unnecessary. In Straw Dogs the act of violence is Dustin Hoffman's way of finding his hidden manhood and the violence is justified.Cul-De-Sac is a very character driven movie. The whole movie is about the interactions and complex relationships between the leads. The narrative definitely takes a back seat.There was a lot of discussion on the google box about how great Donald Pleasance was in this movie. I found him to be a bit much at times and laying it on pretty heavy. For me character actor Lionel Stander was the stand out. He plays the brutish thug to perfection and was the most fascinating character in the movie.There are a couple of interesting things to note about Cul-De-Sac. It has some nudity in it which I thought was pretty risqué for a movie that was made in 1966. Also, apparently Jack Nicholson has referred to this as his favorite movie.Cul-De-Sac was an interesting character study but those who like a more traditional narrative might get a bit bored with this. For me it was worth a watch.