Roman Polanski

Amazon.comrade

Sigourney Weaver spills the beans on the unexpurgated "Galaxy Quest" and explains how her work in Roman Polanski's neglected "Death and the Maiden" fueled her powerhouse acting in "A Map of the World."

  • more
    • All Share Services

Amazon.comrade

Sigourney Weaver has long been every movie fan’s Amazon.comrade — the woman you want at the helm when you’re searching out and destroying aliens. Even as a romantic or a comic figure, she is at her best in trouble zones, whether in the revolutionary Indonesia of “The Year of Living Dangerously” (1983) or the demon-infested New York streets of “Ghostbusters” (1984). Her marvelous confident stride, her impudence and freshness, seem to demand worthy obstacles.

The first (and better) half of the romantic thriller “Eyewitness” (1981) defines the Weaver appeal. William Hurt, as an educated janitor, falls in love with Weaver, a Gotham TV news reporter, from afar, and finds himself burbling out his love for her when she interviews him for a murder story. Yet Weaver isn’t threatened or put off by this potential stalker; she’s touched, amused, intrigued. Where angels fear to tread, Weaver skips merrily.

But for a dozen years, a more complex Weaver persona has been emerging. Even as the valiant Dian Fossey in “Gorillas in the Mist” (1988), Weaver began to bring out the hidden torments of her heroines. And ever since “Death and the Maiden” (1994), Roman Polanski’s brilliant tale of a female torture and rape victim who turns the rack on her rapist, Weaver has specialized in characters who are at odds with both their environments and themselves.

That even went for “Alien Resurrection” (1997), where Weaver’s talented Ms. Ripley, our stalwart deep-space warrior, was cloned with part-human, part-alien DNA. And it goes double for her 1999 efforts, the erratically powerful “A Map of the World,” in which she plays a public-school nurse and farm-community outsider who is accused of molesting a child, and the blissfully funny “Galaxy Quest,” in which she plays an actress trapped in the persona of her sci-fi TV series role.

When I spoke with Weaver last week on the phone from Los Angeles (where she had attended the Golden Globes as a best actress nominee for “A Map of the World”), she agreed with the notion that she now favors characters who carry around their own internal pressure chambers. “It’s interesting you put it that way,” she said. “It makes a lot of sense, when you look at my roles. But actually, there’s never been any rhyme or reason to my career. I’ve never gotten things that I’ve gone after. I was lucky to get to play Alice Goodwin in ‘A Map of the World’; her character is one of the richest I’ve ever had, so surprising and irreverent and uncompromising.

“She’s different from me, but she’s also similar in that I have a young child, and I work, and my husband [theater director Jim Simpson] also works. It’s always this juggling routine to salvage the most you can from, oh, every other day, and have everyone stay healthy and clean. Alice is always playing catch-up; she’s a pig, her house is a mess. And she has a dear friend, and I have a dear friend like that, the mother of children your child plays with.”

As those who’ve read Jane Hamilton’s novel know, early on, a child of that friend drowns while in Alice’s care. Alice is still in a psychological tailspin when she is accused of molesting a schoolboy whom she happens to detest. Weaver said that, reading the script (by Peter Hedges and Polly Platt), she loved “the way it was told, that it didn’t go for tear-jerking scenes or traditional ‘women’s’ scenes; it was refreshing to come across real people — it was like a job from heaven.”

I don’t agree with Weaver about the finished film directed by Scott Elliott. A better title than “A Map of the World” might be “Town Without Pity.” In the film, as opposed to the novel (it’s a matter of tone and emphasis), it’s hard to take how rudely all the rural citizens act toward her after the drowning, and how swiftly everyone judges her after she is charged with molestation. Alice’s husband (David Strathairn) can’t get anyone to care for their kids — and gets spit on in a parking lot, right in front of them. What’s worse, Alice’s own actions grow from ambiguous to murky. In the movie, it’s not made clear why, in the TV room of the county jail, she knocks herself out on a table rather than grapple with a combative fellow inmate. (In the book, she aims to protect herself from a worse beating; in the movie she appears to be still punishing herself.) And the film turns her recollection of slapping the accusing boy into some kind of repressed memory.

But Weaver’s performance gives the movie spine and bite. Weaver said that for all of Alice’s ups and downs and fits and starts, “She’s still Alice Goodwin, still opening her big fat mouth and still a bossy-boots. You know she won’t compromise and that she will stay true to herself.”

I told Weaver that the intense physicality of her performance made the character’s mental states real. No matter what the setting, Alice comes off oddly clumsy — as if circumstances like her husband’s yen to be a farmer have made her a literal misfit. (Near the end, she looks more at ease in city streets.) “It’s so funny you would say that,” Weaver replied. “I guess what I feel about the body in acting is: The body does not know that you’re acting. If you say certain words and you’re in a certain environment, the body doesn’t know that you are faking anything. If you are relaxed — if you’ve done your homework and feel open — the body feels that a child has died or that a husband is acting oppressive. The director says ‘action’ and the body plays the scene. Alice just seemed to me all elbows and knees, angular and testy.”

Weaver can’t explain precisely how her kinetic transformations work. She does say that whenever she needs help, she asks “for a physical stimulus — the taste and feel and odor of fried food, the smell of dirty laundry. The body doesn’t know you’re just doing a job. It’s your most powerful tool and the one you have to be relaxed with. I was able to see Charles Aznavour perform last year, and I was thinking, any great singer is relaxed with his voice that way; that’s why his music is so amazing.”

Director Roman Polanski’s screen version of the stage hit “Death and the Maiden” was the turning point for Weaver. “Every time I wanted to be frightened,” she said, “Polanski shot a gun off and it always scared the bejesus out of me.” When Polanski first approached her about being in the movie, she told him she was tempted. But she comes from a privileged New York background and didn’t think she could bring enough authority to a character tortured in a Latin American country. (Weaver’s dad was in charge at NBC from 1951 to 1956 and started “Today” and “The Tonight Show”; Weaver studied English at Stanford and theater at Yale.) “What I said to Roman was: I’m flattered, but let’s not be naive. What do I know about being horribly abused and raped during a military dictatorship?”

Polanski suggested that she try the Method. She began working “with this great teacher named Jack Waltzer. Jack teaches in New York and Paris. He studied with Stella Adler, Sandy Meisner and Lee Strasberg — all the big honchos of the Actors Studio and the Method — and I think he’s the only one who pulls them all together and adds his own stuff. From scene to scene he made me ask myself, what is the essence of the scene and where do I know that from?

“You start to interweave your own experience and that of the character, and they don’t even have to be reasonably similar. I worked for hours every weekend and every night trying to find threads of experience I could use, and learning a whole different way of approaching my work. It was obviously fruitful for me — I’m still using it. You do sense-memory exercises about other places, other people. Then, when it comes time to do a scene, you don’t need to do the exercises. You can think of one physical thing — you can flash on a hat — and you’re in the scene.

“If there’s anything I think I could teach, it’s these techniques — and the lack of technique. I mean, there’s a lot of junk you don’t need to know. Recently, my husband taught some third-year theater graduate students, and of course they were all in their 20s and wanted to do Chekhov, with characters going through midlife crises. One young actress made an effort to move as if she were wearing a long dress, and it was getting in the way of her performance. As an actor, you don’t have to keep proving that you’re right for the part — we’ll accept you in it as long as you say the lines. If you’re in period clothes, then you let the clothes do the work for you.”

When I mentioned that “Topsy-Turvy” director Mike Leigh told me how important corsets were for his cast of Victorian characters, Weaver responded, “Yes, but when you put the corset on, it’s on you: You don’t have to act the corset being on you.”

Weaver chalks up the relative lack of attention for “Death and the Maiden” to “a tiny distribution budget” and the continued backlash against Polanski for living and working in Europe rather than face sentencing in Los Angeles after pleading guilty to a statutory rape charge. “Roman is an amazing director,” she said. “I was surprised when I saw his finished film. It was really my movie when we were making it, but Roman wanted a bit of ‘Rashomon’ in it — he wanted you to see me through the eyes of the other characters, too, and think, ‘Maybe she’s right; maybe she’s crazy.’ And he was a genius — a genius to do that.” She feels that connects to what she admired about “A Map of the World”: “The realizations are not programmed into the script. They happen as they would happen in real life, in a surprising way, and when you least expect them.”

Although Weaver doesn’t rely on source materials in the thick of a performance, she said that during “A Map of the World” she often felt as if
her only real company “was Alice in the book — it was as if she were the only one who could understand me. There wasn’t time to find the places in the book containing all the scenes. But there were details I absorbed subliminally — or maybe I made the same choices that Jane Hamilton did because I was relaxed and everything was working correctly. Like when Alice runs down the hill and sees the little girl’s body in the water.”

Weaver summoned up her memory of acting that moment: “I remember being slightly worried because you can’t find the little one. But the little one has never wandered away before so you’re not that worried. Then you’re looking around when you see a little pink thing in the pond, and you don’t know what happens next, you just go — you’re just trying to get down the hill as fast as you can. And when I went back to the book, Jane Hamilton had described how wildly and clumsily Alice had gone flailing down the hill.” (“I ran like a blind person,” the book’s Alice relates, “stumbling over my own heavy limbs.”)

Her description of that crisis illustrates her belief that “it’s best not to know what you’re doing. You have to trust yourself when you’re actually shooting. After all, you’ll never know when you’ve done the right work or enough work. You just have to let it go. As one actor said a long time ago, get out of the character’s way.”

Weaver did spend “a few hours” in the county jail in Racine, Wis., which she described as “a very helpful, dehumanizing experience. They take your clothes and you put on something other women have worn, and it’s clean but it’s filled with old smells. I saw where the prisoners see their visitors, and I realized how it would feel to be in for sexually molesting children, which doesn’t endear you with the population there. It was an incredibly powerful assault.”

Yet one of the more dynamic surprises of the film is that Alice’s brow clears and she clicks into mental alertness after she’s arrested. “Well,” explained Weaver, “I felt that Alice was feeling so terrible about what happened that she was punishing herself more and more — and when she’s thrown into the county jail she doesn’t have to punish herself anymore because she is being punished. She continually sees the absurdity of the situation. She goes back to her cell after her hearing and her cellmate is masturbating, and her look says, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me.’ It feels good to be punished, although the real punishment is being away from her family. She reads books not because she has time on her hands, but because she doesn’t want to think about what her daughters and her husband are up to. She escapes into these books. She lives entirely in her head.”

Alice in “A Map of the World” is the opposite of Gwen Demarco in “Galaxy Quest,” who has been forced to live entirely in her body. On the “Galaxy Quest” TV series, Gwen plays Tawny Madison, whose sole function in the crew is to talk to the computer and repeat back exactly what it says. “With comedy I’m not sure you should think about any of it,” laughed Weaver. “Comedy is its own special thing. I do feel that I was blessed with a small comic gift that I was born with. I think it comes from my dad’s side — my uncle, Doodles Weaver, who was a comic with the Spike Jones band.”

Weaver said it was hard, but not impossible to apply her post-”Maiden” acting lessons to Gwen Demarco. “Basically I tried to give her a showgirl background, as if she just sashayed her way into the part. But I also gave her some of my own experience. I played her as if Gwen had turned down a small role in a Woody Allen film to take this series, and has never stopped thinking, ‘God, did I do the wrong thing?’ Twenty years later she’s still in a cat suit.”

Weaver herself did a walk-on in “Annie Hall” (“thanks to the kindness of Woody Allen”) after turning down a larger role in it. She couldn’t bear leaving “a showcase part” playing “a multiple schizophrenic who kept a hedgehog in her vagina” in her playwright pal Christopher Durang’s workshop production of “Titanic.” At the same time, she and Durang were appearing in a revue they coauthored, “Das Lusitania Songspiel,” as “mad Midwesterners who think they know everything about Brecht and Weill and are wonderfully earnest and get all their facts wrong.”

Weaver has no regrets about turning down the Allen role; she said the other parts “were probably two of the most fun things I’ve ever done.” But her “Galaxy Quest” character does. “I think that Gwen always wanted to give it her all,” said Weaver. “And that’s how she gets hurt. Even at the computer — as far as she’s concerned, she’s speaking Shakespeare. It was my idea to play her as a blond. I didn’t see how Gwen could play a character like Tawny Madison without being blond. I saw her as this blond beauty who gives everything to her work but has low self-esteem because everyone treats her as a sex object who can’t think. She has great confidence in how she looks, not what she says.”

Seeing director Dean Parisot’s previous film, the underrated “Home Fries” (one of my Top Eight for ’98), made Weaver want to do “Galaxy Quest.” She said the whole ensemble “dove into it with relish. My favorite may be Tony Shalhoub, squinting his eyes because he’s playing an Asian, but Alan Rickman is so brilliant in it, and Tim Allen proves he has a much bigger range than people give him credit for — when he has to become a hero, he’s up for it.”

Weaver is delighted to be appearing in “a good-hearted picture” that has turned into a word-of-mouth hit. But she is sorry that DreamWorks trimmed some smart and sexy jokes to land it a PG rating and a family-movie ambience. “They cut out about 10 minutes, including some of my best stuff. In the outtakes, I seduce two evil guards: One of them says, ‘This is sick — it is as if to seek pleasure with an animal,’ and when I suggest to the other one that maybe he could leave us alone, he says, ‘No, alien slut, on my planet we share.’ Then I tell the computer to shut a section block — it squishes them — and I ask these piles of goo, ‘Do you take me seriously now?’

“Maybe in the European version it will get put back. All of us had our more sophisticated moments removed. When the rock monster attacks Tim, and Alan tells Tim to figure out its motivation, Tim says, ‘It’s a damn rock monster. It doesn’t have motivation.’ And Alan says, ‘That’s your problem. You were never serious about the craft.’ That much is still in the film. But then there was this hilarious bit of Alan figuring the motivation out: ‘I’m a rock … I just want to be a rock … still … peaceful … tranquil.’”

Weaver surmised, “DreamWorks wanted a holiday movie, a film for kids out of school. And it was made to meet a release date, so I don’t think many people at the studio honestly got a chance to see the movie and think about it before releasing it. It was like we finished it and it came out the day after.” Then she caught herself and laughingly asked, “Do you think they’ll be mad at me for saying this?”

But caution doesn’t become her. “Acting feels amazing to me now,” she said, “because you literally step off a cliff and don’t know what will happen. I don’t think I saw it that way before ‘Death and the Maiden.’ Anyway, I don’t have to climb mountains or jump out of planes or bungee jump. I act, and that’s as far out there as I need to get. If you’re doing it right, it’s scary!”

Michael Sragow's column about moviemakers appears every Thursday in Salon. For more columns by Sragow, visit his archive.

Lights, cameo, action!

Alfred Hitchcock's first rule of directing was to treat actors like cattle -- and even in his own cameos, he was no sacred cow.

  • more
    • All Share Services

The appeal of some of the recurring elements in Alfred Hitchcock’s 53 films — Bernard Herrmann’s scores, Edith Head’s clothes, the modernist blonds, all those hotel rooms and trains — share a kind of lurid glamour. Watching “To Catch a Thief,” “Vertigo” and “Rebecca” from this end of the century, it’s shocking how shocking they are, how sexy — sexual. From “Psycho’s” opening post-coital scene in that cheap hotel to “Rope’s” not-so-subtle homosexual buzz, Hitchcock’s films are resolutely adult. Except for one glaringly childlike device: the director’s own cameos. The cameos are eye candy, empty calories that nonetheless bring on a sugar high, and bliss, albeit temporary.

Why is that? Why is it so pleasurable, just when you’re embarking on an evening of murder, to spy a round old Englishman flicker on the screen for less time than it takes to chew a Junior Mint? Take the problematic “Marnie,” for example: Right before the viewer is thrown into such unsettling topics as repressed memory and marital rape, Marnie, played by the peculiar Tippi Hedren and described by the boss she’s just ripped off as having “evil features, good teeth,” marches down a hotel corridor with a bellboy — at which point Hitch pokes his head out of his room as if checking whether the coast is clear. It is practically the only truly light-hearted moment in this heavy-handed, heavy-hearted film.

The Hitchcock cameos are fundamentally about pleasure. Just for kicks, they do not move the stories along. It’s tempting to say they’re not symbolic, that they’re meaningless, and yet I think symbolism is the root of their appeal. Directors in general and Hitchcock in particular are inherent control freaks. They are the overseers, the bosses, the chiefs. Hitchcock wasn’t just a commanding figure, he had a commanding physical presence. He was, in every sense of the word, huge. Part of the joy of the cameos is how inconspicuous he is on screen. Frequently, he’s a bit of a boob. In “North by Northwest” he misses his bus. In “To Catch a Thief” he sits on a bus next to Cary Grant, who sits next to a bird cage. Could the man not drive? In the cameos, Hitch always plays a random everyman, frequently in transit to some no-doubt mundane routine.

A lot of other directors cast themselves in bit parts in their own films. But Hitchcock’s wry humility — no lines in no time — is not the rule. Take a survey of most director cameos and the common thread is this: Directors are bossy. They spend all day, every day, telling actors what to do, and this impulse spills over onto the screen. The purest example is Francis Coppola’s turn as a television documentary director in “Apocalypse Now.” As Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) runs past Coppola’s TV crew mid-battle, there are explosions and gunfire demanding his attention and yet Willard is only mesmerized by Coppola’s camera. “Just go by like you’re fighting!” Coppola screams at him, directing the war. “Don’t look at the camera! It’s for television!”

Coppola’s yelling tone is not uncommon. The most hilarious example of this is David Lynch’s small role as Agent Cooper’s supervisor Gordon Cole in “Twin Peaks,” both on television and in the film “Fire Walk With Me.” Cole, near-deaf, consequently screams his lines. (When Cole calls an agent played by Chris Isaak in “Fire Walk With Me” on his car phone, Isaak quickly lowers the antenna on his car to weaken the signal.) Secondly, Coppola speaks with a directorial tendency toward what the grammarians call You Understood. See Oliver Stone’s brief appearance in “Wall Street” instructing his broker “Take it and bid it!” in the same tone of voice one imagines he commands, “Action!”

Others gripe at their actors. As Dustin Hoffman’s agent in “Tootsie,” director Sydney Pollack is crabby and impatient. “I’m your agent, not your mother!” And who can forget Martin Scorsese’s “Taxi Driver” cameo? Sitting in the back of Robert De Niro’s cab, Scorsese orders the cabbie to pull up to a curb, sit there, look up at a window and “Just sit!” Then, in a twitching voice, the director confesses his wife’s up there in another man’s apartment and he’s going to kill her and kill her soon. “You must think I’m pretty sick,” he laughs.

Some directors use their cameos not just to boss their actors around on screen, but also to abuse them, scare them, let them know who’s the better man. Which is presumably what they’re doing behind the scenes. The most famous example of this impulse is director Roman Polanski’s brief but influential arrival in his “Chinatown.” He opens a switchblade and chides Jack Nicholson’s detective, “You’re a very nosy fellow. You know what happens to nosy fellows? … They lose their noses.” He jabs the switchblade into Nicholson’s nostril and cuts through his nose in one swift flick. There’s blood everywhere. And, because Nicholson has to wear a bandage through the rest of the movie, Polanski’s influence is blatantly pictured, a bloody, scabby reminder of Polanski’s control. Or in “Treasure of the Sierra Madre,” director John Huston is the altruistic rich man continually giving the bum Bogie money until finally chiding him, “You have to make your way through life without my assistance.” At which point Huston probably ordered, “Cut!” and then helped Bogart find his motivation or something.

Alfred Hitchcock, lest we forget, once remarked that “actors should be treated like cattle.” But he puts himself on screen as cattle. Sitting next to a star like Grant, Hitchcock is the extra. Since he doesn’t speak, he’s less a character than a logo. Viewers look for Hitchcock’s round mug to appear just as museum-goers look to the bottom of a painting for the artist’s signature. Hitchcock’s whole body acts as his signature, and this fact is wittily alluded to in his cameo in “Strangers on a Train”: Boarding the train just as Farley Granger gets off, Hitch carries a stand-up bass case his exact size and shape — his visual twin.

By the end of their lives, actor-directors such as Spike Lee and Woody Allen, who keep starring in their own films, will have amassed the equivalent of Rembrandt’s self-portraits. Just as the Dutch master continually tilted his mirror so the world could watch him be savaged by time, those filmmakers will age and grow (more petty, in Allen’s case) before us. Hitchcock’s impulse to jump in and out of his films willy-nilly was less deep but more fun. Hitchcock wasn’t Rembrandt so much as Jan Van Eyck. Painting himself as a speck in the mirror of his famous “Wedding Portrait,” van Eyck, as witness of the wedding he depicted, inscribed the canvas in Latin, “Johannes de Eyck fuit hic” (Jan van Eyck was here). So the next time you’re watching “Vertigo” and a man in a suit walks past the shipyard carrying what’s either a lunch box or a bugle case, whisper to yourself, “Alfred Hitchcock was here.”

Continue Reading Close

Sarah Vowell is the author of "Radio On: A Listener's Diary" (St. Martin's Press, 1996) and "Take the Cannoli" (Simon & Schuster, 2000) and is a regular commentator on PRI's "This American Life." Her column appears every other Wednesday in Salon. For more columns by Vowell, visit her column archive.

Home Movies by Charles Taylor: Latin American Gothic

Roman Polanski's overwrought version of "Death and the Maiden" undermines the play's tidy message of tolerance.

  • more
    • All Share Services

Plenty of talented directors don’t bother to hide their contempt for the
hack scripts they’ve been assigned, but you don’t expect them to
choose shallow, mediocre material as the basis for their most
personal work. That’s just what Roman Polanski did with his film of Ariel
Dorfman’s human rights problem play “Death and the Maiden.” It’s an
exceptionally intelligent and controlled piece of direction, and for once
Polanski didn’t hide his emotions in a death’s-head grin. The movie is raw
and passionate and unresolved in a way that’s unique among his work.

At first Polanski’s direction seems as artificial as the material (adapted
by Dorfman and Rafael Yglesias) because he’s taken his stylistic cues
straight from Dorfman’s setting: a secluded house on a dark, stormy night.
Polanski doesn’t bother to soft-peddle the melodramatic touches: the
crashes of thunder and the power failures, the storm-tossed waves breaking
onto impossibly steep cliffs, the sudden bursts of action accompanied by
huge blasts of soundtrack music. Instead of opening the play up, he
constricts it, makes it stagier.

Polanski wants us to see how Dorfman’s neat little parable is aesthetically
rigged, so he can show us how it’s intellectually, emotionally and morally
rigged. He’s like a workman gutting a house, tearing it down to the bare
walls, exposing the structure and the wiring. Only instead of rebuilding
it, Polanski explodes it, clearing a space for Sigourney Weaver to stalk
through the rubble like a battered Amazon queen exacting her revenge.

Weaver plays Paulina, one of thousands tortured by the military
dictatorship that’s just been deposed in her unnamed Latin American
country. Her husband, Gerardo (Stuart Wilson), formerly a student
opposition leader, is now a famous lawyer, appointed by the newly elected
president to head up a committee investigating the military’s human rights
abuses. His car gets stuck during a storm, and when a motorist (Ben
Kingsley) gives him a lift home, he invites the stranger in for a drink.
Paulina recognizes their guest as Dr. Miranda, the man who tortured and
raped her while playing Schubert’s “Death and the Maiden.” She never saw
her torturer; he always kept her blindfolded. But Paulina remembers his
voice, his laugh, his smell. While he’s sleeping on the couch, she cold-cocks him with the butt of a gun and ties him to a chair. When he comes to,
despite his protestations that he’s done nothing wrong — and despite
Gerardo’s insistence that she let him go — Paulina, holding the gun on
both of them, proposes to put Miranda on trial.

It’s easy to see how Dorfman’s play was meant to work: as a battle between
our thirst for revenge and the voice of conscience that calls us to a
higher form of justice. In the end, we’re meant to see that, yes, brutality
begets brutality, and to victimize our victimizers is to sink to their
level — it’s like the Amnesty International version of “Extremities.”

Polanski isn’t having any of this. How could he? A man who spent his
childhood running from the Nazis isn’t likely to buy into a stage melodrama
that pretends to answer questions about the nature of evil. For Dorfman,
Gerardo is the play’s voice of sanity; for Polanski, he stands for the
blissfully ignorant certainty of principles untested by experience.
Gerardo’s trite little homilies, like “In a democracy the midnight knock on
the door can be friendly,” are the luxuries of a man who’s never had to
face the reality of what he opposed. When Gerardo asks Paulina if she’s
aware of the consequences of her actions, it’s a bad joke. Arrested for
transporting Gerardo’s papers and tortured because she refused to reveal
his name, she’s already faced the worst possible consequences.

Far from a victim whose judgment has been clouded by her ordeal, Paulina
becomes the new moral center of the material, the only character who takes
responsibility for her actions. There are times when the film’s entire
meaning seems contained in the way Weaver strides across the
screen. Tall and sinewy, Weaver gives Paulina’s every movement power and
purpose. She moves like someone who’s always conserving her power for a
survival test waiting right around the corner. When a strange car pulls up
in the driveway, she douses the lights and gets a gun as if she’s run
through this drill hundreds of times before.

Weaver immerses herself so fully in this obsessive character that we come
to see Paulina’s actions as necessary. Dorfman peppers his script with
allusions to Paulina’s unstable behavior, suggestions that Miranda’s alibi
might be true. Weaver goes at the role so unflinchingly that she makes
those what-ifs seem like a safety net Dorfman has provided himself.
Paulina’s command of the situation is undeniably thrilling — the animal
way she sniffs the sleeping Miranda to make sure he’s the right man, the
calm way she puts a bullet in the floor a few feet from Gerardo when he
tries to untie Miranda. She’s operating on pure instinct and considering
the weight of each action at the same time. And Weaver is testing us,
asking how far we’re willing to follow her. In her big monologue, before
she tells Gerardo, for the first time, exactly what Miranda did to her,
she asks him, “You really think you can stand it?” She might as well be
asking us. Weaver doesn’t push a thing, but she makes you feel as if you’re
living through every bit of it with her, even as you can hear the dead spot
she’s forcing into the center of her emotions in order to maintain control.

If “Death and the Maiden” were solely a justification of Paulina’s actions,
it would have the easy comfort of a revenge fantasy. But the key line is
Paulina’s: “No revenge can satisfy me.” For all the rage here, there’s an
impotence to the film. Polanski is torn between the victim’s moral
certainty of what constitutes evil and the artist’s responsibility to
understand even what he finds alien and repugnant. He seems to be saying
that all of the violence he’s put on screen hasn’t exorcised any of the
demons that have intruded on his life. When, at the end of the film,
Kingsley’s Dr. Miranda is held in close-up for four minutes while he talks
about how he became seduced by the chance to wield absolute power over his
charges, the rage that keeps Polanski (and Paulina) going dissipates before
the awful realization that, as Renoir said, “Everyone has his reasons.”

“Death and the Maiden” is some sort of endpoint for Polanski. Paulina says,
“It’s time for me to reclaim my Schubert.” But as she sits in a concert
hall at the film’s coda, listening to “Death and the Maiden” while Miranda
sits with his family in a private box, she looks cut off from the music,
unable to trust what it’s telling her ever again. Polanski’s film stands in
complete contradiction to the belief in art’s power to enlighten. Culture
is paralysis here, or at best a dodge, the thing that allows Miranda to
hide what he’s done behind his appreciation of Schubert — and that allows
audiences who have spent $70 on a night at the theater to think that
they’ve dealt with the nature of evil. “Death and the Maiden” not only
makes it seem unnecessary for Polanski to ever make another movie, it makes
it seem impossible.

Continue Reading Close

Charles Taylor is a columnist for the Newark Star-Ledger.

Page 9 of 9 in Roman Polanski