What? (1972)

Sydne Rome in What?

Roman Polanski's What? was almost universally regarded as a fiasco upon its original release, but I think it is a better and more interesting film than Knife in the Water, Cul-De-Sac, The Fearless Vampire Killers, The Tenant and, even, Repulsion. Like most of these films, What? is a reflection of the absurdist, black comic side of Polanski's sensibility. Co-written by longtime Polanski collaborator Gerard Brach, What? strands an innocent, Sydne Rome's Nancy, in a sumptuous villa (owned by the producer, Carlo Ponti) that is both madhouse and labyrinth. 

Nancy is introduced escaping a gang rape (presented comically) and after seeking shelter in the mysterious villa has to fend off a slew of predatory males. The villa is both magical (with its funicular) and sinister with its many trolls, among them the creepy "Spider" played by our head Creepmeister, Mr. Polanski. The dining table is elegantly set, but the food seems inedible. Chief among the many wolves and a self-described "pimp" is Alex. As louchely embodied by Marcello Mastroianni, Alex is a parody of Mastroianni's playboy image. One of the ways Nancy is beset upon is that her clothes are constantly being stolen, she suspects the culprit is Spider (and he is, of course), so that she is either topless or bottomless for most of the film. 

The presence of Polanski onscreen clues us to the self-critical nature of the film. Polanski is all too familiar with the exploitive nature of his art and business; in fact, he implicates himself within it. Indeed, the case could be made and has been made that Polanski is a prime example of male perfidy. He is not unaware of this and has sought to address this in his work. Rosemary's Baby, What?, Tess, Death and The Maiden and Venus in Fur all tackle the disparity in power between the sexes and all affirm feminine virtue, This does not excuse or exonerate Polanski's actions as an individual, but they do point to his complexity as an artist.

A chief motif of the film is the Nietzschean idea of eternal recurrence. Events repeat themselves throughout the course of the film. Just as day follows night and the sun also rises. Polanski handles this ponderous theme in a light fashion rather than a portentous one. Hugh Griffith's German nurse is ostentatiously reading Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra. There are no accidents on the screen except happy ones.  The characters in What? are trapped in endless cycles of repetitive behavior. Polanski views them here not as tragic characters imprisoned in a deterministic world (as he does in Tess and Chinatown, among others), but as comic characters skewered by their own foibles. Jonathan Rosenbaum, the sole critical champion of this film that I could find, seized upon the affection Polanski bestows upon his characters and called the film a "sunny remake of Cul-De-Sac." 

The character of Nancy, with her glam, Little Orphan Annie curls, is a weird amalgam of Lewis Carroll's Alice, Harvey Kurtzman's Little Annie Fanny and Terry Southern's Candy. The cinematography often frames her curls in a golden haze. A host of gorgeous paintings from Ponti's collection by Bacon, Modigliani, Van Gogh and many others offer a wry commentary on the action or lack thereof.

What? is probably best suited for cinephiles and diehard fans of Polanski. Polanski's macabre and very Polish sense of humor is decidedly not suited to all tastes. If one finds aspic humorous than one might succumb to the charms of What?. I was lucky enough to see the Italian Language version in a sparkling print. Most contemporaneous critics derided the English language version released in America. At times, as in its abrupt finale, What? is too Pirandellian and self-conscious for its own good. Overall, though, I found What? to be a rich, strange, underrated and, yes, funny film.