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.
8 out of 11 found this helpful