Review of Cul-de-sac (1966) by Tomek S — 28 Aug 2011

Roman Polanski's "Cul-De-Sac" is probably the most 'Polanski-ish' film the director has made. Every sensibility of the famed auteur is on display here. From the genre bending, to the mental games of imposition, to the stylish cinematography, to the loopy performances. "Cul-De-Sac" also delights in being non-comformative and always hiding it's true intentions. After all, this is more of an abstract art film than a piece of narrative cinema (maybe the most peculiar and obscure film he's made). What the film means seems to be a question Polanski is not concerned with. He once said "It's just a film...". If that's the case, why does it feel so decided and precise? Like everything we are meant to see is specially chosen? Polanski seems to suggest that his film is without a specific intent, which is odd. If that is what he really meant, then why did he fight for so long to get it made? Curious, indeed.

Whether "Cul-De-Sac" is utterly worthless, or, like I believe, tantalizingly alive inside it's mental threesome unreality, there is no denying it's a one of a kind motion picture.