criterionforum.org

Knife in the Water



Roman Polanski's first feature is a brilliant psychological thriller that many critics still consider among his greatest work. The story is simple, yet the implications of its characters' emotions and actions are profound. When a young hitchhiker joins a couple on a weekend yacht trip, psychological warfare breaks out as the two men compete for the woman's attention. A storm forces the small crew below deck, and tension builds to a violent climax. With stinging dialogue and a mercilessly probing camera, Polanski creates a disturbing study of fear, humiliation, sexuality, and aggression. This remarkable directorial debut won Polanski worldwide acclaim, a place on the cover of Time, and his first Oscar® nomination.

Special Features

• New high-definition digital transfer
• Video interview with director Roman Polanski and co-screenwriter, Jerzy Skolimowski
• Collection of Roman Polanski's short films from 1957-1962, including: Murder, Teeth Smile, Break Up the Dance, Two Men and a Wardrobe, The Lamp, When Angels Fall, The Fat and the Lean, and Mammals.
• A collection of rare publicity and production stills
• English subtitle translation by Roman Polanski

Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Feature currently disabled
................


I don't get why the wife has an affair with the hitch-hiker. I can make assumptions like he reminded her of her husband when he was younger but I wouldn't mind a more informed opinion.

It's been a long time since I've seen this film, but my recollection is that the husband's an arrogant oaf, the wife's bored to tears and the hitchhiker's a hunky blond. My understanding was that she's more interested in winding up her husband than actually making a commitment to the younger guy. It was back in the 80s that I saw this, however, so somebody who's seen it more recently probably has a more reliable perspective. . .

I think she does it to spite her husband. At the end she tells her husband that she cheated with the hitchhiker, but her husband is so self-centered that he doesn't believe her. BTW. THis is one of my favorite flicks.

This is also my favorite Polanski film. And a great addition to the collection at that. But IMHO the real gems here are the 5 student short films! The one with the burning baby dolls is just simply mesmerizing!

It's a terrific movie, but forget it, Jake -- my favorite Polanski far and away is "Chinatown."

Yeah, Chinatown like a motherfucker! But then I like all Polanski's films (I haven't seen Pirates and I don't think I will) even Macbeth. Who else was pleasantly surprised when he won his Oscar?

The Old Films section is crying out for a Chinatown dicussion-- Knife in the Water here, though, please.

Anyone know why Polanski's first short was not included on the second disc? Or that segement he did in "The Beautiful Swindlers"? Has anyone seen that one?

I thought it was cool that Polanski did the subtitle translation for the film himself.

Taketori Washizu wrote:Anyone know why Polanski's first short was not included on the second disc? Or that segement he did in "The Beautiful Swindlers"? Has anyone seen that one?

I thought it was cool that Polanski did the subtitle translation for the film himself.

Having Polanski part of this DVD ruined it. Certain dialogue is not translated and for some reason, he had the disc made where you can't fast forward or frame by frame. If only they had made abundant chapter slections, it might have made up for it, but unfortunately, this isn't the case.

Leon Niemczyk died yesterday in Warsaw at the age of 83. His career spanned 53 years - he debuted in Jerzy Kawalerowicz "Celullose" in 1953 and appeared in 195 movies according to IMBd. Probably best known for his roles in "Knife in the Water" and "The Saragossa Manuscript", he also appears in upcoming "Inland Empire" by David Lynch.

According to polish website he served in the American Army during WWII - 444 Battalion of the General Patton's 3rd Army.
From IMBd website:

Has been married six times, each time to a non-Polish woman.

One of his wives, Diana, was Cuban. Another wife, Doroti, was German. He was also married to a Yugoslavian woman. In current interviews (2004), being over 80 years old, he teases he would like to marry an Eskimo lady.

Anyone else have some love for this film?

I'd have to say it's my favorite Polanski (though it's been quite a long time since I last watched Chinatown). Each shot is masterful in its compositional beauty as well as its ability to unsettle the viewer.

I also really like this movie, but Chinatown hands down blows it away. I consider it my favorite film, and in my opinion deserves to be mentioned among the greatest ever made.

kaujot wrote:Anyone else have some love for this film?

I saw it as part of that R2 set and it was probably my least favorite of the three films, though I did like it.

domino harvey wrote:I saw it as part of that R2 set and it was probably my least favorite of the three films, though I did like it.

What else is in that R2 set (and what would you recommend from it)? I've seen very little of Polanski's work, outside of this, Chinatown, The Pianist, and, er Oliver Twist.

kaujot wrote:What else is in that R2 set (and what would you recommend from it)? I've seen very little of Polanski's work, outside of this, Chinatown, The Pianist, and, er Oliver Twist.

Repulsion and Cul de sac, both of which do not have satisfactory R1 counterparts. The R1 Repulsion is cropped to fullframe, which adds a different level of horror, but it's my favorite Polanski

domino harvey wrote:

kaujot wrote:What else is in that R2 set (and what would you recommend from it)? I've seen very little of Polanski's work, outside of this, Chinatown, The Pianist, and, er Oliver Twist.

Repulsion and Cul de sac, both of which do not have satisfactory R1 counterparts. The R1 Repulsion is cropped to fullframe, which adds a different level of horror, but it's my favorite Polanski

I wonder if you are thinking about this Anchor Bay set. It has the three titles you mention, plus a terrific fourth disc with 8 Polanski shorts. I think it's a great set and recommend it highly.

That is indeed the set

The Anchor Bay set was going for £7 in the London (Shaftesbury Avenue) branch of Fopp the other day - an unbelievable bargain for virtually Polanski's entire output from 1957-66 (three features, eight shorts), in decent transfers and with some excellent extras.

Anonymous wrote:

Taketori Washizu wrote:I thought it was cool that Polanski did the subtitle translation for the film himself.

Having Polanski part of this DVD ruined it. Certain dialogue is not translated and for some reason, he had the disc made where you can't fast forward or frame by frame. If only they had made abundant chapter slections, it might have made up for it, but unfortunately, this isn't the case.

Well, that answers the question I was about to ask - which was "are the subtitles on the Criterion version any more complete than the Anchor Bay, which I've just finished rewatching?"

I'm guessing not!

Absolutely superb film, though - I'd forgotten quite how unnerving it is, largely because every time I see it (this was the third), I've completely forgotten how it pans out from about the halfway mark, so it's like watching it afresh.

And it's particularly interesting watching it as part of a Skolimowski cycle, as I'm doing, as there are quite a few visibly Skolimowskian motifs - the game of jackstraws seems to echo the matchbox-inspired striptease in Wajda's Innocent Sorcerers (also scripted by Skolimowski), and the palpable sexual tension between the trio anticipates a whole raft of Skolimowski films from Deep End through The Shout (also a triangular relationship with a mysterious stranger) right up to Four Nights With Anna. And was it a coincidence that the hitch-hiker is almost a dead ringer for Skolimowski at the time? (Wasn't Skolimowski originally down to play the part?)

I believe that Polanski was going to play the part.

My only viewings of the film have been from the Criterion. The subs are obviously leaving dialogue out, but I have never felt as if I were missing anything crucial, mostly because so much of what is going on in the film is subtextual. I could be completely off base, but I think Polanski's seemingly minimalist translation is an attempt to keep the viewer focused on what's happening in the film (as opposed to reading dialogue) so that we can tease out the subtext of what is seen and observed, rather than what is said. Makes sense, especially in light of the fact that so much of what is said between the characters is postuering.

I think Danièle Huillet had a similar rationale for the subtitles on Edition Filmmuseum's Class Relations - though in that case they're even more frustratingly minimalist. Still, it gave my long-forgotten German a hefty workout.

I agree about the subtitles. Their minimalism kept me focused on reading what was happening on screen, not the text. It in no way hampered my viewing. Quite the opposite.

Tom Hagen wrote:I believe that Polanski was going to play the part.

I've just done a bit of superficial digging and have found out that both Polanski and Skolimowski wanted to play the part - and Polanski ended up dubbing the hitchhiker (which is obvious in retrospect).

kaujot wrote:I agree about the subtitles. Their minimalism kept me focused on reading what was happening on screen, not the text. It in no way hampered my viewing. Quite the opposite.

In the featurette on the Anchorbay UK DVD Polanski mentions that Skolimowski added a lot of "ideological bullshit" to the script, to appease the censors. So the reduced translation might be closer to what Polanski had in mind when scripting the movie.
I watched it only a few days ago for the first time and really liked it. It is really amazing how subtly but steadily the tension in this triangle is built up. A few glances, a few words and you know this is going to be a hell of an unpleasant sailing trip.