the acceptance of evil as part of our world, the need to sort of reconcile with that darkness, then it's not quite as silly as that.
No, I guess no one could call this silly indeed, especially coming from someone with as tragic a past as Polanski's.
That being said Polanski never really stroke me as a filmmaker who believed in a purely external manifestation of evil -say, as John Carpenter for example- or who would need the mediation of a figure like The Devil to explain the evil Man commits against Man.
Which is why I think Ro's husband is depicted as a way creepier and evil bastard than Satan himself (or as Satan himself actually, as their images are superimposed at some point).
Now a frail, innocent, 60's young woman like Ro on the other hand (with a religious education and good dose of guilt, as shown in her first dream sequence) would probably need the intervention of The Devil to make sense of why the man she loves and whose child she's going to bear would rape her while she's passed out.
I think The Devil appears in the film more out of necessity for Rosemary to make sense of the world than for Polanksi.
[]the narrative and the character behaviour simply do not seem to support the "Nutty Ro" explanation.
I'm not too keen on calling the psychological interpretation the "Nutty Ro" explanation.
Makes it sound like she's crazy and the blame is almost on her, regardless of any prior aggression/traumatic event she might have been the victim of, and which might have pushed her to elaborate a delusional fantasy to block out a truth way too devastating and depressingly ugly for her to handle.

"The devil is real, which is a bit silly".
On the face of it, it obviously is. But as viewed from a broader perspective & looking at the point of what Polanski ultimately seems to be making - the acceptance of evil as part of our world, the need to sort of reconcile with that darkness, then it's not quite as silly as that.
"Why is it that from Polanski's so-called "apartment rilogy", RB is the only film where so many viewers seem so passionately intent on disregasrding the psychological explanation in favour of the supernaturaal?"
Well, as far as I'm concerned, it's because the narrative and the character behaviour simply do not seem to support the "Nutty Ro" explanation. I've been wrong before, though.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

You can let it be supernatural or you could intellectualize that Rosemary would rather believe her husband is a satanist rather than admit he raped her and doesn't lover her at all.
Besides the fact that Polanski has indeed stated in a video interview that both the supernatural and psychological interpretations were potentially valid (there isn't a single supernatural happening in the whole film), the film is so much more interesting and pervert if you leave room for both explanations.
It leaves the viewer with a much tougher and more interesting dilemma on his hands: either entertain the idea that "this is no dream, this is really happening" (and therefore accept that the devil is real, which is a bit silly) or decide that it's all "in Roe's head", which is the most plausible explanation but one that
de facto
makes you side with the very unsympathetic doctor Hill and his unbearable patriarchal and condescending ways.
Why is it that from Polanski's so-called "apartment trilogy" (Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby and The Tenant), Rosemary's Baby is the only film where so many viewers seem so passionately intent on disregarding the psychological explanation in favour of the supernatural one?
Could the reason be that Mia Farrow's fantastic turn as Rosemary makes it so easy to root for the poor girl that opting for the psychological explanation (which definitely feels like the right one to me) is even more depressing than believing in the supernatural one, because it feels like "betraying" Rosemary and it leaves her utterly alone, with not even the viewer to believe her.
It puts the viewer in a very uncomfortable position (siding with Dr. Hill who is depicted as a cold, heartless individual by Polanski), whereas believing in the devil is easier and doesn't make the viewer accountable for anything (just like it's easier for Rosemary to believe in the devil than to realise the man she loves is a major creep and she needs to find the strength to leave him).

Nope, NEVER did I say the psychological interpretation is the only one that is correct. I said that Polanski filmed it as ambiguous. You could interpret the film either way. I personally see the film as about a woman suffering from psychosis.
In the final analysis, whether or not the devil was actually depicted in the movie raping Rosemary is beside the main point of the movie themes - that being the sacrifice of Rosemary to Guy's ambition. That is a metaphor that was clearly intended by the author of the novel and by Polanski.
Yes, this story is about a bad marriage. You can let it be supernatural or you could intellectualize that Rosemary would rather believe her husband is a satanist rather than admit he raped her and doesn't lover her at all.

Again, THE DIRECTOR OF THE FILM STATES THAT THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. See the documentaries on youtube.
You have made the claim now several times that Polanski claimed that the purely "psychological" interpretation is the interpretation Polanski intended, but then you have admitted in other posts that the director actually intended that both the psychological and the supernatural explanations be possible based upon what the movie actually shows. You can't have it both ways - Polanski either intended both interpretations to be valid based upon the movie or he intended only one interpretation - but it can't be both and just one.
In the final analysis, whether or not the devil was actually depicted in the movie raping Rosemary is beside the main point of the movie themes - that being the sacrifice of Rosemary to Guy's ambition. That is a metaphor that was clearly intended by the author of the novel and by Polanski.
My real name is Jeff

Who is the Moron? You are the one thinking a fairy came out of nowhere and raped a woman. I'm telling you the REALITY,
It's a movie. There is no reality. Reality only exists for the people encoded on the celluloid or trapped in the digital bytes. If their reality includes Satan because the writer wants it to include Satan, then Satan exists in reality. Writers build worlds. Directors interpret them. Viewers have the privilege of observing them; however, it is not up to the viewers to state what reality exists in the writer-created world.

Who is the Moron? You are the one thinking a fairy came out of nowhere and raped a woman. I'm telling you the REALITY, a woman who was mentally ill due to pregnancy hormones plus other pre-existing psychological problems hallucinated devils while her husband attacked her.
Get it?
Again, THE DIRECTOR OF THE FILM STATES THAT THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. See the documentaries on youtube. But no one will watch it because they would rather believe in fairies attacking women to make fairy babies.

You'e such a moron.'Guy got on top of her, and had sex with her, but Satan was using Guy as a vessel, so that when Guy shot his wad in Rosemary's pussy, it was really the seed of the Devil. Get it? Guy was just the mortal vessel used to impregnate Rosemary.
Digital is video garbage

Her body was covered in scratches. We actually see her being smothered and she passes out. Later she has awful pain during her pregnancy. I've read on pregnancy sites that an injury to the abdomen during pregnancy could cause terrible pain.
Rosemary was beaten and raped by her own husband.

Okay no lol. She was not beaten and raped by her husband.
If she was beaten at all then you would think she would be in some kind of pain when she awoke, no??
Anyway, again there is zero indication of this.

Rosemary was raped and beaten by her husband. The film shows this happening then his face is covered with a demonic face. Remember Rosemary was beaten during this attack. She was experiencing hallucinations and she would rather believe it was something else not of this world that attacked her. Anything than face that the one person she loved most in the world nearly killed her (smothering her screams with that pillow).

So, in your opinion, was the entity who raped Rosemary the Devil who was possessing Guy's body at the time, or a whole different figure, independent of Guy?

Polanski did indeed say what Kaskait has been banging on about. Problem is in interpretation and context.
Watching that documentary, I am convinced that though Polanski himself may not believe in the supernatural, he made a film about a supernatural subject but deliberately and cleverly left it a little bit open (much like the first half of the Exorcist - initially everyone thought what was going on, was in Regan's mindand we all know how that ended).
RB was filmed in such a way that everything 'looked' normal and it 'might' have been Ro's imagination, but in the end we know that "this is really happening".
I don't think Polanksi is a nutbag at all, I think he's a brilliant talent and his personal history has zero impact on my opinion of his work.
Do the P-I-G-E-O-N

I suspect a troll started this topic, but even if not, I agree with you about Polanski if he did indeed think that.
Polanski is a nutbag, he's always been one. He makes decent films, but we know his history.
I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus.
Didn't he discover America?
Penfold, shush.

That doesn't even make sense and if Polanski believes that then even he didn't really understand the material and shouldn't have done the movie in the first place. I think what you're reading now from him is revisionist, looking backward. It's clear both from the book and what is shown in the movie, that Rosemary was the victim of a witches' coven to bear the devil's child. Obviously I'm not saying this is possible anymore than I'm saying vampires are possible, but there's a certain inner integrity in the movie.
Many things might be hinted at throughout the movie but the end reveals all. Ro walks into the Cassavets apartment through the closet and finds them worshipping her baby - Hail Satan - who is in the black bassinet. That's not a dream and it's not a psychological problem. It's obviously the reality in the world of the movie.
To try to make this out as a psychological problem within Rosemary is a cheat. Polanski should stop this nonsense as HE'S wrong and revising what he made 40 or so years ago.

Jesus Christ, are you insane???

I agree!
While I am a fan of the novel and I'm sure that Polanski wanted to be faithful to it, (he was-to a legendary degree), this other way of looking at the film requires a viewing.
~Keep The Faith~

That's a pretty fascinating theory. I never heard that before. But there's more than one way to watch it now and I love that!

Like I already said, whether the director wanted people to perceive it that way or not, I am not going to lol.
This a supernatural horror movie about a lady who is having the devil's baby
It's not a metaphor.
There is zero indication that it is all in her head.
Polanski is clearly confused about his own film.
I doubt he had this in mind when he made it back in the 60's.
Anyway, I don't really care if he did.
To me it will always be a literal, supernatural horror.
Good post. I agree 100%.
Its clear this was meant to be a horror tale. The original novel by Ira Levin never even suggests otherwise.
And Polanski has also said he wanted to 'be as faithful as he could' to Levin's novel.
And watching the film, he succeeded.
Why anyone even wants to believe otherwise is a mystery.
Is it so bad or hard to believe that its a horror tale???
I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus.
Didn't he discover America?
Penfold, shush.

Lame explanation. (And you're still spinning after all this time.)

Rosemary is present in the scene. We see her flipping out while little, old people seemingly tiptoe around her.
You would have a point if Rosemary was not in frame and we saw a true, third person confirmation of people using that door.
But we never do, we only see it when Rosemary is out of her mind.

we the audience see two coven members walk behind Rosemary to let the others in.
NOT Rosemary's POV.

As far as she knows her husband violently ravaged her while she was passed out cold, leaving bloody marks on her body, and then expects her to get up fix him breakfast. He was a pig, even without the Satan part. She was wimp for not punching him square in the nuts after he slapped her butt.

Like I already said, whether the director wanted people to perceive it that way or not, I am not going to lol.
That is your choice, but the creator of this film clearly states that he encoded TWO stories into the film.
Polanski is clearly confused about his own film.
I doubt he had this in mind when he made it back in the 60's
No, the only one confused is you.
Polanski was quite clear minded about this film to the point of having the set designed to be a maze. You can see it in the documentary and the fact that everyone on set had a map to tell them how to get to certain areas. Kubrick used the same trick in The Shining. This was all to support the shadow story of insanity that was a theme in this film.