MonsterGirl’s 150 Days of Classic Horror #81 HUSH… HUSH, SWEET CHARLOTTE 1964 & WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? 1962

SPOILER ALERT!

(1964): A Study in Gothic Horror and the Birth of “Hag Cinema”

Robert Aldrich’s What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962) and Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte (1964) stand as twin pillars of mid-century Gothic horror, films that redefined the possibilities of psychological suspense while resuscitating the careers of Hollywood’s fading icons.

These films, often credited with launching what has now entered the lexicon as the “Hag Cinema,” a subgenre defined by legendary actresses, who were gracing the screen in the seasoned elegance of their later years, taking on roles that are as grotesque, often macabre as they are compelling. And as much about the erosion and slow fading of old Hollywood glamour as they are about the horrors lurking in decaying mansions and the unsettling truths that emerge as the façade of the luster quietly dims. The sheen of stardom is softly eclipsed by misogyny.

Aldrich, a director known for his unflinching exploration of power dynamics and moral ambiguity, leveraged the fraught histories of his leading ladies to craft narratives steeped in psychological torment, societal decay, and the haunting weight of the past.

These films also laid bare Hollywood’s vicious cycle of discarding and marginalizing its once-revered stars, reducing them to monstrous caricatures under the demoralizing “Hag Cinema” label- a cruel irony for women who had once been heralded as paragons of talent and glamour. Davis, Crawford, and de Havilland, whose careers were built on Oscar-winning artistry and box-office dominance, found themselves exiled by an industry that deemed them obsolete past 40. Imagine that—forty, and suddenly you’re tossed on the Hollywood scrap heap, as if a star’s brilliance evaporates, as if time alone can erase allure.

It’s a telling reflection of our culture that once women reach forty, their capacity for sex appeal is so often dismissed, as if that allure and desirability are the exclusive property of youth. This notion not only disregards the depth and complexity that come with age, but also perpetuates the myth that a woman’s value is tethered solely to her appearance—an idea both reductive and profoundly unfair. I’ll be delving into these very questions in my forthcoming special, Deconstructing the Myth of Hag Cinema, where I’ll examine the cultural narratives, industry biases, and enduring complexities that have shaped this provocative subgenre, not to mention not to mention the glaring hypocrisy that allows male stars to age into gravitas and continued desirability, Meanwhile, aging male stars had continued to secure roles that keep them firmly in the narrative driver’s seat, their box office appeal undiminished—and all without ever being saddled with a reductive label. If fairness prevailed, perhaps we’d be talking about “Sagging Ball Cinema,” but curiously, no such moniker exists for their encore act on screen. I’ll have a section referring to these ‘masculine’ Hollywood heroes using this delicious reversal – a bit of poetic justice to coin a new term.

The term “hag,” wielded as a dismissive shorthand for their late-career roles, underscored the systemic misogyny of a studio machine that prized youth over legacy, reducing complex women to campy spectacles.

Yet Aldrich’s films, for all their Gothic excess, refused to let these actresses fade quietly. Instead, they weaponized that marginalization, transforming it into a searing indictment of Hollywood’s cruelty. In Baby Jane? and Charlotte, the horror isn’t just in the decaying mansions or psychological torment- it’s in the spectacle of greatness scorned, of icons forced to gnaw at the scraps of their own pasts. These films, in their audacious bleakness, became a perverse tribute to resilience, proving that even in exile, these women could still command the screen, their talent burning through the demeaning labels like acid.

Both What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? and Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte owes much of their psychological complexity and Gothic atmosphere to the powerful collaboration between screenwriter Lukas Heller and novelist Henry Farrell. For Baby Jane?, Robert Aldrich commissioned Heller to adapt Farrell’s 1960 novel, trusting Heller’s sharp sense for character and suspense to translate the book’s twisted sibling rivalry and decaying Hollywood glamour to the screen.

Heller’s screenplay was praised for its ability to balance horror, dark humor, and pathos, giving Bette Davis and Joan Crawford material rich enough to fuel their legendary performances and seemed to stoke their off-screen rivalry.

When Aldrich set out to capture lightning in a bottle with Baby Jane? with Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte, he once again turned to Heller and Farrell. This time, the screenplay was adapted from Farrell’s own unpublished short story “What Ever Happened to Cousin Charlotte?”

Heller initially wrote the adaptation, but Farrell himself later contributed to the script, ensuring that the Southern Gothic elements and labyrinthine betrayals remained true to his vision. The result was a screenplay that blended psychological horror with melodrama, allowing Davis, Crawford, Olivia de Havilland, Mary Astor and the rest of the cast to inhabit characters haunted by secrets.

Lukas Heller, a German-born screenwriter whose credits include other Adlrich films like The Dirty Dozen 1967 and Flight of the Phoenix 1965, was known for his ability to craft tense, character-driven narratives.

His partnership with Aldrich produced some of the most memorable psychological thrillers of the 1960s. Henry Farrell, meanwhile, specialized in stories of twisted domesticity and repressed violence, his work forming the backbone of both films’ enduring appeal. Together, Heller and Farrell’s scripts provided Aldrich with a foundation for his explorations of aging, madness, and the grotesque, and their work remains central to the films’ lasting critical and cultural impact.

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962)

The film opens with the glittering artifice of 1917 vaudeville, where “Baby” Jane Hudson, a child star performed by Julie Allred, basks in adoration, her doll-like persona masking a toxic narcissism. By the 1930s, Jane’s career has crumbled, eclipsed by her sister Blanche (Joan Crawford), who transitions from onstage understudy to a luminous film star. A car accident leaves Blanche paralyzed, and the sisters retreat into a dilapidated Hollywood mansion, their lives frozen in mutual resentment. Jane (Bette Davis), now a bloated, alcoholic relic, clings to delusions of revival, while Blanche, confined to a wheelchair, schemes to sell the house and commit Jane to an institution.

Aldrich’s direction thrives on claustrophobia. Ernest Haller’s black-and-white cinematography traps the sisters in a labyrinth of shadows, their mansion’s crumbling interiors reflecting their fractured psyches. Key scenes- Jane serving Blanche a dead pet bird under a silver cloche, or her grotesque attempt to revive her Baby Jane persona in a Malibu beachside performance- are studies in escalating madness. Davis’s Jane, caked in garish makeup, oscillates between infantile whimsy and venomous rage, while Crawford’s Blanche, all restrained calculation, becomes a prisoner of her own body. The film’s infamous twist- Blanche confessing she caused her own accident to frame Jane- culminates in a bleak reconciliation on the beach, where Jane’s final dance under police arrest underscores the tragedy of lives devoured by fame’s aftermath.

Critics initially dismissed Baby Jane? as lurid melodrama, but its $9 million box office (against an $800,000 budget) signaled a cultural shift. The New York Times called it “a horror film with a sense of humor,” while Pauline Kael noted Davis’s performance as “a masterpiece of camp malevolence.” The film’s legacy lies in its unflinching portrait of aging, its critique of Hollywood’s disposability of women, and its revival of Davis and Crawford as icons of resilience. Aldrich’s decision to cast the famously feuding actresses, their off-screen tensions bleeding into scenes of mutual loathing, added a meta-layer of cruelty, turning the film into a spectacle of performing the slow extinguishing of light.

Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte (1964)

Conceived as a reunion for Davis and Crawford, Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte instead became a vehicle for Davis and Olivia de Havilland after Crawford’s departure (officially due to illness, though rumors of on-set clashes with Davis persist). The film opens in 1927 Louisiana, where Charlotte Hollis (Davis), a naive Southern belle, witnesses the brutal murder of her married lover, John Mayhew (Bruce Dern), by an unseen assailant. Decades later, Charlotte, now a reclusive eccentric, battles the state’s attempt to seize her ancestral home for a highway. Her cousin Miriam (de Havilland) and Dr. Drew Bayliss (Joseph Cotten) arrive, ostensibly to aid her, but their plot to gaslight Charlotte into surrendering her inheritance unveils a web of betrayal.

Aldrich’s Southern Gothic is suffused with decay. Joseph Biroc’s Oscar-nominated cinematography drapes the Hollis mansion in mossy shadows, while Frank De Vol’s haunting score, centered on the titular ballad, echoes Charlotte’s fractured mind. The film’s most chilling sequences- a disembodied hand and head appearing in Charlotte’s bedroom, or Miriam’s murder of the loyal housekeeper Velma (Agnes Moorehead)-blend psychological horror with Grand Guignol excess. The climax, where Charlotte pushes a stone urn onto Miriam and Drew, is a cathartic release of decades of manipulation, though her final moments, cradling a confession from Mayhew’s widow, leave her salvation ambiguous.

Cecil Kellaway and Mary Astor, both seasoned and beloved Hollywood veterans, play pivotal supporting roles in Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte, bringing gravitas and subtlety to the film’s Southern Gothic tapestry. Kellaway appears as Harry Willis, the genial yet sharp-witted Lloyds of London insurance investigator from England who arrives in Louisiana still fascinated by the decades-old murder of John Mayhew. With his characteristic warmth and “old guy charm,” Kellaway’s Willis is a gentle outsider, quietly piecing together the truth as the drama within the Hollis mansion spirals toward madness and violence. He is not directly involved in the machinations against Charlotte, but instead serves as a moral anchor and a catalyst for the film’s resolution. Willis’s investigation and his interactions with other characters, especially his poignant scene with Mary Astor’s Jewel Mayhew, help tie up the narrative’s loose ends and ultimately deliver Charlotte a measure of closure.

Mary Astor, in her final film role, appears as Jewel Mayhew, the widow of Charlotte’s murdered lover, John. Though her screen time is limited, Astor’s presence is haunting and essential. She plays Jewel as a woman worn down by years of sorrow and secrets, her performance understated yet deeply affecting. In a key scene, Jewel entrusts Willis with an envelope containing her posthumous confession—a revelation that she, not Charlotte, killed her husband John. This act, delivered with Astor’s quiet dignity, is crucial to the film’s denouement. It not only exonerates Charlotte but also brings the story full circle, allowing us to see the emotional toll of the crime on all involved. Astor’s scenes, particularly her exchanges with Kellaway and de Havilland, are marked by a restrained melancholy that contrasts with the film’s more operatic moments, and critics have noted how she “makes every moment count,” lending Jewel a tragic grace that lingers long after her departure from the story.

Together, Kellaway and Astor embody the film’s themes of compassion, justice, regret, and the corrosive power of secrets. Their performances, though supporting, are essential to the film’s emotional and narrative resolution, and both actors are remembered for bringing a touch of classic Hollywood humanity to Aldrich’s brooding Southern nightmare.

Critics praised the film’s operatic grandeur, with Variety calling it “a superior shocker,” though some found its 133-minute runtime excessive. Davis’s performance, oscillating between vulnerability and ferocity, earned her a Golden Globe nomination, while Moorehead’s turn as the sardonic Velma became a camp touchstone. The film’s seven Oscar nominations, including Best Supporting Actress for Moorehead, underscored its technical mastery, though it won none. Where Baby Jane? thrived on intimate malice, Charlotte expanded into epic tragedy, its themes of patriarchal control (embodied by Charlotte’s incestuously possessive father – Victor Buono) and female solidarity subverted by greed.

Legacy and Cultural Impact:

Both films emerged from Aldrich’s fascination with societal marginalization. Baby Jane? and Charlotte interrogate the cultural erasure of aging women, their mansions metaphors for bodies and minds left to rot. Aldrich’s collaboration with screenwriter Lukas Heller sharpened these themes, blending noir cynicism with Gothic excess. The films also revived the careers of their stars: Davis, Crawford, and de Havilland, once box-office queens, embraced roles that weaponized their fading glamour, cementing their status as icons of resilience.

Cinematographically, the films diverged. Baby Jane’s stark, claustrophobic interiors mirrored its psychological confinement, while Charlotte’s lush Southern decay evoked a dying aristocracy. Both, however, used light and shadow to externalize inner turmoil- Jane’s garish makeup under harsh key lights, Charlotte’s ghostly pallor in moonlit halls.

Critics like David Thomson have since reappraised these films as feminist texts, their horrors rooted in systemic misogyny. The “Hag Cinema” label, once derisive, now signifies a subgenre reclaiming the power of women discarded by Hollywood. Aldrich’s willingness to center complex, unlikable female protagonists-and to amplify their rage-remains revolutionary.

In the decades since, both films have influenced works from Whatever Happened to Aunt Alice? (1969) to Ryan Murphy’s Feud (2017), which, accurate or not, dramatized or sensationalized the Davis-Crawford rivalry. Their endurance lies in their audacity: to stare unflinchingly at the wreckage of fame, to find horror not in monsters but in the human capacity for cruelty, and to showcase aging women, once Hollywood’s forgotten, reign supreme in all their grotesque grandeur or radiant as ever, empowered by agency and courage.

Revisiting Robert Aldrich’s Grande Dame Hag Cinema: Part I What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? 1962 ‘Get back in that chair Blanche!’

Revisiting Robert Aldrich’s Hag Cinema: Part II ” I wouldn’t piss on Joan Crawford if she were on fire!”

Grande Dames/ Guignol Cinema: Robert Aldrich’s Hag Cinema “But you *are* Blanche, you *are in that chair” Part I

Grande Dame/Guignol Cinema: Robert Aldrich’s Hag Cinema Part 2 Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte 1964 “He’ll Love You Til He Dies”

Grande Dame/Guignol Cinema: Aldrich’s Hag Cinema: Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte 1964 Part 3 “Murder starts in the heart and it’s first weapon is a vicious tongue”

Grande Dame/Guignol Cinema: Robert Aldrich’s Hag Cinema Part 4: Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte 1964 “You’re my favorite living mystery” “Have you ever solved me?”

#81 Down, 69 to go! Your EverLovin’ Joey, formally & affectionately known as MonsterGirl!

MonsterGirl’s 150 Days of Classic Horror #76 The House that Screamed 1969

THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED 1969

Maternal Obsession in the Gothic House of Secrets: Broken Minds and Forbidden Longing in The House That Screamed:

Sunday Nite Surreal: Serrador’s The House That Screamed: Elegant Taboos in the Gothic Horror Film-The Fragmentation of Motherhood, castration and the enigma of body horror

I experienced The House That Screamed during its theatrical release in 1969, witnessing its spell-hypnotic and visceral on the big screen as a young cinephile, was a revelation that shattered my expectations of classical horror. It stunned and shocked me, searing itself into my memory with its Gothic intensity, its lush, painterly palette, and its heady atmosphere of decadent menace. Among my top ten favorite horror films, it stands apart for its transgressive, disturbing themes and the way it transforms the old dark house trope into something both sumptuous and sinister-a fever dream of beautiful, ethereal imperiled girls, whispered secrets, Lilli Palmer’s transgressive and unflinching performance and a monstrous denouement so frightening and audacious that it left me breathless, forever changed by the film’s haunting power.

I find myself compelled to revisit and rigorously reexamine my earlier post. I am eager to deconstruct and explore the film again, but this time with a more discerning, critical perspective. I will take it apart piece by piece, delving into the film with fresh eyes and a deeper, more critical approach.

Lilli Palmer was a celebrated German actress whose distinguished career spanned British, Hollywood, and European cinema, with most notable roles in Cloak and Dagger (1946), Body and Soul (1947), The Four Poster (1952), The Counterfeit Traitor (1962), and this Spanish horror classic The House That Screamed (1969), earning her major awards including the Volpi Cup and multiple Deutscher Filmpreis honors.

Cristina Galbó-who would go on to star in Let Sleeping Corpses Lie 1975– plays the vulnerable Teresa; Mary Maude, memorable from Crucible of Terror, as the icy and sadistic Irene; Maribel Martín, later seen in The Blood Spattered Bride 1974, as the innocent Isabelle; and Pauline Challoner, who also appeared in The Railway Children, as the ill-fated Catalin.

Narciso Ibáñez Serrador’s The House That Screamed (1969) is a Gothic, atmospheric shocker that lingers in the mind like a feverish nightmare, its corridors echoing with the sounds of whispered secrets and stifled screams. Set within the forbidding walls of a 19th-century French boarding school for troubled girls, the film unfolds as a fever dream of repression, cruelty, and twisted longing, where the boundaries between discipline and sadism, protection and possession, are blurred beyond recognition.

Serrador’s direction is meticulous and painterly, transforming the school into a labyrinth of dread. The camera glides through shadowed hallways and decaying parlors, lingering on faces half-lit by candlelight or distorted by rain-streaked windows. The palette is heavy with browns and ochres, evoking a world both claustrophobic and decaying, while the score by Waldo de los Rios weaves romantic motifs into nerve-jangling cues, heightening the sense of unease as innocence is slowly suffocated by the institution’s oppressive regime.

The film’s pacing is deliberate, building suspense through long, quiet stretches punctuated by sudden violence or emotional cruelty, drawing you inexorably toward its harrowing climax.

The House That Screamed uses its characters’ relationships to mirror and critique the rigid, repressive societal norms of both its late 19th-century setting and the Franco-era Spain in which it was made. The boarding school, ostensibly a place for “rehabilitating” troubled or unwanted girls, functions as a microcosm of repression, authoritarian control, where discipline is enforced through surveillance, brutal punishment, and the denial of agency.

Madame Fourneau, the headmistress, embodies the era’s moralistic authority, viewing the girls as inherently corrupt and irredeemable. The regime is maintained through whippings, solitary confinement, and emotional manipulation.

At the heart of the story is Madame Fourneau (Lilli Palmer), the stern and emotionally manipulative headmistress who rules the school with an iron will and a chilling sense of propriety. Her relationship with her teenage son Luis (John Moulder-Brown) is laced with possessiveness and unsettling, incestuous undertones; no girl, she insists, is good enough for him-except, perhaps, someone just like herself. She is a monstrous feminine, a mother monster.

Luis is the object of his mother, Madame Fourneau’s, obsessive, suffocating love- a love so possessive and controlling that it warps his sense of self and relationships with others. Fourneau dotes on Luis, isolates him from the girls (insisting none are worthy – reinforcing the idea that female sexuality is dangerous and must be strictly controlled), and projects her own anxieties and desires onto him, even crossing into disturbingly intimate territory with her physical affection. A love twisted into something stifling and destructive- a maternal devotion that becomes a prison, ultimately fueling the fractured psychology and violence at the heart of the film.

Power within the school is delegated to Irene (Mary Maude), a privileged student who acts as Fourneau’s enforcer, meting out punishments and controlling access to privileges, including sexual encounters with outsiders. This dynamic reflects a society where hierarchy and obedience are prized, and where those in power exploit and perpetuate the system for their own benefit. The girls’ rare acts of rebellion or intimacy are not liberating, but desperate bids for relief from oppression, highlighting how female desire and autonomy are tightly policed and pathologized.

Into this charged atmosphere arrives Teresa (Cristina Galbó), a new student whose outsider status makes her a target for bullying and humiliation, particularly from Irene, Fourneau’s sadistic protégé. The school’s rituals of punishment-beatings, flagellation, and psychological torment-are rendered with a disturbing intimacy, the camera lingering on the aftermath as much as the act itself. The girls’ camaraderie is laced with rivalry and fear, and the threat of disappearance hangs over every whispered conversation.

As students begin to vanish, tension mounts. Teresa, desperate to escape, is brutally murdered just as she seems poised for freedom- a shocking narrative swerve that leaves the audience unmoored. Irene, now suspicious and emboldened, confronts Fourneau and attempts her own escape, only to meet a grisly fate in the attic, her hands severed in a grotesque echo of the school’s obsession with discipline and control. The film’s final revelation is as macabre as it is tragic: Luis, warped by his mother’s emotional domination and isolation, has been murdering the girls to assemble his own “ideal woman” from their dismembered bodies- a monstrous attempt to recreate the only love he has ever known. The climax, in which Señora Fourneau discovers her son’s creation and is locked away to “teach” it to love him, is a tableau of Oedipal horror, her screams echoing through the house as the cycle of control and longing comes full circle.

The soundscape and music of The House That Screamed are woven into the film’s very architecture, seeping through its corridors like a chill draft, amplifying the sense of dread and repression that permeates every frame. Waldo de los Ríos’s score is a haunting tapestry, beginning with the eerie, slightly out-of-tune piano notes that echo the broken innocence of the girls within the school’s walls.

These delicate, romantic motifs drift through the film like faded memories, at first lulling the viewer with their melancholy beauty, only to curdle into something more sinister as the narrative darkens.

As the story unfolds, the music shifts in texture and tempo, mirroring the mounting tension and psychological unraveling. De los Ríos employs pianos, harps, and wind instruments to conjure an atmosphere thick with suspense and mystery, often layering sounds so that a gentle melody in the background is countered by something unsettling in the foreground.

In key moments, such as the murder in the greenhouse, the score becomes almost experimental: the piano slows as if time itself is faltering, drawing out the victim’s final moments with agonizing intimacy.

Beyond the music, the film’s sound design is almost Lynchian in its use of horrific effects and silences, expertly crafting a perverse atmosphere with minimal explicit violence or sexuality.

Subtle as a confession in the dark, the soundscape is laced with the soft, urgent breaths and glossolalia of a woman’s moans, blurring the boundaries between pleasure and pain, innocence and corruption, as if the very walls themselves are whispering secrets too dangerous to speak aloud.

The creak of floorboards, the echo of footsteps, and the stifled cries of the girls become part of the film’s language, making the house itself seem to breathe, whisper, and threaten. At times, the score recedes, leaving only the raw, ambient sounds of the school’s routines, heightening the claustrophobia and making each intrusion of music feel like an emotional rupture.

In this way, sound and music are not mere accompaniment but active agents in the narrative, revealing what words and images leave unsaid. They evoke longing, terror, and the oppressive weight of secrets, guiding us through the film’s chambered darkness and ultimately leaving the story echoing in the mind long after the final scream has faded.

Lilli Palmer delivers a performance of icy restraint and subtle vulnerability, embodying a woman whose need for control masks a deep, unspoken terror of loss. Mary Maude’s Irene is magnetic and menacing, a study in cruelty born of complicity and ambition. John Moulder-Brown brings a haunted awkwardness to Luis, with his voyeuristic behavior and his pitiable and chilling presence. Serrador’s style is one of suggestion and implication, favoring slow-building dread over explicit gore. Violence is often glimpsed obliquely through rain-smeared windows, in freeze frames, or via superimposed images, leaving the imagination to fill in the horror. The film’s eroticism is equally restrained, its undercurrents of desire and repression rendered all the more disturbing for their subtlety.

The film critiques the cruelty and hypocrisy of societal norms that claim to “reform” but instead perpetuate cycles of abuse, fear, and violence. The school’s oppressive routines and the twisted bonds between characters serve as a dark allegory for the dangers of unchecked authority and the suffocating effects of claustrophobic maternal love and repression, making The House That Screamed as much a political metaphor as a Gothic horror story.

The House That Screamed stands as a precursor to later classics like Suspiria 1977, its blend of Gothic melodrama, psychological horror, and social critique elevating it far above the typical “girls’ school” thriller. It is a film about the monstrousness bred by isolation, the violence lurking beneath the surface of order, and the terrible price of love withheld and twisted by control. In Serrador’s hands, the house does not simply scream- it mourns, it punishes, and, ultimately, it devours.

76 down, 74 to go! Your EverLovin’ Joey, formally & affectionately known as MonsterGirl!

Paths to Liberation: Personal Transformation Through Connection in Now, Voyager 1942 and Baghdad Cafe 1987

A common thread between Now, Voyager 1942 and Baghdad Cafe 1987 is the theme of personal transformation and self-discovery through unexpected relationships and environments. In Now, Voyager, Charlotte Vale undergoes a profound journey of liberation from her oppressive mother, gaining self-esteem and independence through love and her own inner strength. Similarly, in Baghdad Cafe, Jasmin’s arrival at the quirky desert Baghdad Cafe and Motel leads to her own transformation as she builds a surprising friendship with Brenda and its quirky inhabitants and finds a sense of belonging in an unfamiliar place. Both narratives highlight how stepping outside one’s comfort zone, be it on the ocean or in the desert, and forming connections can lead to empowerment and fulfillment.

Both Now, Voyager and Bagdad Cafe use clothing as a visual language for personal transformation: Charlotte Vale’s journey from drab, constricting dresses to elegant, self-assured ensembles mirrors her emergence from repression to confidence, just as Jasmin’s shift from tight, hausfrau attire to flowing, colorful garments signals her gradual liberation and blossoming in the desert. In both films, the evolution of each woman’s wardrobe becomes a powerful outward sign of inner change- a metamorphosis from invisibility and constraint to self-expression and possibility.

Where Now, Voyager begins like a deeply penetrating melodrama about maternal abuse and struggling identity, Baghdad Cafe unfolds like a hazy dream. Both women, Charlotte and Jasmin, take a journey toward awakening.

Now, Voyager 1942

“Don’t let’s ask for the moon! We have the stars!”

The iconic American melodrama that inspired the 1942 cult classic film starring Bette Davis. “Charlotte Vale is a timeless and very sophisticated Cinderella.”—Patricia Gaffney, New York Times bestselling author.

“I can think of no better account of the woman’s picture’s central role in American culture. At least we have the stars.” (Patricia White- Criterion essay We Have the Stars)

Here is a passage from David Greven’s Representations of Femininity in American Genre Cinema: The Woman’s Film, Film Noir, and Modern Horror (Palgrave, 2011) that specifically discusses Now, Voyager and Bette Davis’s performance:

“Bette Davis plays Charlotte Vale, and one suspects that what drew Davis to the role was the opportunities it gave her to perform a feat at which she excelled: onscreen transformation from one physical and emotional state into another. While several Davis films showcase her singular talent for such onscreen transformations, they are far from a unique event in the genre of the woman’s film, a prominent Hollywood genre for three decades, from the 1930s to the 1960s. Women frequently transform, either at key points in or over the course of cinematic narrative, sometimes on a physical level, sometimes in more abstract ways, as if in homage to Shakespeare’s Cleopatra and her ‘infinite variety… In her classical Hollywood heyday, Bette Davis made an onscreen transformation her signature feat. In film after film, Davis transforms, usually on a physical level but often emotionally as well. Typically, this transformation is grueling on several levels, ranging from the woman’s social situation to her bodily nature to her psychic state. As I will be treating it as a central issue here, transformation in the woman’s film genre, as Bette Davis’s roles evince, is a traumatic experience.”

Bette Davis and Paul Henreid in “Now, Voyager” 1942 Warner Bros.** B.D.M.

No matter how many times I watch Now, Voyager, I find myself weeping all over again-whether it’s Bette Davis’ profoundly moving performance or Max Steiner’s lush, aching score, the film doesn’t just tug at my heartstrings, it plays them like a symphony of bittersweet heartbreak; it’s more than a tearjerker-it’s a true weepjerker, and I surrender to its beauty every single time.

Now, Voyager, as in so much of her work, Davis’s theatricality becomes a conduit for something deeply authentic, reflecting an existential honesty. She lays bare the raw feelings at the heart of her characters, offering us glimpses of their essential truths. Acclaimed American playwright, actor, screenwriter, and drag performer Charles Busch describes Davis, and writer Ed Sikov sums it up:

“What I find interesting about her is that while she’s the most stylized of all those Hollywood actresses, the most mannered, she’s also to me the most psychologically acute. You see it in Now, Voyager in the scene on the boat when she starts to cry, and she’s playing it in a very romantic style. Henreid says, ‘My darling- you are crying,’ and she says, ‘these are only tears of gratitude – an old maid’s gratitude for the crumbs offered.’ It’s very movie-ish, but the way she turns her head inward, away from the camera, is very real.”

“In that instance, Busch so perceptively describes and appreciates Davis’s use of her melodramatic mannerisms and breathy, teary vocal delivery as well as her seemingly spontaneous nuzzling into Henreid’s chest to express the undeniable legitimacy of self-pity. It’s not a pretty emotion, but Davis somehow makes it so. Through Davis’s elevating, sublimating stylization, this woman’s secret shame becomes beautiful.”– Ed Sikov – Dark Victory: The Life of Bette Davis

Few films from Hollywood’s Golden Age have endured in the cultural imagination quite like Now, Voyager (1942), a sweeping romantic drama that transcends its era through its nuanced exploration and psychological portrait of transformation, female autonomy, and the complex bonds of love and family. Tracing the journey of Charlotte Vale, a woman suffocated by her domineering mother and her own internalized sense of worthlessness and self-loathing, as she emerges into independence, self-acceptance, and a bittersweet love.

Kino. Reise aus der Vergangenheit aka. Now, Voyager, USA, 1942 Regie: Irving Rapper Darsteller: Bette Davis, Paul Henreid. (Photo by FilmPublicityArchive/United Archives via Getty Images).

Continue reading “Paths to Liberation: Personal Transformation Through Connection in Now, Voyager 1942 and Baghdad Cafe 1987”

MonsterGirl’s 150 Days of Classic Horror #54 Eyes Without A Face 1960

EYES WITHOUT A FACE 1960

Georges Franju’s Eyes Without a Face (Les Yeux sans visage, 1960) stands as a singular landmark in the evolution of Euro horror cinema, not only as one of the first scientific ambitions with the medical body horror film, but also as a work whose poetic, unsettling beauty continues to reverberate through the genre. At its core, the film is a chilling fable about a brilliant but deranged surgeon, Dr. Génessier, who, driven by guilt and obsession, kidnaps young women to harvest their faces in a desperate attempt to restore his daughter Christiane’s disfigured beauty. The film’s narrative, adapted from Jean Redon’s novel, is deceptively simple, but Franju’s approach imbues it with an almost dreamlike lyricism, elevating the material far beyond its pulp origins.

Franju’s direction is marked by a meticulous balance of clinical detachment and operatic emotion, a style that both subverts and transcends the conventions of the mad scientist trope.

The infamous shuddery face-removal sequence—shot with documentary-like precision—remains one of the most graphic and realistic depictions of surgery in early cinema, so much so that it reportedly caused fainting spells among original audiences and led to bans in several countries. Yet, the film’s horror is never gratuitous; instead, it is woven into a manifestation of guilt, grief, and the obsessive pursuit of beauty.

The film’s legacy is immense. It has directly influenced a lineage of European and global horror, from Jesús Franco’s Gritos en la noche and its sequels, to Italian films like Atom Age Vampire 1960, and British variations such as Corruption 1968 starring Peter Cushing.

Pedro Almodóvar has cited Eyes Without a Face as a major inspiration for his own medical horror, the disturbing and transgressive The Skin I Live In 2011, while echoes of Franju’s masked, tragic protagonist can be seen in the likes of John Carpenter’s Michael Myers, , and even in the psychological horror of David Lynch. The film’s exploration of identity and the horror of the mask—both literal and metaphorical—helped establish a trope that would become central to slasher and body horror cinema. Critics and film historians have noted that both directors create horror by juxtaposing the familiar with the strange, using an unsettling, poetic atmosphere, ambiguity, and surrealism to evoke unease rather than relying on explicit violence or gore. The film invokes the inexpressible anxieties pushing to be revealed, manifesting in strange, ambiguous, symbolic, and uncanny ways. Both directors tap into horror by blending fractured identity, physical and psychological transformation, and the ordinary with the deeply unsettling potential hidden within the familiar. Franju’s calm, almost dreamlike approach to the surgical horror of a father disfiguring and imprisoning his daughter is echoed through Lynch’s knack for turning everyday life into the surreal unraveling of self and reality in films like Blue Velvet 1986 and Lost Highway 1997.

Visually, Eyes Without a Face is a marvel. Eugen Schüfftan’s (best known for inventing the Schüfftan process, a groundbreaking special effects technique first popularized in Fritz Lang’s Metropolis 1927, The Hustler 1961, Something Wild 1961) crisp, high-contrast black-and-white cinematography lends the film a haunting, almost unreal quality, drawing on the aesthetics of German Expressionism, film noir, and the surrealism of Jean Cocteau.

The imagery is indelible: Christiane, played with ethereal fragility by Edith Scob, glides through her father’s palatial home like a living ghost or fairy princess held captive in a sterile prison, her blank, porcelain mask both concealing and amplifying her suffering. Scob’s performance is a wonderment in physical acting; with her face hidden for much of the film, she communicates Christiane’s anguish and longing through posture and movement, her presence both vulnerable and otherworldly.

Scob would go on to become a muse for Franju, appearing in several of his later films, and her iconic masked visage would be revisited decades later in Leos Carax’s Holy Motors.

The supporting cast is equally strong: Pierre Brasseur brings a chilling gravitas to Dr. Génessier, embodying both paternal tenderness and clinical coldness, while Alida Valli, as the devoted and complicit Louise, exudes an unsettling calm as she lures victims to their fate. Both actors were established stars in European cinema—Brasseur, known for Children of Paradise 1946, and Valli for The Third Man 1950—and later as the severe and unsettling Miss Tanner in Argento’s Suspiria 1977, and their acting prowess anchors the film’s more fantastical elements.

Maurice Jarre’s score is another key element in the film’s enduring power. Rather than opting for traditional horror cues, Jarre composed a score that is by turns ironic, whimsical, and haunting. The main theme—a carnivalesque waltz—accompanies Louise’s predatory excursions, its jaunty melody creating a dissonant counterpoint to the unfolding horror. For Christiane, Jarre employs a gentle, melancholic motif, underscoring her tragic innocence and the film’s undercurrent of lost beauty. Jarre, who would later win Oscars for his work on Lawrence of Arabia 1962 and Doctor Zhivago 1965, considered his work for Franju among his most innovative, and critics have praised the score’s subtlety and its ability to heighten the film’s surreal, icy atmosphere.

Upon its initial release, Eyes Without a Face was met with controversy and discomfort, its graphic scenes and ambiguous morality unsettling both censors and critics. Over time, however, the film has undergone a critical reevaluation, now widely regarded as a masterpiece of horror and a poetic meditation on the limits of science, the nature of identity, and the price of obsession.

The Criterion Collection’s restoration and release of the unexpurgated cut has cemented its status as an essential work, and contemporary critics frequently cite its “ghastly elegance” and “tastefully done and exquisitely horrific” artistry.

Film historians have noted that Franju’s film occupies a unique space: it is at once a product of postwar anxieties about science and the body, and a timeless fable about the dangers of unchecked ambition. Franju himself called it “an anguish film,” aiming for a horror more internal, more penetrating than the genre’s usual shocks. In this, he succeeded: Eyes Without a Face remains a film that lingers in the mind, its images and ideas as unsettling and beautiful as ever, a testament to the enduring power of cinema to disturb, provoke, and at the same time, as brilliant horror can do… enchant.

#54 down, 96 to go! Your EverLovin’ Joey formally & affectionately known as MonsterGirl!

MonsterGirl’s 150 Days of Classic Horror #47 The Nanny 1965 & Dead Ringer 1964

The Nanny 1965

SPOILER ALERT!

Seth Holt’s The Nanny (1965) is a masterful psychological thriller that relies on Bette Davis’s melancholic yet sinister performance. It’s an exceptional character study and a poignant exploration using social commentary carried within the currents of a haunting narrative and deeply nuanced portrayal of disturbed people, all within the framework of Hammer Film Productions’ distinct aesthetic.

The film, based on the novel by Evelyn Piper (a pseudonym for Merriam Modell), was written and produced by Jimmy Sangster, a frequent collaborator with Hammer Films, and features an unforgettable performance by Bette Davis in the titular role. With its chilling atmosphere, layered characters, and exploration of themes such as trauma, paranoia, and the darker aspects of human behavior, including class divides and psychological instability, The Nanny remains a significant entry in the evolution of psychological thrillers during the transformative years of the Sixties.

Seth Holt had a background as an editor at Ealing Studios. Critics have noted its European sensibility and prescient influence on the British New Wave. He’s known for his work on films such as Taste of Fear (1961), released in the U.S. as Scream of Fear starring Susan Strasberg and Ann Todd, where he brought his keen eye for suspense to The Nanny.

His direction is marked by a restrained and subtle approach to intelligent horror, allowing the tension to build gradually through character interactions rather than relying on overt scares. Holt’s ability to weave elements of British New Wave cinema—such as the effects of poverty and class divides—into the horror genre is evident in this film. Nanny’s backstory reveals her descent into mental illness, shaped by societal pressures and personal tragedy.

The Nanny (1965) follows the story of Joey Fane, a troubled 10-year-old boy who returns home after two years in a psychiatric facility following the accidental drowning of his younger sister, Susy. Joey harbors deep mistrust and fear of his family’s nanny (Bette Davis), whom everyone in the house calls ‘Nanny. Joey is the only one who believes she is responsible for Susy’s death and that he is in danger. His refusal to eat her food or stay alone with her creates friction in the household, especially with his emotionally fragile mother and rigid and affectively absent father. As suspicions mount, incidents like his mother’s poisoning and Joey’s claims of Nanny attempting to drown him point to something amiss. Also, Aunt Pen meets her end after confronting Nanny about her suspicious actions. Pen suffers a heart attack during the confrontation, and Nanny cruelly withholds her heart medication, resulting in Pen’s death. As the plot further unravels, the dark secrets surrounding Nanny’s past culminate in revelations about her mental instability and tragic history. The film ends with Joey reconciling with his mother after Nanny is taken away, now the one who is institutionalized.

Davis’s nuanced portrayal infuses the tale with a quiet brilliance that moves the narrative beyond a simple tale of a psychotic caregiver. She evokes us to eventually sympathize with her and glimpse her vulnerability, even as she struggles against the weight of her own dangerous actions because she is haunted by her past.

Bette Davis delivers a tour-de-force performance as Nanny, embodying both maternal devotion and chilling menace. Her portrayal captures the complexity of a woman whose mental deterioration leads her to commit terrible deeds. Davis was joined by William Dix as Joey Fane, the troubled 10-year-old boy who distrusts her; Wendy Craig as Virginia Fane, Joey’s fragile mother; Jill Bennett as Aunt Pen, whose suspicions about Nanny add to the tension; and James Villiers as Bill Fane, Joey’s cold father.

Pamela Franklin plays Bobbie Medman, a young neighbor who befriends Joey and becomes entangled in the drama. Franklin’s performance as Bobbie is often described as sharp, precocious, and engaging. She is a worldly and independent 14-year-old girl who snidely but protectively shadows Joey, the endangered soul at the center of the story. Franklin brings a natural confidence and wit to the role (and actually to every role she’s ever taken on), making Bobbie an amusing yet grounded character who serves as a foil to the oppressive atmosphere created by Bette Davis’s character. Critics have praised Franklin for injecting a sense of realism and vitality into the film, with one review noting her portrayal as “absolutely excellent” and lamenting that she didn’t become a bigger star. Bobbie’s old soul maturity and curiosity stand out as a refreshing counterpoint to the film’s darker themes of manipulation and psychological conflict.

The cinematography by Harry Waxman enhances the film’s claustrophobic atmosphere. Waxman’s use of shadowy interiors and tight framing mirrors the characters’ emotional confinement and heightens the suspense. The production design by Edward Carrick complements this visual style, creating domestic spaces that feel simultaneously familiar and unsettling. Hammer Film Productions, known for its Gothic horror films, ventured into psychological territory with The Nanny, showcasing its versatility in crafting unsettling narratives that rely on character-driven tension rather than supernatural elements.

One of The Nanny’s most memorable scenes occurs when Joey barricades himself in his bedroom to escape his crazy caregiver. The sequence is a masterclass in suspense: Nanny forces her way in, Joey attempts to flee but is knocked unconscious, and she carries him to the bathroom, intent on drowning him. As she begins to submerge him in water, she experiences a haunting flashback of discovering Susy’s body—triggering memories of her own daughter who died tragically years earlier—and pulls Joey out at the last moment. This scene holds the soul of both her instability and lingering humanity, making it one of the film’s most emotionally charged moments.

The 1960s saw the emergence of British psychological thrillers that share thematic and stylistic similarities with The Nanny (1965). These films often eschewed supernatural elements in favor of exploring the fractured psyches of their characters, creating suspenseful and unsettling cinema.

One of the most iconic British psychological thrillers of the decade is Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom (1960). Initially reviled for its disturbing content but later hailed as a masterpiece, the film follows Mark Lewis (Carl Boehm), a focus puller with a compulsion to film his victims as he murders them with his phallic tripod.

Another standout is Roman Polanski’s Repulsion (1965), which stars Catherine Deneuve as Carol, a young woman descending into madness while left alone in her London apartment. Polanski’s use of claustrophobic spaces and hallucinatory imagery captures Carol’s paranoia and deteriorating mental state, making it one of the most harrowing depictions of psychosis in cinema. Like The Nanny, Repulsion uses domestic settings to amplify tension and unease, turning familiar spaces into sites of terror. Freddie Francis’s Paranoiac (1963) is another notable entry in this subgenre. Produced by Hammer Films, it stars Oliver Reed as Simon Ashby, a hostile and psychotic young man whose inheritance is threatened when his long-presumed-dead brother mysteriously reappears.

Roy Boulting’s Twisted Nerve (1968) also stands out for its exploration of psychological dysfunction. This British psychological horror thriller follows Martin Durnley (Hywel Bennett), a very disturbed young man who manipulates those around him while harboring violent tendencies. His relationship with Susan Harper (Hayley Mills) becomes increasingly sinister as his true nature is revealed. These films collectively highlight the richness of British psychological thrillers in the 1960s with their unsettling tone and focus on familial dysfunction that echo the dynamics at play in The Nanny. They pushed boundaries by addressing taboo subjects such as mental illness, voyeurism, and familial dysfunction while featuring narratives that remain timeless in their ability to unnerve and captivate us. Like The Nanny, they demonstrate how psychological depth can elevate suspenseful storytelling into profound meditations on human fragility and darkness.

The Nanny’s legacy lies in its influence on the psychological thrillers that followed. It helped popularize narratives centered around seemingly benign caregivers who harbor dark secrets, a trope that has since become a staple in horror cinema.

Whoever Slew Auntie Roo (1971) is another excellent example of a film that fits into the trope of a seemingly nurturing caregiver hiding a nefarious secret. Directed by Curtis Harrington and starring Shelley Winters as the titular Auntie Roo, the film is another contribution that explores the story of a grieving widow who outwardly appears to be a kind and generous maternal figure but harbors disturbing mental instability. Her obsession with preserving the memory of her deceased daughter leads her to kidnap a young orphan girl, Katy, whom she believes resembles her lost child.

The film cleverly blends elements of psychological horror with fairy tale motifs, particularly drawing from Hansel and Gretel. Auntie Roo’s mansion is likened to a “Gingerbread House,” and her actions—such as attempting to fatten up the children—are misinterpreted by Christopher (Mark Lester), Katy’s (Chloe Franks) brother, as those of a witch intending to eat them. This layered narrative creates a morally complex portrayal of Roo, whose grief and loneliness make her both predator and victim. Like The Nanny, the audience is invited to pity her tragic circumstances while simultaneously recognizing the danger she poses.

Similar to The Nanny (1965), Whoever Slew Auntie Roo? uses the theme of a trusted maternal figure whose facade conceals darker intentions.

A more contemporary film that revisits this trope is The Hand That Rocks the Cradle (1992) Rebecca De Mornay delivers a chilling portrayal as Peyton Flanders (also known as Mrs. Mott) embodying a devious nanny whose calculated malevolence and icy demeanor make her a terrifying force as she seeks vengeance against the family she infiltrates and The Stepfather (1987) fits squarely within the category of films featuring a seemingly benign caregiver hiding a nefarious secret. Directed by Joseph Ruben, the film centers on Terry O’Quinn’s character, Jerry Blake, a stepfather who initially appears to be the ideal family man but is revealed to be an identity-assuming serial killer. His charm and ability to blend into suburban life mask his murderous tendencies, which emerge as his new stepdaughter (Stephanie Maine) begins to suspect him.

The Nanny, 1964, owes much to Holt’s exploration of domestic terror rooted in psychological complexity. It stands out among Hammer Films’ non-supernatural offerings as one of its most mature and thought-provoking works.

Dead Ringer 1964

Dead Ringer (1964): A Gothic Noir with Bette Davis at the Helm:

Produced by Warner Bros., Paul Henreid’s Dead Ringer (1964) is a fascinating blend of Gothic noir and psychological melodrama, a film that hinges on its audacious premise and the powerhouse dual performance of Bette Davis as estranged twin sisters Margaret DeLorca and Edith Phillips. A tale of stolen identity, revenge, and cruel fate.

Adapted from Rian James’s story La Otra 1946, which had previously been made into a Mexican psychological thriller starring Dolores del Río, Dead Ringer tells the gripping tale of estranged twin sisters whose lives diverge in ways that lead to jealousy, betrayal, and ultimately murder with its atmospheric cinematography by Ernest Haller, an evocative score by André Previn, and Davis’s commanding presence.

The story begins with Edith Phillips, a down-on-her-luck bar owner struggling to make ends meet, attending the funeral of her wealthy twin sister Margaret’s husband, Frank DeLorca. Years earlier, Margaret had betrayed Edith by stealing Frank away from her, setting the stage for their drastically different lives. Margaret lives in opulence as the widow of the wealthy industrialist, while Edith is embittered by years of financial hardship trying to maintain her failing cocktail lounge.

When the sisters reunite at the funeral, old wounds resurface. In a moment of desperation and rage, Edith murders Margaret and assumes her identity, hoping to finally escape her bleak existence. However, she quickly discovers that Margaret’s life is far from idyllic.

As Edith navigates Margaret’s world, she faces mounting challenges: contending with suspicious servants (Edith’s servant, Janet, is played by Monika Henreid, the daughter of the film’s director, Paul Henreid), Margaret’s scheming lover Tony Collins (played with suave menace by polished but smarmy Peter Lawford), and her own former boyfriend Jim Hobbson (Karl Malden), who happens to be a police detective. Edith’s deception begins to unravel as she becomes entangled in a web of blackmail and murder. The film culminates in a chilling twist when Edith is arrested for crimes committed under Margaret’s name—a cruel irony that seals her tragic fate as she accepts the inevitability brought about by her masquerade.

At the heart of Dead Ringer is Bette Davis’s extraordinary dual performance as both Edith and Margaret. This was not Davis’s first time playing twins; she had previously taken on dual roles in A Stolen Life (1946). However, her work in Dead Ringer is particularly compelling because of how distinctly she differentiates between the two sisters. Margaret is cold, calculating, and polished—a woman who wields power with ease—while Edith is vulnerable yet simmering with resentment. Davis masterfully conveys these differences through subtle changes in posture, voice, and expression. Her portrayal elevates what might have been a standard melodrama into an engrossing character study. Critics have often noted how Davis managed to bring both campy flair and emotional depth to her roles, creating characters who are larger-than-life yet deeply human.

Director Paul Henreid—best known for his acting role in Casablanca (1942)—was no stranger to working with Davis. The two had co-starred in Now, Voyager (1942), and their professional rapport carried over into this project. Henreid understood Davis’s strengths as an actress and tailored his direction to highlight them. The film also benefited from the expertise of cinematographer Ernest Haller, who had worked with Davis on several previous films, including A Stolen Life.

Haller’s moody lighting and use of shadows evoke the classic aesthetics of film noir while enhancing the Gothic atmosphere of Dead Ringer. The contrast between the opulent settings of Margaret’s life—filmed at iconic Los Angeles locations like Greystone Mansion—and the gritty world of Edith’s bar underscores the stark disparity between the sisters’ lives.

Adding another layer to the film is André Previn’s haunting score. Known for his versatility as a composer, Previn crafted music that heightens the tension and drama at every turn. His orchestral arrangements often incorporate harpsichord melodies that lend an eerie elegance to key scenes. Previn also uses music that the characters can almost hear and interact with—such as jazz performances in Edith’s bar—to ground certain moments in reality while maintaining an undercurrent of suspense. The score not only complements the film’s dramatic shifts but also reinforces its themes of deception and identity.

When Dead Ringer was released in 1964, it received mixed reviews from critics. While some praised Davis’s performance as the film’s saving grace, others found fault with its implausible plot twists. Joan Rivers famously quipped about the film’s reliance on wigs and stand-ins during scenes featuring both twins on split-screen at once but acknowledged that Davis’s magnetic presence made such technical shortcomings forgivable. Over time, however, Dead Ringer has been reevaluated as a cult classic. Modern audiences appreciate its campy charm and its exploration of themes like jealousy, moral corruption, and the consequences of living a lie.

Though it may not have achieved the same level of acclaim as Davis’s earlier work or her other 1960s hit, Robert Aldrich’s What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? 1962, Dead Ringer remains an important part of her legacy. It exemplifies how Hollywood was beginning to find new ways to utilize older actresses during an era when many stars struggled to find substantial roles as they aged. For Davis, who was always willing to take risks with unconventional characters, Dead Ringer was another opportunity to showcase her unparalleled talent.

In retrospect, Dead Ringer stands out not only for its audacious narrative but also for its ability to balance melodrama with genuine moments of suspense and emotional resonance. It is a testament to Bette Davis’s enduring star power that she could carry such a complex story almost single-handedly while making audiences believe in both Edith’s desperation and Margaret’s ruthlessness. With its rich visual style, haunting music, and unforgettable central performance, Dead Ringer continues to entertain me no matter how many times I rewatch it, and it also captivates viewers decades after its release. It embodies mid-20th-century Hollywood’s fascination with duality—both in character and narrative structure (think of Olivia de Havilland in Robert Siodmak’s The Dark Mirror 1946) —and remains an intriguing example of Gothic noir cinema. It is a darkly compelling tale of identity and revenge brought vividly to life by one of cinema’s greatest icons.

The New York Times review written by Eugene Archer described the film as “uncommonly silly” but “great fun,” highlighting Bette Davis’s ability to create two distinct characters in Margaret and Edith. He praised Davis’s performance as “sheer cinematic personality on the rampage,” noting her dramatic flair and ability to command attention despite the film’s flaws. Archer remarked that while the film itself might not be discreet or refined, Davis’s portrayal was certainly arresting and worth watching.

#47 down, 103 to go! Your EverLovin’ Joey, formally & affectionately known as Monstergirl!

MonsterGirl’s 150 Days of Classic Horror #23 The Bird with the Crystal Plumage 1970 & Deep Red 1975

SPOILER ALERT!

THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE 1970

Bird with the Crystal Plumage 1970 is Dario Argento’s (who also wrote the script) directorial debut. The film is a landmark piece of horror art that revolutionized the Giallo genre and set the stage for Argento’s illustrious career in horror and thriller cinema. The film follows Sam Dalmas (Tony Musante), an American writer living in Rome who witnesses a brutal attack on Monica Ranieri (Eva Renzi) in an art gallery. Trapped between glass doors during the assault, Sam becomes obsessed with solving the case, uncovering clues tied to a macabre painting and a rare bird’s call. His investigation, aided by his girlfriend Julia (Suzy Kendall) and Inspector Morosini (Enrico Maria Salerno), leads to a shocking twist as Bird with the Crystal Plumage delves into themes of trauma, obsession, and the fallibility of perception. Monica, driven by trauma from a past attack, is the true killer, with her husband Alberto (Umberto Raho) as her accomplice.

Heavily influenced by the Maestro of Giallo – Mario Bava, Argento’s film is notable for its opening sequence, which, with its focus on surveillance and photography, sets the tone for the film’s exploration of voyeurism. This theme is further developed through Sam’s obsessive investigation and the killer’s stalking of victims. The film culminates in a climactic confrontation at the gallery, blending psychological intrigue with Argento’s signature suspense-saturated atmosphere.

Vittorio Storaro’s Techniscope cinematography features stark geometric framing, saturated primary colors, and chiaroscuro lighting. The use of amber silhouettes and vivid contrasts heightens the tension and creates a visually striking spectacle. The film established many tropes that would become staples of Giallo, including the amateur sleuth protagonist, the black-gloved killer (seen in Bava’s films), and the blending of mystery and horror.

The Bird with the Crystal Plumage was a commercial and critical success upon release, credited with popularizing the Giallo genre internationally. As far as his legacy, Argento was hailed as “the Italian Hitchcock” and revolutionized horror and thriller cinema through his work, which is characterized by stylized violence, voyeuristic camerawork, and bold color palettes. His work merges operatic set pieces and forges a psychological fault line, where every moment trembles with the promise of seismic collapse.

It launched Argento’s career and influenced filmmakers beyond the Italian horror scene, including Brian De Palma, whose films like Dressed to Kill 1980 and Blow Out 1981 show clear Giallo influences.

Bird with the Crystal Plumage’s success led to Argento’s Animal Trilogy, followed by The Cat o’ Nine Tails (1971) and Four Flies on Grey Velvet (1972). It established Argento’s trademark style of lurid violence, Freudian psychology, and collaborations with renowned artists like composer renowned Italian composer Ennio Morricone.

Morricone is celebrated for his iconic film scores, including those for Sergio Leone’s Westerns. For this film, he infused the score with the Lullaby theme. A hauntingly soft “la-la” vocal melody, performed by Edda Dell’Orso, creates an unsettling sense of innocence and fragility. This theme is used during moments of flirtation or domestic calm, such as scenes between Sam (Tony Musante) and Julia (Suzy Kendall). The lullaby’s ethereal quality contrasts sharply with the film’s violent undertones. Morricone also used atonal improvisation in scenes involving the killer. Morricone employed avant-garde techniques, including dissonant piano notes, free jazz drumming, eerie whispers, and fragmented rhythms, in tracks like “Phrases Without Structure” and used unpredictable sounds—such as muted trumpets, chimes, and distorted guitar swells—to evoke unease and tension.

These semi-improvised pieces mirror the chaotic psychology of the killer and heighten suspense during stalking sequences. The Bird with the Crystal Plumage was pivotal in shaping the soundscape of Giallo cinema. His innovative use of unconventional instrumentation—like vibraphones, harpsichords, and vocal sighs—created an auditory experience that was both unsettling and seductive. The two words that sum up Argento’s films.

DEEP RED (PROFONDO ROSSO) 1975

Dario Argento’s Deep Red (Profondo Rosso) is a masterclass in Giallo filmmaking, which blends the hallmark of the genre with its psychological tension, graphic violence, and stunning visual artistry with the use of vibrant colors and avant-garde camera angles.

The story follows Marcus Daly (David Hemmings), an English jazz pianist living in Rome, who becomes embroiled in a murder investigation after witnessing the brutal killing of psychic medium Helga Ulmann (Macha Méril). Helga had publicly revealed the presence of a murderer during a séance shortly before her death. Obsessed with uncovering the killer’s identity, Marcus teams up with journalist Gianna Brezzi (Daria Nicolodi), and their investigation leads them into a labyrinth of secrets, childhood trauma, and repressed memories. The film is structured around Marcus’s unraveling of the mystery, with each clue bringing him closer to the truth while placing him in increasing danger.

Argento masterfully uses misdirection and visual cues to toy with our perception. A key moment early in the film—when Marcus glimpses something significant in Helga’s apartment but cannot recall what it is—sets up the film’s central theme: once again, much like Bird with the Crystal Plumage – the fallibility of memory.

This idea is reinforced throughout the narrative as Marcus pieces together fragments of evidence, culminating in a shocking twist that reveals the killer to be Carlo’s (Gabriele Lavia) mother, Marta (Clara Calamai), who has been driven to murder by her psychological trauma.

Visually, Deep Red is one of Argento’s most striking films. Collaborating with cinematographer Luigi Kuveiller (Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion), Argento creates a world drenched in vivid colors—most notably red—to heighten tension and evoke unease.

The use of color is not merely aesthetic but thematic; red symbolizes both violence and hidden truths that bleed to the surface as Marcus delves deeper into the mystery.

Argento also employs fluid and dynamic camerawork to immerse viewers in the narrative. Long tracking shots follow characters through eerie locations, such as abandoned mansions and shadowy corridors, while extreme close-ups linger on seemingly innocuous objects that later become significant clues.

Using art as a clue — like many Giallo films, Deep Red uses art as an integral part of its mystery. A macabre painting is vital to identifying the killer, reinforcing Argento’s fascination with how art reflects hidden truths.

The killer’s perspective is frequently shown through voyeuristic point-of-view shots, creating a sense of dread as the audience becomes complicit in their acts. Also, one of Argento’s most iconic techniques is his use of reflective surfaces—mirrors, glass shards, and water—which distort reality and hint at hidden layers within the story. For instance, Marcus’s inability to recognize what he saw in Helga’s apartment mirrors his struggle to confront repressed truths about the murders.

At its core, Deep Red explores how memory and perception shape our understanding of reality. Marcus’s inability to recall what he saw at Helga’s murder scene reflects both his personal struggle and humanity’s broader difficulty in confronting uncomfortable truths.

Deep Red is an immersion in childhood trauma — The film delves into how past events shape present behavior. The killer’s motive is rooted in a traumatic incident from Carlo’s childhood—a moment when he witnessed his mother murdering his father. This theme is visualized through recurring images of children’s drawings and dolls, which take on sinister connotations.

The score for Deep Red, composed by progressive rock band Goblin (one of my favorite scores was their work, which infused Suspiria 1977 with a dramatically intense soundscape ), marked their first collaboration with Argento and became one of the most iconic elements of the film. The music blends haunting melodies with pulsating rhythms and eerie synthesizers, creating an atmosphere that oscillates between hypnotic beauty and jarring terror. Tracks like “Profondo Rosso” build suspense with their relentless basslines and dissonant keyboards, perfectly complementing Argento’s visual style.

The score actively drives the narrative forward—for example, Goblin’s music crescendos during moments of revelation or violence. Combining avant-garde rock and classical influences gives Deep Red yet another unique soundscape that has been widely imitated but rarely matched.

Daria Nicolodi, who plays Gianna Brezzi, introduces a strong female character who challenges traditional gender roles. Gianna is independent and assertive and often outshines Marcus in her investigative skills—though their playful banter occasionally highlights Marcus’s discomfort with her modernity.

#23 down, 127 to go! Your EverLovin’ Joey, formally & affectionately known as MonsterGirl!

Under the Radar: The Unseen Side of Film Noir Part 2: Criss Cross 1949

Fate, Desire, and Inescapable Will: The Noir Aesthetic of Robert Siodmak’s Criss Cross 1949

Robert Siodmak is the unheralded master of noir, and Criss Cross 1949 can be considered his crowning achievement.  Eddie Muller called the above shot where De Carlo looks directly into the camera ” noir’s defining moment.” They have the potential to be happy, and Lancaster is willing to forget the money if they can be together, but she just can’t let it go. Their fate is irrevocably sealed as they drift towards the nihilistic ending, and despite a handful of playful moments, Siodmak never lets up on the heavy, oppressive atmosphere.

“ Its pleasures are so subtle and so sublime you almost have to earn your way to this film, which deserves its place on any list of top 5 noirs of all time. The structure is complex and engrossing. Every facet of the filmmaking is superb. The cast is perfect, from stars to bit players – it has one of Miklós Rózsa’s most haunting scores, and the whole thing is realized by director Robert Siodmak in a way that makes the viewers feel they’re dreaming the story rather than having it told to them. “ – Eddie Muller

Criss Cross 1949 stands as a testament to Robert Siodmak’s mastery of the film noir aesthetic. One of the genre’s most influential stylists, honed from his German Expressionism roots, Siodmak fashions a visual language of composition and camera work that is, as Eddie Muller calls it, ‘ominous yet graceful.’

His expert manipulation of light and shadow, a hallmark of his expressionistic style, transforms ordinary settings into suspenseful landscapes. Consider Phantom Lady 1944, The Killers 1946, and Cry of the City 1948. Three of his most potent noirs, which are on my list of the best film noir, helped define the visual vocabulary of the American crime thriller.

Ella Raines in Robert Siodmak’s Phantom Lady 1944.

Victor Mature and Richard Conte in Siodmak’s Cry of the City 1948.

Phantom Lady: Forgotten Cerebral Noir: It’s not how a man looks, it’s how his mind works that makes him a killer.

31 Flavors of Noir on the Fringe to Lure you in! Part 2

According to French film critics Raymond Borde and Etienne Chaumeton, who wrote the influential book A Panorama of American Film Noir, Siodmak’s complex understanding of human nature “ demonstrates… that even within the framework of film noir, we’re in the presence of one of the finest psychologists of the screen.”

Robert Siodmak’s ability to infuse each scene and weave complex, non-linear stories with a sense of unease and moral ambiguity through purely visual poetry demonstrates to me why he should be considered one of the most influential directors of the noir era.

Siodmak’s films, like Criss Cross, reveal a keen awareness of what drives his characters. They often examine themes of obsession and betrayal within the gritty context of urban decay, and his brazenly bleak Criss Cross represents the height of a fertile and vibrant moment in film noir during the 1940s.

“ Criss Cross should have been the crowning achievement of producer Mark Hellinger, the flashy Broadway columnist who’d come to Hollywood in the late 1930s and taken the place by storm, producing some of the toughest and hard-boiled pictures of the early 40s – things like They Drive By Night, and High Sierra.”– Eddie Muller

Continue reading “Under the Radar: The Unseen Side of Film Noir Part 2: Criss Cross 1949”

Unraveling the Knot: Don’t Look Now (1973) A Mesmeric Paradox of Grief in Uncanny Red: Part 2

Of Grief & Ghosts: The Plot of Don’t Look Now (1973)

“The story evolves like a mosaic with the important pieces missing, just like one of those that John is restoring. Not unlike how the dissolution of the sealing material destroys the structures in the church, the reality of Baxters' life is falling apart, too. These cracks either should be mended, or they allow the forces from beyond and under to creep through them. The latter is especially true for John with his gift of clairvoyance, although resisted, or maybe especially because he resists it.” "” from Film Obsessive article by Magda Mariamidze

“If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.""” Gospel of Thomas

John (Donald Sutherland) and Laura Baxter (Julie Christie) bear the mark of a curse, a chilling revelation hinted at at the film's outset. Don't Look Now is a film about grief and loss. This is the most potent horror there is. Aside from the killings in Venice, it is these principles that are the true nature of this horror film. Roeg's masterpiece, the specter of death, and its companion grief are palpable and agonizingly real. The titles in quotations are baptized by the torrential British rain that licks the screen.

A Tragic Prelude: or In the Wake of Loss: The Opening of Don’t Look Now:

John Baxter: What are you reading?
Laura Baxter: I was just trying to find the answer to a question Christine was asking me: if the world’s round, why is a frozen lake flat?
John Baxter: Huh. That’s a good question.
Laura Baxter: [flipping through a book] Ah-ha. “Lake Ontario curves more than 3 degrees from its easternmost shore to its westernmost shore.” So, frozen water really isn’t flat!
John Baxter: Nothing is what it seems.

The juxtaposition of these images is Roeg’s way of highlighting the profuse symbolism consciously scattered throughout key scenes of Don’t Look Now. Here, I found a visible but not readily apparent cue signaling the dichotomy between the forces at work. Laura and the Red Devil, with their backs, turned to us.

Though it's a sunny day, we get a sense that it is a typically damp English morning mist in the yard of a country estate. The film cuts back and forth between the Baxters and their two children, playing outside by the pond. Christine and Johnny's parents are lost in a world of idle contentment within the house. The air hangs heavy with a bourgeois harmony. Both are tuned into their work, though, with an unhurried cadence.

Laura is reading Beyond The Fragile Geometry of Space, a book that can be seen on the sofa, so that she can answer Christine's question about the earth’s shape. John comments, " Nothing is as it seems."

Alongside du Maurier's narrative, the film begins with Laura investigating the answer to Christine's insightful curiosity: ” If the earth is round, why is a frozen pond flat?” This question highlights a paradox, as both statements can be seen as valid yet fundamentally contradictory.

The remnants of a lazy Sunday lunch linger: dishes abandoned, forks and knives scattered, while a thin ribbon of smoke rises from a forgotten cigarette in an ashtray, painting a picture of contented indulgence.

Their two young children, Johnny and Christine, continue to play around the pond on their bucolic property. Christine (Sharon Williams), an angelic little blonde girl in a shiny red Mac with the bright look of fresh blood"”red like a bleeding heart"”wanders around the pond pushing a wheelbarrow and chasing a bouncing ball. The sunny blue day surrounds the murky surface of the pond choked with reeds. The pond doesn't reflect the sky, but the water is like a mirror to Christine's red raincoat as she skirts her playful path. Meanwhile, her brother weaves through the trees on his bike, a silent fluttering moth against the verdant backdrop.

Christine’s playful moments with her ball create an unsettling visual dance. The little sphere, adorned with a crimson geometric design against the hazy day, seems to pulse and warp as it tumbles across the ground into the pond. This optical illusion subtly disturbs our perception, adding to the film’s undercurrent of unease without drawing attention to itself. She is holding her brother's toy soldier, Action Man, who, when you pull the string, possesses the recorded voice of a woman calling out strategic military commands.

As soon as Christine tugs the string on her doll, it utters, “Enemy 1000 feet…fall in.” In that instant, Johnny topples over his bike, is felled by a rock, and is cut by a shard of broken glass after he has ridden his bike over a pane of glass, shattering it beneath the with of his tires.

In this stunning opening sequence, architect John Baxter is prepping for a restoration of a church in Venice. He scrutinizes his projector loaded with slides"”of an Italian church. Laura Baxter reads her books, and John is studying his slides of the medieval church he will be reviving. He focuses on one slide, in particular, of a stained glass window; the façade of piety is splendid, with the figure of Christ adorned in red robes. However, he has no solid faith or spirituality of his own to cling to.

It is the shadowy corner of the slide that catches John's eye"”a small, enigmatic red form huddled in a pew, cloaked in a red coat and hood. The sight triggers a sudden, curious feeling. This intruding presence, small, perhaps childlike in appearance, becomes the catalyst for John's sudden, horrifying vision"”an intuitive warning to him that Christine is in danger.

John accidentally knocks over a glass of water and watches with curiosity as a red stain emerges from the small figure, like blood, creeping across the slide. A seemingly unremarkable mishap ignites an unsettling vision that John's mind conjures. The red figure melts into a disambiguated crimson swirl that coils around the church's stained-glass window. By the time it settles, it is almost fetal in shape; the veiled red figure, once a mere curiosity, now takes on a sinister aspect. A vision of Christine wearing the same evocative color, red, becoming submerged in the murky depths of the nearby pond.

He leaps to his feet and heads for the door. Laura asks him what is happening. "Nothing," he tells her.
Laura tosses a slide onto the book on metaphysics as the image continues to bleed.

John runs out of the house, hurls himself at the pond, past his son, his hand cut from the piece of broken glass; he screams, "Dad!"

When John reaches the water, it feels like it takes forever for him to reach Christine; frozen by his anguish, he then plunges in and pulls his red angel from the watery nothingness, her lifeless body wrenched up into his arms as he agonizes over her limp body with drenched blonde wisps. Roeg intercuts this moment of visual artistry with the harrowing sight of John trying to trudge through the water until he breaks through. Christine’s lifeless body is cradled in his arms as time and reality blur – in an unreadable mixture that will become past and present.

Continue reading “Unraveling the Knot: Don’t Look Now (1973) A Mesmeric Paradox of Grief in Uncanny Red: Part 2”

Unraveling the Knot: Don’t Look Now (1973) A Mesmeric Paradox of Grief in Uncanny Red: Part 1

The basic tenet of horror movies – "˜ Nothing is as it seems "˜ and for me, Don't Look Now is a death of all certainties.

In the early seventies, when even mainstream films could be fearless and experimental, smashing taboos and taunting the censors, it was non-conformists who offered cinemagoing a uniquely intense experience.

 “Don't Look Now 1973 retains its power and mystery today thanks to Roeg's mastery of what Alfred Hitchcock famously called "pure cinema," manifest in his visual sleight of hand and, above all, in his refusal to be bound by the conventions of dialogue-driven narrative and simple chronology. All this has shaped a style that has justifiably come to be described as "Roegian."– (David Thompson: Seeing Red 2015 article CRITERION )

“Nothing is what it seems," says John Baxter, the protagonist of Don't Look Now, at the start of the film. The rest of the movie depicts the tragedy of Baxter's incapacity to apply this fundamental wisdom in his own life. "Nothing is what it seems" may be an untested platitude, but it's a truism when it comes to movies, and Don't Look Now is one of the great "movies-about-movie-watching" ever made. Primarily, it is about the act of perception itself"¦ By seeing an event that has not yet happened as something that is already happening (what-will-be as what-is), he (John) fatally confuses the signs and makes the future the past, i.e., irrevocable, inescapable. Like a movie stamped on celluloid, or the glimpse of the satanic dwarf on the slide Baxter is handling in the opening scene, he fixes something in time, and thereby turns life into death.""” (article – Jasun Horsley Cinephilia and Beyond)

"He was a genius, Nic. A visionary. He made a love scene between a grieving wife and herhusband with no cries of passion, no sounds of orgasm, no words. All you hear is Pino Donaggio's music as Nic intercuts their making love with them getting dressed to go out to dinner. Magical. You don't see that scene as a voyeur. You watch it and it reminds you of yourself, of you being loving and you being loved. We decided it would be wisest not to shoot John's death scene until we'd done everything else, in case the unreliable prop knife failed and my throat would be cut, spilling red. Fragmented, abstract images colour and tell his stories. Look at Omar Sharif on a camel, coming from the other end of the desert towards the camera. That's Nic. Look at the Sahara's empty foreground and suddenly the smokestacks of a steamer crossing from left to right along the unseen Suez canal. That's Nic. He was the was the first to use Panavision's R-200°, which meant he had 15 degrees more shutter for Don't Look Now than the 185°s that were the best before. He was everything I ever wanted from a filmmaker. He changed my life forever. Francine and I asked him if we could name our firstborn after him. He said yes. Our glorious son is named Roeg." -  (Interview – Donald Sutherland)

Continue reading “Unraveling the Knot: Don’t Look Now (1973) A Mesmeric Paradox of Grief in Uncanny Red: Part 1”

A Trailer a Day Keeps the Boogeyman Away! Halloween A-Z

F

The Flesh and The Fiends 1960

Flesh and the Fiends is a 1960 British horror film directed by John Gilling. The movie is a fictionalized account of the real-life Edinburgh murderers, Burke and Hare, who infamously sold corpses to medical schools in the 19th century.

The film follows Dr. Robert Knox (played by Peter Cushing), a respected anatomy lecturer at the University of Edinburgh. Struggling to acquire enough cadavers for his anatomy classes, Dr. Knox becomes involved with two grave robbers, Burke (George Rose) and Hare (Donald Pleasence). Instead of just robbing graves, they escalate to murder to provide fresh bodies for Dr. Knox’s dissections.

As the duo’s gruesome activities continue, they become increasingly brazen and careless. Suspicion grows in the community, and an investigation is launched to uncover the source of the bodies. The film delves into the moral dilemmas faced by Dr. Knox as he turns a blind eye to the origins of the corpses and the increasing brutality of Burke and Hare’s actions.

Flesh and the Fiends is a dark and atmospheric horror film that explores themes of moral corruption, the consequences of desperation, and the ethical boundaries of science. It is known for its chilling portrayal of the Burke and Hare story, with Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasence delivering memorable performances. The film’s unsettling and macabre narrative makes it a notable entry in the horror genre.

Frogs 1972

Frogs is a 1972 American International eco-horror film directed by George McCowan who was prolific in made-for-television movies and TV series. Frogs is set in a remote and swampy area in the American South, where a wealthy and environmentally insensitive family gathers for Independence Day celebrations at their island mansion.

The film opens with a poetic sequence featuring Sam Elliott gliding through the swamp in a canoe, capturing photographs of the wildlife. As the exquisitely framed scene unfolds, the landscape initially appears serene, but soon, the camera reveals the grim sight of polluted water and scattered refuse.

The story follows Pickett Smith (Sam Elliott), a nature photographer and environmentalist who has come to the island to document the local wildlife on Crocket Island. After he is thrown from his canoe by a speedboat manned by Clint Crocket (Adam Roarke) and his beautiful sister Karen (Joan Van Ark) they come to his rescue and get him out of the lake. Clint apologizes and offers Pickett a chance to dry off back at his family estate. Finding Karen charming, he agrees to go back with them. Once there, he meets the cantankerous patriarch, Karen’s grandfather, Jason Crocket played by a now bilious and paunchy Ray Milland who has since had his share of cheap exploitation and horror flicks. He torments the family with a tyrannical iron fist. Gathered around are guests who have been invited to celebrate the Fourth of July.

Among the partygoers are Clint’s wife Jenny (Lynn Bordan) and son and Jason’s other son Michael (David Gilliam). There’s eccentric Aunt Iris played by Hollis Irving, cousin Kenny, and his girlfriend Bella (Judy Pace). They all dread spending time with Jason but they also all stand to inherit some of the family fortune one day when the old bastard finally kicks off. As Jason Crockett announces arrogantly “We are the filthy rich!”

Picket soon discovers that the island’s ecosystem has been dangerously disrupted by pollution and pesticides used by the family. The delicate balance of nature is upset, and as a result, the island’s animal population, led by an army of aggressive frogs, begins to revolt against the human intruders.

As the eerie and deadly attacks by various creatures intensify, the family members and their guests find themselves in a fight for survival against the relentless and vengeful forces of nature.

Grover, one of the family employees suddenly goes missing somewhere in the woods and this infuriates Jason, not to mention he’s got a bellyful of frogs. Pickett offers to go search for Grover and try and figure out what is inciting the frogs to overrun the place. He pokes at Jason that the island’s wildlife, including the frogs, reptiles, and insects seem to be rallying their forces against the Crocket family… and their tradition of not giving a damn about the environment, polluting it, poisoning it, and essentially treating like their own personal dumping site.

When Pickett finds Grover, Jason insists that his family not hear about the death in order not to ruin not only the Fourth of July celebration but also his birthday party. But inexplicable deaths start to occur. Michael is killed in the woods by large spiders, covering him with a network of deathly webs. Kenneth is killed in the greenhouse by lizards who knock over bottles of poisonous fumes. Then while chasing a butterfly, she is killed by snakes. Whoever is left tries to escape the island but Jason refuses to allow anything to ruin his festivities and won’t leave his island. When Bella tries to escape she and Crocket’s servants are slaughtered by birds who violently attack them. Then Clint is killed by poisonous water snakes trying to get to his boat.

With a highly intuitive intellect, the frogs sense that Pickett is about to torch them all with gasoline and they all clear out. Pickett takes Karen and her two kids and they grab a canoe all while battling various creatures along the way, including crocodiles.

The film inevitably ends with an eerie curtain call as Ray Milland is surrounded by the natural world closing in on him. The cacophony of frogs – like an ancient plague consumes the old iron-handed bully, crashing and vaulting through the windows, until they cover him while he dies of a heart attack with no one left to help him.

Frogs 1972 is a cautionary tale and a classic example of the eco-horror subgenre, one of the first ‘nature strikes back’ films where nature itself becomes the antagonist. When the balance of nature is disrupted by avaricious and self-indulgent individuals who contaminate their surroundings, it incites a revolt by a coalition of wildlife who rise up and challenge humanity’s reckless exploitation of the planet’s ecosystem, the consequences of environmental negligence and the potential for the natural world pushed to its limits – to strike back and vie for dominion over mankind.

From Beyond the Grave 1974

See my tribute to MARGARET LEIGHTON here:

From Beyond the Grave 1972 was produced by Amicus Productions, a British film production company known for its horror anthology films during the 1960s and 1970s. The film was released by Warner Bros. in the United States and by British Lion Films in the United Kingdom. Amicus Productions was notable for its contributions to the horror genre, producing several successful anthology films that featured well-known actors and engaging, often interconnected, horror stories. I have a particular affection for the works put out by Amicus. They have a darkly lyrical sensibility, all infused with delicious irony and surreal and sardonic-centered storylines.

From Beyond the Grave is a 1974 British horror anthology film directed by Kevin Connor. The film is structured as a portmanteau or anthology, consisting of four separate but interconnected stories, all linked by a sinister antique shop run by the enigmatic and mysterious proprietor, played by beloved horror icon Peter Cushing.

Throughout the film, the antique shop Temptations Ltd. and its proprietor serve as the central thread that ties these tales of terror together. As each customer falls victim to the sinister objects they’ve stolen, it becomes clear that the shop is a purveyor of cursed items with a malevolent agency of its own.

The quintet of customers who have questionable ethics enter the shop and think they are swindling the shop owner out of his collectibles and antiques. They each obtain a seemingly innocuous item, only to discover that it is cursed and carries a dark and malevolent supernatural force. These stories explore the consequences of the characters’ interactions with the cursed objects, leading to chilling and often fatal outcomes.

The cast includes Ian Bannen, Ian Carmichael, Diana Dors, Margaret Leighton, Donald Pleasance, Nyree Dawn Porter, David Warner, Ian Ogilvy, Leslie Anne Down, Jack Watson, and Angela Pleasance.

The first customer in “The Gate Crasher” is Edward Charlton (David Warner) who thinks he is conning the proprietor out of a valuable mirror, insisting that it’s a reproduction. Once he gets home, after holding a séance with friends, an evil spirit emerges from the mirror and takes possession of him. The evil specter forces Edward to commit murder in order to release him from his glass prison. After carrying out the bloody deeds, Edward himself is trapped inside the mirror until the next person comes along to set him free.

Next is the segment “An Act of Kindness” Ian Bannen plays Christopher Lowe a meek and downtrodden husband who steals a war medal from the shop and goes on to befriend a straggly pauper Jim Underwood (Donald Pleasance) selling matches and shoelaces. Lowe becomes intoxicated by Underwood’s daughter Emily (Pleasance’s real daughter Angela). Lowe also presents the medal as something he was awarded after WWII. When he wants out of his marriage to Diana Dors, he murders her so he can be with Emily, but in the end, he discovers to his horror that the whole thing has been set up by his son and the Underwoods to get rid of him.

The third customer of the story “The Elemental” Reggie Warren (Ian Carmichael) cleverly switches the price tags on two snuff boxes in order to purchase the one he wants at a cheaper price. He thinks he’s gotten away with it and boards the train and heads home. On the train, a kooky occultist Madame Orloff (Margaret Leighton in fabulous form) excitably tells him that there is an ‘elemental’ an invisible supernatural entity sitting on his shoulder feeding on him. He readily dismisses her but soon after it is evident that something is making Reggie act out in ways that people accuse him of hurting them, though he hasn’t touched them at all. Even his wife Susan (Nyree Dawn Porter) claims that he has touched her when he hasn’t. Reggie now believes that this uncanny spirit, the elemental is vexing him. So Reggie calls upon Madame Orloff to come and exorcize this volatile spirit. However, the thing jumps out of Reggie and leaps onto Susan instead, with deadly consequences for Reggie.

In the fourth and last installment ”The Door”, William Seaton (Ian Ogilvy) buys a massive antique door and brings it home, which opens a portal to a decaying blue room. Seaton and his wife Rosemary (Lesley-Anne Down) go inside and explore the space until they realize that it is a realm where a sadistic warlock named Sir Michael Sinclair (Jack Watson) dwells. The room is in the liminal space between both worlds and Seaton learns that he must destroy the door before Sinclair comes through.

From Beyond the Grave is a classic anthology horror film that blends supernatural elements with tales of moral comeuppance. With its atmospheric storytelling and memorable performances, it remains a cult favorite among horror enthusiasts and fans of portmanteau films.

The Fury 1978

The Fury is a 1978 supernatural thriller film directed by Brian De Palma and a screenplay by John Farris. The movie follows the story of a young man named Robin Sandza (played by Andrew Stevens), who possesses psychokinetic powers, which allow him to move objects with his mind. These abilities make him the target of a secretive government organization led by Ben Childress (played by John Cassavetes). Underneath and surrounding the charismatic hybrid horror/science fiction pageantry is John Williams’s evocative score. The film features quite an impressive cast. John Cassavetes, Kirk Douglas, Charles Durning, Carrie Snodgrass, Carol Rossen, Fiona Lewis, and the two Furies, Amy Irving and Andrew Stevens.

The film also centers on Gillian Bellaver (played by Amy Irving), a girl with psychic abilities, including telepathy, who becomes connected to Robin. She escapes from Childress’s organization and seeks refuge with Robin’s father, Peter Sandza (played by Kirk Douglas), a former government agent.

As the story unfolds, it becomes clear that the government’s interest in individuals with psychic powers is not benevolent. They seek to harness and weaponize these abilities for their own purposes, often resorting to unethical and brutal means.

In the covert world of espionage, Peter Sanza, a dedicated American agent played by Kirk Douglas, finds himself facing the ultimate betrayal when his long-time partner, Childress, portrayed by John Cassavetes, turns against him. As the government becomes aware of Peter’s son, Robin, who possesses extraordinary telepathic abilities, they see an opportunity to wield this untapped power for their own purposes. In this ruthless pursuit to harness Robin’s unique gift, Peter becomes a dispensable pawn in their quest for control.

When they try to take Peter out he survives the attempt to assassinate him. But he emerges from the shadows determined to find his son and driven by a burning desire to wreak vengeance on those who betrayed him. Meanwhile, Robin is devastated by the belief that his father is dead. He has been secreted away by his new guardians and held in a secret government facility, held by the clandestine organization that wishes to exploit him.

Almost a year later, another teenager Gillian (Amy Irving) shows that she has the same telepathic abilities. Peter sees an opportunity for help by enlisting Gillian to find his son by connecting with him telepathically. Both Gillian and Robin also have the power to move objects by way of telekinesis. But when she triggers this force, her powers cause people to bleed uncontrollably. But Gillian, who has a gentle spirit is frightened and disturbed by this uncanny power of hers. She is placed at the Paragon and put in a school with other gifted telepathic students where they research and help develop their skills. This is run by Dr.McKeever (Charles Durning).

Peter is joined by his girlfriend Hester (Carrie Snodgrass) who infiltrates the Paragon so she can contact Gillian. It’s not long after that Childress and the powerful cabal of the government take Gillian to their secret lab. She can now draw a mental image of Robin being put through a series of experiments, and soon enough he becomes aware of Gillian. Robin begins to emerge as a volatile monster who has gone to the dark side, jealous of Childress’s attention he’s been giving to Gillian. He now has a murderous evil streak that the power has unleashed in him… a fury. He causes havoc wherever he goes and can siphon the blood out of people just by piercing their physical bodies with his mind. In one scene he uses his telekinetic powers to dislocate a Ferris wheel filled with passengers. Richard Kline who did the cinematography for Soylent Green in 1973 and The Andromeda Strain in 1971 creates a pyrotechnic display amidst the carnivalesque carnage.

Hester breaks Gillian out of the Paragon but gets killed, and Peter and Gillian try to hunt down Robin, which leads them to Childress’s estate, where they face the ultimate showdown with the monstrous Robin who no longer has any humanity. Once the confrontation between Robin and his father leaves Robin dead and his father committing suicide, Gillian is left in the hands of the menacing Childress. When he attempts to seduce her she goes full-blown ‘fury’ on him and rips him to psychic pieces.

The Fury is known for its stylish direction by Brian DePalma, who infuses the story with his signature cinematic flair. It offers a compelling narrative with a mix of supernatural and espionage elements, making it a memorable entry into the thriller and horror genres of the late 1970s. Many film critics consider DePalma’s work to favor style over substance, but the collection of films has a significant presence and his stylish vision has created some of the most compelling visual narratives and beautifully developed – that they stay with you whether substantive or not.

 

“…in fits and starts, the kind of mindless fun that only a horror movie that so seriously pretends to be about the mind can be. Mr. DePalma seems to have been less interested in the oeverall movie than in pulling off a couple of spectacular set-pieces, which he does.” -Vincent Canby, New York Times, March 15, 1978

This is your EverLovin’ Joey Sayin’ F is the letter that goes with FRIGHT! next is the letter G for GOOSEBUMPS in the night!