MonsterGirl’s 150 Days of Classic Horror #122 Rosemary’s Baby 1968 & The Mephisto Waltz 1971

SPOILER ALERT!

ROSEMARY’S BABY 1968 

A Covenant of Betrayal: Bodily Invasion, Unholy Pacts, Maternal Power, the Spiral of Paranoia, and the Profaned Sanctuary in Rosemary’s Baby:

I know my challenge here at 150 Days of Classic Horror promised to be shorter versions of my typical work, but this film warrants my attention and is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg for what’s to come soon. It’s not easy to find the words worthy of a film that feels absolutely flawless, and leaves me stunned each time I revisit it, which is often and never enough. It’s a film that slips through easy categories and shatters the bounds of expectations of what makes a classic film transcendent, inimitable, divinely wrought, and narrative alchemy.

There’s something about Rosemary’s Baby 1968 that never loosens its grip on me—not just the thickening dread or that sly, darkly playful humor, but the sheer craft on display in every frame. It’s not that the movie hides new secrets each time I watch it; it’s that I’m always floored by the layers of brilliance that never lose their power: the way every detail becomes part of the film’s mood; the choreography of hand gestures and glances; the clothes that seem both of their moment and eternally stylish or times unsettling as in Minnie and Roman’s dress up menagerie.

If clothes make the character, then Ruth Gordon’s Minnie Castevet is dressed for an urban coven and a comedy of manners. Her wardrobe is a parade of candy-colored eccentricity, as if your great-aunt Sadie raided the witchy side of Bloomingdale’s, then asked for extra rhinestones and a brooch shaped like a fig.

More than anything, there’s the sense of place—the way New York isn’t just a backdrop, but a living, breathing character, indifferent and watchful, quietly amplifying the film’s unease. Every time the credits roll, and Krzysztof Komeda’s lyrical music arrives with the hush of a child entering an existential waiting room, innocent yet weighted, the melody lingering in the charged quiet, the camera’s gliding descent and dreamlike plunge from the sky to capture Manhattan and the Bramford, I find myself in awe all over again. At just how ruthlessly and elegantly this film captures a story, I can’t look away.

Rosemary’s Baby 1968 was adapted from Ira Levin’s (A Kiss Before Dying 1953, The Stepford Wives 1972, The Boys from Brazil 1976) celebrated 1967 novel of the same name. Levin’s taut, gripping story provided the blueprint for the film, blending psychological suspense with supernatural horror and offering a sharply modern twist on themes of trust, vulnerability, and evil hidden in plain sight. If you read the novel, you’ll see that the film remains closely tied to Levin’s vision, bringing his unsettling tale of paranoia and betrayal to vivid cinematic life.

There is significance to its import; on the threat of women’s primacy and the lure of power that seeks to undermine, contain, and ultimately invade female autonomy, seducing and betraying with equal finesse right out in the open sunlit and the minimal Mid-century space that was supposed to be hopeful, modern, and independent, surrounded by gentle colors and an almost idyllic domestic calm. Levin would revisit these themes in The Stepford Wives.

Rosemary’s world, with clean, uncluttered lines, a palette of airy whites, soft yellows, and pale golds, her airly sunlit apartment has a serene sense of order that highlights both comfort and sophistication.

But underneath the surface of Rosemary’s domestic life, a space that promises safety, possibility, and the hope of new life to come, something is coiling and brewing, and something ancient is quietly gathering strength. The hopeful clarity of clean lines and soft yellows is, in truth, a delicate façade. Just beyond the reach of that domestic optimism, forces both seen in and unseen on the other side of the modest pantry door, there are those who are waiting: neighbors who seem intrusive yet harmless, rituals that appear routine, and dark traditions that slip past the boundaries of reason.

What’s waiting to undermine this peace isn’t just a conspiracy of others, but the creeping realization that control is an illusion. Within the walls of the Bramford, every open space harbors a hidden potential for invasion; the kindly smiles, the jovial conversations, the quirky charms of an odd elderly couple, all dissolve into a silent, relentless pressure. The threat lies in the way trust is twisted and agency is quietly unraveled, not just by the clandestine violence or chaos, but by the slow, almost invisible shifting of power.

What Rosemary fears isn’t only what’s lurking outside her door, but the knowledge that safety, in this bright and hopeful home, has always been conditional. And everyone’s mask slips off when she begins to watch too closely, revealing the machinery of manipulation that’s been pulsing away behind her back, and within the dreams that disturb her. These lucid dreams leave her feeling uneasy and unsure of what’s real once she wakes up. “This is no dream! This is really happening!”

Every glance and gesture carries a tension between self-possession and quiet influence, as if the film is warning us that the very spaces we trust most can sometimes become the very settings where we end up surrendering more control than we realize.

Rosemary’s Baby endures not because of its notorious reputation or its genre trappings, but because it is still unsettling and beguiling in ways that no summary can really capture. It’s a film you don’t just watch so much as take it all in, absorb it scene by scene, uneasy feeling by uneasy feeling, as it quietly reconfigures your trust in the world, and how people can so easily betray us.

Mia Farrow stars as the iconic imperiled and innocence lost — Rosemary Woodhouse, a young woman who moves with her husband, Guy (John Cassavetes), into the Bramford, a storied, aging brownstone apartment building in Manhattan shrouded in rumors of dark happenings. Their lives seem charmed: a fabulous new home, rising career hopes, plans to start a family, yet beneath the façade of urban domesticity, something ominous takes root.

Mia Farrow as Rosemary: An Exquisite Portrait of Fragility and Innocence:

Mia Farrow’s performance as Rosemary is the glowing heart at the center of Rosemary’s Baby—a presence so nuanced, so quietly powerful, that the film’s entire world seems to draw its breath from her. Farrow captures Rosemary’s innocence with an ethereal touch, her every expression delicately poised between wonder and dread. With her wide, questing eyes and that unforgettable veil of pixie-blonde hair, she embodies a kind of luminous vulnerability, beauty not defined by glamour, but by a raw openness to the world’s mysteries and dangers.

Farrow’s portrayal is breathtaking in its authenticity. Each gesture, trembling, hopeful, or aching with suspicion, feels both spontaneous and deeply considered. She moves through each scene with a dancer’s physicality: light on her feet in moments of domestic joy, yet growing ghostlike and hollow as suspicion and fear eclipse the bright interiors she inhabits. There’s a palpable music to her silence, a poetry in the way her features convey volumes, whether in tentative laughter, a quickening whisper, or the silent tears of someone who feels the world slipping out from under her.

Her innocence is not naiveté, but a kind of luminous trust, a faith in goodness that the film is designed to test at every turn. By drawing from the most delicate corners of vulnerability, Farrow makes Rosemary’s journey a wrenching and universally human ordeal. Even in her waning strength and drawn, pale beauty, Farrow glows with that haunting radiance, summoning a purity that makes Rosemary’s suffering deeply affecting and her small moments of rebellious courage all the more heroic.

Few performances have so vividly distilled the essence of innocence under siege. Mia Farrow renders Rosemary not just as a victim, but as a fully alive, feeling woman whose genuine spirit, beauty, and pain linger with us long after the film dissolves with Komeda’s last note. Her work here is a study in emotional transparency, each note played with a subtlety that makes the horror feel more penetrating, richer, deeper, and achingly real.

Rosemary and Guy’s elderly neighbors, the eccentric and quite intrusive Minnie and Roman Castevet, quickly ingratiate themselves. Guy, an aspiring actor, soon falls under their influence, his career suddenly flourishing as Rosemary suffers a series of unsettling experiences: strange dreams, a violent encounter that leaves her mysteriously bruised and scratched, and the news that she is pregnant.

As her pregnancy advances, Rosemary grows increasingly isolated and distrustful. Doctors minimize her pain, friends are pushed away, and the Castevets intensify their hold. The everyday rhythms of city life and marriage become laced with suspicion, anxiety, and a creeping sense of conspiracy. Hutch (Maurice Evans), Rosemary’s trusted friend, initially rattles her with ominous gossip about the Bramfords’ dark past, stories of witchcraft, strange deaths, and unspeakable rituals that blacken and scandalize the building’s reputation. As Rosemary’s suspicions grow, Hutch attempts to warn her. On his way to deliver unsettling information, he mysteriously falls into a coma, silencing his efforts to protect her. Subtle acts of theft, such as the coven taking belongings from their intended victims, hint at ritualistic intentions. Rosemary connects these disappearances to the practice of casting spells using personal items. After Hutch’s death, Rosemary receives a cryptic clue, discovering an anagram involving the book “All of Them Witches.” She painstakingly uncovers the hidden message, realizing it reveals the true identity of her neighbor, Roman, connecting him to a notorious witchcraft lineage. This book, Hutch leaves for Rosemary, shrouded in notes and underlined passages, becomes the key that finally lays bare the coven’s plot. It exposes Roman Castevet as Steven Marcato, son of the Bramford’s infamous devil-worshipping Patriarch. These fragile clues confirm Rosemary’s deepest fears and propel Rosemary from bewildered innocence toward the harrowing truth lurking within her home and her womb.

Brought in by Minnie and Roman to oversee Rosemary’s pregnancy is Dr. Abraham Sapirstein, played with a calmly sinister streak by Ralph Bellamy, who enters the picture with all the outward confidence of a respected obstetrician, but there’s a chilling contrast between his composed authority and Rosemary’s visible suffering under his care. Underneath all that bedside manner, his role is complicit and menacing as he manipulates Rosemary; he’s firmly in the coven’s corner, quietly keeping tabs on Rosemary and steering her away from anyone who might actually help. Sapirstein represents the medical establishment’s betrayal of women.

As her pregnancy progresses, she becomes deathly thin and almost ghostly pale, her face drawn, her body frail, every movement shadowed by exhaustion and pain. It’s clear that whatever’s happening isn’t normal, yet Sapirstein dismisses her agony, brushing off her fears with a clinical calm that only heightens the horror. The pain is so unbearable that Rosemary cries out in desperation, “Pain be gone—I shall have no more of thee!” Still, he insists she soldier on, becoming the embodiment of that terrifying authority who refuses to listen, all while Rosemary’s strength seems to slip further away under his unyielding watch.

Haunted by the feeling that something is terribly wrong, Rosemary’s search for truth unravels the terrible secret: her child’s conception was manipulated by this coven of witches, with Guy complicit in exchange for his ambitions to seek rising stardom. The baby she delivers is not just hers, but the offspring of something unholy—a child meant to bring darkness into the world. Her little Andrew is the devil’s son.

Rosemary’s Baby is at once a story of trust betrayed and innocence invaded. It quietly transforms the familiar—marriage, motherhood, home—into a landscape of menace and dread, drawing us into a spiral of fear as what should have been Rosemary’s ordinary, hopeful new life becomes the stage for the extraordinary and the profane.

This isn’t just a horror film, or a psychological thriller, nor a film about devil worshiping, or even a New York story. It’s a painting of dread, paranoia, and invasion, as precise as it is surreal, where every detail thrums with intention.

The missing paintings in the Castavets’ apartment leave a conspicuous rectangle of emptiness, suggesting an orchestrated secrecy about their identities. Strange herb gardens in Minnie Castevet’s kitchen, filled with tannis root and mysterious plants, their pungent smell lingering as a recurring motif of suspicion. The faint sound of a recorder drifting through the apartment’s walls—distant, eerie, and childlike, as if signaling secret rituals behind closed doors. Whispered voices and thin walls, so every innocent noise becomes suspect, heightening Rosemary’s sense of isolation. A hidden door connecting apartments, blending private and public spaces, making safety feel porous and staged. Unsettling tokens of care from Minnie and Roman, like herbal drinks, shakes, each laden with false cheer and underlying menace. Peculiar talismans: the charm locket with tannis root, a gift presented as protection but reeking, literally, of danger. Laura-Louise, played with jittery gusto by Patsy Kelly, barges into Rosemary’s apartment like she’s volunteering for neighborhood watch and community theater in the same breath, plotzing on the sofa, needles flying, kvetching louder than her knitting clacks, and making the sacred art of sitting still look like an Olympic sport in comic chaos. Ritual chanting and laughter seeping through the walls at night, creating the sense of a community united by something occult and inaccessible to Rosemary. Roman’s piercing eyes and pierced ears. And Minnie’s outlandish fashion sense. The black, sinister crib with its unnerving mobile, just visible in the Castavets’ apartment near the film’s end—a chilling symbol of what’s been orchestrated.

The mood Polanski conjures is so immaculate and inexorable, it almost feels like a spell. Even its moments of humor or domestic calm are laced with a kind of exquisite malice, suggesting that comfort is the cruelest illusion of all. Mia Farrow’s fragile grace as Rosemary is the soul of uncertainty, making every room she enters feel both sanctuary and snare.

In the harrowing aftermath of betrayal, Rosemary’s Baby builds toward a moment where the meaning of motherhood eclipses even the most profound fears. Staring into little Andy’s (Adrian’s) unearthly eyes, “What have you done to his eyes?!” (she screams). “He has his father’s eyes,” Roman coyly comforts her.

Rosemary finds herself at the threshold between horror and something both older and deeper: the instinct to love and protect her child, no matter his origins. That haunting question—“Aren’t you his mother, Rosemary?” posed by Roman in the iconic climax as she gently rocks her little boy in the black bassinet, lands with seismic force. It crystallizes the film’s emotional climax, posing not only a moral dilemma but also recognizing the singular, transformative bond of a mother to her child. Despite the supernatural terror, betrayal, and the realization of all the evil that has conspired against her, Rosemary’s primal, elemental, fierce, unyielding maternal impulse silently asserts itself.

I can’t wait to explore this masterpiece in a deeper, more revealing way at The Last Drive In. I want to offer just this: the promise of an essay that takes nothing for granted, that attempts to do justice to the emotional, aesthetic, and philosophical currents flowing beneath the film’s notorious surface. There’s so much more to Rosemary’s Baby than its twists or shocks; for me, it’s a film about vulnerability, transformation, paranoia, silencing women, the shifting shadows of trust, and, of course, motherhood. And I can’t wait to share why it feels inexhaustible, still new, and still necessary, fifty years on. I recently watched it on my birthday, and am still struck by its sense of being utterly mesmerizing, almost alchemical. And then suddenly you’re acutely aware of your own vulnerability.

Every ritual, whether whispered incantations behind closed doors or the unsettling social ceremonies of Rosemary’s intrusive neighbors, feels charged, precise, and ambiguous, as if the very walls of the Bramford have absorbed a liturgy of secrets. These moments aren’t just spectacle; they root us inside a private mythology, where everyday rituals become gateways to the uncanny and the unspeakable.

And nothing—but nothing—and no one—could have conjured Minnie and Roman Castevet with the peculiar electricity, sly depth, and frightening authenticity that Ruth Gordon and Sidney Blackmer summoned at the heart of Rosemary’s Baby.

Minnie is unapologetically gauche. She drapes herself in loud prints, chunky jewelry, and an arsenal of funky hats. To me, this brings to mind pincushion pastels and the sort of necklaces that double as divining pendulums, baubles, and jangly bracelets. Minnie’s headwear could have its own billing: floppy, beaded, occasionally flower-topped, each one perched with the confidence of a seasoned scene-stealer.

Forgive my endless descriptives. It’s hard to stop envisioning Minnie without poetic indulgence.

With her quilted coats and dresses in pattern collisions, Minnie is like a walking box of assorted bonbons, each piece of jewelry and every boldly patterned scarf a different surprise, sweetly mismatched, kitschy, and irresistibly eye-catching. Her accessories cluster around her like a flock of noisy birds, each one a burst of color. And they’re all competing for attention, all of it creating a look that’s as whimsically cluttered and unpredictable as a curiosity shop window after a small earthquake. The total effect is less “understated Upper West Side” and more sorceress at Sunday bingo. It all leans toward playful excess.

With pride, she sports accessories with attitude: Brooches the size of demonic talismans, over-the-glasses chains, and bags that seem to carry everything but a sense of subtlety.

Ruth Gordon’s costumes are the wearable equivalent of a fabulous ’60s raspberry Jell-O mold: politely Mid-century but packing deeply subversive energy just beneath the surface. Minnie Castevet’s wardrobe is an incantation in polyester and paste gems—one part busybody, one part occult ringleader, and 100% unforgettable.

The sartorial magic behind both Rosemary’s Mod minimalism and Minnie’s retro maximalism belongs to Anthea Sylbert, who was the film’s costume designer and a trailblazer in her field, later renowned for her Oscar-nominated work on Chinatown and Julia. In Rosemary’s Baby, she created a visual duet between Mia Farrow’s ethereal chic and Ruth Gordon’s camp-colorful chaos, using clothes as character.  Sylbert’s genius is making every paisley and sequin serve the story, leaving Minnie as the best-dressed witch this side of Central Park West.

Film historians and critics alike have long regarded Gordon and Blackmer’s performances as the lifeblood of the film’s dread and dark wit. Ruth Gordon’s Minnie is often described as a force of nature—one reviewer captures her “hustling, staccato vitality,” likening her presence to “a sprite in clashing housecoats, flitting from kindness to command with witchy irrepressibility… a cheerful plague injected in doses of neighborly affection.” — (Matthew Eng in his essay “We Need More Villains Like ROSEMARY’S BABY’s Minnie Castevet,” published by the Tribeca Film Festival’s online journal.)

Gordon was awarded an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, a testament to her ability to turn Minnie’s nosiness and eccentricity into both a source of charm and existential dread. She is the apartment’s malignant fairy godmother, gifting advice laced with poison.

Sidney Blackmer provides the perfect counterpoint as Roman—urbane, elusive, exuding a velvety menace behind every pointed phrase and witty remark. Blackmer brings a refined and gracious Mephistophelean finesse, every gesture measured, every smile edged with the grace and danger of an old-world conjurer. Blackmer played Roman with “the effortless confidence of a man who has always moved in dark corridors.” (Vincent Canby of The New York Times.) His measured gestures and sonorous voice infuse Roman with equal parts grandeur and guile, a conjurer in evening clothes presiding over the hidden rituals of the Bramford.

Together, Gordon and Blackmer are described as a duet of deviltry so convincing you can nearly smell the talcum and tannin. Their chemistry is unsettling, and their comedic timing is impeccable. Critics point to their ability to blur boundaries, nurturing and predatory, comic and chilling, grotesque and intimate. They are the living heartbeat of the Bramford, the whimsically macabre puppeteers orchestrating Rosemary’s undoing with a neighborly smile.

If Rosemary’s Baby is a spell, then Gordon and Blackmer are its most potent incantation, transforming the ordinary into the diabolical with nothing but a laugh, a glance, a dish of chocolate (‘mouse’) mousse, or a lingering, seemingly innocent question at the apartment door.

Stay tuned—for a true descent into the heart of the Bramford is coming.


THE MEPHISTO WALTZ 1971

Paul Wendkos’s The Mephisto Waltz (1971) stands as one of the more stylish, unsettling entries in the wave of occult horror that followed the late-’60s boom. Adapted by Ben Maddow from Fred Mustard Stewart’s novel, this supernatural drama brings together a cast led by Alan Alda still a few years away from making TV history as the sarcastic mensche and lothario Hawkeye Pierce on MAS*H., here he plays Myles Clarkson, Jacqueline Bisset is his wife Paula, Curd Jürgens as the enigmatic pianist Duncan Ely, and Barbara Parkins as his seductive daughter Roxanne. Bradford Dillman, William Windom, and Kathleen Widdoes support the central quartet, each swirling into the strange world conjured by the film.

Feature & Interview with Iconic Actress, Dancer, and Photographer, Barbara Parkins

Paul Wendkos enjoyed a remarkably prolific career spanning film and television, moving with ease between genres and formats. He first drew Hollywood’s attention with his stylish 1957 superior film noir The Burglar starring Dan Duryea. Other supernaturally tinged features include the TV Movie, Fear No Evil (1969), starring Louis Jourdan. This atmospheric horror introduces a psychiatrist ensnared in a string of eerie deaths linked to a haunted mirror and occult rituals, establishing a recurring supernatural investigator for a proposed series. A follow-up to Fear No Evil, this TV movie continues the story of Dr. David Sorell (Jordan who revisits this character) as he investigates black magic and devil worship, blending psychological horror with supernatural intrigue in another stylish Wendkos production. Wendkos also directed the compelling conspiracy thriller The Brotherhood of the Bell 1970, which delves into the disturbing power of a secret society that manipulates its members’ lives and fates. It features Glenn Ford as a man facing the supernatural undertones of fate and control.

The story unfolds with Myles Clarkson, once a promising pianist, now a journalist, landing an interview with dying virtuoso Duncan Ely. At first, Ely seems dismissive, but after noticing Myles’s pianist-perfect hands, he takes sudden, almost feverish interest in Myles and Paula. Under the surface, Ely and Roxanne are soul-seeking Satanists, and as Ely’s death looms, he enacts a plan to transfer his soul into Myles’s body. A perverse waltz of identity and desire follows: Myles’s talent blooms overnight.

The transformation of Myles Clarkson is both eerie and unsettling. After the ritualistic soul transference, enacted through occult ceremony and the symbolic donning of a lifelike mask, Myles, once a modest and frustrated pianist, is suddenly possessed of Duncan Ely’s formidable virtuosity. The mask, eerily modeled after Duncan’s own face, is not merely a prop but a talisman of identity, marking the exact moment the transfer is complete.

As Duncan’s body succumbs to death, Myles awakens with a talent that is impossibly beyond his own, his hands moving across the keys with newfound authority and grace. The change is almost supernatural in its clarity: where awkwardness and hesitation once reigned, now there is electricity, precision, and a chilling sense of borrowed genius. Myles’s transformation is unmistakable; he performs Liszt’s “Mephisto Waltz” with the passion and brilliance that only the true Duncan Ely possessed, as if the man himself has crossed the mortal threshold to play again.

This uncanny exchange, summoned by the ritual and the mask, turns Myles into a living echo of Duncan, blurring the lines between body and soul, self and other. The film lingers on the aftermath, making every note Myles plays not just a triumph, but a haunting reminder of the price exacted by dark ambition.

His behavior shifts, and Paula, caught between attraction and suspicion, begins to sense a chilling conspiracy. The horror subtly deepens after the ritual, as their daughter Abby falls mysteriously ill and dies, marked by a symbolically oily blue substance, a detail from Paula’s nightmare that horrifyingly manifests in waking life.

In one of the film’s most hallucinatory sequences, Paula finds herself pulled into a dream that shimmers on the edge of reality, a vision so vivid and prophetic that it feels less like fantasy than a glimpse behind the veil. In this haze, Myles and Roxanne appear above her, locked in a disturbing embrace, their bodies joined by an intimacy that is both sensual and sinister. They stand together, looming over Paula as if presiding over a ritual from which she is excluded but cannot escape. The moment is charged with a sense of betrayal and helplessness, blurring the boundary between nightmare and waking life. It’s as though Paula, already beset by suspicion and grief, is being forced to witness the erasure of her own identity, her husband (who is now possessed by Duncan Ely’s soul) and the enigmatic Roxanne joined in an alliance that is at once carnal and conspiratorial. This vision is not just a manifestation of fear; it’s a psychic revelation, laying bare the new order forged by the soul transference. Myles is no longer truly hers, and Roxanne is no mere rival but the co-conspirator in the theft of his very self.

Wendkos crafts the film with a surreal, sensual confidence. The dream sequences and ritual scenes are genuinely hallucinogenic: masks abound, visuals tilt and smear, and a New Year’s Eve party throbs with surreal menace as the camera lingers on the macabre, as if time itself is spilling out of joint. In one of the film’s most visually striking and surreal moments, the human guests don elaborate animal masks, adding to the hallucinatory, unsettling atmosphere of the gathering. This inversion is heightened by the infamous appearance of the Doberman wearing a man’s face mask, while the partygoers themselves appear in costumes and masks evocative of a decadent, slightly feral masquerade.

Out from the glittery crowd, the Doberman appears, jowls sunk into the uncanny slack of a man’s mask, its rubber grin both idiotic and unsettling. Roxanne glides at his side, leash in hand, the picture of cruel poise, her every step a signal that propriety and perversity have traded places for the night. The room filled with hushed conversations, laughter, and the heartbeats of the elite surrounds this grotesque masquerade: a beast dressed in borrowed humanity, padding obediently beside its mistress.

The human mask, showing off its absurd, molded smile, as if to suggest the boundaries between pet and person, predator and prey, have blurred along with the path that stretches across the party, vanishing into the maze of revelers and feral in-crowd where every mask hides something untameable.

The cinematography, praised for its “offbeat” unpredictability, uses distorted angles, mirrored reflections, and slo-mo to induce a sense of psychic vertigo.

By now, it’s no secret: Jerry Goldsmith is my absolute favorite composer. No one else leaps so effortlessly from one sensibility to the next. His versatility isn’t just impressive—it’s alchemy. Time and again, Goldsmith’s scores weave themselves into the soul of every film, conjuring entire worlds with a single, unforgettable theme. He’s penned more brilliant scores than I can count, each one a fresh revelation in cinematic storytelling.

In The Mephisto Waltz, his score draws out the film’s otherworldliness, tinging every frame with an atmosphere both seductive and corrosive. Goldsmith’s score is a conjuration that weaves itself through the film like a dark perfume, at once hypnotic and deranged, lavish and sickly sweet. It is music that kisses the skin and then tingles with cold warning, never letting you settle, pulling you into its spell that floats between desire and dread. Goldsmith composes with sleight of hand, pouring glittering piano passages through a prism of eerie instrumentation.

The waltz motif tiptoes in, graceful but skewed, as if ghosts were spinning atop a parquet floor slick with secrets. Strings shudder and bloom, bells tinkle in minor keys, and uncanny choral voices drift in as if sung by sleepwalkers under spells. There are moments when the music feels like a caress, almost romantic, then, with a subtle twist, it devolves into something warped and unholy, mirroring the film’s descent from elegance to the grotesque.

As only Goldsmith can do best, his score’s beauty is laced with an undercurrent of the uncanny, each melodic phrase sharpened with anticipation. It is a soundtrack that seduces and unnerves. Through Goldsmith’s genius, the film does not merely tell of a pact with devilry; his music makes you feel as if you, too, are dancing at the edge of the abyss.

The piece Myles plays in The Mephisto Waltz is indeed Franz Liszt’s “Mephisto Waltz” (specifically, Mephisto Waltz No. 1). The film’s very title refers to this renowned piano composition, and its plot’s musical language revolves around Myles Clarkson’s sudden, otherworldly ability to perform as a piano virtuoso after a soul-transference ritual. The performance heard in the film is an actual recording by pianist Jakob Gimpel.

Throughout, the dialogue shimmers with cryptic wit. Duncan Ely’s line—“People should be born at the age of 70 and live their life backwards”—hangs over the story’s bizarre logic, summing up the plot’s obsession with aging, rebirth, and the terror of greedy immortality.

The film’s mood is thick with the textures and iconography of its era: it’s the early 70s after all, brass beds and velvet jackets, occult books and strange blue salves, shadowy gatherings where nothing is quite as it seems. The pace is haunted rather than frenetic, drawing out the dread as Paula’s investigations circle the truth, her husband’s body is no longer truly his, and her own agency will only return if she’s willing to descend into darkness herself. And what does that mean? Making her own deal with the devil? Trading places with Roxanne? Will she still get to wear Guerlain’s Shalimar?

The climax is a hall of mirrors: Paula, having lost her daughter, her new friend (Bradford Dillman anointed with the same deadly blue oil), and her husband to the satanic plot, embraces her own occult potential, turning the devil’s methods back on those who ruined her life. The film refuses easy catharsis, and what remains is transformation rather than restoration, as love and horror become indistinguishable within the inexorable dance of possession. The Mephisto Waltz may lack the high reputation of its famous contemporaries in the canon of devil worship panic of the early 1970s horror sub-genre, but it lingers in my mind for precisely these flourishes: hallucinatory visuals, a narrative that waltzes along the edge of nihilism, and performances that hum with enigmatic energy. This is horror at its most hypnotic and perverse, a tale where every embrace hides a bargain and every bargain, a fate one cannot unmake.

#122 down, 28 to go! Your EverLovin’ Joey formally & affectionately known as MonsterGirl!

MonsterGirl’s 150 Days of Classic Horror #119 Repulsion 1965 & Les Diaboliques 1955

Before I dive into Repulsionand why it matters to me as a film, I have to be honest about something that weighs heavily on me. Roman Polanski’s history, his conviction for sexual assault, makes it impossible for me to talk about his work without acknowledging the pain and harm he’s caused. I can’t just separate the art from the artist and pretend that his actions don’t matter. So, as I explore Repulsion here, and its impact on cinema, I want to make it clear that I’m not celebrating Polanski as a person, nor am I excusing or overlooking what he’s done. This isn’t easy for me to reconcile, and I feel really uncomfortable even discussing a film that deals so directly with themes of sexual violence, knowing what we know about the man who created it. It’s also worth remembering that filmmaking is always a collective effort—so many talented people, both in front of and behind the camera, leave their own indelible mark on the finished work. My plan here is to look honestly at the film’s artistry, how it’s shaped the genre, and its contribution to the decade of 1960s cinema while holding space for the hard truths surrounding it. It still gives me a heavy heart, while honoring how complex both the art and the reality behind it are.

SPOILER ALERT!

REPULSION 1965

“Cracks in the Looking Glass: The Silent Shattering of Repulsion”

Roman Polanski’s Repulsion (1965) stands as a haunting, visceral journey into psychological disintegration and remains one of the most influential arthouse horror films of the 1960s. From its opening frames, the film draws us into the claustrophobic world of Carol Ledoux, played with mesmerizing subtlety and mounting terror by Catherine Deneuve. The film is at once clinical and feverish, guiding us through the slow unraveling of Carol’s mind with a precision that is both chilling and deeply empathetic.

Set in a drab London flat, the story follows Carol, a young Belgian manicurist living with her older sister, Helen (Yvonne Furneaux). From the outset, Carol is portrayed as withdrawn, almost childlike, her beauty offset by an unsettling detachment from the world around her. Deneuve’s performance is a concentration in restraint: her wide, unblinking eyes and hesitant movements suggest a woman perpetually on the edge, her discomfort with men and sexuality simmering just beneath the surface. When Helen leaves for a holiday with her married lover, Carol is left alone in the apartment, and the film’s atmosphere shifts from uneasy to nightmarish.

The camera lingers on the details of Carol’s environment—cracked walls, ticking clocks, the oppressive silence of the flat—turning the mundane into the menacing. As Carol’s isolation deepens, so does her paranoia. The apartment becomes a physical extension of her psyche: fissures appear in the walls, hands reach out from the hallway, and the once-familiar space warps into a labyrinth of surreal and hallucinatory terror.

The lens in Repulsion uses tight framing, distorted angles, and surreal imagery to mirror Carol’s unraveling mind. The apartment’s shifting spaces and visual distortions immerse us in her paranoia, making her psychological terror palpable.

Gilbert Taylor’s cinematography is crucial in this transformation. He employs stark black-and-white contrasts, distorted angles, and inventive use of sound to evoke Carol’s fractured reality. The camera often hovers just behind her, trapping us in her subjective experience, while sudden shifts in focus and perspective mirror her mental collapse.

Repulsion’s use of subjective camerawork, all the surreal imagery, and sound design has influenced countless other filmmakers. The film’s approach to visualizing psychological states paved the way for modern thrillers and horror films that prioritize atmosphere and character perspective over explicit exposition.

The film’s narrative unfolds with a relentless, dreamlike logic. Carol’s daily routines—her work at the beauty salon, her awkward encounters with her persistent suitor Colin (John Fraser), who makes repeated attempts to court her despite her clear discomfort and detachment- become increasingly fraught. The film orchestrates a series of escalating disturbances: the rotting rabbit left on the kitchen table, the relentless ringing of the doorbell, the echo of footsteps in empty rooms. Each incident chips away at Carol’s fragile composure.

As Carol’s grip on reality slips further, the apartment is invaded by hallucinations: sexual assaults by shadowy figures, hands emerging from the walls, and the ever-widening cracks that seem to threaten the very structure of the building. Deneuve’s performance here is nothing short of astonishing— yet she never descends into caricature. Instead, she embodies a kind of haunted innocence, her trauma rendered with heartbreaking clarity.

The direction is unsparing, refusing to offer easy explanations or comfort. The film’s climax is a harrowing, feverish, psychic drift: When Carol refuses to let the predatory landlord (Patrick Wymark) into her apartment, he forces his way inside through her barricade and tries to sexually assault her.

Carol’s panic and trauma are sharply magnified by the landlord’s actions, which escalate from unsettling advances to outright aggression and violation. His forceful entry into her private sanctuary is not just a physical threat—it becomes a chilling embodiment of the film’s persistent themes of male dominance and sexual violence. This intrusion shatters any sense of safety Carol might have left, underscoring how the boundaries of her world are repeatedly breached by predatory intent. The scene powerfully reflects the broader anxieties at the heart of the film, where acts of violation reverberate through every shadowed corner, fueling Carol’s psychological descent.

Carol’s terror and violent response are direct results of this violation, and the film frames her actions as a desperate act of self-defense against a man who refuses to respect her boundaries or her bodily autonomy. The film’s atmosphere is saturated with symbols of patriarchal aggression and sexual threat, and the landlord’s intrusion is one of the most explicit examples.

The narrative, as well as the ambiguous direction, tries to make it clear that Carol’s panic is justified, and her violent reaction is a response to an act that is, in both symbolic and practical terms, an attempted sexual assault. Or is the film misdirecting us? Is the landlord, who is stabbed to death by Carol, imagined as is the attempted rape? Here, the ambiguity is central. Most critics and film historians agree that Repulsion intentionally blurs the line between reality and hallucination throughout the film. The subjective camera work, surreal sound design, and Carol’s increasingly fractured perception make it difficult to determine what is objectively happening and what is a projection of her trauma and psychosis. The scene in which Carol’s landlord attacks her is staged with disturbing realism, and her violent response is shown in detail. However, the film’s refusal to anchor us in what is taking place as an objective reality means that even this harrowing moment is left open to interpretation.

Repulsion is renowned for its deliberate ambiguity, especially in its most harrowing moments. While the narrative presents Carol’s panic and violence as justified responses to real threats—most notably the landlord’s intrusion and attempted assault—many critics have observed that Polanski’s direction blurs the boundaries between reality and hallucination. The film’s subjective camera, surreal sound design, and Carol’s increasingly fractured perception dare us to question what is truly happening and what may be a projection of her inner turmoil.

In particular, the landlord’s assault is staged with a disturbing realism, and the film never fully anchors us in objective reality. The oppressive atmosphere, the way the apartment seems to warp and close in, and the film’s refusal to offer external perspectives all contribute to a sense of unreliability. Some scholars and critics have argued that, by immersing us so completely in Carol’s point of view, Polanski leaves open the possibility that some events—perhaps even the landlord’s attack—could be imagined or distorted by her psychosis.

Carol, now completely unmoored, murders the lecherous landlord in a desperate act of self-defense, whether real or imagined, then retreats into catatonia. Her response is both shocking and inevitable. His blood stains the stark white walls. The final images linger on her vacant stare, the camera pulling back to reveal a family photograph that hints at the roots of her psychological torment. As Carol is carried out, catatonic, the camera’s slow, almost mournful movement across the living room mantle lingers on objects that seem to hold fragments of her fractured psyche: childhood toys, a maternal photograph, the remnants of a failed attempt at sewing, even a broken cracker. Each item is freighted with silent meaning, hinting at innocence lost and the subtle, cumulative traumas that have shaped Carol’s world.

Just when we expect the camera to settle on the family photograph—perhaps to confirm our suspicions about the roots of Carol’s disturbance—the film cuts to black. It’s a masterstroke of misdirection, making us momentarily question whether the film will offer any answers at all. But then, in a haunting coda, the photo reappears, this time more ominous: everyone but the father is obscured in shadow, and as the camera zooms in on the young Carol’s eyes, the image dissolves into abstract splotches, echoing the film’s opening and suggesting a mind overwhelmed by darkness and ambiguity.

There’s a chilling ambiguity in the coda. Is it a clue, an afterthought for clarity, a studio-mandated addition, or a final, sly wink from the director? The film refuses to resolve its mysteries, leaving us with only hints and shadows. The photo’s composition—crisscrossed with darkness, the father in half-shadow, the dog looming, Carol’s eyes drawing us in—invites speculation about the origins of Carol’s trauma but never settles on a single, reductive answer.
The tonal shift that follows is equally striking. As Carol is discovered under the bed, the horror gives way to a kind of absurdist comedy. The tenants pour into the apartment, their reactions exaggerated and oddly theatrical. Instead of the expected cacophony, each character delivers their lines in turn, as if on stage, their suggestions and observations growing increasingly ridiculous. This stylized, almost farcical sequence undercuts the horror, highlighting the disconnect between Carol’s internal chaos and the banal, performative concern of those around her.

Repulsion ends not with a neat solution, but with a lingering sense of unease and irony. The film’s final moments refuse closure, instead offering a fractured mirror in which we glimpse both Carol’s suffering and the world’s inability—or unwillingness-to truly see or understand it. In this way, the film’s coda becomes not just a possible explanation, but a final, unsettling question mark, haunting the viewer long after the screen goes dark.

Repulsion made a profound impact on 1960s cinema, pushing the boundaries of what psychological horror could achieve. Its unflinching exploration of female alienation ot mental illness was groundbreaking, influencing a generation of filmmakers and paving the way for later works like Rosemary’s Baby 1968 and The Tenant 1976. The film’s visual style—its use of subjective camerawork, surreal imagery, and sound design—became hallmarks of the genre, while Deneuve’s performance remains one of the most celebrated portrayals of psychological breakdown in film history.

In the end, Repulsion is more than a horror film; it is a study in the terror of the everyday, a portrait of a mind besieged by forces both internal and external. The film blurs reality and hallucination, using Carol’s subjective experience to explore mental illness from the inside. Her descent into psychosis is depicted with empathy and uncertainty, prompting us to question what is real and what is imagined.

Repulsion beautifully captures the elusive blend of psychological revelation, visual poetry, and tonal ambiguity. Polanski’s meticulous direction, combined with Deneuve’s unforgettable performance and Taylor’s evocative cinematography, creates an atmosphere of dread that is as beautiful as it is disturbing. The film’s legacy endures, its influence visible in countless psychological thrillers and its power to unsettle undiminished by time. Repulsion channels the era’s anxieties about urban alienation, shifting gender roles, and sexual repression. Carol’s isolation and fear reflect broader cultural uncertainties about women’s autonomy and the pressures of modern city life in postwar Europe.

Catherine Deneuve’s performance set a new standard for depicting psychological breakdown—her subtle, internalized terror inspired later portrayals of female protagonists in horror and psychological thrillers, showing that vulnerability and ambiguity could be as unsettling as overt hysteria.

Catherine Deneuve began her film career in 1957, appearing in minor roles as a teenager, and she worked steadily throughout the early 1960s. Her real breakthrough came with Jacques Demy’s The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (Les Parapluies de Cherbourg, 1964). In The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, Deneuve stars as Geneviève, a luminous, middle-class young woman swept up in a bittersweet romance with Guy, played by Nino Castelnuovo. The film’s entirely sung dialogue and Michel Legrand’s unforgettable score turned it into a landmark of romantic cinema and launched Deneuve to international stardom. Roger Vadim would cast her in his film Vice and Virtue (Le Vice et la Vertu, 1963).

Deneuve went on to do Polanski’s Repulsion 1965, playing the disturbed young woman Carol, who plunges into a despairing nightmare world of paranoia, persecution, and violence. She is also known for her outstanding performance as a married woman who has a secret life as a prostitute. In Bunuel’s Belle du Jour 1967. And of course her role as the sensuously enigmatic vampiress in Tony Scott’s The Hunger 1983. There’s something almost mythic about Catherine Deneuve’s beauty—it’s not just her striking features, but the way she carries herself, luminous and enigmatic, with an elegance that seems both timeless and utterly effortless. Her iconic cheekbones or that cascade of blonde hair, but in the poise, intelligence, and subtle wit she brings to every role, there is no argument to be made- Catherine Deneuve is one of the most beautiful women in the world.

LES DIABOLIQUES 1955

“Shadows Beneath Still Waters: The Lethal Allure of Diabolique”

Beneath the placid surface of Les Diaboliques lies a world where dread seeps in like water through cracked stone, saturating every shadow and silence. The film’s effect is that of a sinister ambiance where reason dissolves into a tempest of thoughts, swirling confusion, and fractured light, at once seductive and suffocating, drawing us into a labyrinth of suspicion and fear, and shifting mirages. Where trust collapses and reality wavers like a reflection on a rain-darkened pool. Its murky waters, black as forgetting, might or might not shelter a body, or merely the echo of suspicion.

Watching Les Diaboliques is like wandering through a house of mirrors at midnight: each corridor reveals another distortion, another secret, until certainty itself is lost in the fog. Les Diaboliques lingers long after its final frame, a chill on the skin and a whisper in the dark, its mysteries rippling outward, a testament to cinema’s power to haunt, unsettle, and seduce our imaginations.

Henri-Georges Clouzot’s Les Diaboliques (1955) remains a masterwork of psychological suspense, a film whose ripples are still felt in the thriller and horror genres. Set in a decaying French boarding school, the story unfolds with a slow-burning tension that seeps into every frame, drawing us into a web of deceit, guilt, and fear. The film’s atmosphere is thick with unease from the start: the school itself, with its damp corridors and oppressive gloom, emerges like a silent conspirator, mirroring the emotional states of the people trapped within its walls.

At the heart of Les Diaboliques is the fraught relationship between Christina Delassalle (Véra Clouzot), the frail and anxious wife of the school’s sadistic headmaster, Michel (Paul Meurisse), and Nicole Horner (Simone Signoret), Michel’s mistress. Rather than rivals, Christina and Nicole are bound by mutual suffering; Michel’s cruelty has left both women desperate and broken, forging an uneasy alliance between them. Clouzot’s direction lingers on Christina’s nervous glances and Nicole’s steely resolve, crafting a dynamic that is as psychologically rich as it is suspenseful.

Simone Signoret was a force of nature—her presence on screen was as magnetic as it was enigmatic, blending a world-weary sensuality with a fierce intelligence that set her apart from her contemporaries. In Les Diaboliques, she embodies Nicole Horner with a cool, unflinching poise, her every glance and gesture charged with both danger and allure. Signoret’s sensuality was never merely surface-level; it was rooted in her confidence, her unapologetic complexity, and the sense of lived experience she brought to each role. Simone Signoret, for me, is the very embodiment of cinematic greatness—a woman whose talent blazes across the screen, whose sensuality is as deep as it is defiant, and whose raw courage in every role leaves an indelible mark on my heart; she is not just an actress, but a force who redefined what it means to be both vulnerable and unbreakable in the art of film.

Her acting was remarkable for its subtlety and depth. Signoret could communicate entire histories with a look, layering her characters with longing, regret, and defiance. She was a master of ambiguity—capable of being both sympathetic and intimidating, vulnerable and implacable, often within the same scene. In Les Diaboliques, her performance anchors the film: Nicole’s steely resolve and simmering passion are palpable, and Signoret’s ability to convey strength without sacrificing nuance elevates the suspense and emotional stakes of the story.

Signoret’s impact extended far beyond a single film. She was the first French actress to win the Academy Award for Best Actress, for her unforgettable role in Room at the Top (1959), where she played Alice Aisgill with heartbreaking dignity and sensuality. This performance, along with her work in Casque d’Or (1952) and Les Diaboliques (1955), cemented her reputation as one of cinema’s most formidable talents. She was celebrated not only for her beauty and charisma but for her uncompromising commitment to truth in performance—she inhabited women who were complex, flawed, and fully alive. Simone Signoret delivers a performance of profound emotional depth and intelligence in Ship of Fools 1965, embodying a woman scarred by love and exile, while in Curtis Harrington’s  Games 1967, she brings a chilling, enigmatic presence to yet another psychological thriller, her subtlety and raw vulnerability elevating both films into unforgettable studies of human complexity.

Simone Signoret’s legacy is one of fearless artistry. She redefined what it meant to be a leading lady, infusing her roles with intellect, sensuality, and emotional honesty. Her influence can be seen in generations of actors who followed, inspired by her example to pursue roles that challenge, provoke, and endure.

Diabolique is not a ghost story in the traditional sense, though it masterfully plays with the trappings and atmosphere of supernatural horror. The film is constructed as a psychological thriller and mystery, steeped in suspense and ambiguity, but its chills arise from human schemes and manipulation rather than genuine hauntings.

While Les Diaboliques borrows the mood and suspense of a ghost story, it is ultimately a tale of human treachery, not the supernatural. Throughout the film, director Henri-Georges Clouzot uses eerie visuals, unexplained phenomena, and the suggestion of a vengeful spirit to unsettle both the characters and us. The disappearance of Michel’s body, mysterious sightings, and the final bathtub sequence all evoke the feeling that something otherworldly might be at play. Christina’s fragile state and the oppressive, shadow-filled setting further blur the line between reality and nightmare.

However, the film’s climactic twist reveals that the apparent supernatural events are the result of an elaborate plot, not ghostly intervention. The terror that haunts Christina is rooted in psychological manipulation and human deceit, not the return of the dead. In the end, Diabolique uses the suggestion of a ghost story as a tool to heighten suspense and mislead the audience, but it remains firmly grounded in the realm of psychological and criminal intrigue.

The plot, deceptively simple at first, begins with a plan: Nicole and Christina, united by their shared torment, decide to murder Michel. Their scheme is meticulously plotted—Nicole lures Michel to her apartment under the pretense of reconciliation, and Christina, despite her weak heart and trembling nerves, helps drown him in the bathtub. The body is then transported back to the school, placed inside a large wicker laundry hamper, and dumped in the murky swimming pool, with the hope that Michel’s death will be written off as an accident.

Clouzot’s cinematography is essential to the film’s impact. Shadows pool in corners, light flickers across anxious faces, and every creak or drip of a faucet is amplified by the film’s careful sound design. The camera lingers on Christina’s haunted expressions, the claustrophobic interiors, and the still, ominous surface of the darkened, murky pool. These visual choices serve not just to heighten suspense but to immerse us in Christina’s mounting dread. The film’s pacing is deliberate, allowing paranoia and guilt to take root and blossom, while the ever-present threat of discovery keeps the tension at a simmer.

As the days pass, the women’s nerves begin to fray. The body fails to surface, and strange occurrences unsettle Christina: Michel’s suit returns from the dry cleaner, a student claims to have seen him, and finally, the pool is drained—only for Michel’s body to have vanished. The sense of reality itself becomes slippery, and Christina’s fragile health deteriorates under the strain. Clouzot masterfully blurs the line between psychological torment and supernatural suggestion, making us question what is real and what is the product of Christina’s unraveling mind.

Simone Signoret’s Nicole is practical, unflinching, but not immune to fear, while Véra Clouzot’s performance is a study in mounting anxiety and vulnerability. Their dynamic is electric, with each woman’s strengths and weaknesses playing off the other.

While Les Diaboliques appears to present Christina’s terror and her fatal reaction as justified responses to genuine threats, most notably the eerie return of Michel and the mounting sense of supernatural menace, Clouzot’s direction masterfully unsettles any easy certainty. The film’s visual style—its shadow-drenched corridors, lingering close-ups, and oppressive atmosphere- renders Christina’s reality porous and unstable. In these moments, Clouzot draws us into her fragile psyche, blurring the line between actual threat and psychological manipulation.

The supposed haunting of the school, the vanishing body, and the climactic bathtub scene are all staged with such chilling realism that we, like Christina, are left questioning what is truly happening and what might be a product of fear, guilt, or deliberate deceit. Clouzot’s genius lies in this ambiguity: the supernatural is always suggested but never confirmed, leaving us suspended between rational explanation and ghostly possibility.

As a result, the film’s most harrowing moments—Christina’s panic, her collapse, and the apparent resurrection of Michel—remain suspended in doubt. Is she truly haunted by a vengeful spirit, or is she the victim of a meticulously orchestrated plot? Clouzot refuses to offer a simple answer, compelling us to inhabit Christina’s terror and uncertainty. The brilliance of Diabolique is that its horror lingers not in what is revealed, but in what remains unresolved, haunting the screen with the possibility that, in Christina’s world, reality itself is always just out of reach.

The film’s climax is legendary: Christina, alone in the darkened school, is confronted by what appears to be Michel’s corpse rising from the bathtub. The sequence is a tour de force of suspense and shock, culminating in Christina’s fatal heart attack. Only then is the full extent of the plot revealed—Nicole and Michel, very much alive, have orchestrated the entire ordeal to frighten Christina to death and claim her inheritance. Yet, in true Clouzot fashion, the story does not end with their triumph; a final twist suggests that justice, or perhaps something more uncanny, may yet prevail.

Les Diaboliques is not merely a tale of murder and betrayal; it is a meditation on guilt, manipulation, and the fragility of perception. Its influence can be seen in countless films that followed, from Hitchcock’s Psycho—which borrowed its shock tactics and ambiguous morality—to modern psychological thrillers that favor suggestion over gore. The film’s visual style, with its use of ordinary settings to evoke terror and its reliance on atmosphere and character-driven tension, set a new standard for cinematic suspense.

It’s well documented that Hitchcock wanted to adapt the same source novel, but lost the rights to Clouzot by mere hours. After the release of Les Diaboliques (1955), critics and historians have noted that Hitchcock admired Clouzot’s mastery of suspense and that the film’s shocking twists and chilling atmosphere left a mark on him.

The “Send her to the dry cleaners” anecdote: This story is widely recounted in film literature and by critics such as Roger Ebert. After Psycho was released, a man wrote to Hitchcock saying his daughter was now afraid to take a shower after Psycho, having already been afraid to take a bath after Les Diaboliques. Hitchcock’s witty reply—“Send her to the dry cleaners”—is a famous bit of film lore and appears in reputable sources, including Ebert’s reviews and The Independent.

Critics and historians consistently observe that Hitchcock admired Clouzot’s work. There is clear evidence that Hitchcock admitted an equal debt to Clouzot, and many elements of Les Diaboliques—from its shocking plot twists to its suspense-building techniques and even its marketing strategies (such as not allowing late admissions)—were echoed in Hitchcock’s own work. While Hitchcock’s earlier films inspired Clouzot, Les Diaboliques is widely credited with pushing Hitchcock to explore even darker, more psychologically complex territory, especially in Psycho. Critics note that Hitchcock screened Les Diaboliques for his crew during the making of Psycho and emulated its anti-spoiler campaign.

Les Diaboliques is widely credited with expanding the boundaries of the psychological thriller and horror genres, particularly in Europe. Its blend of suspense, horror, and psychological manipulation influenced filmmakers such as Dario Argento and Mario Bava, as well as later directors who sought to evoke terror through atmosphere and ambiguity rather than explicit violence. The film is less about subjective camerawork or internal psychological breakdown and more about external manipulation, suspense, and the ambiguity between rational and supernatural explanations.

#119 down, 31 to go! Your EverLovin’ Joey, formally & affectionately known as MonsterGirl!

 

A Trailer a Day Keeps the Boogeyman Away! Deep End (1970)

“DEEP END” (1970)

If you can’t have the real thing– you do all kinds of unreal things.

I LOVE creepy British psycho-sexual thrillers of the 1970s – Goodbye Gemini (1971) with Judy Geeson and Martin Potter, Twisted Nerve (1968) with Hayley Mills and Hywel Bennett, Beware My Brethren (1972) with Ann Todd, and The Night Digger (1971) with Patricia Neal and Nicholas Clay. And then there’s the non-conformist Polish auteur Jerzy Skolimowski with his portrayal of the seamy underbelly of a tawdry swinging London’s Soho at the end of the 1960s — Deep End (1970) similar to his other works – Le Départ (The Departure 1967) and Walkover (1965) all representative of a character disadvantaged by his social class inhabiting a bourgeois realm and in Deep End, the story is about young Mike (John Moulder-Brown) set against a classist system that crowds him into a strange world that brings out his unstable burgeoning sexuality.

Like his colleague Roman Polanski, Skolimowski uses water in his films, and here in Deep End especially- it is used as a liminal space where the characters may move in and out of reality. Its significance here is a passage between childhood and maturity and life and death. All of the narratives is geared toward flow and not necessarily structured.

Actor, writer, producer, and director Jerzy Skolimowski (King, Queen, Knave 1972, The Shout 1978-actor in Mars Attacks! 1996, Before Night Falls 2000) Here he directs and has written the screenplay with Jerzy Gruza and Boleslaw Sulik for Deep End 1970.

Cinematography by Charly Steinberger creates a surreal and dreamlike landscape that lends itself to metaphorical interpretations of pubescent angst and awakening, set against a squalid London at the end of the 1960s. With a soundtrack by Cat Stevens using his song under the opening title ‘But I Might Die Tonight’ and German band The Can with their song ‘Mother Sky.’

Skolimowski uses the recurring theme of the color red in much the way – red was used as symbolism as illustrated in the poster of the blood trailing downward, it reminds me of the same motif used by Nicholas Roeg’s adaption of Daphne du Maurier’s incredibly haunting  Don’t Look Now (1973) a particular favorite 70s horror of mine.

Deep End stars Cherubic faced John Moulder-Brown (The House that Screamed 1970, Forbidden Love Game 1975) as Mike, Jane Asher as Susan, Karl Michael Vogler as the swimming instructor, Christopher Sanford as Susan’s fiancée Chris, Diana Dors as Mike’s 1st lady client- a ‘withered rose’, Louise Martini as Beata the prostitute, Erica Beer as the Bath’s cashier, Anita Lochner as Kathy.

The grotesque and creepily moving tableau- a seedy Bathhouse where Mike (John Moulder-Brown) a 15-year-old towel boy whose awakening sexuality is aroused by Susan (Jane Asher-Masque of the Red Death 1964, Alfie 1966) a beautiful redhead who provokes and baits his distorted hormonal urges to the verge of madness. Mike is sexually inexperienced and obsessed with Susan until he transforms into a voyeuristic stalker.

Skolimowski’s film is uncomfortable, disorienting, oddly dark, curiously droll, and off-kilter in the same way, Polanski’s Repulsion (1965) is with its similar eye for detail as cinematographer Steinberger focuses the camera on each particle and trace of the bathhouse which creates a nightmare world that this disturbed young man inhabits among the other weirdos. In a similar vein as Polanski’s The Tenant (1976) and Cul-De-Sac (1966). Skolimowski was a co-writer with Polanski on Knife in the Water (1962). The film is littered with subconscious outré and offbeat imagery and weird and unsavory characters and we can see a bit of influence from Polanski at work.

Skolimowski (left) and Polanski (right)

Jane Asher’s character of Susan, a slightly older co-worker turns Mike into the secret world that goes on in the private rooms of the bathhouse where certain of the clientèle indulge in their deviant proclivities and are willing to pay for it. Among them is the blonde Rubenesque British actress Diana Dors who taunts Mike in a libidinous bizarre scene.

Skolimowski refers to Dors type of character as a “withered rose’ the presence of an older woman who once was famous for her sex appeal but is now pathetic as she tries to seduce much younger men or comparing herself to favorite male past times as seen with the Physical Ed teacher (Karl Michael Vogler) who was in reality older that Dors. And with Mike whom she taunts unmercifully.

Susan is not serious about her fiancée Chris, she participates in various private sexual encounters with clients at the baths, and gets perverse gratification out of turning on Mike, until he realizes that she is having a deeper affair with his former teacher.

“Mother’s Sky” is utilized in a great scene where Mike stalks Susan ‘the object of his fixation’ to a London Club, and then moves onto a seedy strip joint where his dreams become even more subverted when he sees the large cardboard cut-out of Susan, then he meets an old prostitute, and finally we follow them to the London Underground where he confronts her. When Mike’s obsession devolves it ends with tragic consequences as the story plays out with the quivers of young sexual innocence that quickly turns from disturbing pervy fixation to the kinky shivers of death. John Moulder-Brown is so perfect at playing at radiating a damaged boyish psyche.

If you love to luxuriate in odd British psycho-thrillers as I do, then Deep End will certainly fulfill that fancy mate!

Your EverLovin’ Joey saying, stay out of the deep end, and bring your own towel!

Backstory: What ever happened to William Castle’s baby?

CapturFiles copy

original-4

bill from Spine Tingler
Photo of the great William Castle -courtesy of Spine Tingler.

CapturFiles_68

Castle in NYC street with Polanski

“The film is frightening because it forces us to examine the kinds and bases of belief. We confront the idea that the Christian myth is certainly no more believable that its mirror image, and possibly less so. And beyond this, we are also forced to realize that our mode of believing in Christianity is quite different from the one with which we perceive ‘real’ things In other words, while Polanski’s film is determinedly realistic, it is at the same time a challenge to realism, locating the ordinary world of plausible social interaction within a wider and more primitive universe of magic, sorcery, and supernatural forces.”Hollywood Hex, -Makita Brottman

Rosemarys-Baby

Chuck_Intro_Rosemary_large

Rosemary’s Baby is my favorite film. I plan on doing one of my long-winded major features on this masterpiece in its entirety but for the sake of celebrating William Castle this week, I’d like to strictly focus on his contribution to an iconic tour de force that would not have been filmed if not for him. Rosemary’s Baby premiered in June 1968.

billboard for the film

color of Polanski and Castle
Roman Polanski on William Castle: “He was an excellent technician who understands filmmakers’ problems and doesn’t have the usual worries other producers have. He made a constant effort to make me happy in my work. I can’t think of a better producer.”

polanski, castle and Farrow happy

After many years of William Castle slaving over B movies and programmers like The Whistler and The Crime Doctor, he found his niche in horror. He saw Henri-Georges Clouzot le Diabolique in 1955 and it lit a fire in his belly to create his own Gothic creepy storytelling that would lure the audience under its spell. Thus sung Macabre in 1958. While certainly not Diabolique, Macabre put Castle on the path toward creating engaging & frightening landscapes that would entertain millions!

That same year, thanks to his very successful House on Haunted Hill and his 12-foot plastic glow-in-the-dark skeleton deemed ‘Emergo’ that flew over theatre audiences, he was now dubbed the ‘King of Gimmicks.’ Castle went on to chill us with The TIngler in ’59, 13 Ghosts in ’60, Homicidal and Mr Sardonicus in ’61, Strait-Jacket in ’64, and I Saw What You Did in ’65 both landing Joan Crawford at the helm.

homicidal
William Castle’s Homicidal ’61starring Jean Arless (Joan Marshall)

With all the ballyhoo and commercial success, Bill was craving respect. He thought he’d find that admiration in Rosemary’s Baby, a novel by Ira Levin (A Kiss Before Dying, The Stepford Wives, Boys From Brazil) about an unassuming pretty little housewife chosen by a coven of New York City witches to be the mother of Lucifer’s only begotten son and heir.

original

What is remarkable about the film is the realism. It is so careful to remain dedicated to the naturalistic tone of Levin’s novel showing us a set of ordinary characters in an apparently common world. Then they gradually become introduced to extraordinary elements of dark forces, both magic and fantasy that begin to overwhelm the narrative. We as spectators are now caught up in Rosemary’s plight and her utter sense of powerlessness. This story is less about witches and more about paranoia and the lack of control over our own bodies and destiny. However explained in supernatural terms, it’s still about losing trust with those closest to us, the people we depend on to protect us from harm. We watch as Rosemary’s world turns upside down.

Rosemarys-Baby-paranoia

patsykelly8

I saw Rosemary’s Baby during its theatrical release in New York in June 1968. It was billed as a double feature with The Mephisto Waltz. We won’t get into how either really enlightened or truly nutty, depending on your perspective, my mom was for taking her 6-year-old little girl to see two very intense horror pictures dealing with adult and subversive themes.

I was an extremely mature child and the film not only didn’t traumatize me, but it also opened up a world of desire for me to see as many intellectual horror stories without fear of nightmares. Although I must admit when I used to watch Robert Wise’s The Haunting in broad daylight on a Saturday afternoon, I did manage to lock the basement door and shove the large gold (the color of Archie Bunker’s favorite chair) loveseat in front of it to keep any boogeyman from coming up the basement stairs into the den when I was alone in the house.

I also just saw Rosemary’s Baby remastered on the big screen at the Film Forum a few weeks ago. I have to admit, that as soon as Christopher Komeda’s music starts playing and the bird’s eye view of the Dakota emerges on screen the electricity started flowing up my legs, this time not my usual RLS, I began weeping. Not only is Rosemary’s Baby my favorite film, but I also recognize the confluence of perfectionism in each and every scene that makes it a flawless masterpiece, from the vibrant performances to the exquisite storytelling. Every detail is magical and I don’t mean devilish, I mean artfully.

Castavets at Terry's fall

Something else wonderful happened during the screening that day. Amidst all the other film geeks like myself, and aside from the audible pleasure the audience let out when the magnificent Ruth Gordon and Sidney Blackmer walk on the screen where we all laughed and silently cheered for their strolling entrance as the iconic quirky and eccentric devil-worshiping senior citizens. When Bill Castle did his Hitchcock walk on by the phone booth, I realized that it wasn’t only me smacking my partner Wendy’s knee with childhood excitement, “There’s Bill, there he is!!! We both chuckled with glee to see his wide warming grin. Suddenly we heard others in the crowd stirring and murmuring “there he is, that’s Bill Castle!!!” Amidst all the appurtenances Rosemary’s Baby has to offer, so many of us fans were thrilled to catch sight of Mr.Castle with his fat cigar standing by the phone booth. We were collectively excited to see the man who had entertained us all these years. It was heartwarming. I did tear up.

Bill outside phone book color shot

Mia back of Bill's head phone booth

rosemary in booth sees Bill

I recognize Roman Polanski as the auteur that he is, but that is not what I want to dwell on here. I want to stress that Rosemary’s Baby would not have been made if it weren’t for William Castle and his perseverance, passion, and eye for intellectual property. William Castle acknowledged that The Lady From Shanghai was a work of art because of Orson Welles‘ direction, however, it was Castle who first discovered and purchased the rights to If I Should Die Before I Wake, only to have Orson Welles turn around and pitch it to Harry Cohn as his own idea.

It was Rosemary’s Baby that Bill chose to elevate his status from B movie maker to respected filmmaker in a very fickle industry. Let’s pay tribute to one certain fact: Rosemary’s Baby would not be the film it is after 45 years without William Castle’s imprint on it.

B&W Bill at Booth

Bill’s memoirs Step Right Up, I’m Gonna Scare the Pants Off America (which is a fantastic read for any enthusiast about the golden age of Hollywood and just a darn good bit of storytelling) describes how William Castle’s literary agent Marvin Birdt, the person who found the script and insisted Bill read the galleys immediately. Castle looked at the title and dismissed it saying “It’s probably some story about an unwed mother… cheap exploitation. Who the hell wants to make a picture like that?” 

rosemary'sbaby book cover

Bill Castle thought the film just wasn’t for him at that point. It was 1968 and the film industry wasn’t really embracing horror films anymore. He was so overwhelmed with the lousy books and manuscripts that were piling up that he just couldn’t fathom wasting any time with yet another piece of junk. But, it took him all of three hours to finish the story, as he said, ‘bathed in sweat and shaking.’ Castle saw the magnitude of Ira Levin’s story when it was still in unpublished manuscript form: “I made up my mind when I read the novel Rosemary’s Baby that it was the greatest novel that would translate into a screenplay that I had ever read. That just lent itself to a brilliant movie. And I loved the property and I brought the property because I wanted to prove to the industry and my fellow peers that I could do something really brilliant.” (Step Right Up, 2010) He told Ellen, his wife, that it was one of the most powerful books he’d ever read, and that it would be an incredible picture to make. When Ellen finished reading it, she told him “It’s disturbing… frightening and brilliant.”(SRU, 2010) But Ellen also warned that he’d have trouble with the Church.

Bill and Ellen
William Castle and the love of his life, his beautiful wife Ellen courtesy of Spine Tingler.

Catholic Condemnation clip

Castle’s agent Birdt tormented him about other studios and directors interested in the story and making offers. Later, Castle found out that the book had actually been offered to Alfred Hitchcock first. One wonders what it might have looked like if Hitch had been behind the camera, storyboarding Levin’s work.

Bill Castle was worried that he was going to lose the picture, but where was he going to get the quarter of a million Birdt demanded to finance the rights to the film? He asked Birdt to offer one hundred thousand dollars upfront and then fifty thousand if the book became a bestseller with five percent of one hundred percent of the net profits. His agent wasn’t very encouraged that they’d accept the offer. The waiting to hear back was excruciating, but Castle did get the rights to Rosemary’s Baby. Now he had to come up with the money!

In Step Right Up, Bill describes how Robert Evans, in charge of Paramount Pictures, called to check in, not sure William Castle could handle such a serious motion picture. But, Charles Bluhdorn, owner of Paramount, wanted to meet with Castle personally to discuss the picture, saying “I have big plans for Paramount, and they include you.” Castle found Bluhdorn’s persona magnetic. He told him that Bob Evens had informed him about Castle’ obtaining Rosemary’s Baby.“Would you like to make the picture for us?” Of course, Castle told him, yes.

bob evans on phone
head of Paramount Robert Evans

“Your services as producer, how much would you want?” Bill Castle corrected Bluhdorn by adding the word ‘director’… trying to avoid negotiating with this man without his lawyer. Bluhdorn wasn’t having any of that. He told Castle that he would not negotiate with lawyers on the making of Rosemary’s Baby. It’s either between Castle and him, or Donnenfeld and Castle’s attorney. Castle decided he had the ego to take on this financial genius and told him he’d negotiate with him directly. But first, Bill asked him if he had read the story. Bluhdorn had not. Bill thought that worked to his advantage as the story was intensely disturbing so the less Bluhdorn knew about the story the better.

Evans and Polanski colo
Robert Evans and Roman Polanski

When Bill Castle finally blurted out that he’d want to produce and direct, Bluhdorn laughed at him and called him a ‘big ridiculous clown.’ He tried to offer Bill only one hundred fifty thousand for the film plus thirty percent of the profits. Bill told him no way. It was a hard bargaining session. Bluhdorn didn’t know what he was dealing for and Bill did, Bluhdorn was also dropping the phony niceties and getting close to bowing out of any deal. “If I walk through that door, Rosemary’s Baby is finished at Paramount. No one -and I mean no one- will renegotiate!” Castle finally composed his inner panic and came back at the austere blowhard with an offer of two hundred fifty thousand and fifty percent of the profits. It was a deal. (Step Right Up, 2010) 

bill lookin in mirror with cigar
Bill Castle courtesy of Spine Tingler.

Producer Evans In Conference

Bill’s daughter, Terry Castle remembers, “He had to do whatever he could and it was his time. Mom and Dad mortgaged the house and they bought the rights for a substantial amount of money.” (Spine Tingler: The William Castle Story)

Terry Castle 8
Bill’s wonderful daughter Terry Castle founder of Dark Castle Entertainment

With that he asked Castle’s age and if he’d heard of director Roman Polanski, or seen any of his pictures. Castle had seen Repulsion and Knife in the Water. Bluhdorn sang Polanski’s praises calling him a genius. He impressed upon Castle that with the director’s youth and Castle’s experience as a producer, they could both learn from each other. Bill Castle started to find his fire, “Look Mr. Bluhdorn, the reason I bought Rosemary’s Baby with my own money was to direct the film… It’s going to be an important motion picture and I’m not going to miss the opportunity of directing.” (Step Right Up, 2010)

Bluhdorn told him that Polanski directs Rosemary’s Baby or no deal, and asked Bill to at least meet the young director. Castle says “I had made up my mind to hate him on sight"¦ and that he wasn’t going to direct the picture I said absolutely no way. I bought the picture, I bought the book. I own it, I’m going to direct it..{…} I worked all my life to get something worthwhile on the screen and so at first sight I hated him.” He’d sent Polanski the galleys to read and if after meeting him he decides he doesn’t want him directing the movie then fine. Bill Castle says in his memoirs that while Bluhdorn was a tough negotiator he was at least an honorable and fair man whose handshake was better than a written contract.

Castle and Polanski Spine Tingler
Castle and Polanski courtesy of Spine Tingler

In Step Right Up, 2010 Castle describes his first impression of Roman Polanski was that he was a little cocky vain narcissist who liked to look at himself in the mirror a lot. Bill asked if he liked the story, “I like it very much… It will make a great picture.” Polanski spoke in his Polish accent. “You would like to direct Rosemary?” Bill asked. “That’s why I’m here. Nobody will be able to direct it as well as Roman Polanski.” And Bill Castle’ felt that Ira Levin’s book was perfect for the screen, needing absolutely no changes whatsoever in adapting it. This was something he felt passionately about. He posed the question to Polanski. “The book is perfect… no changes must be made,” Bill says that Polanski was so intense about this that it was quite jarring. “It’s one of the few books I have read that must be translated faithfully to the cinema.” (Step Right Up, 2010)

And having read Levin’s book, I can tell you that reading each line of every page is exactly like watching the story unfold on screen. It is the most faithful adaptation I’ve ever read, more like reading the script after the fact.

on set Castle, Gordon, Farrow and Polanski b&W

rosemary-s-baby-1968-20-g

Then Castle posed a trick question to Polanski to see what his vision was for filming the narrative, suggesting to him that the camera should not only move around a lot but use strange shots to tell the story. Polanski was empowered by his convictions and told Bill, “No, I don’t Mr. Castle. Actors tell a story… like peeping through the keyhole of life. I do not like crazy tricks with the camera… must be honest.” That was exactly how Bill Castle saw the film being made. When Polanski told Bill to start calling him Roman, Bill couldn’t help but start to like this man who truly did share a special vision for a very special story. Polanski went on to tell him, “Bill, we can make a wonderful picture together. I have been looking for a long time for a Rosemary’s Baby. To work with you would be my privilege.” (Step Right Up, 2010)

bill in crowd green jacket

Terry Castle, Bill’s daughter, remembers: “Polanski came over to the house and he was this young wild guy, just this incredibly wily dynamic man with this very thick accent talking about cameras and light he was just incredibly dynamic himself and my dad totally got him. He wanted to get Rosemary’s Baby made and he wanted to produce it"¦ and yet he wanted to direct it. But I think once he met Roman Polanski I think he understood he could bring something incredibly special to the project. And I think it was okay for Dad to give that up to him because I think he saw the brilliance in this man. […] Even though he wasn’t going to be directing it at least his name was going to be on it as a William Castle production and he was making for the first time in his life an important studio film.” (Spine Tingler: The William Castle Story)

Polanski on the set with Mia

Left tor right, William Castle, Mia Farrow, and Robert Evans during the production of ROSEMARY'S BABY, 1968.

Bill with Mia and John on the set of Rosemary's Baby

The last thing Bill Castle needed to know was who he’d pick to write the screenplay and why. Polanski told Bill he would do it himself because he would stick strictly to the book. They spent the rest of the time discussing the film, Bill finding Polanski brilliant and extremely open. He immediately called Bluhdorn and told him that he was right Polanski was the only one who could direct Rosemary’s Baby. Bill Castle had the wisdom and grace to understand that Polanski would make a great film, but to be fair to Bill Castle. it’s also only after his careful facilitation and thoughtful know-how that helped bring Ira Levin’s story to life.

polanski in hall shot with Mia and John color

Polanski and Farrow and Cassavetes in hall color

Polanski kept his word, he wrote the screenplay and adhered strictly to the book as promised. Polanski asked Bill to help him find a house by the beach to work and that he’d send his fiance over to help him look for one. On a Sunday morning, Sharon Tate was standing at Bill Castle’s door. They found the perfect beach house for the couple, owned by Brian Aherne who was in Europe.

Polanski wanted to use Richard Sylbert to do the set design for the film. Sylbert had just finished working on Mike Nichols’ The Graduate. Roman Polanski thought his work was brilliant. Polanski suggested Tuesday Weld in the lead as Rosemary. Bill agreed that she was a fine actress but said, “I think the role was written for Mia Farrow” Polanski watched her in several episodes of Peyton Place and didn’t agree. He thought Tuesday Weld would be better. Jane Fonda, Julie Christie, Elizabeth Hartman, and Joanna Pettet were also considered for the part. Evans asked about the casting of Rosemary, and they both gave their choices. Evans told them that he didn’t think Mia Farrow was available because she was working with George Cukor, he’d check with Zanuck at Fox and in the meantime try and get a reading with Weld.

Tuesday Weld
Tuesday Weld

Now the buzz was all over Hollywood and every actress in town felt they would be just perfect for the lead role, but Polanski was still stubborn about Tuesday Weld. When Zanuck called Bill and told him the Cukor picture fell through, and Mia was available. Bill set up a meeting with Mia and Polanski over lunch and Polanski wound up being completely mesmerized by her. He finally agreed she would play Rosemary. The rest is history.

Roman Polanski actually developed a wonderful working relationship with Mia Farrow on the set. She didn’t bring any preconceived motivations to her role as Rosemary Woodhouse. Supposedly he had some difficulties with Catherine Deneuve on the set of Repulsion, but he found Mia very amenable to work with. Mia followed Polanski’s directions very well, which might explain some of her childlike and innocent air in her performance of the blithe and charming Rosemary.

Continue reading “Backstory: What ever happened to William Castle’s baby?”

Postcards From Shadowland no. 9

1933 das testament der dr. mabuse
The Testament of Dr. Mabuse 1933 Fritz Lang
Ace In The Hole
Ace in The Hole – Billy Wilder
Aroused 1966
Aroused 1966 Anton Holden
Bayou 1957
Poor White Trash aka Bayou 1957-Harold Daniels
Blues in the night
Blues in the Night 1941-Anatole Litvak
Edward G Robinson-Little-Caesar with Douglas Fairbanks jr. and Glenda Farrell
Directed by Mervyn LeRoy-Edward G Robinson is Little-Caesar (1931) with Douglas Fairbanks jr. and Glenda Farrell
Experiment in Terror Ross Martin as Red Lynch
Experiment in Terror – Blake Edwards directs -Ross Martin as Red Lynch
Gene Tierney Tobacco Road 1941
Gene Tierney Tobacco Road 1941 directed by John Ford
George Pujouly  Brigitte Fossey Forbidden Games Jeux interdits 1952 René Clément
George Pujouly Brigitte Fossey Forbidden Games (Jeux interdits) 1952 directed by René Clément
Granny-The Southerner
Granny-The Southerner-Jean Renoir
Jeux Interdits
Jeux Interdits
knock on any door
Knock On Any Door 1949 Nicholas Ray
Lena Cabin in The Sky
Lena Horne-Cabin in The Sky 1943- Vincente Minnelli
Lon Chaney in He Who Gets Slapped
Lon Chaney in He Who Gets Slapped 1924 Victor Sjöström
Modern Times Charlie Chaplin
Modern Times Charlie Chaplin 1936
Never Take Sweets From A Stranger
Never Take Sweets From A Stranger 1960 Cyril Frankel
Night of The Demon-Tourneur
Curse of The Demon- 1957 Jacques Tourneur
Peter Lorre in The Man Who Knew Too Much1956
Peter Lorre in Alfred Hitchcock’s The Man Who Knew Too Much 1956
Rashomon
Rashomon 1950 -Akira Kurosawa
Repulsion
Roman Polanski’s Repulsion 1965 Catherine Deneuve
The Cobweb
The Cobweb-1955- Vincente Minnelli
The Last Laugh-letzte mann and emil-jannings in
The Last Laugh 1924-with emil-jannings directed by F.W Murnau
the sweet smell of success
The Sweet Smell of Success 1957-directed by Alexander Mackendrick written by Clifford Odets
Viva Zapata with Marlon-Brando and Jean Peters-
Viva Zapata 1952 with Marlon-Brando and Jean Peters-Elia Kazan directs

MonsterGirl’s 13 Days of Halloween: Obscure Films Better Than Candy Corn!

13 Days of schlock, shock…horror and some truly authentic moments of terror…it’s my pre-celebratory Halloween viewing schedule which could change at any time, given a whim or access to a long coveted obscure gem!

No doubt AMC and TCM will be running a slew of gems from the archives of Horror films to celebrate this coming Halloween! Films we LOVE and could watch over and over never tiring of them at all…

For my 13 days of Halloween, I thought I might watch a mix of obscure little gems, some vintage horror & Sci-Fi, film noir, and mystery/thriller. Halloween is a day to celebrate masterpieces like The Haunting, The Tingler, House on Haunted Hill, Curse of The Demon, Pit and The Pendulum, Let’s Scare Jessica To Death, and Psycho just to name a few favorites.

But the days leading up to this fine night of film consumption should be tempered with rare and weird beauties filled with a great cast of actors and actresses. Films that repulse and mystify, part oddity and partly plain delicious fun. Somewhat like Candy Corn is…for me!

I’ll be adding my own stills in a bit!…so stay tuned and watch a few of these for yourselves!

The Witch Who Came From The Sea 1976

Millie Perkins bravely plays a very disturbed woman who goes on a gruesome killing spree, culminating from years of abuse from her drunken brute of a father. Very surreal and disturbing, Perkins is a perfect delusional waif who is bare-breasted most of the time.

Ghost Story/Circle of Fear: Television Anthology series

5 episodes-

The Phantom of Herald Square stars David Soul as a man who remains ageless, sort of.

House of Evil, starring Melvin Douglas as a vindictive grandpa who uses the power of telepathy to communicate with his only granddaughter (Jodie Foster) Judy who is a deaf-mute. Beware the creepy muffin people.

A Touch of Madness, stars Rip Torn and Geraldine Page and the lovely Lynn Loring. Nothing is as it seems in the old family mansion. Is it madness that runs in the family or unsettled ghosts?

Bad Connection stars Karen Black as a woman haunted by her dead husband’s ghost.

The Dead We Leave Behind stars, Jason Robards and Stella Stevens. Do the dead rise up if you don’t bury them in time, and can they speak through a simple television set?

Night Warning 1983

Susan Tyrrell plays Aunt Cheryl to Jimmy McNichol’s Billy, a boy who lost his parents at age 3 in a bad car wreck leaving him to be raised by his nutty Aunt. Billy’s on the verge of turning 17 and planning on leaving the sickly clutches of doting Aunt Cheryl and she’ll kill anyone who gets in the way of keeping her beloved boy with her always…Tyrrell is soooo good at being sleazy, she could almost join the Baby Jane club of Grande Dame Hag Cinema, making Bette Davis’s Baby Jane seem wholesome in comparison.

Also known as Butcher Baker Nightmare Maker...

Murder By Natural Causes (1979 Made for TV movie)

Written by Richard Levinson and William Link the geniuses who gave us Columbo, this film is a masterpiece in cat and mouse. Wonderfully acted by veteran players, Hal Holbrook, Katherine Ross and Richard Anderson, and Barry Bostwick. Holbrook plays a famous mentalist, and his cheating wife has plans to kill him.

Tension 1949

from IMDb -A meek pharmacist creates an alternate identity under which he plans to murder the bullying liquor salesman who has become his wife’s lover. Starring Richard Basehart, Audrey Totter, Cyd Charisse, and Barry Sullivan

Messiah of Evil aka Dead People 1973

A girl arrives on the California coast looking for her father, only to learn that he’s disappeared. The town is filled with eerie people and a strange atmosphere of dread. She hooks up with a drifter and they both uncover the true nature of the weird locals and what they’re up to. They learn the horrific secret about the townspeople…This film is very atmospheric and quite an original moody piece. Starring Marianna Hill, Michael Greer, Joy Bang, and Elisha Cook Jr.

Devil Times Five aka Peopletoys 1974

This film is a very unsettling ride about a busload of extremely psychopathic children who escape after their transport bus crashes. Finding their way to a lodge, they are taken in by the vacationing adults and are eventually terrorized by these really sick kids. Claustrophobic and disturbing. Stars Sorrell Booke, Gene Evans. Leif Garrett plays one of the violently homicidal kids.

The Night Digger 1971

Starring the great Patricia Neal, this is based on the Joy Cowley novel and penned with Cowley for the screen by the wonderfully dark Roald Dahl, Neal’s husband at the time.

From IMDb -Effective psychological love story with a macabre twist not found in the original Joy Cowley novel. The dreary existence of middle-aged spinster Maura Prince takes an unexpected turn with the arrival of young handyman Billy Jarvis, but there is more to Billy than meets the eye. This well-crafted film, full of sexual tension and Gothic flavor, was Patricia Neal’s second after her return to acting, her real-life stroke worked deftly into the story by then-husband Roald Dahl. Written by Shane Pitkin

They Call It Murder (1971 Made for TV movie)

A small-town district attorney has his hands filled with several major investigations, including a gambler’s murder and a possible insurance scam. Starring Jim Hutton, Lloyd Bochner, Leslie Nielsen, Ed Asner and Jo Anne Pflug

A Knife For The Ladies 1974

Starring Ruth Roman and Jack Elam, there is a jack the ripper-like killer terrorizing this small Southwest town. Most all the victims are prostitutes. A power struggle ensues between the town’s Sheriff and Investigator Burns who tries to solve the murders.

Born To Kill 1947

Directed by the amazing Robert Wise ( The Haunting, West Side Story, Day The Earth Stood Still )this exploration into brutal noir is perhaps one of the most darkly brooding films of the genre. Starring that notorious bad guy of cinema Lawrence Tierney who plays Sam Wild, of all things, a violent man who has already killed a girl he liked and her boyfriend. He hops a train to San Francisco where he meets Helen played by Claire Trevor who is immediately drawn to this dangerous man.

The Strangler 1964

Starring the inimitably imposing Victor Buono, who plays mama’s ( Ellen Corby/Grandma Walton) boy Leo Kroll, a psychopathic misogynous serial killer, under the thumb of his emasculating mother. Kroll’s got a doll fetish and a fever for strangling young women with their own pantyhose. The opening scene is chilling as we watch only Buono’s facial expressions as he masturbates while stripping one of the dolls nude by his last victim’s body. Part police procedural, this is a fascinating film, and Buono is riveting as Leo Kroll a psycho-sexual fetish killer who is really destroying his mother each time he murders another young woman. Really cool film by Allied Artist

Murder Once Removed (1971 made for tv movie)

A doctor and the wife of one of his wealthy patients hatch a plot to get rid of her husband so they can be together and get his money. Starring John Forsythe, Richard Kiley, and Barbara Bain.

Scream Pretty Peggy (1973 made for tv movie)

This stars Bette Davis who plays Mrs. Elliot. Ted Bessell plays her son Jeffrey Elliot a sculptor who hires young women to take care of his elderly mother and his insane sister who both live in the family mansion with him. Also stars Sian Barbara Allen. What can I say? I love Bette Davis in anything, specially made for tv movies, where something isn’t quite right with the family dynamic. Lots of vintage fun directed by Gordon Hessler

The Man Who Cheated Himself 1950

A veteran homicide detective witnesses his socialite girlfriend kill her husband. Then what ensues is his inexperienced brother is assigned to the case. Starring Lee J. Cobb, Jane Wyatt, and John Dall.

The Flying Serpent 1946

Classic horror/sci-fi flick that just doesn’t get the attention it deserves. Almost as fun as The Killer Shrews.  Starring veteran actor George Zucco

The Pyjama Girl Case 1977

This more obscure Giallo film was directed by Flavio Mogherini and starred one of my favorite actors Ray Milland, Also starred Mel Ferrer and the beautiful model/actress Delilah Di Lazzaro. I’ve left my passion for Giallo films in the dust these days, but I decided to watch one that was a little off the beaten track.

From IMDb- Two seemingly separate stories in New South Wales: a burned, murdered body of a young woman is found on the beach, and a retired inspector makes inquiries; also, Linda, a waitress and ferry attendant, has several lovers and marries one, but continues seeing the others. The police have a suspect in the murder, but the retired inspector is convinced they’re wrong; he continues a methodical investigation. Linda and her husband separate, and there are complications. Will the stories cross or are they already twisted together? Written by <jhailey@hotmail.com>

Cul-de Sac 1966

Directed by Roman Polanski starring Donald Pleasance and  Françoise Dorléac as Teresa

A wounded criminal and his dying partner take refuge in a seaside castle inhabited by a cowardly Englishman and his strong-willed French wife. A bizarre dynamic unfolds as this eccentric couple once captives of the criminals at first, their relationship strangely begins to evolve into something else.

Dr Tarr’s Terror Dungeon aka Mansion of Madness 1973

This is a mysterious and nightmarish excursion into the “the inmates have taken over the asylum” theme. Based upon Edgar Allan Poe’s The System of Dr. Tarr and Professor Feather

Blue Sunshine 1978

Three women are murdered at a party. the wrong man is accused of the crimes. yet still more brutal killings continue throughout the town. What is the shocking truth behind this bizarre epidemic of …people losing their hair and turning into violent psychopaths?

Homebodies 1974

Starring Peter Brocco, Francis Fuller, William Hanson, the adorable Ruth McDevitt, Ian Wolfe, and Paula Trueman playing elderly tenants who first try to thwart by rigging accidents, a group of developers from tearing down their building. Old homes and old people…It turns into murder! This is a wonderfully campy 70s-stylized black comedy/horror film. I love Ruth McDevitt as Miss Emily in Kolchak: The Night Stalker series.

The ensemble cast is brilliantly droll and subtly gruesome as they try to stave off the impending eviction and relocation to the institutional prison life of a cold nursing home facility.

A modern Gothic commentary on Urban Sprawl, the side effects of Capitalism on the elderly and their dust-covered dreams, and the fine balance between reverence for the past, and the inevitability of modernity.

The jaunty music by Bernardo Segáll and lyrics by Jeremy Kronsberg for “Sassafras Sundays” is fabulous!

The Evictors 1979

Directed by Charles B. Pierce whose style has somewhat of a documentary feel ( The Town That Dreaded  Sundown 1976 Legend of Boggy Creek 1972) This film has a very stark and dreading tone. Starring one of my favorite unsung naturally beautiful actresses, Jessica Harper ( Suspiria, Love and Death, Stardust Memories, and the muse Pheonix in DePalma’s Faustian musical Phantom of The Paradise ) and another great actor Michael Parks. A young couple Ruth and Ben Watkins move into a beautiful old farmhouse in a small town in Louisiana. The house has a violent past, and things start happening that evoke fear and dread for the newlyweds. Are the townspeople trying to drive them out, or is there something more nefarious at work? Very atmospheric and quietly brutal at times. Also stars Vic Morrow

Jennifer 1953

Starring Ida Lupino and Howard Duff. Agnes Langsley gets a job as a caretaker of an old estate. The last occupant was the owner’s cousin Jennifer who has mysteriously disappeared. Agnes starts to believe that Jennifer might have been murdered. Is Jim Hollis the man whom she is now in love with… responsible?

Lured 1947

Directed by Douglas Sirk and starring Lucille Ball, George Sanders, and my beloved Boris Karloff!

There is a serial killer in London, who lures his young female victims through the personal ads. He taunts the police by sending cryptic notes right before he is about to murder again. The great cast includes Cedric Hardwicke, George Zucco, and Charles Coburn...

Love From A Stranger 1947

A newly married woman begins to suspect that her husband is a killer and that she is soon to be his next victim. Starring John Hodiak and Sylvia Sidney

Savage Weekend 1979

Several couples head upstate to the country and are stalked by a murderer behind a ghoulish mask.

The Beguiled 1971

Directed by the great Don Siegel ( Invasion of The Body Snatchers 1956, The Killers 1964 Dirty Harry 1971 This stars Clint Eastwood, Geraldine Page and Elizabeth Hartman. Eastwood plays John McBurney who is a Union soldier imprisoned in a Confederate girls boarding school.  A very slow yet tautly drawn web of psycho-sexual unease forms as he works his charms on each of these lonely women’s psyche.

The Mad Doctor of Market Street 1942

An old-forgotten classic horror, starring Lionel Atwill and Una Merkel. Atwill plays A mad scientist forced out of society when his experiments are discovered. He winds up on a tropical island, there by holding the locals hostage by controlling and terrorizing them.

The Man Who Changed His Mind original title (The Man Who Lived Again) 1936

Directed by Robert Stevenson. Starring my favorite of all Boris Karloff, and Anna Lee of Bedlam

Karloff plays Dr. Laurence, a once-respected scientist who begins to delve into the origins of the mind and soul connection.

Like any good classic mad scientist film, the science community rejects him, and so he risks losing everything for which he has worked, shunned by the scientific community he continues to experiment and further his research, but at what cost!…

The Monster Maker 1944

This stars J. Carrol Naish and Ralph Morgan. Naish plays Dr Igor Markoff who injects his enemies with the virus that causes Acromegaly, a deformity that enlarges the head and facial structures of his victims.

The Pyx 1973

I love Karen Black and not just because she let herself be chased by that evil Zuni doll in Trilogy of Terror or dressed up like Mrs Allardice in Burnt Offerings. She’s been in so many memorable films, in particular for me from the 70s. Here she plays Elizabeth Lucy a woman who might have fallen victim to a devil cult. Christopher Plummer plays Detective Sgt. Jim Henderson investigating the death of this heroin-addicted prostitute. The story is told using the device of flashback to tell Elizabeth’s story.

Five Minutes To Live 1961

Johnny Cash, the immortal man in black, plays the very unstable Johnny Cabot, who is part of a gang of thugs who terrorize a small town. This is a low-budget thriller later released as Door to Door Maniac. I could listen to Cash tune his guitar while drinking warm beer and I’d be satisfied, the man just gives me chills. Swooning little me…….!

The Psychic 1977

.

In this more obscure EuroShocker, a clairvoyant… the gorgeous Jennifer O’Neill, suffers from visions, which inspire her to smash open a section of wall in her husband’s home where she discovers a skeleton behind it.

She sets out to find the truth about how the victim wound up there, and if there’s a connection between their death and her fate as well!

Too Scared To Scream 1985

Directed by actor Tony Lo Bianco A killer is brutally attacking several tenants that live in a high-rise apartment building in New York City. Mike Connors stars as Detective Lt. Alex Dinardo who investigates the killings. Also stars another unsung actress, Anne Archer, Leon Isaac Kennedy, and Ian McShane

Violent Midnight 1963

An axe murderer is running loose in a New England town! Also known as Psychomania not to be confused with the fabulous British film of devil-worshiping bikers who come back to life starring Beryl Reid. This film features Dick Van Patten, Sylvia Miles, James Farentino, and Sheppard Strudwick. It’s got it’s own creepy little pace going for it.

When Worlds Collide 1951

Another classic sci-fi world is headed toward destruction film, that I remember from my childhood. Starring Barbara Rush and John Hoyt, two of my favorite character actors. It’s a lot of fun to watch and a well-made film that’s off the beaten path from… Forbidden Planet and War of The Worlds.

All The Kind Strangers  (1974 made for tv film)

Starring Stacy Keach, Sammantha Eggar, John Savage, and Robby Benson

A couple traveling through a backwoods area is held hostage by a group of orphan children who want them to be their parents. Whenever an adult refuses to participate in the delusion, they are killed. Great disturbing made for tv movie.

The Todd Killings 1971

Directed by Barry Shear and stars Robert F. Lyons as Skipper Todd, a very sociopathic young man who holds sway over his younger followers like a modern-day Svengali. Also starring Richard Thomas, Belinda Montgomery, and the great Barbara Bel Geddes as Skipper’s mother who takes care of the elderly.

From IMDb-“Based on the true story of ’60s thrill-killer Charles Schmidt (“The Pied Piper of Tucson”), Skipper Todd (Robert F. Lyons) is a charismatic 23-year old who charms his way into the lives of high school kids in a small California town. Girls find him attractive and are only too willing to accompany him to a nearby desert area to be his “girl for the night.” Not all of them return, however. Featuring Richard Thomas as his loyal hanger-on and a colorful assortment of familiar actors in vivid character roles including Barbara Bel Geddes, Gloria Grahame, Edward Asner, Fay Spain, James Broderick, and Michael Conrad.” Written by alfiehitchie

This film has a slow-burning brutality that creates a disturbing atmosphere of social and cultural imprisonment by complacency and the pressure to conform, even with the non-conformists.

Todd almost gets away with several murders, as the people around him idolize him as a hero, and not the ruthless manipulating psychopathic killer that he is. Frighteningly stunning at times. One death scene, in particular, is absolutely chilling in his handling of realism balanced with a psychedelic lens. This film is truly disturbing for it’s realism and for a 1971 release.

To Kill A Clown 1972

Starring Alan Alda and Blythe Danner. Danner and Heath Lamberts play a young hippie couple who couple rent a secluded cabin so that they can try and reconnect and save their marriage.

Alan Alda plays Maj. Evelyn Ritchie the man who owns the property and who is also a military-raised- sociopath who has two vicious dogs that he uses as an extension of his madness and anger.

 

MonsterGirl’s Quote of The Day! Rosemary’s Baby

”Pain be gone, I shall have no more of thee!”Rosemary Woodhouse, Rosemary’s Baby